ARTICLE MARKED FOR DELETION DUE TO BEING ANONYMOUS.
I support tougher laws to severely punish the cruel violence committed against homosexuals (many of my friends).
What I don't agree with is the creation of a law that highlights a specific group, because treating gay people as different is just another form of discrimination. Imagine if, after the Statute of the Child and the Elderly, created because they are fragile humans, we had a Statute of the Gay?
That's why I don't agree with this spectacle created around this Bill, whose sole purpose is to gain votes.
If deputies and senators truly wanted the best for homosexuals, they would create laws to guarantee the marital status of married couples. (Today, homosexuals can only have their Common-Law Marriage accepted due to a STF ruling, as politicians don't actually create laws for it).
I have just read PL 122/2006 and followed its progress in Congress. The original bill, PL 5003/2001, which arrived at the Chamber, is pure ideology of the so-called 'gay cause'.
Curiously, anticipating that it would be seen as protectionism for gays, the law was modified. Today, any discriminatory practice or limitation based on sex, sexual orientation and gender identity, origin, race, color, marital status, family situation, or age is qualified as a crime (Article 5, paragraph one).
Highlight the novelties of limitation by marital status and family situation, since age is present in the Statute of the Elderly, and sex is present in the Maria da Penha Law, social security law, among others.
From a positivistic reading of the Law, advertisements like: "Boarding house for ladies only" -> Limitation by sex; "Seeking handyman for farm, no children" -> Limitation by family situation would be considered crimes.
From a positivistic reading, "José is looking for women aged 18 to 30 for a serious relationship" would qualify as a doubly qualified hate crime, due to limitations based on sex and age.
The Law is foolish and redundant with many others that already exist and do not work.
I am against prejudice, but it is clear that this is about exaggerated protectionism. The Brazilian legal system already has equality and balance as its basis, giving stone status to hate crimes. Therefore, another Law is not warranted, especially one that does not advocate equality, but the superiority of a group, defending things that seem more like a limitation on freedom of expression.
Even the Maria da Penha Law and the Social Security Law are unconstitutional, as they gave privileges to women, who the Constitution treats as equal to men. However, when we remember our mothers and grandmothers, in their work caring for the home and defending their children, they were granted this concession. But what would be the contribution of homosexuals compared to heterosexuals to grant them such relevant privileges and honorary status.
Votes in Congress, as in the STF, are predominantly political decisions, and the judiciary interprets them in concrete cases.
It remains to be seen,
Reflection: Parliament formed, let's celebrate
