The trip of President Jair Bolsonaro (no party) and his entourage to New York, in addition to the stories generated by the taste of the tabloids and the lies he told in a global pulpit – but for the consumption of his loyal audience – drew the attention of lawmakers for fear that should cause those who are concerned about the environment and the climate crisis.
In a 13-minute speech at the opening of the UN General Assembly, the Brazilian exposed to the world his rhetoric that is already well known in the country regarding an alleged urgency to expand agribusiness, livestock and mining to indigenous territories and claimed by them . Fallacies that you often repeat in your lives weekly and Twitter posts were fearlessly brought to the planet’s ears. He is not afraid to show what he came for.
::Eight lies and one truth told by Bolsonaro at the UN General Assembly::
::Delegation with covid, pizza on the street, hotel act: in 48 hours, Bolsonaro is in the news 4 times in NY::
With the intention of delegitimizing the struggle for new demarcations, the president mentioned that 14% of the national territory is already destined to indigenous reserves. “In these regions, 600,000 indigenous people live in freedom and increasingly want to use their land for agriculture and other activities,” Bolsonaro said, in a new attempt to transfer his aspirations to those whose rights he intends to usurp.
First indigenous parliamentarian elected in Brazil, federal deputy Joenia Wapishana, refutes the assessment made by Bolsonaro. In an interview with Brazil in fact, she recalled the large indigenous demonstrations in Brasilia in recent months and also criticized the president’s attitude towards the international audience.
“Indigenous lands are also strategic for facing the climate crisis, which was the theme of the UN Assembly yesterday (Tuesday), and which could receive more investments from the Brazilian State, in order to protect the environment” , defends Joenia.
The time frame thesis analyzed by the Federal Supreme Court (STF) provides that indigenous peoples could only claim the lands occupied by them at the time of the promulgation of the 1988 Constitution.
In other words: if they were expelled from the land in a period prior to this one – as in fact tens of thousands of indigenous people were in the years of the military regime, to make way for major works or the expansion of the agricultural frontier – they have no right to claim, for Thesis of the Temporal Frame.
At the moment, voting is paralyzed, after a request for views from Minister Alexandre de Moraes last week, and there is no scheduled date to return. Only two ministers have already cast their votes: Edson Fachin, against; and Nunes Marques, in favor, which keeps the dispute tied at 1 to 1.
In addition to the fear that the decision will bring legal risk to the lands already demarcated, Joenia also believes that the delay in the court’s decision “may signal a threat in relation to rural conflicts”.
::Understand the time frame and find out how it reaches the indigenous peoples of Brazil::
::Column | The “time frame” of the usurpation of indigenous rights::
Bolsonaro remains consistent with his anti-environmental agenda and loyal to the ruralists, whose congressional bench represents an important part of the federal government’s support base.
Last week, during an event in the west of the state of Minas Gerais, he gave yet another example of his intention to continue “passing the herd”, in an expression immortalized by former Environment Minister Ricardo Salles, to refer to the flexibilization of environmental standards and removal of rights from family farmers and native peoples.
For federal deputy Talíria Petrone (PSOL-RJ), the president’s strategy is a “blackmail without a basis in reality”, which tries to disentangle the blame for the current scenario of hunger and food insecurity from the economic policy of the economy.
“I think it’s blackmail, and a big lie, actually. First, because the small farmer is the one who sustains the table of the Brazilian people. We usually say that if the countryside doesn’t plant, the city doesn’t dine,” argues Talíria.
Edition: Vinícius Segalla