Bolsonaro

We still reject your panic mode: Bolsonaro and Brazil so far

We at the Secular Humanist League of Brazil (LiHS) have a great deal of sympathy for Spiked Magazine’s “radical humanism” and the work of its editor Brendan O’Neill. We tend to concur with them that resistance to humanism is not only at the right-wing, as it’s normal to assume for almost every not-so-young humanist today after many decades of threats coming from the so-called “religious right”, in the context of the global conversation about human rights, science and progress.

Spiked and O’Neill have been at the forefront of criticism against the identitarian, post-modern-influenced “New Left”. They understand a “radical humanism” means defending freedoms and reason no matter where and no matter against whom. A radical humanist is prepared to lose friends defending humanism. Maybe that’s the “radical” part, even though we wouldn’t normally jump on any bandwagon praising any kind of “radicalism”. Radical ideas are often radically implausible.

The English-speaking world of Spiked and O’Neill’s is not identical, of course, to our Brazilian context. However, the sources that they often criticise are now the same international sources that are panic-mongers about president Jair Bolsonaro, who took office five days ago. As we told the German outlet Humanistisch International, Bolsonaro is no friend of humanism. The idea of humanism is clearly alien to him. However, reason demands not only that we disapprove of him for his ideas and words, but also that we make an accurate evaluation of his actions, not falling prey to panic, which would be both irrational and counter-productive. Unfortunately, this latter response is exactly what many humanists are doing, led by a dispirited radical left that is both among them and among our friends. A radical left that is in many ways anti-freedom and therefore anti-humanism by definition. Anti-freedom, for instance, when making up innovations on the limits of free speech that are not warranted by our received understanding of free speech.

English-speaking people in many ways are accustomed to freedom. It comes naturally to many of them. They wouldn’t imagine that every single social problem can only be solved by government intervention. It might be changing (as it seems to be the case with the outrageous law against ‘offensive’ pornography in Britain), but ever since John Locke and John Stuart Mill, British people don’t often see a lot of difference between liberalism and humanism, for how could we live well as individuals if forces more powerful than us prevent us from doing whatever it is that we want to do as jobs or in our bedrooms? Brazilians are often not like that. Saying some problem must be solved by government intervention is almost a knee-jerk reaction for many. For historical reasons, Brazilians are more prone to see government intervention as normal, no matter the costs to liberty. If you want to pay minimum wage to a single employee, government intervention makes you the “bargain” of one employee for the price of three. If you want to provide services on your own, it’s not uncommon that you’d be obliged by law to pay a third of what you make in taxes. As a result, millions of Brazilians are unemployed or “informally employed”, living on the edges, and suffering.

If a (radical) humanism is pro-freedom, what are we to make of Brazil’s enormous, oppressive, anti-free enterprise government? What are we to make of the many parts of the left-wing who approve of this state of affairs and cry out in anger at every attempt at lessening the heavy presence of the State in the individuals’ lives? English-speaking people on the left must understand that they are often not the same species as Latin American leftists. While socialism has only recently begun to be presented as not so evil as the received wisdom portrays it in the US, it’s never been fully discredited in Latin America, so the element of authoritarianism is always present on both sides of the traditional political divide. To give you a practical example: recently we’ve seen a legitimate, serious Stalinist organisation spreading their word on southern university campuses in Brazil, praising Stalin as the father of the people. Meanwhile, we’ve also seen swastikas drawn in various places during the presidential campaigns, but most if not all of them were the creations of Bolsonaro’s opposition trying to discredit him with false flags. There is, therefore, a double standard here, in which the authoritarian errors of the far right are recognised, but not those on the far left. Yes, we have the full spectrum of being on the left, with non-authoritarians defending nothing but an achievable welfare state, for instance. But with Latin America you never know the full extent of authoritarian elements being eschewed from acceptable, mainstream parties and discourse. Equally wrong is how Bolsonaro’s supporters seem to see every left-wing thing as full Communist.

Bolsonaro has partnered with liberal economists like minister Paulo Guedes, who want less government and more individual autonomy. It’s something very, very new in Brazil. In doing so, Bolsonaro is denying a long past he had as an interventionist member of parliament. If humanism means accepting freedom as a whole, including in the economic area, then there’s reason to be hopeful about Brazil. Of course, this hope needs to be balanced out with Bolsonaro’s conspiracy theories about communists and many social freedoms behind a humanist’s support and concern for minorities and women. But still, we insist that he be judged more on actions than on words, like in fact everyone should be.

But panic-mongering is fashionable. Take The Independent, for instance, in a piece they’ve published about Bolsonaro’s first acts as president. It wrongly claims that food was “seized” from reporters perceived as ideological opponents by Bolsonaro on his inauguration day. It claims Bolsonaro is targeting LGBT people, and all evidence they have of that is his government’s choice of words for an institution that decided that “LGBT” is within “human rights” and therefore need not be mentioned. It might be a step towards persecution, but it’s not sufficient to claim what The Independent has claimed.

Also, so far no lands from natives or quilombolas were expropriated by the government (and expropriation would be more ideologically resonant with the Venezuelan government, fiercely opposed by Bolsonaro, then with his government who claims to respect private property). But yes, the institutions responsible for the demarcation of these lands were changed in a worrisome direction. This piece by the Independent is an exercise on spin, not a level-headed evaluation of what’s happening in our country. It’s shameful, therefore, and it would be rightly criticised by Spiked and O’Neill if they knew what we know.

To summarise:

  • Bolsonaro has yet to do anything extreme. He has not done anything extreme to date, and it’s too early to claim he has.
  • Most of his most extreme words are old, he’s toned down his discourse even though he’s still in the adversarial mode he espoused while running for president.
  • Brazil has serious institutions and there are no legal avenues for Bolsonaro to pursue anything resembling fascism.
  • The left-wing Worker’s Party, who has governed Brazil from 2003 to 2016, has the larger numbers of seats at both chambers of parliament.
  • The Federal Supreme Court is also an independent alternative to curb anything extreme done by Bolsonaro as president.

We at LiHS refuse to fall prey to panic. We will not be pressured by often anti-humanist panic-mongers to see an imaginary Armageddon. To us, Bolsonaro is a continuity in the difficulties we’ve witnessed in the 9 years since we started our work. Difficulties whose source were never restricted to one single political tribe. You can be sure we will not let slide any major actions he could take against our values. But we are not an organisation that serves vacuous political tribalism. Our one and only commitment lies with humanism. Irrational fears are not humanist.

***

Eli Vieira is the president of the Secular Humanist League of Brazil.

in Geral / Sociedade

Entrevista ao Humanistische International (na íntegra)

No final de outubro uma publicação alemã dedicada ao Humanismo, a Humanistische International, procurou a LiHS pedindo uma entrevista curta, acerca das dificuldades gerais de uma organização humanista no país e quais as perspectivas diante da eleição do novo presidente, Jair Bolsonaro. A entrevista foi requerida e concedida em inglês, com um breve trecho tendo sido traduzido para o português e divulgado na fanpage da LiHS no Facebook. Segue abaixo a entrevista na íntegra, concedida pelo Diretor Executivo Leandro Cardoso Bellato.

Interviewee: Leandro Cardoso Bellato, Executive Director of the Secular Humanist League of Brazil (LiHS)

Q.How many Humanists (people with a non-religious world-view and humanist attitudes) do you estimate are living in Brazil?

A. That is a tricky question, because we lack good data from opinion polls concerning this issue and the Brazilian religious landscape is somewhat different from European and American ones. The vast majority of our people are Christian, most of them Catholic, though most of those who consider themselves Catholic are not attending church weekly nor are they guiding their lives according to papal bulls. There is a rising number of people converting to Evangelical churches; these people are far more passionate about their faith and even politically interested in pushing their views on the rest of society. Virtually any Brazilian will tell you that their experience with proselytizing comes chiefly from Evangelical Christians, who are also marked economically as an underclass or within a newly formed middle class. Although most Brazilians are indeed religious, a big populational fraction guide their lives according to Secular values in public matters and conservative values in private affairs. Which is not to say that it is always a bad form of conservatism – homophobia, for example, is increasingly dying.

A humanist, non-religious world-view, in a strict, well-informed, evidence-based sense, is rare and almost unfindable outside a narrow niche of scholars and scientists. Nevertheless, a less religious mindset seems to be a trend among younger generations, especially those who are richer and more educated: most people interested in our Secular Humanist League (LiHS) are under 30. Thus, the large community of students and fresh professionals coming to and from the biggest universities would comprise most of potential Brazilian humanists.

A census in 2016 showed that we had almost 8 million people studying in universities, and a educated guess would be that around a fifth of them are somewhat closer to a humanist mindset, at most — what amounts to about 1% of our current population.

Q. How many people are engaged for the LiHS?

A. Not so many nowadays, unfortunately. In the past we had more than 3000 people officially affiliated with LiHS, but without any firmer commitment like membership fees. They had shown interest by filling a detailed membership form on our website, which shows some public interest concerning humanist views. Our fanpage on Facebook once reached nearly tenfold that number. But in reality less than 200 people show a sustained interest in that kind of content. Among the staff a maturity has grown that we are competing for minds in the Brazilian public. Sometimes we win: e.g., when we completed a fundraising to send our lawyer to the Federal Supreme Court in less than 24 hours last year – he spoke against allowing faith-based teaching in state-run schools (the Court decided against us). And sometimes we lose: it is clear for us that radical ideologies take minds from our ranks, especially radical progressivism and radical libertarianism. The first one asks letting go of a very important bit of humanism to practice reparative justice and identity politics. The latter demands focus on a sole value dear to humanism – freedom – but is too obsessed about tearing down state power. It is not uncommon to find former members of ours berating us for not following them towards these radical stances that simply are not strictly humanist. Ours is a simpler message, so we pay the price of unpopularity sometimes to avoid defacing our hard-earned place as a voice for simple humanism in a time of ideological unrest.

Q. According to some surveys Brazilians largely describe themselves as religious. Does LiHS therefore represent just a small part of Brazilian society?

A. Yes. As I said before, at most 1% of the Brazilians are potentially humanists. Our Constitution grant us a Secular State, at least in paper, but not always the judicial system and lawmakers are concerned about the Separation of Church and State. It seems plausible that larger portions of Brazilian society, though being personally religious, could appreciate our worldview to promote peace and freedom for all believers and non-believers. LiHS has collaborated with religious people in the past – we invited a few of them as speakers for our first and to date only Brazilian Humanist Congress (2012). Putting things in a global perspective, Brazil holds peacefully a large set of religious groups that are killing themselves around the World, like Jews and Muslims, Hindus and even Shintoists. Although not everything is perfect here regarding a peaceful coexistence among religious groups, we can be called a benchmark-case in the promotion of coexistence between various sects of believers and non-believers.

Q. Which are the main goals of your work?

A. Although our 1988 Constitution granted us a Secular State (specificaly a Laicist one, from the French tradition), that aspiration is still no more than mere beautiful words on a well-intentioned text. Therefore we aim to protect the actual rule of law for everyone, and promote a humanist and secular world-view as a participant in the broader diversity of views in the Brazilian landscape, a world-view that is an objective, scientific, evidence-based, rational and ethical.

Q. What are projects or work fields the LiHS has been engaged recently? And which are the main problems you currently have to deal with?

A. We are active in monitoring trials at the Federal Supreme Court, where we have spoken officially twice to defend the Separation of Church and State. We have some internal projects, chiefly the translation of fundamental texts and the production of educational material. Humanism is still a stranger in Brazil. We promote conversations among potential allies, especially regarding the government’s promotion of unscientific, unethical or uninformed policies and laws. As an example, our country is struggling economically and a large poor population depends on our Public Health System, but unfortunately the government decided to spend a large sum of tax money in „alternative medicine“ like homoeopathy last year. To deal with this problem we have started conversation with the general public, presenting to them the importance of an evidence-based approach to healthcare and why it is unwise to spend public funds on pseudoscientific „treatments“. Sadly, many still see criticism of the government’s decision as an overreach from the scientific community.

Being rich in ideas for projects, we unfortunately lack the ability to fund most of them. Brazil has suffered a great recession and we have felt its force on our funds, which is one of the reasons why we couldn’t host the World Humanist Congress like we had planned in 2017. We depend on donations rather than on membership fees, and donations are very sensitive to the country’s financial health as a whole. Is is tricky to reach the public, even having a large „potentially humanist reservoir“, because Brazil, like many countries in the west, is facing an onslaught of political tribalism and hyperbole fed chiefly by social media but also part of the professional press. More rational views are slower and harder to produce than partisan slogans, easy solutions and polarization, so that puts us at a competitive disadvantage. Some post-modern intellectuals (who are no friends of universalist humanism) have prophesied that every aspect of our lives would be political. That turned out to be a self-fulfilling prophecy. Hardly any topic can be discussed nowadays in Brazil without the predictable degeneration into political crossfire.

Q. How do the Humanists in Brazil feel after the election of far-right Jair Bolsonaro as the new President of Brazil?

A. It’s interesting that you ask how we feel. Respectfully, I think this is the wrong thing to ask. We are all talking too much nowadays about how we feel about things without enough consideration as to how exactly our feelings are rationally justified or what the facts really are. The international press is playing the same game of hyperbole that put Bolsonaro in power. The pattern is very predictable: some horrible thing that he said is unearthed; supporters of that horrible thing are sometimes found among his followers; but no further fact checking comes as to whether he really believes those words, whether he’s recanted any of them (like he has recanted a lot of what he said about gay people), or whether they could be given a more benign interpretation. To make things worse, people like us, who complain about hyperbole and call for moderation, are then accused of being “fascist sympathizers” for not falling prey to desperation. The truth seems to be that Bolsonaro is indeed a politician whose words have close to nothing to be admired but whose actions are somewhat unpredictable due to a recent ideological conversion. He’s indeed right-wing (if he goes “far” in that position, it remains to be seen in his actions), but not fascist because he defends economic liberalism like no Mussolini has ever done; and at the same time, because he’s seen by 57.8 million Brazilian voters as an alternative to decades of crony capitalism and a very inefficient tax system, to many he represents hope.

Bolsonaro’s election would be a shock if it were unpredictable. But many of us saw it coming years ago, as far as late 2015 or early 2016. It must be understood that countries like Germany, the USA and the UK, where many humanists live, reap the benefits of a full liberalism sown long ago by the Enlightenment and political leaders. It’s a very new thing in Brazil, a country accustomed for most of its five centuries of age to strongmen in power acting as if all that is good in society must come from the government. Is economic liberalism (granting Bolsonaro is sincere) at odds with humanism? That’s a question humanists must grapple with. Is an agreement with the left-wing on economics a prerequisite of humanism? Is economic liberty a great force for good in the world, behind the documented world phenomenon of the reduction in poverty?

Whatever the answers to these questions may be, we certainly need a cool head to try and answer them internationally and in Brazil. Despite our many problems and wasted resources, our institutions are working well enough to avoid the worst. There are no active paramilitary groups working in our country and the President-Elect, whoever he was or will be, has limited powers checked by a bi-cameral multi-partisan Legislative system and an independent Supreme Court: regardless of disgusting things Bolsonaro has said, there’s simply no way he can do whatever he wants to. Therefore, our calls to calm and slower rational thinking are justified.

Yes, Bolsonaro seems to be abhorrent to humanism and secularism. So were many of our previous governments. Public money was invested in non-democratic countries, some of them, like Venezuela and Honduras, suffer from famine, arbitrary imprisonments, and summary execution of political opponents. People flee en masse from Venezuela, more than from Syria, despite a socialist government vowing to provide for everything they need. Our former presidents were personal friends with dictators like Fidel Castro, whose illiberal regime once imprisoned homosexuals. A former Brazilian president had even granted political asylum to an Italian terrorist convicted in his own country, Cesare Battisti. As I said previously, our Federal Supreme Court has allowed confessional religious teaching in state-run schools.

The recent past was not an easy time to those — like us — who defend women’s choice during the first weeks of pregnancy, humane euthanasia for fully capable terminal patients, scientific education, evidence-based public policies and so on. We may have words of calmness about Bolsonaro, but we also have a sober and somber evaluation that what was already hard for humanists in Brazil will probably remain just as hard for the next four years and maybe harder. We call for support, but not a support against an imaginary fascism or a hyperbolical return to dictatorship. We call for support to continue our work and for Brazilian humanists to work harder and not los grit and patience.

Our struggles started much before Bolsonaro’s election and we must keep our heads up to endure the same problems for much longer than his service as President. And to do this work properly we must not exaggerate how bad things are or be paralyzed by fear of how bad they could become.

Q.Do you fear severe consequences for being humanist or non-religious as elected President Bolsonaro stated that there was „no such thing as this secular state“ and that „minorities had to adapt to the position of the (Christian) majority“?

A. No. As I said before, humanists and secularists had no great friends in government in the recent past, clinging only to the laws and the Constitution. Bolsonaro says disgusting and revolting things in a daily basis, a personal bad habit of him, and it is possible that he really wants to try some of his nonsensical ideas, but there are laws and institutions limiting his powers. His first act on national TV after his victory in the ballot was a public display of Evangelical faith. That’s not new either. President Dilma Rousseff, impeached in 2016 for fiscal irresponsibility, said years ago that she “balanced herself on the question” of whether God exists. She quickly stopped expressing doubt about God, especially when running for her second term, and she went to an Evangelical church as a public display of (fake?) faith. In a way, what Bolsonaro says is true: there’s no such thing as a secular state in Brazil in practice, but he’s not the only one making sure that this statement is true, the Federal Supreme Court is helping him, along with thousands of city councils that open their public sessions with prayers. Brazilians as a majority don’t seem to know or care that their Constitution mandates a secular state. Atheists and humanists living here all their lives are simply accustomed to daily reminders of that. But still, also in practice, people with radically different beliefs about religion live together peacefully in Brazil, often in the same family. Our mission is to have more Brazilians giving reason a chance and seeing that a happy life is not only possible, but likely, outside religion. We are a small book of liberal, Enlightenment values in a continental shelf of alternatives. We remain optimistic and we’re ready to oppose Bolsonaro if his actions require us to. About his words – we would rather not be bothered by them too much, as we have heard them before and we know how cheap they often are.

in Entrevistas / Geral / Secularismo / Sociedade

Dra. Tatiana Lionço sob ataque

O Caso Tatiana Lionço: 
Bolsonaro Deturpa e Fundamentalistas Multiplicam
John Stuart Mill
Um dos maiores pensadores sobre a liberdade humana, John Stuart Mill, filósofo inglês (1806-1873), continua atual e relevante, especialmente quando nos damos conta de quanto mal ainda faz o fundamentalismo de certos religiosos e o ranço conservador de certos políticos e/ou instituições. 
É sabido que fundamentalistas de qualquer espécie não gostam de discutir seriamente suas próprias ideias e nem aquelas ideias que despertam sua ira ou repugnância. Eles gostam de criar pânico e confusão para fazer calar os discordantes. Geralmente, isso acontece porque eles acreditam possuir uma verdade única e abrangente, e pensam que podem, infalivelmente, decidir pelos outros, seja impondo restrições ou mandamentos. 
Stuart Mill chama a atenção para o fato de que as pessoas que geralmente perseguem aqueles que lhes parecem transviados, desviados ou ímpios na atualidade são as mesmas que reprovam os que acusaram e mataram Sócrates ou os que julgaram e mataram Cristo. John Stuart Mill diz exatamente o seguinte: 
“Os cristãos ortodoxos que estejam tentados a pensar que aqueles que apedrejaram até a morte os primeiros mártires devem ter sido pessoas piores do que eles próprios deviam lembrar-se de que um desses perseguidores foi são Paulo.”
(Sobre a Liberdade, p. 54, Saraiva de Bolso, 2011) 
Isto quer dizer que se Paulo foi tão veemente em sua perseguição contra aqueles que ele considerava hereges, desviados, blasfemos, mas posteriormente repensou sua posição e tornou-se ele mesmo um deles, convertendo-se a Cristo, ninguém pode estar absolutamente certo de que suas ideias sejam verdadeiras e ninguém tem o direito de impor suas crenças sobre os demais. 
Na verdade, Stuart Mill defende que as pessoas tenham  liberdade para expressar suas opiniões, mesmo quando elas sejam diferentes daquelas consideradas verdadeiras pela maioria. Ele não esconde sua preocupação de que a perseguição contra ideias divergentes possa perpetuar falsidades não questionadas. Ele adverte que “o ditado de que a verdade triunfa sempre sobre a perseguição é uma daquelas falsidades agradáveis que as pessoas repetem entre si até chegarem ao estatuto de lugares-comuns, mas que toda a experiência refuta.” (idem, p. 57) Mill ilustra essa preocupação com diversos fatos históricos, entre eles, os casos em que povos, seitas, e pensadores foram destruídos pela perseguição dos que os anatematizavam. 
Com isso, Mill também indica que não devemos esperar passivamente que a verdade se estabeleça quando a liberdade do indivíduo é violentada pelo dogmatismo fundamentalista ou conservador. É lícito agir para proteger a individualidade e a liberdade de todos, especialmente – nesse caso – da pessoa ou grupo vulnerável.
John Stuart Mill deixa muito claro, porém, que as ações não desfrutam do mesmo nível de tolerância que as opiniões e até mesmo as opiniões efetivamente prejudiciais a outros não devem ser toleradas. Ambas tem como limite o prejuízo ao outro: 
“Ninguém está a dizer que as ações devam ser tão livres como as opiniões. Pelo contrário, até as opiniões perdem sua imunidade quando as circunstâncias em que são expressas são tais que a sua expressão constitui efetivamente uma instigação a um ato danoso. (…) Qualquer tipo de atos que causem dano injustificável a outros podem ser controlados – e nos casos mais importantes precisam absolutamente de o ser – pelos sentimentos desfavoráveis das pessoas e, quando necessário, pela intervenção ativa. A liberdade do indivíduo tem de ter essa limitação; não pode prejudicar outras pessoas.” (idem, p. 90) 
Para John Stuart Mill, a diversidade é salutar, justamente porque, no mais das vezes, não conseguimos reconhecer todos os lados da verdade: “…então as mesmas razões que mostram que a opinião deve ser livre provam também que lhe deve ser permitido agir com base nas suas opiniões a seu próprio custo sem ser importunado. Que a humanidade não é infalível; que as suas verdades, na maior parte dos casos, são apenas meias verdades; que a uniformidade de opinião, a não ser que resulte da mais plena e livre comparação de opiniões opostas, não é desejável, e que a diversidade não é um mal, mas sim um bem, são princípios aplicáveis tanto à conduta das pessoas como às suas opiniões, até a humanidade ter mais capacidade para reconhecer todos os lados da verdade do que hoje em dia” (idem, p. 91) 
O filósofo deixa claro que não há pretexto que possa justificar a supressão da individualidade: 
“… e tudo o que esmague a individualidade é despotismo, chame-se-lhe o que se lhe chamar, e quer afirme estar a fazer cumprir a vontade de Deus ou os preceitos das pessoas.” (idem, p. 100) 
E acrescenta que tentar suprimir a individualidade e impor a uniformidade prejudica a todos, inclusive o déspota: 
 “O poder de forçar os outros a segui-lo não só é inconsistente com a liberdade de desenvolvimento de todos os outros, como também corrompe a própria pessoa forte.” (idem, p. 104) 
Por causa desses vigiadores da vida alheia, a vida de uma pessoa que não se enquadre no que eles consideram o modo correto de viver geralmente sofre maledicência e perseguição: 
“Mas o homem, e ainda mais a mulher, que pode ser acusado de fazer ‘o que ninguém faz’, ou de não fazer ‘o que todos fazem’, é alvo de tantos comentários depreciativos como se tivesse cometido um grave delito moral.” (idem, p. 106) 
John Stuart Mill insta a que sejam tomadas providências imediatas contra o abuso daqueles que pretendem impor suas crenças sobre os demais e que rotulam tudo o que escapar dessa uniformidade como ímpio, imoral, monstruoso e antinatural. Ele diz o seguinte: 
“É apenas nos primeiros estágios que se pode tomar com sucesso qualquer posição contra o abuso. A exigência de que todas as outras pessoas se assemelhem a nós cresce através daquilo de que se alimenta. Se a resistência esperar até a vida estar quase reduzida a um tipo uniforme, todos os desvios em relação a esse tipo virão a ser considerados ímpios, imorais e até monstruosos e antinaturais. As pessoas tornam-se rapidamente incapazes de conhecer a diversidade quando perderam durante algum tempo o hábito de ver.” (idem, p. 113) 
Um dos sintomas da neurose fundamentalista é a ideia de que seus adeptos têm a missão de converter os demais custe o que custar, e que este não o fizer, será punido por Deus: 
 “A ideia de que uma pessoa tem o dever de que outra seja religiosa foi o fundamento de todas as perseguições religiosas alguma vez feitas e, se aceite, justifica-las-ia plenamente. (…) É a crença de que Deus não só detesta o ato do descrente, mas também não nos deixará isentos de culpa se o deixarmos sossegado.” (idem, p. 134) 
O mesmo desejo de uniformizar, aniquilar a individualidade, suprimir a liberdade humana em nome de um código moral ou de fé é típico de fundamentalistas religiosos e conservadores em geral. Recentemente, isso ficou muito claro no caso de Tatiana Lionço. 
Tatiana foi a moderadora do encontro no qual falei sobre “As Falácias da Rerversão Sexual” (18/08/12). 
O evento foi promovido pela Cia. Revolucionário do Triângulo Rosa.
Tatiana é Doutora em Psicologia, professora de graduação e mestrado em Psicologia do UniCEUB e membro-fundadora da Cia. Revolucionária Triângulo Rosa, e desempenhou papel importante como integrante da mesa formada durante o 9º Seminário LGBT (Sexualidade, papéis de gênero e educação na infância e adolescência), realizado no dia 15/05/12, na Câmara dos Deputados. O seminário foi organizado pelas Comissões de Direitos Humanos e Minorias e Educação e Cultura da Câmara dos Deputados, e contou, pela primeira vez, com o apoio e organização de duas Frentes Parlamentares Mistas: pela Cidadania de Lésbicas, Gays, Bissexuais, Travestis e Transexuais e de Direitos Humanos da Criança e do Adolescente. 
A fala de Tatiana Lionço pode ser encontrada no minuto 2:38:20 no seguinte vídeo:

 Todas as falas da mesa realizada pela manhã encontram-se integralmente nesse vídeo. 
Recentemente, fundamentalistas e conservadores começaram a distorcer as falas de Tatiana durante o seminário e a espalhar calúnias contra ela em sites e blogs da internet. Um deles é blog ADHT: DefesaHetero.org. No dia em que essa nota foi escrita (26/08/12), o referido blog ainda exibia a seguinte manchete:
 “Tatiana ‘deixa os menores de 12 anos brincarem sexualmente em paz’. Lionço ameça DefesaHetero por divulgar trecho de vídeo do Deputado Federal Jair Bolsonaro.” (http://defesa-hetero.blogspot.com.br/). 
 A própria chamada já denuncia a autoria do vídeo deturpado: Jair Bolsonaro! Porém, o administrador do blog também contribuiu com sua cota de difamação reproduzindo as seguintes imagens (online em 26/08/12).
“É ela, 
TATIANA LIONÇO, 
nas imagens e falas abaixo:” 


Fonte: http://defesa-hetero.blogspot.com.br/2012/08/tatiana-os-menores-de-12-anos-brincarem.html (online em 26/08/12) 

O contato que o site apresenta é do  Rev. Dr. Alberto Thieme. O site literalmente diz o seguinte:
Escreva para nosso fundador e presidente, o Rev. Dr. ALBERTO TIHEME em defesa_hetero@yahoo.com.
Este é o Pr.Alberto Thieme. 
Fonte da Foto (online em 26/08/12): 

Jair Bolsonaro foi quem produziu o vídeo deturpado e difamatório, 
segundo o próprio Pr. Alberto Thieme.

Não existe justificativa para quaisquer ações criminosas por parte de um parlamentar. Jair Bolsonaro é deputado e o papel de um parlamentar é o de preservar a democracia e legislar em favor do cidadão e da sociedade, mas ao contrário disso, ele tem se envolvido em difamação, racismo, discurso homofóbico, desrespeito a colegas parlamentares, etc. Desta vez, ele atentou contra a dignidade e a honra de uma profissional altamente qualificada e respeitada em seu campo de atuação, pervertendo sua palavras durante um seminário que tratava de educação, com um viés psicológico e sociológico. 

Tatiana Lionço, como qualquer pessoa em sã consciência, sentiu-se ferida com toda essa cruzada difamatória. Sua resposta foi dada em forma de texto, ironizando a própria difamação para mostra-la ainda mais absurda.

Tatiana Lionço falando no 9º Seminário LGBT

Além dessa resposta em forma de texto, Tatiana escreveu uma carta aberta ao Rev. Alberto Thieme, a qual também foi enviada à direção da Igreja Presbiteriana, denominação à qual pertence o tal pastor. A carta pode ser lida aqui: 
A Dra. Tatiana Lionço sentiu-se obrigada a encerrar seu perfil no Facebook, pois fotos pessoais estavam sendo usadas para ridiculariza-la. Ela também temia por sua segurança. Porém, ela abriu um outro perfil com conteúdo menos pessoal. Tatiana também começou a esboçar um blog: http://gentetransviada.wordpress.com/. 
Todas essas são formas úteis e lícitas de esclarecimento, mas não atingem todas as pessoas que foram envenenadas pela difamação pelas calúnias dos textos/vídeos/imagens produzidos ou multiplicados por conservadores e fundamentalistas que, em nome de uma suposta moralidade, cometem atos que – mais do que imorais – são prejudiciais contra uma pessoa cuja conduta e trabalho têm contribuído tanto para a causa da liberdade, felicidade e do conhecimento humanos. 
Por isso, muitos internautas já começaram a se mobilizar para multiplicar o esclarecimento sobre o caso. 
Jean Wyllys no 9º Seminário LGBT na Câmara
Também, segundo Tatiana, a assessoria do Deputado Jean Wyllys tem se mobilizado solicitar as sanções jurídicas cabíveis contra os envolvidos. 
Toni Reis, presidente da ABGLT
Essa semana, Toni Reis, presidente da ABGLT, respondendo a Marina Reidel – que solidariamente solicitava apoio para Tatiana Lionço – também garantiu que as devidas providências estão sendo tomadas: “Estaremos processando com todas as leis que ele infringiu. Não nos calaremos.” – escreveu Reis. 
O Conselho LGBT da Liga Humanista Secular do Brasil coloca-se à disposição para apoiar Tatiana Lionço. É dever de todo humanista e secularista trabalhar para manter a liberdade de consciência, assim como para garantir que os indivíduos terão meios de se proteger contra o obscurantismo fundamentalista/conservador, o qual seria inofensivo aos outros se ficasse confinado ao campo das opiniões desses mesmos moralistas. Contudo, no momento em que esse fundamentalismo passa a perseguir os indivíduos que não se conformam aos seus ditames uniformizadores, ele viola o princípio da liberdade humana, incita a violência contra os indivíduos divergentes – ainda que no campo do simbólico -, devendo ser reprovado no âmbito da sociedade (todos nós) e coibido através do aparelho estatal, neste caso polícia e justiça.

Sergio Viula
Presidente do Conselho LGBT da Liga Humanista Secular do Brasil (LiHS)
in Geral