Debate on life imprisonment in the Constitution generates exchange of accusations between Chega and BE | Constitutional review

The rejection of all parties to the consecration of life imprisonment in the Constitution to punish crimes against life or physical integrity, as proposed by Chega, was confirmed at this Tuesday’s meeting of the constitutional review commission, with the debate becoming heated and generating a harsh exchange of accusations between Pedro Filipe Soares and André Ventura.

The bloquista deputy condemned “with the weight of words” the references that the leader of Chega made to the crime this Tuesday in which a child was killed by his grandfather. “This is the extreme right that has no empathy with the victims to assert their political positions, it is grotesque how they did it”, said Pedro Filipe Soares.

André Ventura countered: “The far left empathizes with criminals – pedophiles, rapists, murderers. It is our choice, it is to be against these bandits.” An accusation that Pedro Filipe Soares repudiated.

The terms “injurious used in the discussion led the deputy of Livre, Rui Tavares, to announce that he will raise the issue in a meeting with the coordinators of the commission.

If the leader of Chega assumed to see this Tuesday’s date as “a good day” to discuss the consecration of life imprisonment in the Constitution, following “several European countries”, the socialist Isabel Moreira concluded the opposite: “I would say that it is a good day to deny life imprisonment, to adhere to our Rule of Law – recalling its abolition in 1884 – which believes in the regeneration of the person”.

The social democrat Mónica Quintela acknowledged having hesitated to develop the debate because it was such a clear matter in which she puts an “insurmountable red line”. “It never hurts to refute popular and populist proposals. The Rule of Law and democracy need to be cared for and well treated ”, she maintained, after making a historical summary of the abolition in Portugal of various penalties such as “scourges” and “brands with a hot iron” in the 19th century.

André Ventura raised the hypothesis (he had already done so in connection with another article) that Osama bin Laden had been “caught in Portugal” and, in that case, sentenced to 25 years in prison for the attacks in the USA in 2001. he would have been free, would have gotten out of his way and, with luck, still managed to get some state subsidy. Does anyone think this is reasonable?”, he questioned. Pedro Filipe Soares replied: “If Bin Laden were alive and living in Portugal, he would probably be a member of Chega. ”

The exchange of accusations between BE and Chega led the chairman of the acting commission, Marta Temido, to warn of the content of the debate, after the chairman, José Silvano, had already shown some exasperation at the digression in the debate and the extension of the intervention times.

“I no longer know the articles we are discussing, but there must be several”, he said, after the discussion on the duties of raising children had slipped to “indoctrination” in schools, and the dissemination of LGBT content in Hungary, extending up for an hour and a half.

Within the scope of article 36.º (family, marriage and filiation), the deputies also rejected another proposal by Chega to only allow marriage from the age of 18 on the grounds that it is not through the constitutional path that child marriage practices are resolved or forced. Liberal João Cotrim Figueiredo considered that the amendments proposed by Chega to article 36 have two purposes: “It involves prejudice against the gypsy community and the other is the Mesquita Guimarães family.”

Another proposal by the PS, for number 2 of article 36.º, which intended to add that the law also regulates the regime of people living in a de facto union, was not accepted by the PSD. “Currently, the de facto union is already in the Constitution through the concept of family”, argued the social democrat Paula Cardoso, quoting the constitutionalist Gomes Canotilho.

The Constitutional Review Commission meetings have taken place without time limitations on individual interventions, only maintaining a maximum of three hours per session, in order to allow for a broad debate, but it is possible that the issue of terms of intervention will be reassessed this Wednesday. fair between the coordinators of the parliamentary groups.

Leave a Comment

I want to Sell this domain contact at [email protected]