Talk:Human rights in Brazil

Removing the sentence involving the word "sad"
The usage of the word "sad" in the following sentence is ambiguous and open to interpretation, and also opinionated in wording.

"Brazil has a sad record of domestic violence, both against children and women." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.49.70.120 (talk) 07:05, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Clarification on the legal status of the violations
What's the point in Wiki? Especially if there's an 'Edit this page' button at the top! OMG! Get that off or destroy this site because it's false info!!! can't believe people use this!

I was just reading the article and thinking that perhaps it is worth to mention that none of these practices, such as torture, extortion, police brutality, summary executions, etc, are sanctioned by the government or allowed by the constitution, and that they are indeed crimes, as opposed to tyrannical regimes that practice those indiscriminately? I am sure due to recent events that some countries allow authorities to make use of torture openly. Is this the case here? I might be off here but I think this should be discussed. PHF 20:55, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The authors of this page are ridiculous. Did you really site City of God in an article about something other than Brazilian Film?  That's just proof you don't have any first-hand information to offer.  I'm not disputing that there are wide-spread human rights abuses in Brazil, but angry college kids who live in New Jersey should blog about it, instead of pretending they have encyclopedia-ready information.  Let's be honest, no American would like it if a Brazilian wrote an article about how terribly racist America's health care system is based on a movie with denzel Washington takes a hospital hostage.  Bottom line: do your research, a quit discussing Brazil unless you have more to say than "City of God, samba, poverty, favelas, carnaval, Amaazon, Big Jesus Statue." did I just flame you?  You had it coming. Chris (who lives in Brazil)


 * Was that aimed at me? Or were you just too lazy to create a new discussion topic? I didn't write any of those parts, I just think it's crucial to differentiate when torture is sanctioned by one country's constitution or when it is criminally practiced. Is there something wrong in pointing out the article needs improvement in clarifying that? What you discussed apparently has nothing to do with what I said. Also, sign your comments using four tildes like this ~ and use : 's to put the discussion in a cascade to facilitate reading and responding to particular issues. PHF 16:41, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh man, nevermind. The "replier" certainly didn´t addressed you. He was too lazy for sure!! :-) Regards Loudenvier 14:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

This article lacks sources
Well, this article do not cite it´s sources. Wikipedia is not a research facility. Only verifiable information can be part of an article. This article do not cite sources. Many things it states are correct from the point of view of a Brazillian, and also from international Human Rights institutions, but none of it seems encyclopaedic. For example, it´s widely known that Brazillian racism is more tied to poverty than skin color, but the racism part tells the contrary. It´s article is in desperate need of attention because material without sources should be deleted. The Carandiru Massacre is blamed as a huge human rights violation, and so Human Rights institutions will try to get the "blamed" convicted resorting to any means. The first judgment was a complete act to get the media satisfied. Even a terrorist is allowed a proper, impartial judgement. The Police men involved were judged by public opinion rather than by an impartial judge and juri. Human Rights should be protecting them from this kind of violation too!!! That´s only to show that this is controvertial matter and wikipedia should never state that one thing is like X when it can be interpreted as both X, Y, Z... Regards Loudenvier 14:18, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

NPOV
this article is 99% negative about Brazil and not sourced. It presents the country like some hellhole with no redeeming virtues.Courtney Akins 01:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't this article be about Human rights in Brazil??? Or the title is wrong, or the article! The title should be Violation of Human rights in Brazil, or Crime of Human rights in Brazil, because it doesn't tell anything about laws and projects to protect people and about real life out of favela (that, sure, is the only part of Brazil the author knows)!--

I agree, the article focus too much on the violations and too little on the good things. Brazil is not a happy little factory of pink laughing gas like Norway, but it is also isn't such a hellhole. I added positive government actions on the slavery part (though I think it needs a rewrite). --200.222.30.9 17:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I LIVE IN BRAZIL
I bet you don´t live in Brazil. I don't either. And I bet we have no idea about you´re talking about: we must SEE with your eyes and FEEL in your skin what is live here, people. Gestapo´s agents were fine persons compared to Policias Militares in Brazil. They EXECUTE people in the middle of street, in daylight, with several witnesses lookin at. And then they threaten the witnesses too.

On last months, on the so-called PCC attacks, more 400 hundred INNOCENT PEOPLE were killed by Policias Militares e Policia Civil in Sao Paulo. Most of then were people backing home after a working day. No criminal files on then, no nothing. Some of then were killed with more 10 shoots. On the back of neck, or in the head. Execution, see?

On a single day, you can be stopped by two or three blocades from Policia Militar. They humilliate you. They ask for money. They do everything to make your life a hell. I know that because I live here, pal, and not in a favela; I live in Sao Paulo city, in a good neighborhood, I´m white, well educated and I have a good job.

And yes, they are even worse with black people. Black people don´t have rights in Brazil. And it´s not a problem of poverty, they mistreat equally healthy or poor black people. Policias Militares assume that if, you´re black, you are a criminal.

And if you want sources, just ask me, or to other brazilians, and to hundreds of human rights defenders living in Brazil. We will send you testimonials, affidavits, video footage and everything you want. Just ask me.

And no, Brazil isn´t a hellhole. From hell you can be redeemed by Almighty God, but sometimes we think God can´t do that in Brazil.
 * Hi. I do live in Brazil and it's not that hell you are talking about. I live in Rio de Janeiro, so I know what is going on here. You tell about 400 inoccent people killed... where did you took those figures? Black people doesn't have human rights here? What the hell are you talking about? You were comparing PM with Gestapo... I really think you do not know what you are talking about. You take the incidents and say they are the rules everywhere around here. You're plainly wrong. Maybe you are one of those that think the MST are the heroes of modern day society. Or, perhaps, you're just scared of living in a developing country, with all the problems attached to it. Sometimes I got revolted with things as they are here... but, overall, I really think it's better to live here than in the xenophobic USA for example, where you would be forever discriminated just by being from latin america. You've painted Brazil as the worst place in the world. You do not place yourself in the shoes of the Policiais Militares... A hell of a salary to risk your life, without the correct instruction, training and equipment. You tell your life is a hell, I tell you the life of a PM is what I would actually call a HELL. It's you that doesn't seems to know what you are talking about. Regards. Loudenvier 14:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I LIVE IN BRASIL - II
I see you live in Barra da Tijuca,in a duplex apartment, and takes a very good life as a upper middle-class, right? Well, it´s not the best point of view to talk about these things, agree? Try to visit some comunnities and ask for real life in a favela - a place you don´t live.

Answering to your points:

400 people is the death toll that Ouvidoria de Policia in Sao Paulo and CRM officialy divulge - not MY numbers, THEIR numbers.

If you live in Rio, and you live, you know PMRJ and BOPE were accused - several times - to escort and cover drug dealers and execute people - see O Dia newspapers.

As a P2 police officer told me one time, nobody is conduced to be a PM - if you dont like, get out and let good people do their job! And PM know about the salary BEFORE enter. Dont you like your salary? Search another job. But don´t blame the system and bribe people as a "prize".

I know exactly what I´m talking about - but I´m pretty sure you wasn´t at Sao Paulo when PCC attacked. I was. We Paulistanos were here. And we bleed a lot.

Try to understand that a very few PM, both soldiers and officer, are good cops. But they face the bad cops. This "macho" statement "PM have a hard life, dont blame him"´- it´s not the answer.

Cops are public servants, and YOU and ME pay him. They are here to PROTECT us - not to scare us!!

I LIVE IN BRAZIL III - Federal Polic of Brazil arrests 75 military police in Rio de Janeiro officers charged of connections with drug dealing

See the link - http://noticias.terra.com.br/brasil/interna/0,,OI1302238-EI5030,00.html

You Live in Brazil
But this does not make you an expert on Brazil.

This article -must- be sourced — I don't care if your great great grandfather was a Brazilian, or if you live in São Paulo or Rio or Recife — you're not an expert and you cannot portray yourself as such. Find sources.

And some of the wording in this article needs to be changed. For example, the government "taking land that is rightfully their (the indigenous people's)". Encyclopaedias do not establish moral limits — they report on facts and, perhaps, opposing viewpoints. They do not take stands unless they can logically be supported by fact. 71.235.66.254 18:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The constitution in Brazil is clear on indigenous rights and squatters rights. The statement you oppose is actually a correct one, but perhpas should be better sourced to avoid WP:SYNTH. Thanks!--Cerejota 07:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Merge from Allegations of Brazilian apartheid
There is a proposal to merge Allegations of Brazilian apartheid into Human rights in Brazil. There is another proposal to rename the Allegations article "Social apartheid in Brazil". Please discuss these proposals at Talk:Allegations of Brazilian apartheid. Lothar of the Hill People 03:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I oppose this proposal, as these are two separate topics. While human rights are touched, it also includes civil rights, and things that go beyond rights. The article belongs as a separate page. Thanks!--Cerejota 07:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with the merge, but HG makes a good point at Talk:Allegations of Brazilian apartheid that we should probably decide on what to call such a section before proceeding.--Cúchullain t/ c 23:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

"serious violations"??
This article is a fucking mess, it is biased and outright WRONG. Please read any reliable report on the HR situation in Brazil, Brazil is a FREE, FAIR, DEMOCRATIC nation. And I have many sources to prove it. Justask me and I will present them. QZXA2 22:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi. Welcome to the article. Colorful comment aside, you're right: this article is generally unsourced and without references. Whatever issues may be true in human rights cases in Brazil, it lacks sources making that case. Hopefully we'll improve it soon.--Dali-Llama 23:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I am asking you present material that contradicts the sourced material present in the article, as per your request. Please be advised this is not a battlefield, nor is it a soapbox... Obrigado!--Cerejota 02:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * While I certainly don't agree with QZX's tone, I have to say that there are no sources in the article-- only "see also's". Unless specific conclusions are sourced, this article has serious issues.--Dali-Llama 02:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I will gladly present my sources. see here: The NGO "Freedom House" rates Brazil as "free". As you can see in the report most Brazil is not the freest nation in the world, but it certainly is a reasonably free, democratic state that generally respects human rights. I would also suggest you read the List of indices of freedom. QZXA2 22:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * This article needs a serious re-write, as I've mentioned. If you'd like to start, I'd contribute on an as-needed basis.--Dali-Llama 23:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I will re-write this article as soon as I can, but I may take a while, as I am currently focusing on similar problems with Russian HR topics. QZXA2 20:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

While I disagree that saying the country's "free" is a good argument to say there aren't HR violations (just look at the U.S.!). Did you know?: The only reference on this entire article is mine. And that was for two lines of text. We need more references! --200.222.30.9 16:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

'Brazil has a sad record of domestic violence, both against children and women'?! Where did this information come from? Could someone source it? I live in Brazil and believe Brazilian families to be amongst the warmest, friendliest in the world. Whoever wrote this article seems to have it for Brazil. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.47.49.127 (talk) 23:05, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

What a ridiculous article!
There aren't, nowadays, serious human rights violations. Unless you count exceptional cases, like the so famous favelas in Rio de Janeiro(which doesn't mirror brazilian situation by any means), there aren't, and there is no motive to believe what this article says since it cite no sources. Furthermore, police abuses are also common in the United States, so whoever is doing this article take your job seriously please, and don't talk about what you don't know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.79.18.217 (talk) 00:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

this information should be relevant because i went on http://www.amnesty.org/en/region/americas/south-america/brazil and most of the info is the same or similar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.254.223 (talk) 09:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Won't this article get changed?
I'm sorry to say this, but this must be one of Wikipedia's worst articles. I mean, not only it shows only one side of this subject (after all, it's about HUMAN RIGHTS and not VIOLATIONS ON HUMAN RIGHTS) but it also entirely lacks reliable information, references and a cleaner text. For example, it says domestic violence is "remarkable" in Brazil, but where is that information? I mean, as far as I know, domestic violence is a world problem, not only Brazil's. Another example is in the text about torture, which mentions tortures in mental institutions - it should say that all the cases discovered by the press happened in ILLEGAL and CLANDESTINE institutions, not any regular mental institution in Brazil. Another case of extremely biased and badly made text is the part referring to favelas - it cites "City of God". What's this about, a teen talking or an encyclopedia? The problems in favelas aren't all showed in "City of God" - and, most importantly, not all favelas are exactly like "City of God"'s one. Oh, and City of God is all about favelas dominated by drug dealers in RIO DE JANEIRO - which contains only about 5% of all Brazilian population. So, please, have this article changed. This is too bad for Brazil's and especially for Wikipedia's reputation. Brazil is an underdeveloped country with lots of human rights violations that concern to us all - but it's not a hell-like warfield like it's showed here. Not at all. High indices of criminality are true and terrible. But this "land of massacres" myth is just plain and dull stereotype, and nothing more. 201.9.167.80 (talk) 06:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)YgorCoelho

Religion
The information in this section is absolutely biased. Brazil has the 11th larget Jewish community of the world. The article presents anti-Semitism almost as if it was a chronic problem, when there's absolutely no support for such an exagerated writing. Three attacks towards Jewish students and "anti-Semitic" graffiti certainly don't justify such a large section with such a heavy alarmist language like we see here. I also never saw anything in the Brazilian press about "Jewish community leaders" expressing "concern over the continued appearance on Web sites of anti-Semitic material compiled by neo-Nazi and "skinhead" groups." We need other independent sources to keep this kind of inflamatory information. Dornicke (talk) 21:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:OVERLINK
This article has way too many internal links. A lot of them are going to disambiguation pages and should be removed. Please review WP:OVERLINK and help remove the erroneous links. Cheers, Joshfinnie (talk) 01:24, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Past tense
Much of this article is written in the past tense, or alternates confusingly between tenses. This occurs in multiple sections. The change of tense blurs the line between the past and present, and makes it appear as though some abuses from the dictatorship period (decades ago) are still being perpetrated today. I would like to propose a sweeping rewrite. Interlaker (talk) 15:36, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Neutrality dispute
I'm not sure if I understand the POV tag on this article. Is there some bias in this article that needs to be corrected? Jarble (talk) 06:47, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://web.archive.org/web/20060820104152/www.unifem.org/news_events/story_detail.php?StoryID=503 https://web.archive.org/web/20070609035728/http://www.hacer.org/current/Brazil101.php https://web.archive.org/web/20090121083656/http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/01/09/brazil.slavery/index.html. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 13:43, 4 May 2021 (UTC)