|
 Human life in Brazil is cheap, regardless of your social status. Violent crime affects every section of society although the victims are usually those at the bottom. The murderers are seldom caught. Those who are convicted go free within a few years - that is if they survive the hell of a crowded prison.
This means that thousands of convicted killers and thousands more who have never been caught are walking around the streets among the rest of us. In theory the law should protect those who respect it and punish those who break it but no-one who lives here seriously expects the law to play its role.
The laws are broken by the elected politicians who create them, the police who should enforce them, the judges who should apply them the general public which should obey them,
Since people know the police will not protect them, they take measures to protect themselves. For most middle-class people this consists of having the entrance to their apartment building permanently manned and the identities of visitors checked.
When walking in the street people do not carry lots of cash or valuables and are constantly on the lookout. The richer class, which feels itself more threatened by kidnappers and robbers, hires body guards. It is common to see these people traveling in convoys of armored cars in the more affluent areas of São Paulo.
When a rich housewife goes shopping she will be accompanied by her dark-suited bodyguards with their trade mark SUVs, sunglasses, guns and radios. This is also a common sight outside the more exclusive schools attended by the children of the rich. Some residential buildings and mansions have armed guards outside the entrance 24 hours a day.
Taking Care of Yourself the Rich Way
It is easy to ridicule these people but the threat is real and the bodyguards, at this level, are professional. About five years ago a thief was foolish enough to try and rob the son of one of Brazil's richest businessmen when his car stopped at a traffic light just off Avenida Paulista.
The thief's method was to conceal a gun inside a bunch of flowers he was allegedly selling and approach rich-looking motorists wearing Rolexes and other fancy watches. However, this man's father had been the victim of a previous kidnapping and the family had learned its lesson. There was an armed bodyguard inside his car, others in two accompanying cars and another on a motorbike.
The motorcyclist spotted the thief's gun and the bodyguards earned their pay that day by riddling the bogus flower seller with bullets. They then drove of at top speed as though they were guarding the president of the United States, leaving the lifeless body of the criminal on the street for other people to deal with.
Good for them, you might say. However, how do those of us who do not have such efficient bodyguards protect ourselves? Should we arm ourselves too and blast away at the thieves and murderers amongst us? Or should we continue to obey the police advice and cooperate with the thieves and let them rob us blind in the hope that they will at least spare our lives?
This latter approach is a kind of Brazilian social contract in which the poorer, more desperate elements in society are allowed to pick off the occasional victim from the higher class while not challenging the status quo. It is like a scene from an African plane in which a group of hyenas or wild dogs tracks a herd of gazelles, targets one, chases it until it is exhausted and then tears it to pieces.
The rest of the herd watch helplessly, relieved that none of them is that day's particular sacrifice in the social ritual. The dust soon settles, the gazelles go back to cropping the grass and life resumes until the next onslaught.
Let no-one think I am exaggerating here. I have watched gangs of adolescents target motorists in the old center of São Paulo and seen street children trying to snatch bags from women and run off only a few yards to await the next victim. They are quite brazen about it since they know they are unlikely to be caught or punished.
The death squads, which local shopkeepers used to hire to kill these street children, are a thing of the past. I also know several people who have been robbed at gunpoint and two people who have been kidnapped and forced to withdraw money from automatic cash dispensers.
One relative was later phoned by thieves who made frightening comments about her young daughter whose photo they had found among her personal belongings. In none of these cases have any of the criminals been brought to justice. It is estimated that only 37% of crimes in São Paulo are reported to the police.
Crime Has Low Place on Political Agenda
Foreigners are often surprised at how crime is accepted here as though it were a force of nature. It is barely a political issue at all. Everyone moans about crime and violence but no political party uses crime-bashing as a policy issue. Ironically one of the few politicians who used to talk tough on crime is Paulo Maluf, who is currently in detention himself on accusations of committing massive fraud when he was mayor of São Paulo.
No political party has called for the restoration of the death penalty, for example, even though Brazil has one of the highest murder rates in the world. Figures show that over 36,000 people were shot to death last year - almost 100 people a day. Yet the issue of restoring the death penalty is not even on the agenda.
Nor are there any moves to change the absurd laws which treat those below the age of 18 as minors. This means that 15, 16 and 17-year old murderers, rapists, robbers and drug traffickers are sent off to centers for juvenile delinquents rather than being treated as adults and incarcerated in prisons. Riots and break-outs from these juvenile detention centers are so common as to have become routine.
It was, therefore, heartening to see the government take the initiative to give Brazilians the chance to vote on a move to ban the sale of guns and ammunition. A referendum on the issue will be held on October 23. One can hardly imagine a simpler, better way to make a start at reducing violence than an all-out ban.
However, the issue has led to a backlash from a lobby which claims that we, as citizens, will somehow be losing part of our freedom by trying to reduce the number of arms in circulation. There are an estimated 17 million guns in Brazil - one for every 10 inhabitants - of which 8.5 million are held illegally.
The gun lobby sees nothing wrong with increasing this obscene number of firearms as though more guns will bring more peace. More guns will bring more profits for the arms manufacturers and more deaths for the general population.
Supporters of the ban are not naïve enough to think that it will lead to an end or even a significant reduction in violence. However, it is a starting point and will save lives simply by the fact that there will be fewer arms around just as seat belts save lives in car accidents. People with guns in their homes are more likely to use them during rows with their families or neighbors or to commit suicide than to defend themselves from thieves.
Supporters of the ban also know that it will have an economic effect on the arms production industry and lead to job losses. However, this is the price to be paid for a gun-free society. The tobacco industry has managed to cope with restrictions on the advertising and sale of its products and the arms industry will have to do likewise.
Malicious Media Campaign Against Ban
However, those who are against the ban have mounted a vicious, malicious, campaign, full of dubious statistics and inaccurate comparisons with other countries, claiming that the move will leave us helpless at the hands of armed gangs. They also claim that our freedom is being eroded by the state as though the right to own a gun is sacred.
In one of the most disgraceful examples of biased journalism I have ever seen, Veja magazine recently ran a cover story entitled Seven Reasons to Vote No. This issue was full of loaded hectoring articles trying to bully the reader into accepting its views.
The argument for banning gun sales was dismissed. This was too much even for Brazil's normally clannish media and a rival magazine had a cover story giving seven reasons in favor of the ban and seven against. Some columnists criticized Veja but most are filling space by trying to frighten us about the dire consequences of voting Yes.
Pro-ban campaigners like actress Fernanda Montenegro, who is normally treated like a goddess, have been accused of being naïve do-gooders who are basically helping drug traffickers and bank robbers. TV adverts have appeared showing teenagers, often black and of mixed race, urging people to vote No.
This kind of targeting is particularly disgusting since these youngsters represent the community which suffers most from violence - the inhabitants of favelas where the murder rates are much higher than in middle class areas.
It is a pity that some of Brazil's sporting and musical personalities have not played a role in this campaign since many of them come from deprived backgrounds and would lend credibility. The churches could also have played a more prominent part.
The pressure from the anti-ban movement has had an effect and polls show a big reduction in support for the ban. It is now quite possible that there will be a small majority against the ban. Should this happen the gun lobby will be jubilant but it will be a hollow triumph. It has put forward no proposals to replace the current situation in which there are already too many guns in circulation.
The idea that the private citizen will be protected from criminals because arms and weapons will continue to be sold is a sick joke. However, the gun lobby is more interested in protecting an industry which profits from death and pontificating about freedom than protecting human lives.
John Fitzpatrick is a Scottish writer and consultant with long experience of Brazil. He is based in São Paulo and runs his own company Celtic Comunicações. This article originally appeared on his site www.brazilpoliticalcomment.com.br. He can be contacted at jf@celt.com.br.
© John Fitzpatrick 2005
 |
Subscribe to this comment's feed
. in view of the comments and details in your article...I could only be in favor of having the right to defend myself....which means I am in favor of having a right to have a gun !!!!