Brazil's Justice Moraes ignores US sanctions, says he will continue doing his job
On Wednesday, the U.S. imposed sanctions on Moraes for overseeing the trial of former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro, accusing the judge of authorizing arbitrary pre-trial detentions and suppressing freedom of expression.
Justice Moraes has presided over the criminal case against Bolsonaro, who has been charged with plotting a coup to overturn Brazil's 2022 presidential election after his supporters violently stormed government buildings following the election victory of leftist Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva.
The U.S. sanctions were accompanied by an executive order imposing a 50% tariff on Brazilian goods, which was also tied to the case Moraes is overseeing against Bolsonaro, an unwavering supporter of the U.S. president.
Bolsonaro, a far-right former army captain, and several of his closest allies were charged with plotting a coup to overturn his 2022 electoral loss, in a case that was in many ways similar to accusations against Trump.
Moraes said the court would not submit itself to foreign coercion or what he likened to new coup attempts by Bolsonaro's allies.
Moraes said the Federal Supreme Court will continue to exercise its role as guardian of the Constitution.
"It will continue to exercise its role in criminal proceedings so that it can provide a final answer to all Brazilian society regarding who was truly responsible" for the attempted coup, he said, adding that there will be due process of law with no internal or external interference.
Congressman Eduardo Bolsonaro, a son of the former president who moved to the U.S. to persuade the White House to intervene in his father's favor, has claimed credit for Trump's policies on Brazil.
"This criminal organization's insistence on implementing measures harmful to Brazil, by encouraging the imposition of these tariffs and making spurious and illegal attacks against Brazilian public officials, is aimed at creating a severe economic crisis in the country," he said. "But to the dismay of these traitorous Brazilians, that crisis will not happen."
Moraes added that the court would conclude the trial of those accused of attempting a coup d'état before the end of the year.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
3 hours ago
- Reuters
All five trapped workers at Chile's Codelco mine found dead
SANTIAGO, Aug 3 (Reuters) - All five trapped workers at Codelco's El Teniente copper mine have been found dead, a regional prosecutor said on Sunday, after rescue teams cleared more than two dozen meters (78 feet) of underground passages that collapsed in a strong tremor last week. Prosecutor Aquiles Cubillo of the O'Higgins region said on Sunday afternoon that the body of the fifth trapped worker had been found. The latest fatality brings the total death toll from the accident to six, including one person who died at the time of the incident on Thursday evening. Codelco discovered the first trapped worker on Saturday and another three on Sunday. It has not yet commented on the final worker.
Reuters
4 hours ago
- Reuters
Brazil's Bolsonaro supporters protest against Supreme Court, President Lula
RIO DE JANEIRO, Aug 3 (Reuters) - Supporters of Brazil's former President Jair Bolsonaro, accused of plotting a coup after he lost the 2022 general election, gathered on the streets of several Brazilian cities on Sunday to protest against Supreme Federal Court (STF) Justice Alexandre de Moraes and President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva. The protesters called for "amnesty" for those involved in the alleged coup attempt days after Lula's inauguration in January 2023. Far-right leader Bolsonaro did not personally attend the demonstrations, but was put on the telephone by his son, Senator Flávio Bolsonaro, during the protest in Rio de Janeiro. The former president, who is on house arrest, wears an electronic ankle bracelet and cannot leave his home on weekends and holidays, as per an order from Justice Moraes. In March, a five-judge STF panel decided unanimously to put Bolsonaro on trial for allegedly conspiring to overthrow Lula. If found guilty in the court proceedings expected later this year, Bolsonaro could face a long prison sentence. Last month, Moraes imposed precautionary measures against Bolsonaro because he believed he and his son, Eduardo, an elected lawmaker who is now living in the U.S., had collaborated with U.S. authorities to try to interfere in Brazilian affairs. Last week, the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump imposed a 50% tariff on most Brazilian goods, citing a "witch hunt" against Bolsonaro. It also imposed financial sanctions against Moraes under the Magnitsky Act, which allows the U.S. to impose economic penalties against foreigners it considers to have a record of corruption or human rights abuses. Moraes is the reporting justice in the case in which Jair Bolsonaro is a defendant. In Sunday's protests, Bolsonaro supporters, wearing Brazilian national team jerseys, chanted "Magnitsky" and insulted Moraes and Lula. American flags and signs supporting Trump were also seen.
Times
7 hours ago
- Times
Labour MPs resist ‘backsliding' Supreme Court trans judgment
Labour MPs have deemed the Supreme Court's ruling on the definition of a woman as 'completely unnecessary' and a 'backslide' on rights, months after the judgment. Analysis by The Times of responses to constituents from Labour MPs found politicians claimed the ruling was being weaponised by the far right and that 'bigots [would] feel empowered by a false belief that the law is now on their side'. The Supreme Court ruled earlier this year that the definition of a woman, in terms of the Equality Act, must be based on biology. It meant that for a service, such as a domestic abuse refuge, to claim to be single-sex, it would have to exclude transgender women. Although many letters sent by MPs, and seen by The Times, featured generic stock responses, an analysis of more than 50 pieces of correspondence revealed how some MPs continued to push back against the ruling and cast doubt over forthcoming guidance being produced by the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), the equality regulator. Andrew Western, a work and pensions minister and the MP for Stretford & Urmston, told one constituent that he believed the case was 'completely unnecessary' and he appreciated 'the fear and distress that has resulted' from it. Josh Newbury, the MP for Cannock Chase, said in a letter it was 'clear in my view that trans women are women and that trans men are men'. He said the Supreme Court ruling did not contradict that but that 'the misinterpretation of, and fallout from, the ruling has wrongly brought this into question'. He said: 'I do not believe it is morally right for trans people to be excluded from single-sex spaces designated for their gender.' In another letter Noah Law, the MP for St Austell and Newquay, said the ruling could 'be used as an excuse to discriminate against transgender people'. He said he feared the ruling would 'serve as a backslide' and added: 'It is, ultimately, not down to any court to decide how people feel living in their own skin, and it seems like obvious common courtesy to let people live in a way that makes them feel happy and safe.' • The trans rights age gap: 'It's infuriating when Mum argues about loos' Emily Darlington, the MP for Milton Keynes Central, suggested the 'far right' was exploiting the issue to sow division. She said: 'The UK is increasingly at odds with European peer countries on trans rights, and anti-trans rhetoric is gaining influence in public and policy spheres.' Louise Haigh, the former transport secretary, said the Equality Act had previously 'rightly been interpreted as inclusive of trans people, including trans women, except in specific and proportionate circumstances'. She said there were some settings where it was right to have space reserved for biological women. Calvin Bailey, the MP for Leyton and Wanstead,wrote: 'In addition to trans people, those who are non-binary or who don't match the gender expectations of others could equally face greater risks of abuse or humiliation. These impacts will be all the worse if the public debate becomes even more toxic and bigots feel empowered by a false belief that the law is now on their side.' Others attempted to take a more balanced approach. In one letter Antonia Bance, the Labour MP for Tipton, Wednesbury and Coseley, told a constituent that she backed the Supreme Court and that in some cases single-sex spaces based on biological sex were 'necessary'. However, she said the guidance being drawn up by the EHRC was unlikely to settle matters. She said: 'I doubt anyone will be entirely satisfied with the outcome — which more than likely will be a messy British compromise.' Bance, who describes herself in her letter as 'a lesbian woman out and proud for the last 26 years', told her constituent that 'civil rights for trans people are non-negotiable'. She said transgender people must be treated with dignity and respect, and added: 'We still have some way to go to make sure no trans person is victimised or discriminated against.' However Bance also said that previous jobs in women's prisons and the domestic abuse sector had shaped her view. She said: 'We need clear rules to ensure that women are safe, and that they can expect privacy and dignity when they are vulnerable — for example because they have directly experienced male violence, or because they are sleeping, receiving intimate care, changing their clothes or showering.' She said these cases were few but 'therefore I support the court's judgment that woman means biological female — it is a clear and commonsense position'. She rejected suggestions that ministers were following an 'overtly transphobic agenda or attacking trans or women's rights'. Alistair Strathern, the MP for Hitchin, told one constituent: 'While I respect the independence of the judiciary, the UK Supreme Court and its decision, I share the concerns of many, including colleagues, of some of the risks and uncertainties opened up by the ruling. These risks have seemed exacerbated by the interim guidance from the EHRC that opens more questions than it answers.' All MPs were contacted for comment. Labour Women's Declaration, a group which backs sex-based rights, said the responses were 'both disappointing and deeply concerning' and risked leaving the public confused over the party's position. A spokeswoman said: 'Of particular concern are the number of MPs and peers who are openly saying that the rights of trans people are under threat. This not only calls into question the legitimacy of the Supreme Court judgment which explicitly states the ruling 'does not remove protection from trans people', it actively fuels fear within the very community they claim to support.' She said: 'We now call upon the government to maintain their resolve and remind outlier Labour MPs, who seek to push their own agenda, of their duty to uphold the law.' Maya Forstater, chief executive of the charity Sex Matters, said that leadership was needed so that MPs understood the law. She said: 'Every government has backbench rebels. But when they make dismissive and factually incorrect statements that run directly counter to the government's stated position, it's a failure of leadership to let them stand.'
