10 December 22
Live on the homepage now!
Reader Supported News
On Monday, the conservative justice joked about the KKK and about his colleague using a website that facilitates affairs.
On Monday, the court heard oral arguments for a case, 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, about a website designer’s refusal to work on same-sex weddings. That designer, Lorie Smith, sued the state of Colorado in 2016 over its anti-discrimination laws, which she claimed violated her First Amendment right to refuse to work with same-sex couples. Not surprisingly, it appears that Alito—a staunch conservative who seemingly believes the only people who should have rights in America are the ones who had rights in the 1600s—thinks Smith should absolutely be able to deny service to individuals whose sexual orientation she doesn’t agree with. And while he didn’t just come out and say, “discrimination is good,” he did come close!
Earlier in the hearing, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson had posed a hypothetical wherein she argued that Smith’s stance is no different from a photography studio refusing to photograph Black children for scenes meant to evoke old-timey Christmases past, when Black children wouldn’t have been allowed to pose in the white section of the mall. The point, obviously, was to show that such a scenario, like the one involving Smith and same-sex couples, is wrong. But Alito, who thinks he’s very clever, circled back to the Christmas hypothetical and claimed that, actually, such discrimination should be allowed because it would then mean Black Santas could say no to having to pose with kids in KKK robes, which he suggested is not currently the case.
“If there’s a Black Santa at the other end of the mall and he doesn’t want to have his picture taken with a child who’s dressed up in a Ku Klux Klan outfit, that Black Santa [can’t refuse] that?” Alito asked. In fact, Colorado solicitor general Eric Olson responded, that’s nota actually the case: a Black Santa can already refuse to pose with someone wearing a KKK outfit, since Ku Klux Klan outfits “are not protected characteristics under public accommodation laws,” while things like gender identity and sexual orientation are. Hence, why Smith’s refusal violates Colorado’s anti-discrimination laws, while Alito’s one with the Black Santa and KKK getups do not. Justice Elena Kagan then noted, for the right-wingers in the group, that Santa could refuse to pose with anyone wearing a KKK outfit, whether they were white, Black, or a member of any other protected group. To which Alito snarkily interjected, “You do see a lot of Black children in Ku Klux Klan outfits, right? All the time.” Later, he insisted on returning to the scenario that he clearly thought was a major owning of the libs. “Now back to my Black Santa example,” he said.
But it was arguably Alito’s earlier comments, wherein he joked that Kagan could be intimately familiar with a website that facilitates affairs, that put him in the running for Biggest Sleazebag on the Supreme Court. Bringing up another hypothetical scenario—in this case, one in which a Jewish person asks a photographer to take a photo for his JDate account—Alito described the website as “a dating service, I gather, for Jewish people.” Kagan, who is the sole Jewish justice on the court, then confirmed that her colleague was correct in his assessment, which drew laughter from the crowd. Fine, a nice little bit of collegial repartee. But then this happened:
To be clear, that’s Alito joking that Kagan might know all about Ashley Madison, a website exclusively designed to help people in relationships cheat on their partners.
All of this comes, of course, just months after Alito authored the opinion to overturn Roe v. Wade, an opinion in which he approvingly cited the work of a 17th century jurist who supported marital rape and had women executed for “witchcraft.” Which he then followed up by telling stand-up jokes about having had taken away millions of people’s rights. Still, it’s hard to say, definitively, whether Alito is the worst of the worst when he’s got coworkers who think it’s fine for their unhinged spouses to try and get free and fair elections overturned; who reportedly belong to a secretive religious group that considers “women’s obedience and subservience to men as one of its central early teachings”; and have been accused of attempted rape (which they deny). But you could certainly argue that he is!
READ MORE
A Ukrainian soldier guards his position. (photo: Mstyslav Chernov/AP)
ALSO SEE: Ukraine: Zelenskyy Says Russian Forces
Have 'Destroyed' Bakhmut
A small partly-destroyed concrete bridge leads into a town whose main road is now littered with charred vehicles turned upside down. The local police station, used by Russians as a torture chamber, is riddled with bullet holes.
The town, home to 20,000 people before the war, is now draped in a tense silence, broken only by the deadly hiss of incoming shells.
Vovchansk was one of the last Russian bastions to be liberated during Ukraine’s sweeping September counteroffensive. Andrii Nesmiyan, press officer of the 113th brigade who helped liberate the region, says Russians didn't put up much of a fight.
"We pushed, and they collapsed," Nesmiyan told the Kyiv Independent.
But three months after liberation, Vovchansk is still a battle zone.
And the Ukrainian flag on top of the town’s administrative building is no talisman against Russia’s artillery, constantly pounding the town from across the state border, located just three kilometers to the north.
Breaking Russia's lines of defense
Russia’s military, still largely based on the old Soviet model, made several missteps in the region, including stretching the front line over hundreds of kilometers, according to Nesmiyan.
Russian forces didn't take the time to build second or third lines of defense, Nesmiyan said, showing potential defense points in a deserted parking lot in front of a small rundown roadside restaurant near the front-line town.
"If I had to defend this place, I'd put someone on a high point for reconnaissance and snipers," he said. "I would dig here and there and prepare strong defensive lines behind my first one in case I need to defend this position."
According to Nesmiyan, Russian soldiers didn't take the time to put these basic measures in place.
As a result, Russian troops had difficulty moving equipment, which put them at risk of being spotted by Ukrainian reconnaissance units.
Ukraine also had eyes and ears on the ground, helping the country's artillery pound Russian troops, which thinned out their lines of defense.
Nesmiyan's brigade, part of Ukraine’s Territorial Defense Force, played a crucial role in helping the advance of the armed forces in the area. Most of the brigade’s soldiers are locals, which means they know the cities and villages they're fighting for. "We know all the back roads," he said. "We know where to dig."
The success of Ukraine’s blitz counteroffensive in Kharkiv Oblast was also rooted in the last eight years of active fighting in eastern Ukraine after Russia first invaded in 2014. Since then, Ukraine has not only gained combat experience but has undergone reforms in the defense sector, transitioning to NATO standards of warfare.
Dismantling the Soviet-like doctrine has paid off, Nesmiyan said.
In the Russian military, officers try to control every minor detail at the expense of flexibility and adaptation. Under the new standards in the Ukrainian military, every platoon and battalion has a clear objective, but the decision on how to achieve that goal is made on the ground in real-time.
"The decision you make depends on you and your skills," he said.
Nesmiyan also said Ukraine’s troops received substantial help from locals. However, being caught helping Ukraine often meant torture or death.
The liberation of Vovchansk revealed how Russians set up a torture center on the grounds of a massive plant where they rounded up Ukrainian war veterans and those they suspected of helping Ukraine.
"Every time we liberate a city, we're shocked (by what we see) because Russians don't respect the rules of war," he added.
Russia set up a massive network of torture chambers in occupied territories of Kharkiv and Kherson oblasts, using police stations, plants, and even private basements to torture locals by the hundreds. Their primary targets were Ukrainian veterans and civilians seen as Ukrainian patriots.
In October, investigators found 22 such sites in the Kharkiv Oblast and nine in the Kherson Oblast after Ukrainian troops liberated the area.
Continued hardship
Continued Russian shelling has made life in Vovchansk unbearable for its residents. Roughly 7,000 residents have stayed behind in the town, out of the pre-war population of 20,000, according to local authorities.
In early November, seven people were injured when Russian shells landed in a residential neighborhood, destroying four homes.
The most recent Russian shelling happened on Nov. 26, targeting residential buildings and shops. No one was injured that time, Kharkiv Oblast Governor Oleh Syniehubov said.
The cold winter only adds to the hardship Vovchansk’s residents are facing.
Russian shelling damaged the main gas pipeline that provides gas for the city, Serhiy Lobodenko, the head of the district administration, told Ukrainian media Suspilne back in October.
It's impossible to fix the pipeline under the near-constant shelling, forcing residents to rely on wood stoves to survive the subzero temperatures.
Residents mainly need firewood, wood stoves, generators, building material for roofs, and materials to cover broken windows. Still, it's hard to bring goods into the town on the heavily damaged or destroyed roads.
And getting wood from nearby forests is out of the question as Russians’ landmines are scattered throughout them.
An hour upon arriving in Vovchansk, the Kyiv Independent’s team and accompanying press officer got under Russian fire, with one mortar shell landing as close as 20 meters from the car. The team took shelter at the Ukrainian troops' base nearby.
Shortly after, the medics’ walkie-talkies crackled, announcing that two elderly women had been hit by shelling in a nearby house and needed help.
As the team was leaving Vovchansk, a call came in: Both women had died from their wounds. Nesmiyan sat in silence for a bit, reflecting upon the news.
"It's always like the first time," he sighed.
READ MORE
Donald Trump. (photo: Erin Schaff/NYT/Redux)
The sources also told CNN that Chief Judge Beryl Howell instead pressed the Trump team and the Justice Department to work together to find a mutually agreeable resolution.
ABC News first reported the judge had urged the teams to resolve the matter themselves.
The contempt proceedings for Trump ended after almost 90 minutes behind closed doors on Friday afternoon at a Washington, DC, courthouse.
CNN observed prosecutors, including the Justice Department’s counterintelligence chief Jay Bratt, and attorneys for Trump exiting the courthouse just before 3:30 p.m. ET. The two legal teams had gathered in the chambers area for Howell, who was set to consider whether to hold Trump in contempt for failing to comply with a subpoena ordering him to turn over classified records, according to CNN’s reporting.
No outcome was publicly announced.
According to sources, the judge questioned prosecutors on how she could hold Trump’s team in contempt given the steps Trump’s lawyers have taken to alleviate the Justice Department’s concerns that there may still be records in Trump’s possession.
She also questioned why prosecutors were quibbling over the necessity for a custodian of records to attest that all documents had been returned when Trump’s lawyers had already informed the Justice Department that they had searched four locations, found two documents with classified markings and returned those documents to investigators, according to two sources.
The Justice Department declined to comment.
When asked for comment, Trump spokesman Steven Cheung sent the same statement issued on Thursday, saying the former president and his lawyers “will continue to be transparent and cooperative, even in the face of the highly weaponized and corrupt witch-hunt from the Department of Justice.”
A coalition of media organizations that included CNN had asked Howell to allow public access to Friday’s hearing, but the judge did not grant the request.
Lisa Klem, the court spokesperson, acknowledged the sealed hearing on Friday in a statement, but provided no more information as to what happened.
“This afternoon, the Court held a hearing regarding an ongoing and sealed grand jury matter. This matter remains under seal, pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e) and Local Criminal Rule 6.1,” the statement said.
The DOJ sought to hold Trump and his office in contempt for not fully complying with the subpoena following the search of his Mar-a-Lago resort in August. Being held in contempt over subpoenas for documents has become a feature of the former president’s court tangles since he left office.
Had he been held in contempt Friday, he could have racked up fines.
The proceedings ratchet up pressure on Trump as he faces possible criminal liability in the Mar-a-Lago documents investigation being conducted by special counsel Jack Smith. It also adds another chapter to the ongoing struggle for federal officials to reclaim government records – especially those that contain national security secrets – from Trump after his administration ended.
After the DOJ subpoenaed Trump for documents with classified markings in his possession in May, prosecutors went to court to enforce the grand jury subpoena. The judge ordered Trump’s team to comply. That prompted a search by Trump lawyers last month that yielded two more documents with classification markings.
But the Justice Department is still unsatisfied with the search and with Trump’s side not asserting all documents have been turned over, CNN previously reported.
READ MORE
Rep. Ruben Gallego. (photo: Sean Logan/The Republic)
“Last month, the voters of Arizona made their voices heard loud and clear — they want leaders who put the people of Arizona first. We need Senators who will put Arizonans ahead of big drug companies and Wall Street bankers,” Gallego, who is thought to be a 2024 Senate hopeful, said in a statement.
“Whether in the Marine Corps or in Congress, I have never backed down from fighting for Arizonans. And at a time when our nation needs leadership most, Arizona deserves a voice that won’t back down in the face of struggle,” Gallego continued. “Unfortunately Senator Sinema is once again putting her own interests ahead of getting things done for Arizonans.”
Prior to Sinema’s maneuver, Gallego was considered a prime candidate to launch a primary challenge against her in 2024. The House Democrat has been one of the leading critics of Sinema over the past year, including for what he saw as Sinema’s lack of work on behalf of the party in the key state during the 2022 midterms.
Reports also emerged earlier this year that Gallego had met with some of Sinema’s top donors about the possibility of a 2024 bid. News of the meetings came as the Arizona senator stood in the way of two top priorities of leading Democrats: the party’s multitrillion-dollar social spending package and ending the legislative filibuster to pass voting rights legislation.
Criticism also came from other corners of the Arizona Democratic operation, including the state party itself. In a statement, the Arizona Democratic Party said that while Sinema helped with the passage of high-priority items in recent years, she has fallen “dramatically short” on a number of topics, including voting rights, and is “leaving Arizonans behind.”
“Senator Sinema may now be registered as an Independent, but she has shown she answers to corporations and billionaires, not Arizonans,” the party continued. “[Her] party registration means nothing if she continues to not listen to her constituents.”
READ MORE
Activists protest fossil fuels as part of Earth Day activities. (photo: Michael Reynolds/EPA)
Documents show the fossil fuel industry ‘has no real plans to clean up its act’ and took steps to continue business as usual
Documents obtained from companies including Exxon, Shell, BP and Chevron show that the fossil fuel industry “has no real plans to clean up its act and is barreling ahead with plans to pump more dirty fuels for decades to come”, said Carolyn Maloney, the chair of the House oversight committee, which has investigated the sector for the past year.
The committee accused the oil firms of a “long-running greenwashing campaign” by committing to major new projects to extract and burn fossil fuels despite espousing their efforts to go green.
In reality, executives, the documents show, were derisive of the need to cut emissions, disparaged climate activists and worked to secure US government tax credits for carbon capture projects that would allow them to continue business as usual. Maloney, a Democrat, said that “these companies know their climate pledges are inadequate, but are prioritizing big oil’s record profits over the human costs of climate change”.
Ro Khanna, another Democrat who sits on the committee, said that the industry’s approach was one of “intimidation” towards critics, as part of a “cynical strategy” to avoid acting on the climate emergency. He added that the committee will pass on the documents to “other entities”, raising the possibility of charges laid by the US Department of Justice.
Khanna rejected allegations from Republicans that the Democrat-led committee had engaged in a sort of corporate witch-hunt. “The industry was the one out there continuing to make false statements about climate change and climate legislation,” he said. “Our goal is to get them to stop engaging in climate misinformation.”
Several of the company executives appeared before the committee, where they faced accusations their companies knew of the dangers of the climate crisis for decades, only to hide this from the public. Darren Woods, chief executive of Exxon, said last year that his company’s claims over climate change were “consistent with science” at the time.
“Oil and gas will continue to be necessary for the foreseeable future,” Woods added in his testimony to the committee. “We currently do not have the adequate alternative energy sources.”
Exxon, like most other large oil firms, has said it backs the Paris climate accords, where governments agreed to not allow the global temperature to rise 1.5C or more above pre-industrial times to help avoid worsening heatwaves, droughts, floods and other disastrous impacts.
Privately, however, these companies downplayed any need to scale down their fossil fuel activity and even to ramp it up, the committee found.
Internal documents from BP in 2017 show that the company intends to “significantly increase development in regions with oil potential” and to “focus primarily on projects in current basins that generate the highest rate of return”.
One BP executive subsequently asserted in an internal email that the company had “no obligation to minimize GHG [greenhouse gas] emissions”, while another admitted that any of its divestments of fossil fuels “may not directly lead to a reduction in absolute global emissions”.
Industry insiders communicated with Exxon consultants about doubts over the veracity of climate science, the documents show, while a strategy slide presented to the Chevron board by its chief executive, Mike Wirth, states that the company is to “continue to invest” in fossil fuels even if others retreat from oil and gas.
A Shell tweet posted in 2020 asking others what they could do to reduce emissions resulted in a torrent of ridicule from Twitter users. A communications executive for the company wrote privately that criticism that the tweet was “gaslighting” the public was “not totally without merit” and that the tweet was “pretty tone deaf”. He added: “We are, after all, in a tweet like this implying others need to sacrifice without focusing on ourselves.”
The UK-headquartered oil company also poured scorn on climate activists, with a communications specialist at the company emailing in 2019 that he wished “bedbugs” upon the Sunrise Movement, a youth-led US climate group.
Climate campaigners said the committee’s work showed that the fossil fuel industry was continuing to lie over global heating by pretending to act on the issue.
“The key revelation in this report is that big oil has no intention of actually following through on its climate commitments,” said Jamie Henn, director of Fossil Free Media.
“It isn’t transitioning to clean energy, it’s doubling down on methane gas, and it’s actively lobbying against renewable energy solutions. This is the big tobacco playbook all over again: pretend you care about a problem, but continue your deadly business as usual.”
READ MORE 
Starbucks employees and supporters react as votes are read during a viewing of their union election in Buffalo, New York. (photo: Joshua Bessex/AP)
On December 9, 2021, nineteen Starbucks workers in Buffalo voted to unionize with Starbucks Workers United, a Service Employees International Union (SEIU)–affiliated union for Starbucks workers. In the next 365 days, 3,626 more Starbucks workers joined with the initial nineteen, resulting in 267 unionized Starbucks stores covering around 6,951 Starbucks employees.
The speed and success of the Starbucks unionization campaign has been astonishing. Last year, the Starbucks campaigners unionized a new store every 1.3 days. Over this period, the Starbucks union has accounted for 21 percent of all NLRB election victories.
For the anniversary of its first victory, I have compiled the following statistics about the ongoing union campaign.
Unfair Labor Practice Charges
Since January, the Starbucks Union has filed 548 unfair labor practice charges against Starbucks mostly alleging retaliation against workers for union activity.
Election Filings
In total, the Starbucks Union has filed for elections at 381 Starbucks locations. The rate of election filing was extremely rapid between February and May of this year, but has leveled off more recently.
Election Outcomes
The union has won 81 percent of the elections that have been run for a total of 267 election victories covering 6,951 Starbucks workers.
The union typically wins these elections by large margins. Across all elections that have been run — including wins and losses — the union has won 71 percent of votes cast.
Although the rate of elections being filed has slowed down, the union’s rate of victory has held steady. The union won 80 percent of the last twenty elections run, just one point shy of its 81 percent win rate across all of the elections held so far.
At present, there are seventeen elections that have been filed but not yet run. Based on its historical rate of success, the union should win fourteen of these elections and add another 357 workers to its rolls, bringing its total to 281 stores covering 7,308 Starbucks employees.
Locations
The 267 unionized Starbucks locations are spread out across 36 states and 174 cities.
City | Unionized Starbucks Stores |
Seattle, WA | 10 |
Portland, OR | 10 |
Pittsburgh, PA | 9 |
Philadelphia, PA | 7 |
Chicago, IL | 7 |
Eugene, OR | 7 |
Richmond, VA | 6 |
Boston, MA | 5 |
Ann Arbor, MI | 5 |
San Antonio, TX | 4 |
Denver, CO | 4 |
Bellingham, WA | 3 |
Albany, NY | 3 |
Los Angeles, CA | 3 |
Cleveland, OH | 3 |
St. Louis, MO | 3 |
Amherst, NY | 3 |
Ithaca, NY | 3 |
Louisville, KY | 2 |
Atlanta, GA | 2 |
Brooklyn, NY | 2 |
Anaheim, CA | 2 |
Oklahoma City, OK | 2 |
Austin, TX | 2 |
Brookline, MA | 2 |
Beaverton, OR | 2 |
Knoxville, TN | 2 |
Tallahassee, FL | 2 |
Santa Cruz, CA | 2 |
Jacksonville, FL | 2 |
New York, NY | 2 |
Buffalo, NY | 2 |
Rochester, NY | 2 |
Mesa, AZ | 2 |
Scottsboro, AL | 1 |
Birmingham, AL | 1 |
Fayetteville, AR | 1 |
Tucson, AZ | 1 |
Avondale, AZ | 1 |
Phoenix, AZ | 1 |
Santa Clara, CA | 1 |
Santa Maria, CA | 1 |
Berkeley, CA | 1 |
San Francisco, CA | 1 |
Riverside, CA | 1 |
Barstow, CA | 1 |
Huntington Beach, CA | 1 |
La Quinta, CA | 1 |
Capitola, CA | 1 |
Long Beach, CA | 1 |
Lakewood, CA | 1 |
Greeley, CO | 1 |
Colorado Springs, CO | 1 |
Louisville, CO | 1 |
Vernon, CT | 1 |
West Hartford, CT | 1 |
Washington, DC | 1 |
Oviedo, FL | 1 |
Miami Springs, FL | 1 |
Augusta, GA | 1 |
Elmhurst, IL | 1 |
Carbondale, IL | 1 |
Rockford, IL | 1 |
Peoria, IL | 1 |
Cary, IL | 1 |
Clarksville, IN | 1 |
Wichita, KS | 1 |
Lawrence, KS | 1 |
Overland Park, KS | 1 |
New Orleans, LA | 1 |
Cambridge, MA | 1 |
Gardner, MA | 1 |
Westford, MA | 1 |
Worcester, MA | 1 |
Waban, MA | 1 |
Brighton, MA | 1 |
Watertown, MA | 1 |
Allston, MA | 1 |
Stevensville, MD | 1 |
Nottingham, MD | 1 |
Bel Air, MD | 1 |
Olney, MD | 1 |
Linthicum Heights, MD | 1 |
Baltimore, MD | 1 |
Portland, ME | 1 |
Biddeford, ME | 1 |
Bloomfield, MI | 1 |
Mount Pleasant, MI | 1 |
East Lansing, MI | 1 |
Clinton Township, MI | 1 |
Lansing, MI | 1 |
Flint, MI | 1 |
Grand Rapids, MI | 1 |
Roseville, MN | 1 |
Edina, MN | 1 |
Bloomington, MN | 1 |
St. Anthony, MN | 1 |
Minneapolis, MN | 1 |
Springfield, MO | 1 |
Richmond Heights, MO | 1 |
Valley Park, MO | 1 |
Kansas City, MO | 1 |
Independence, MO | 1 |
Wilmington, NC | 1 |
Boone, NC | 1 |
Montclair, NJ | 1 |
Hamilton, NJ | 1 |
Summit, NJ | 1 |
Hopewell (Township), NJ | 1 |
Albuquerque, NM | 1 |
Victor, NY | 1 |
Wantagh, NY | 1 |
Staten Island, NY | 1 |
East Greenbush, NY | 1 |
Vestal, NY | 1 |
Clifton Park, NY | 1 |
Malta, NY | 1 |
Niskayuna, NY | 1 |
Farmingville, NY | 1 |
East Amherst, NY | 1 |
Queens, NY | 1 |
Garden City, NY | 1 |
Astoria, NY | 1 |
Nanuet, NY | 1 |
Latham, NY | 1 |
Massapequa, NY | 1 |
Depew, NY | 1 |
Hamburg (Town), NY | 1 |
Westlake, OH | 1 |
Cleveland Heights, OH | 1 |
Westerville, OH | 1 |
Cincinnati, OH | 1 |
Columbus, OH | 1 |
Nichols Hills, OK | 1 |
Springfield, OR | 1 |
Salem, OR | 1 |
Happy Valley, OR | 1 |
Gresham, OR | 1 |
Whitehall, PA | 1 |
Easton, PA | 1 |
Allison Park, PA | 1 |
McMurray, PA | 1 |
Greensburg, PA | 1 |
Anderson, SC | 1 |
Columbia, SC | 1 |
Greenville, SC | 1 |
Alcoa, TN | 1 |
Memphis, TN | 1 |
Shavano Park, TX | 1 |
Denison, TX | 1 |
Houston, TX | 1 |
New Braunfels, TX | 1 |
Dallas, TX | 1 |
Denton, TX | 1 |
Salt Lake City, UT | 1 |
Cottonwood Heights, UT | 1 |
Arlington, VA | 1 |
Sterling, VA | 1 |
Roanoke, VA | 1 |
Leesburg, VA | 1 |
Newport News, VA | 1 |
Farmville, VA | 1 |
Falls Church, VA | 1 |
Midlothian, VA | 1 |
South Burlington, VT | 1 |
North Bend, WA | 1 |
Marysville, WA | 1 |
Tumwater, WA | 1 |
Everett, WA | 1 |
Olympia, WA | 1 |
Madison, WI | 1 |
Appleton, WI | 1 |
Plover, WI | 1 |
Oak Creek, WI | 1 |
READ MORE 
Jair Bolsonaro. (photo: Evaristo Sa/Getty Images)
The ongoing episode of post-election violence shows what Brazil needs today is not reconciliation but de-radicalisation.
The father’s pleas fell on deaf ears. His son and the 24 other patients on the same medical transport bus all missed their appointments.
This, sadly, is Brazil’s new reality.
Since Bolsonaro lost his attempt to secure another term as Brazil’s president in October, thousands of his most fanatical supporters have been occupying major roads across the country, demanding – despite there not being any evidence of fraud – the election be overturned or the military intervene to keep the far-right leader in power.
At first, these roadblocks were inconvenient but largely peaceful. But as weeks passed by and no real pathway for Bolsonaro to remain in power appeared, the protests gradually turned violent. Especially in states where the president has a large support base, such as Santa Catarina, Mato Grosso and Rondônia, “Bolsonaristas” started using homemade bombs and firecrackers to stop traffic. They blockaded roads with burning tyres, bins and tree trunks. They set trucks, and in one case, an ambulance, on fire. Truck drivers across the country reported being assaulted and robbed.
The violence perpetrated by Bolsonaro supporters is not limited to roadblocks either. In Rondônia, the president’s supporters allegedly targeted a water pipeline and shot at the building of a newspaper critical of his government. In Santa Catarina, they attacked Federal Highway Police officers with stones. In Brasilia, they shot at a bar known to be frequented by the left.
In Santa Catarina, Paraná, and other states, business owners believed to be supporting President-elect Lula da Silva’s Workers’ Party (PT) received offensive calls and negative reviews on social networks. Their names, phone numbers and company addresses have been shared by supporters of the outgoing president in WhatsApp and Telegram groups and some have received death threats as a result. Some Bolsonaristas have even suggested “marking” the doors of the homes and businesses of PT voters with stars – in reference to the PT logo – in a tactic reminiscent of Nazi Germany.
Of course, none of this is at all surprising or unexpected.
Since taking office in January 2019, Bolsonaro has been preparing the country for this moment. In the past four years, he repeatedly incited violence against leftists, human rights activists, feminists, LGBTQ communities, the poor and everyone else not blindly supportive of his government. He ensured the most violent elements in his support base have easier access to weapons.
His government also embarked on a process to weaken democratic institutions and fill the country’s security forces with his far-right supporters. He empowered the most dangerous sectors of Brazilian society, from violent groups linked to agribusiness to evangelical fundamentalists and other right-wing extremists.
All these efforts led to the 2022 elections being the most violent in Brazil’s recent history with countless incidents of election-related intimidation, abuse of authority, aggression and even a few cases of murder being recorded across the country. And since Bolsonaro definitively lost the election, there is no sign that the chaos and violence that engulfed the country will come to an end any time soon.
Rather uncharacteristically, while his supporters are wreaking havoc across Brazil in his name, Bolsonaro has virtually disappeared from the spotlight and retired to his presidential palace since the second round of the election.
Some believe this is a sign that he has finally accepted defeat, but there is likely another – and much more sinister – explanation for his absence. Soon after Bolsonaro’s defeat, computers at the Planalto Palace, the seat of the presidency, were wiped under the excuse that a “threat” had been detected. So it is not unreasonable to assume that the president may be spending his last days in office at home with his most trusted confidants and destroying any evidence that could incriminate him in a future investigation.
In a country that has always been very violent, roadblocks and other acts of political violence are extremely worrying as they can lead to the disintegration of the state. Already struggling with drug gangs and militias, for Brazil, sustained political violence perpetrated by Bolsonaristas could be the straw that breaks the camel’s back.
Some argue that to avoid further chaos and to bring Bolsonaristas back into the national fold, Brazil needs to embark on a process of reconciliation. But as the president and his supporters are clearly uninterested in participating in democracy and co-existing with others in Brazilian society peacefully, reconciliation will take the country nowhere. What Brazil needs today is a process of de-radicalisation, that can only be successfully completed if Bolsonaro and those financing and promoting acts of political violence in his name are punished.
Such a process has already begun. Late last month, Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes, who heads the country’s electoral court, fined Bolsonaro’s Liberal Party, as well as his former coalition partners Progressive and Republican parties, 22.9 million reais ($4.27m) for insisting on a “bad faith” lawsuit challenging the election result.
No fine can be a sufficient punishment for a president and a political movement that brought Brazil to the brink of collapse, but this is still an important step in the right direction. Brazil cannot move forward, and leave political violence behind, without holding Bolsonaro and his cronies to account for the pain they inflicted on the people.
Follow us on facebook and twitter!
PO Box 2043 / Citrus Heights, CA 95611
