Tuesday, 25 June 2013
For the first time in my 30 years as a born-and-bred Brazilian, with great satisfaction, I have seen my fellow countrymen and women avidly discuss bill proposals, angrily dispute excesses by money-grabbing politicians and openly challenge the vile military police on the streets without any fear.
The past couple of weeks were quite something to behold, especially for someone like me. I've left Brazil in January 2007 and have no intention of returning for good. I spent the worst years of my young adult life in Rio de Janeiro, battling depression, fear of dying and a sense of hopelessness beyond any of my peers' comprehension.
During my last couple of years in Rio, I worked as a cub reporter at Jornal O Dia. I saw more death, abuse, violence, corruption and disrespect for the people of my city and state than I care to put in writing ever again. It wasn't good for me. And then I left.
When I started working in the UK I realised there was something very important lacking in my home country.
Brazil has a long record of relying on the third sector to bridge the gap between the shortcomings of the state and its poorer, disenfranchised people. Several non-governmental organisations (ONGs in Portuguese) have been set up since the 70s to complement a poor educational system, poor public health system, to make up for societal inequalities and an absent state.
This same gap allowed for extremely politicised criminal factions to take on the role of the state in the 70s, establishing themselves as providers of services and security in poorer communities (remember City of God?). In the past decade or so, it also allowed for the creation of militias - which took on the role of the military police in expelling drug dealers from favelas. They ultimately act as a violent mafia, charging locals absurd fees for services and security, as well as carrying out killing of witnesses in criminal trials involving their bosses and general intimidation in the communities they control.
Even though we have several NGOs doing a fantastic job giving young people the opportunity get to where they want in life and many others operating in similar, charitable ways, we lack groups carrying out fundamental activities for the maintenance of democracy: the scrutiny of politicians, public finances, decision-making, and the holding of Brazilian municipal, state and federal authorities to account.
These protests have created a flurry of information into social media, blogs, tumblrs, and even instagram, designed to stir up the outrage and keep people on the streets. Several titbits of unknown information came to light: how much our politicians cost us, the fact they are the most expensive politicians in the world, anecdotes of lower house representatives who have been on sick leave for the best part of a year, still raking in more than £300,000 a month in salary and expenses, the ins and outs of our legislative process and its flaws, and many other gobsmacking revelations.
In fact, it's not that all this information wasn't available to the general public in Brazil before. It's that only a handful of people contemplated looking for it and sharing it with others. Until now.
This is what these protests are all about. I don't like the use of catchy slogans to describe what could prove to be a fundamental change in the mindset and behaviour of 200 million people, but we have awaken. We have awaken to the fact that, if we don't protest against these abuses that have been taking place under our very noses for decades now, they will continue to happen.
My suggestion to those with a strong spirit, a focussed mind, and the patience of a saint in Brazil is, start filling this other huge gap in our civil society by creating not for profit organisations designed to monitor and challenge decisions that affect your community, city, state or even the whole country.
Work on research, take advantage of Brazil's new freedom of information laws, scrutinise the work of assembly members, representatives of both houses, senators, the police, public health authorities and as many other authorities as you can. This is the power you have, in a democracy, to make things better. And this is how the people can eventually expose to the rest of the world whether their country is a true democracy or not.
There is a lot of power concentrated in the hands of very few people in Brazil - a handful of people meant to represent, and work for the good of, nearly 200 million other people. But power without responsibility and accountability allows for the monstrous abuses that have been taking place there for a long time, and for too long. It's time to speak truth to power, Brazil.
Tuesday, 23 April 2013
I was invited by AD LIB magazine, the Lib Dems' publication*, to make the case for 'Yes, Margaret Thatcher was a role model for women'. Here's what I wrote
While today’s feminists jump at one another’s throats over the legacy that Margaret Thatcher left, I see very few reasons why feminism should be translated into sheer activism.
That is why I am a firm believer Thatcher was most definitely a role model for women. She certainly was, and still is, mine.
Growing up in Brazil, the manner in which she conducted herself, all the way to the top, set an example to me, all working women of her generation around the world, and the ones that followed.
We should be telling our daughters and granddaughters that we must work together to ensure better opportunities for women, but also that we live in a ruthless world, where you have to stand firm, believe in yourself and not be afraid of anything or anyone. Thatcher taught me these things, not with empty words, vacuous protests, or victimisation, but with very meaningful actions.
Thatcher believed in individual responsibility. She also believed in individual freedom. She believed in the freedom to achieve whatever it was she set out to do, regardless of her gender. She exercised that freedom by choosing to face difficult challenges and tackle them head on – she was unafraid.
Like her, I will never allow men to talk down to me. I will not accept disrespect or condescension. If more women had the guts to show the same fortitude as her when sneered at and doubted, we, as a collective, would be much better off.
I’ve learnt from Thatcher that, as a woman, I should not expect the goodwill of others. I’ve also learnt that no glass ceiling is unbreakable and that the biggest mistake a man already predisposed to doubt a woman can make, is to underestimate her ability and obstinacy.
She taught me that, no matter what others may say, I, and I alone, am the master of my fate.
*I'm not a Lib Dem, just probably the only non-partisan person they could find to write the 'Yes' view on this one
Friday, 19 October 2012
In this whole debate about the Leveson Inquiry and a new press regulator, it bothers me how a lot of journalists – and some very good ones – have chosen to ignore the facts and try to stamp on the argument like stubborn five-year-olds.
It annoys me to see the Guardian call “statutory regulation” proposals for a new independent regulator with statutory underpinning on headlines, only to briefly say in the story’s intro “a form of statutory regulation”. It’s wrong, confusing and doesn’t explain to the public what they are talking about at all.
It baffles me to see newspapers like The Times and The Sun calling the proposals “statutory regulation” full stop.
It bothers me to see them all calling it “greater controls”. I feel like offering a cookie for the first hack who can leave the rage behind and show me they know what statutory underpinning means.
I would like to explain what, in my mind, an independent regulator backed by statute would look like.
This body would be created – just its existence set up by statute. The only thing the law will do is say “this body now exists and its structure looks like this, and it has the power to investigate newspapers when appropriate”.
Following its creation, it would have a board of former editors, lay members of the public and perhaps members of other professions.
The way I imagine it, it would mostly not have any interaction with newspapers, although newspapers would be members of this regulator.
Each newspaper will still be required to have a complaints mechanism in place – who knows, the PCC could still exist as a complaints and mediation body. Alternatively, those papers that don’t want to be a part of the PCC can have their own complaints system.
Let me illustrate now, with a made-up example, how the new body would leap into action.
A mother-of-four, Asian, lives in a £2m, five-bedroom house in a wealthy neighbourhood, allocated to her by her local council. She is then deemed by one newspaper to be undeserving of the accommodation she did not choose to have, she was given. The newspaper names her, and attributes to her quotes that are not accurate and make it sound like she thinks she is entitled to what she’s been given.
The newspaper portrays her family as loutish, implies wrongly her children are unemployed out of choice, and publishes a series of articles, each time with a new accusation, in the hope the council will send her to a different, “more suitable”, home.
Despite several complaints from the family, several requests for a correction and an apology, they are ignored. They then go to the PCC (which has no powers to investigate stories, they only ask newspaper editors questions), and the PCC rules in favour of the newspaper, in spite of the majority of the story being untrue.
As it is now, if a similar case happens, those affected must live with the untrue allegations and inaccurate quotes, unless they can afford to go to court. Sadly, many people don’t have the means or the time to take on large news organisations, so they end up just having to accept the abuse.
With a new independent regulator, this family would be able to go to this independent body and explain their case. The body would subsequently decide whether there was merit in investigating it.
If they did, they would most likely come to the conclusion that the allegations were untrue and the quotes inaccurate. They could then fine the newspaper and order them to publish a clarification and an apology.
In many cases, currently, newspapers admit they are wrong. Local newspapers, in my experience, are fantastic when it comes to not only being on the right side of the law and the Editors’ Code of Practice, but on accepting PCC rulings as well.
However, there are several cases, mainly, if not only, involving national newspapers, where the men in the street who are targeted and unfairly vilified, defamed, and attacked, have no access to adequate redress.
Making newspapers accountable for their willing or unwilling mistakes is not censorship, and it’s not an affront to freedom of the press. It’s fair.
It is important to clarify that, in my opinion, proposals to introduce pre-notification or tougher privacy laws are just not what we should be looking for. Pre-notification would severely hurt serious investigations and worthwhile stories. In terms of privacy, the ECHR does the job.
Any journalist with an ounce of common sense and love for their trade will know that this is not unreasonable. Giving people the right to defend themselves, without having to resort to expensive and time-consuming legal action.
I don’t accept that the creation of this body amounts to out-of-control statutory, Zimbabwean, authoritarian regulation. These are the words those who know what their newspapers have been up to for a long time use to defend their right to stamp on the little man without the threat of being accountable for their actions.
As a journalist, I categorically do not want a punitive regulator that stops people from publishing their stories to protect the powerful or has the hands of politicians all over it.
This may sound naïve, but I would like reporters and editors, if the new independent regulator were to be created, to think twice before writing and publishing stories they know are untrue or cannot stand up. Not forgetting sometimes you have to be bold to get the truth out. I hope newspaper editors will recalibrate their judgment and realise some stories are more worthwhile than others when it comes to risky behaviour. Exposing Jimmy Savile was more important than jumping to conclusions ahead of the law on Christopher Jefferies' case, etc.
There are certain punishments devised to change the way in which the industry operates that are just impossible, and should not even be considered. For instance, one of the best things journalists have to their advantage is the surprise factor. You know you’re right to expose someone and you go for it. I would never like to see that advantage taken away from hacks with the introduction of any sort of pre-notification mechanism.
|No pressure: Lord Justice Leveson|
Even with a new regulator, chances are newspapers will deal with the fines and carry on as usual, because, let’s face it, there’s nothing else you can do to protect the public without hindering the work of brilliant, tenacious journalists all over the country.
My hope is that journalists will understand that taking away the control of the PCC from a few powerful editors will level the playing field and mean ordinary people can have a shot at redress, whenever their case calls for it.
In any case, nobody knows what Lord Justice Leveson will say. If it’s anything that will make journalists’ lives genuinely difficult, or will impose Draconian pre-notification, or silly things like asking for permission to photograph people in public places, I cannot personally support it.
On the other hand, if it just means they will have to think twice before publishing a made-up story, without any consequences to the pursuit of true stories, I’m fully behind it.
Tuesday, 14 August 2012
If you tapped your feet on the floor to the sound of the drums, enjoyed the music and dancing, and Pelé’s brief appearance during the handover of the Olympics to Rio at the Closing Ceremony, that’s all understandable. But don’t get too excited yet.
For most Brits and others around the world, the man who collected the flag on behalf of Rio de Janeiro, its Mayor, Eduardo Paes, was just another suited politician, smiling to the camera, doing his duty for his city and country. He seemed nice, didn’t he?
Well. Let’s go back four years to 2008, when Eduardo Paes was running for office, and Rio was facing one of its most violent times in the last couple of decades.
Photo: Wilson Dias/Abr
A few years before I left Brazil for the UK in 2007, there had been something brewing under the surface in some of the biggest favelas in Rio. A kind of violence different than our usual drugs lord-led gang conflicts was quietly erupting. Groups of police officers and firemen, some retired, some still active, united to take the law into their own hands.
Armed and dangerous, they formed militias and started taking over favelas, killing and scaring away drugs lords and their gang members. They claimed they were cleansing Rio’s communities from filthy drugs and drug addicts.
All they wanted in return was the support of the communities – which were eventually taken hostage of what had become a money and power-hungry mafia. Militians started charging extra money for basic utilities, such as gas, drafting up “voting lists” ahead of elections and barring candidates from campaigning in their area. They were also involved in “alternative transport” – vans with the same itinerary as buses – and charged autonomous workers a “toll” for working the same itinerary as their fleets.
Those who didn’t comply, received death threats.
In 2008, my old newspaper, Jornal O Dia, sent three of their staff, a reporter, a photographer and a driver, undercover, to a favela in order to expose the actions of these militias. Unfortunately they were found out, captured, tortured and are, to this day, running away from corrupt police officers unhappy with their attempt to expose them.
Unfortunately, Paes, a social-democrat from centrist PMDB (Partido do Movimento Democratico Brasileiro), has been caught more than a few times, having a too-close-for-comfort relationship with the militias.
Three months before elections, in 2008, he gave an interview to TV Globo, justifying the work of militias in certain areas of Rio, saying they brought peace to a handful of communities. The video is in Portuguese, but here’s a translated transcript of his statement:
“There are situations and situations. There are areas of the state (of Rio), where the state has completely lost its sovereignty and we need to recover this sovereignty. I’ll give you an example, because people always ask me how to recover this sovereignty. Jacarepagua, in Rio de Janeiro. It’s a neighbourhood where the so-called ‘policia mineira’ formed of policemen and firemen brought peace to the community. Sao Jose Operario Hill. Once one of the most violent favelas of this state, is now one of the most peaceful. Vila Sape, in Curicica… it means that acting with intelligence you can get the state to recover its sovereignty in these areas.”
In 2011, newspapers got hold of a picture of Paes having a meeting with the leaders of “alternative transport co-operatives” - some of them known to be militians – soon after he took office. It had been taken in 2009, when, according to Jornal do Brasil, he guaranteed the group would have “preferential treatment” during the procurement process for new itineraries in Rio’s West Zone.
Photo: Reproducao/Jornal do Brasil
Some of those who attended the meeting were being investigated by a parliamentary inquiry commission (CPI das Milicias), but Rio’s department for transport issued a statement saying even though they were under investigation, they had not been convicted or found guilty of any impropriety at the time. It went on to say if they were to be found guilty of impropriety they would be excluded from the procurement process.
But there’s more. In 2010, a Rio assembly man denounced during the parliamentary inquiry that Rio’s head of social care, Rodrigo Bethlem, appointed by Paes, was the main defence witness in an attempted murder trial, where two militians from the self-appointed “Justice League” (Liga da Justica) were accused of trying to kill a van “conductor” who had acted as a whistleblower, in 2005.
Bethlem, who worked for the governor of Rio at the time, was at a “political event” with both militians when the crime happened. The trial was delayed when Bethlem allegedly refused to give evidence, after being exposed as a witness by the press. He was subsequently dismissed as a witness, because the judge wanted to get on with the trial to avoid wasting more public money. And he is still Rio's head of social care.
The parliamentary inquiry (CPI das Milicias) was led by a politician called Marcelo Freixo, who eventually succeeded in sending to jail dozens of militians and exposing several corrupt politicians and policemen who had links with criminals.
Following the inquiry, Freixo received death threats and had to leave Rio with his family for a while. He is now fighting Paes for mayoralty. Elections are due to happen in October.
If you would like some context for all this (I appreciate it’s hard to understand if you haven’t lived in Rio or aren’t familiar with Brazilian politics) I suggest two films: Elite Squad, based on a real story, and its sequel, Elite Squad 2 - the Enemy Within, inspired by these events I’ve just written about.
Bottom line is, don’t be fooled by Paes’ pearly white smile and his excitement with the Olympics. For the sake of Rio’s population, and all of you who are coming to Rio in 2016, I sincerely hope he’s on his way out.
Sunday, 8 July 2012
I was reading through my twitter timeline yesterday and noticed somebody had tweeted a picture of a magazine cover with the headline “suicide drama” in bright pink capital letters, followed by an exclamation mark.
It was a TV guide mag and the cover referred to a soap’s plot, where apparently a body has been found. I don’t know exactly. But I do remember feeling sick for a second when I opened the picture.
Everyone, everywhere, has a fascination with death, that manifests itself in one way or another. In Brazil, we feed that fascination with stories of violence, so common pretty much all over the country. The very fact that death and its reporting is so ordinary takes away some of the need for gory details - as a society, we’re way overexposed to death and tales of human cruelty to get hung up on every single detail of crime and tragedy.
Of course we still are fascinated, and share morbid curiosity with the rest of the human race, but it usually takes a bizarre crime or tragedy to trigger the will to know more.
The UK is much smaller, more compact, and safer than Brazil. There is violence and crime – I have sat through quite a few murder trials and inquests during my time as a local reporter here – but not on the same scale as in Rio, for instance, so the appetite for details is much higher. Understandably.
The one thing I struggle to come to terms with, though, is the curiosity and fascination of the British press and public with suicide.
I’ve had to cover a few suicides as a local reporter. Spoke to families, asked difficult questions, reported inquests, was given pictures of their loved ones, and wrote their stories. I did my job and did it as well as I could. But every time I think about how much people want to know about the circumstances in which, and motives why, someone has taken their own life, I find that curiosity harder to understand.
When I was 23 and working at Jornal O Dia, something happened. I was at work one evening and the reporter who sat opposite me had a phone call from her maid, who had gone out to buy milk and saw someone who had jumped off a building. The maid told the reporter all the gory details of what she had seen, and they were duly repeated once the phone call was over.
I remember being a bit horrified, and searching my mind for people I knew who lived in the area. I just had a bad feeling, but it soon passed.
The next morning, I woke up with a phone call from a friend at 9ish. I was very tired – hadn’t finished my shift until late the night before – so couldn’t quite understand what he was saying. All I could hear was “… killed herself”. I asked him to repeat that three times, until I heard: “Cecilia killed herself”.
And then the penny dropped.
I told him the story I had heard the evening before, and he confirmed what I’d feared.
Cecilia was 21 and incredibly bright and beautiful. I loved her to bits. And this is all I’m going to tell you about her. I know our friends might read this, and I’ve decided I have no right to tell her story, the story I know, made of facts, memories and conjectures.
A few days after that, I was told that a team from one of our most outrageous tabloids, O Povo, had been to the scene of my friend’s death and taken pictures. That only added to the pain.
In Brazil, mainstream newspapers have a gentlemen’s agreement not to routinely publish suspected suicides, unless police decide to investigate or the person is somebody in public office or the public eye. We don’t have a coroner’s court, so police give the verdict either after examining the scene, or after a pathologist’s report, if one is necessary. In general, no one, besides family and close friends, wants to know.
It could be because Brazil is a big Catholic country and suicide is frowned upon by the church. Which makes it embarrassing for families if a loved one dies in such circumstances. It could be that Brazilians don’t give mental health issues the attention they require and don’t raise the awareness they deserve.
I’m not suggesting for a second that newspapers in the UK should stop covering suicides. The social and cultural landscape of Britain is obviously very different from that of Brazil, and mental health issues and its consequences are spoken about much more openly here.
But I sometimes wonder if wealth of detail, speculation, sensationalising, and hounding of families, are absolutely necessary, and if they serve a purpose other than to shock and sell newspapers.
Truth is, the impact suicide can have on someone else on the brink of a mental breakdown can be severely underestimated.
When Cecilia died, I had been seeing a psychoanalyst because I was severely depressed. She was a friend, and we were young, so her death alone had an enormous impact on my state of mind. But the circumstances were extremely painful, difficult to accept and understand, and they pushed me right to the edge. Thankfully, I’m better now – it’s been a slow recovery, and anyone who has been there knows how hard it is to be confident you’re out of the woods forever.
Bottom line being, to me, suicide is still a delicate matter, and I’m positive it will always be. I find its trivialisation both outrageous and hard to understand. There is no glamour in suicide - just pain, anger, and confusion. Soaps shouldn’t exploit it and magazines shouldn’t sensationalise it.
Anyone who considers it should seek help. Anyone who feels they need to know more about how someone else died and why should wipe that thought off their minds. Believe me, you’re better off not thinking about it.
If you’re distressed or feel like you need help, you can talk to Samaritans at any time of the day or night on 08457 90 90 90 in the UK and Northern Ireland, or 1850 60 90 90 in the Republic of Ireland.
Thursday, 21 June 2012
In 2005, I was offered an “internship” at Jornal O Dia, in Rio. It was a paid internship, for two years, at the end of which I would be offered a promotion if I proved myself to be good enough.
I call it “internship”, between quotation marks, because even though I was paid half the wages of a “reporter I” (the first title at “professional” level), I was expected to do the same amount of work. I would go to uni in the mornings, from 7.30am until 11.30am, and go straight to the newsroom in the afternoons.
It was called internship because of a pathetic law in Brazil that doesn’t allow newspapers to hire reporters unless they have a journalism degree. So that opened up an opportunity for newspapers to hire people in their early 20s, still at uni, for half the amount they would pay a reporter with a degree, and make them work full time and just as hard. All they had to do was call them interns.
It was a triple whammy for them: I was cheap, couldn’t join the union, and didn’t have life insurance – so if anything happened to me at work, my family wouldn’t get a penny from anyone. It was almost as if there was no sign of my existence, except for the outstanding amount of column inches I filled every day.
I worked at the showbiz desk. I hated the showbiz desk. But if I wanted to work at a newspaper, I had to suck up and do it. My set chores were to write the children’s theatre and dance sections of the weekend guide, and type up (you read it right) the whole cinema listings for the week on Tuesdays – an eight-hour task.
Every week, I tried my best to get features and stories in the daily showbiz supplement, Caderno D, and, more often than not, I succeeded. Still, not my favourite thing.
I usually worked as much overtime as I could fit in, so I would get paid more. Eventually, I saw myself working closely with the Saturday editor (fashion editor), Marcia Disitzer, the most amazing person ever. She invested in me – so much so she even left me in charge of editing her fashion column whenever she was away.
The best thing, however, were the mandatory weekend shifts. God, I loved those.
As I wrote here before, those were our crime shifts. We worked on a rota, and had to do one weekend every four weeks. I’d sometimes take on other people’s shifts if I needed the money or had nothing planned for the weekend (yeah, I know…).
Even though the everyday work at the showbiz desk taught me the basics of journalism – news writing, accuracy, law (we wrote a lot about celebrities), the ins-and-outs of a daily publication – it was at the news desk that I felt truly at home as a cub reporter.
I would normally do the 7am shifts on both Saturday and Sunday. I remember the 7am shifts weren’t really meant for beginners – you had to take over from the night shift, and make sure nothing went unnoticed, so you could pass it on to the news editor, who usually arrived at 7.30am, sometimes 8am.
If you were on the 7am shift, there was also the possibility you would get a call in the middle of the night, telling you a newspaper driver would pick you up at 5.30am because a high-profile drugs’ lord had been killed, and the news desk needed support. That happened to me once.
And you would be on your own, running the news-gathering in the newsroom while the teams (reporters and snappers) were away, and the news editor too busy getting reports from the scene.
O Dia’s newsroom had something called the “bug room” (not for phone-hacking or individual surveillance, just to be clear). It was a tiny corner room with big glass windows all round, from where I could see my news editor, who sat in a strategic position, sort of at the top of the news desk, right in the middle.
In that room, I had a phone, a computer, and two radio scanners used to scan the police frequency. Technically, it was illegal to do that – but everyone knew all newspapers had a similar room, police included. Any time they even hinted at trying to shut it down, the press would cry out censorship, and ask why they needed secrecy attending incidents around the city.
There was, and still is (though I hear police managed to get themselves unlistenable radio frequencies these days), a clear and absolute public interest in monitoring the activities of a knowingly corrupt and murderous police force, and I’ll forever defend the activities of Jornal O Dia and others in Rio.
So my job, for sometimes 14 hours per shift, was to make sure we knew everything that was going on in Rio and surrounding districts. I would have to phone a hundred and something police stations (civil police), to ask whether they had any crimes reported in their area, the other hundred and something military police battalions to ask if they had been called to any crime scenes or incidents, plus the other hundred and something fire brigades, to check if any incidents had happened overnight, in case the night shift hadn’t picked them up, or they’d happened after they called.
I would keep in touch with my colleagues from other newspapers – we all had the same sources for incidents that had just happened (unless someone had called in), so we shared what we had and consulted each other to decide whether it was safe to send a team to an incident.
Newspapers aren’t very popular with drug dealers in Rio, for obvious reasons, so we would always have to be careful about ambushes and traps, and not exposing our reporters to any unnecessary danger.
My main jobs were to know everything, send my news editor hourly updates, make sure our reporters didn’t get killed (sometimes we had to trust our instincts before sending teams out to incidents and that was terrifying), write all the straightforward news stories, and talk to oddballs on the phone. There were plenty of calls from good old Rio oddballs.
The news editor, Hilka Telles, was a scary middle-aged woman. Award-winning crime reporter with decades of experience, and tough as a rock. Everyone was frightened of her. I loved her. She would sit there with her big hair, chain smoking (the newspaper had enforced a smoking ban, but she was the only person allowed to smoke in the newsroom because of her 40-a-day habit), telling people with her fag hag voice what journalism was all about.
|Hilka Telles on the phone as a young reporter at an 80s "bug room" in Rio. |
This one was at Jornal do Brasil
Sometimes Hilka would relieve me from being in the “bug room” and send me out to incidents (never the hairy ones because I didn’t have life insurance, though I’ve been in the cross-fire a couple of times).
She used to call the showbiz desk “celeb whores” and our colorful hipster desks “whore dressers” – I could hardly contain a giggle whenever she said that. She was so right.
And I loved all that. For reasons I cannot explain, because I don’t want to identify them, I had many sources in the police force, even a couple in the elite squad, so I would often sneak into the other side of the newsroom, where the news desk was, and give her stories. Sometimes she would let me work on them, sometimes the showbiz editor would tell us both off, so I had to surrender the story to one of the crime reporters.
By the end of it all, nearly in 2007, I was offered a “reporter I” position. I hadn't finished my degree yet, but whenever they came across "outstanding" cub reporters, they used a loophole to hire them as reporters (legally they would be hired as "autonomous workers", in practice, they were reporters), so they promised me a position.
Unfortunately, or maybe fortunately, I had already decided to move to the UK, for personal reasons. I loved every crime shift I did at that newspaper, every story I wrote, every scary situation I was thrown in, but the nearly two years of exploitation had taken their toll. I wanted a bit of change, and some employment rights too. But I still miss it dearly.
Tuesday, 19 June 2012
WARNING: GRAPHIC CONTENT
South American dictatorships are a very delicate subject to me.
Not only because I’m Brazilian, but because my father’s family comes from a very long line of serving Army and Navy officers, and both my father and grandfather were active during the Brazilian military regime.
My granddad was a major and lieutenant-colonel (one below colonel) for the duration of it. He died in 1996, when I was 13, so I never asked him much about it. The only story I’ve ever heard, told by my father, was about a train full of political prisoners, and my father says, “you don’t want to know what happened to them”.
My father was a lieutenant at the time. He had left military academy in 1976, and became involved in it probably by 1979, but the only stories I know are from 1980/81.
On March 31, 1964, a coup d’etat by the Brazilian military deposed the then president Joao Goulart, who had been democratically elected in 1961, amid fears that a left-wing president was helping the growth of communism in the country, and that there was a communist revolution about to happen.
Goulart fled to Uruguay, and Marshal Castello Branco took office 15 days later. It would be the beginning of 30 years of torture, censorship, gagging of the press, and murder.
He was followed in office by General Costa e Silva, from 1967 to 1969, and then by General Medici, from 1969 until 1974.
It was when Medici was in power, that Institutional Act 5 (AI-5) was decreed, and when newspapers were truly gagged (not just asked to align with the government), artists (such as Caetano Veloso and Gilberto Gil) were forced into exile, and protesters and critics of the dictatorship started disappearing more often, never to be seen again.
Medici was followed in office by Generals Geisel and Figueiredo, and in 1985 the regime came to an end.
Officially, 457 people either died or disappeared during that period (the Brazilian government is currently reviewing that figure to add another 858 deaths). Journalists were muzzled and arrested - some killed.
In 1980, my father led a battalion within Rio de Janeiro’s Army police (Policia do Exercito). His job was to lead small groups into unsavoury areas (mainly favelas, where some of the activists would hide), after receiving intelligence information, to catch them during their “subversive meetings”.
The only proof I have seen of that was a document which explained the procedure to end those meetings and arrest “subversives”, and the scars of a pistol gunshot that entered the back of his left leg and exited through the front. He was shot as he was chasing someone in the narrow alleys of a favela.
In 1981, a car bomb went off outside a concert, at a venue called Rio Centro, celebrating the return of exiled artists. By that time, the way to a new democracy was already being paved, and some sections of the Army were prepared to do whatever they could to remain in power and make the population believe the guerrilla was dangerously out of control.
One of the versions of the incident was that a sergeant and a captain decided to plant a bomb at the gig, which was being attended by thousands, to create panic.
Unfortunately, for them, the bomb went off when they were still in the car, killing the sergeant and forcing the captain to walk 200 yards to the nearest road holding his exposed bowels to call for help. He survived and is still alive. He’s been known in the Army since then as “Captain Bomb”.
|The Rio Centro bomb crime scene|
My father was one of the crime scene forensic officers (I’m pretty sure he took the picture on the left – I’ve seen the original in one of his Army albums at home) for the military and one those responsible for drafting the report with the Army’s own version of events – that lefties had planted the bomb in the car.
In 1996, Brazil’s biggest investigative TV show, Globo Reporter, sent one of their investigative reporters, Caco Barcellos, to our house, to interview my father on the 15th anniversary of the failed car bomb attack. He refused to speak to camera, but agreed to speak off the record briefly.
During the interview, the cameraman held the camera down and told my father it was off, but kept on filming, and caught him explaining where the bomb had been placed in the car. He maintained the Army line, but as he was still serving as a lieutenant-colonel at the time, he wasn’t allowed to talk about it, and received a mighty bollocking after the interview was aired.
As a young lieutenant, of course my father was obeying orders. He loved the military – it was his career, had been his father’s career, his grandfather’s career, and so on, and generally, even though it’s not my cup of tea, it’s not a bad career to have.
And I believed that was ok for a long time. It wasn’t until I was 16, in my last year at Military School, that I stopped repeating my parents’ political views and started developing my own. Deep down, I always knew there was something entirely unacceptable and utterly disgraceful about authoritarian governments, regardless of how good for the economy, as some claim in Brazil, they might have been.
That was also about the time I found out that my granddad on my mother’s side had been arrested for a few days for speaking out about the government in the 60s. The police knocked on his door one day, told him to pick up some clothes and go with them. Terrifying.
One of my history school teachers had been tortured in the 60s. Our current president, Dilma Rousseff, was part of the guerrilla movement, and was herself tortured at the time.
One of our most famous newspaper columnists, Hildegard Angel, lost her mother, Zuzu, and brother, Stuart, during the regime. Her brother was arrested and killed by the secret police – his body never found. His mother, Zuzu, tried to fight the state to get recover her son’s body, and was murdered too.
These are only some of the examples of violence.
The main evidence that growth without civil and individual liberty, freedom of speech, and freedom of the press, is unsustainable, is that Brazil collapsed into the worst decade and a half of its economic existence from 1980.
After all the story-telling, my main point is I'm not proud of my family's own personal experience with a dictatorship, but I'm glad that hearing the most horrendous stories and political views at home has made me despise authoritarian regimes of all kinds.
So, anyone willing to praise any dictatorship to me, for whatever reason, will have to do better than say it did wonders for the inflation rate, or gave power to the "best" ideology.
And think of those murdered, abused, the violence, and all the censorship, before saying any dictatorship is ok.