The story of the President of the Constitutional Court (TC) letter in the gay lobby has several neighboring points that deserve consideration. The text was published in a digital academic debate room on a controversial exam in 2010 when João Caupers was a law professor. It was not until 2014 that he was appointed judge of the TC for 9 years in the quota set for lawyers. This caveat is important because the current status gives the matter additional meaning. However, when he wrote the controversial text, he was not subject to the reservation and moderation obligations imposed by the judges. The first point: Regardless of the validity of the TC President’s opinions, this is the exercise of freedom of expression for a free citizen and not a violation of the duties of a judge.
Second point: Asking Parliament to make statements is irrelevant and violates the independence of the judiciary. The position of the TC judge is immobile and can only be terminated in advance by the will of the TC or by disciplinary sanctions. The time to review candidates’ suitability for the TC is before their appointment when the resumes and personal paths are to be combed. The idea that parliament can monitor the thinking and the words of incumbent judges and force the president of a court to apologize for earlier writings, even if it is ultimately out of the box, is simply absurd. As absurd as the organs of justice may be, remember to call a MP to explain some nonsense they said about justice – and just go on social networks to see there is no shortage of whom would. When Parliament calls the President of the TC, he cannot be expected to do anything other than decline the invitation. When there is peers and justice.
Third point: The TC must have a plural composition with conservative, progressive judges and be more centered. This ideological diversity arises from the manner in which they are appointed, by qualified majority voting or by co-option by their peers, and is inherent in the function of assessing the conformity of laws with the Constitution. There is no drama if a judge has different ideas about life and society than those of the members of the parliament on the left or the right, unless this reveals prejudices that are constitutionally unsustainable.
Finally, the obvious, which many have already said and some do not want to see: there is no evidence that the freedom to think, speak and write has been revoked and given way to a sanitary public life where all people think the same thing and they push you out the same path within strict moral parameters defined by those who argue the power to purify society and abolish those who dare to be different. A free world must allow the right to think, even if it is wrong or deviates from an artificial normality that it is supposed to impose by force. Ultimately, when I’m stupid and forbidden to say stupid things, I am never confronted with an awareness of my stupidity or asked to change my thinking, correct my prejudices, and raise my children better.
It is enough to look at the world to see that this steady imposition of the politically correct creates a movement in the opposite direction. One day, civilizational advances in tolerance, inclusion and non-discrimination may decline due to exaggeration
This society, in which everyone thinks and speaks according to the politically correct, does not exist and never will exist. It contradicts human nature, which by definition values freedom. Right now, this modernity of violent criticism of deviations in expression by people who have access to public space and easily annihilate someone with a label for something phobic can silence moderate people who form the majority. But it doesn’t cancel diversity; hide it and suppress it. In fact, it is enough to look at the world to see that this steady imposition of politically correct, and most importantly, the aggressive policing that goes with it, creates a movement in the opposite direction. One day, civilizational advances in tolerance, inclusion and non-discrimination may decline due to exaggeration.
Thus, the value of the TC President’s texts can be criticized with the same legitimacy with which he wrote them, but his individual freedom cannot be censored in the name of an ideological leveling in relation to the breaking up of social issues.