Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Author Topic: Epoca Magazine, 06/12/2009  (Read 2315 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline :: ultranol ::

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 192
    • http://www.twitter.com/ultranol
Epoca Magazine, 06/12/2009
« on: June 12, 2009, 04:35:44 PM »
"Simple pieces of truth in the Sean case", by Paulo Moreira Leite

Barbara Gancia pergunta-se na Folha de hoje: “por que Sean Goldman não se foi?”

Ele não foi devolvido ao pai e minha profecia é que não irá.

Embora um juiz de primeira instância já tenha determinado que Sean seja engregue a seu pai, David Goldman, o Supremo Tribunal Federal decidiu que ficará no Brasil até que o caso seja resolvido. E é claro que isso não é coisa para umas poucas semanas.

A cada dia que passar na casa do padrasto, será mais doloroso para Sean sair dali. Laços que vem construindo desde que a mãe o trouxe para viver no Brasil sem autorização do pai estarão mais consolidados.

A família do padrasto já ganhou tempo quando conseguiu colocar o caso para exame no Supremo. Ganhou mais um pouco quando o STF decidiu devolver a disputa para o Rio de Janeiro.

Isso talvez seja só uma prova a mais de minha ignorância em assuntos juridicos, mas acho estranho que nenhum ministro tenha se declarado escandalizado com a situação de um menino que é mantido longe de seu pai há tantos anos. Ninguém enxergou nada de errado?

Não sei se é adequado falar em “sequestro continuado”, como faz o governo americano. Mas até agora não se apresentou outra definição para descrever o que está acontecendo.

De certa forma, Sean pode ser considerado um caso-síntese da justiça brasileira. Não é um caso qualquer, pois envolve aquilo que para muitas pessoas diz respeito a um valor fundamental.

Reune a demanda de uma família rica e influente para ficar com um filho que não é seu. Acho difícil encontrar muitas disputas com a mesma gravidade.  Não é um conflito pela guarda de filho, com o pai de um lado, e a mãe de outro. A mãe morreu.  O pai nunca renunciou à criança.

O pai — a quem o adjetivo “biológico” é acrescentado com tanta insistência que parece ter a finalidade de reduzí-lo a um simples emissor de espermatozóides — é cidadão norte-americano, o que ajuda a alimentar uma espécie de orgulho brasileiro em determinadas platéias.

David Goldman não tem o charme dos bem nascidos e, conforme rumores que a família do padrasto fez chegar a mídia, sem muito cuidado com o bem-estar da criança, também não tem charme naquilo.

Um aspecto importante é que não se trata de uma demanda material, mas afetiva: quem vai criar de um menino de 9 anos?

Vamos pensar em momentos da vida que não tem preço, não podem ser recuperados e apenas lembrados por quem estava por perto: quem vai poder amá-lo, estar a seu lado durante o crescimento, ajudar na lição de casa, receber um abraço demorado no fim do dia, encarar seu rosto todas as manhãs, dizer palavras amáveis nas horas tristes?

É em casos como este que se pode testar nosso apego aos princípios morais. Eles só tem valor quando contrariam nossos interesses e vontades, não é mesmo?

A familia do padastro, que quer ficar com o garoto, está errada em seus pleitos.

Em minha opinião, sua postura é um abuso, de quem se prevalece de uma situação injusta para tentar criar um direito.

Mas a verdade é que é possível sustentar sua causa a partir de argumentos emotivos. O afeto — real — torna difícil aceitar a noção de que estamos diante de uma causa de pobre contra rico.

Mas eu acho que é só por isso que o caso ainda não se resolveu. Na incapacidade de dar uma sentença que iria contrariar as próprias leis brasileiras e a jurisprudência internacional, prefere-se deixar Sean aonde ele está, empurrando a situação.

Se nossos tribunais tem uma histórica difículdade para enfrentar os ricos e bem nascidos  quando questões materiais estão em jogo, o risco de atingí-los afetivamente parece tornar o exercício da Justiça ainda mais difícil.

Talvez se queira firmar a jurisprudência de que no Brasil os ricos também não podem ficar tristes.

A disputa envolve afeto. Mas estamos falando de poder.

Sei que muitas pessoas vão dizer que estou simplificando as coisas.

Às vezes, as verdades são mesmo simples.


TRANSLATION:

Barbara Gancia askes herself in today's Folha: "why didn't Sean Goldman leave?"

He wasn't returned to his father and my prophecy is that he won't be.

Although a first-instance judge had already determined that Sean should be returned to his father, David Goldman, the Brazilian Supreme Court decided that he will stay in Brazil until the case is closed. And of course this is not something that should happen in a few weeks.

Everyday Sean spends in his stepfather's home, it will be more painful for him to leave. Ties that were being built since his mother brought him to live in Brazil without his father grant will be more and more solid.

The stepfather's family already made up time when they sent the case to the Supreme Court. They earned a little bit more when the Supreme Court decided to send the dispute back to Rio de Janeiro.

This is maybe another proof about the ignorance that I have on judicial matters, but I find it weird that no one of the ministers declared himself shocked with the situation of this boy that is kept away from his father for so many years. Did no one think there is something wrong?

I don't know if its the proper expression to say "delayed kidnapping", which is how the American government refers about this case. But until now there is no other definition to describe what is going on.

In a way, Sean may be considered a case that synthetizes the Brazilian justice. It's not a case like many others, because it involves something that, for a lot of people, is a fundamental value.

It sums up the wishes of a rich and powerful family to keep a son that is not theirs. I think it's difficult to find a lot of disputes with the same gravity. It's not a conflict with the father in one side and the mother in other. The mother has died. The father never gave up from his child.

The father - to which the adjective "biological" has been added with so much insistence that its purpose seems to be to reduce him to only a sperm donor - is an American citizen, what helps to harbour some kind of Brazilian pride for a few people.

David Goldman doesn't have the charm of the well-born, and, according to rumours that the family of the stepfather brought to the media, without thinking about the well-being of the child, he is not too charming at "THAT".

An important aspect of this case is that it's not about a material demand, but an affective one: who will raise a 9-year boy?

Let's think about moments in life that are priceless, that once passed cannot be brought again, and that can be only remembered by those who were around: who will be able to love him, be at his side during the passing of the years, helping him with his homework, receiving a big hug at the end of the day, look at his face every morning, say loving words in sad times?

It's in cases like this that we can test our attachment to moral principles. They are only worth when they are going against our interests and wishes, isn't that true?

The stepfather's family, that hopes to stay with the boy, is wrong in its demands.

In my opinion, their posture is an abuse, of who is based in an unfair situation in order to try to create a right.

But the thing is that it's possible to sustain their cause based on emotive arguments. The affection - real - makes it difficult for us to accept the notion that we are witnessing a dispute of the poor versus the rich.

But I think that it's just because of that that the case is not closed yet. Uncapable of giving a sentence that would go against Brazilian laws and international jurisprudence, they prefer to let Sean stay where it is, postponing even more the situation.

If our courts has an historical difficulty to confront the rich and well-born when material issues are in dispute, the risk of effectively damaging them seems to make the exercise of Justice even more complicated.

Maybe they would want to set the jurisprudence that in Brazil rich people cannot be sad.

The dispute involves affection. But we are talking about power.

I know there are a lot of people that will say that I'm simplifying things.

Sometimes, the truth is that simple.

Offline Grace

  • Global Moderator
  • Veteran Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1981
Re: Epoca Magazine, 06/12/2009
« Reply #1 on: June 12, 2009, 05:19:08 PM »
What a horrible horrible article from this guy! With personal insults to David!! We need to set this XXXX straight!

Offline Luc

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 133
Re: Epoca Magazine, 06/12/2009
« Reply #2 on: June 12, 2009, 05:23:16 PM »
It is not bad, he believes the boy should be back with his father and is blaming the judiciary and the brazilian culture that favors the rich. He is very pessimistic and I hope he is wrong, but he is on our side. He is been ironic and may be you misunderstood.

Offline Luc

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 133
Re: Epoca Magazine, 06/12/2009
« Reply #3 on: June 12, 2009, 05:24:46 PM »
He even mentions how insulting the media is by insisting in calling David the BIOLOGICAL father.

Offline Grace

  • Global Moderator
  • Veteran Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1981
Re: Epoca Magazine, 06/12/2009
« Reply #4 on: June 12, 2009, 05:24:51 PM »
Luc you are right, it is ironic, I read it too quickly. What a relief!

Offline Grace

  • Global Moderator
  • Veteran Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1981
Re: Epoca Magazine, 06/12/2009
« Reply #5 on: June 12, 2009, 05:26:44 PM »
Yes, he is being ironic, although initially I thought he was against David. And yes, he is being too pessimistic.

Offline kathy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 491
Re: Epoca Magazine, 06/12/2009
« Reply #6 on: June 12, 2009, 05:44:51 PM »
I thought he was being sincere in the article and pretty much saying ..What the elite cannot be sad cause they have money..Delayed kidnapping cause of the courts..The wishes of the rich and powerful he goes on to say cant keep a son that is not theirs ..It was good!!!

Offline FC_Florida

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 569
Re: Epoca Magazine, 06/12/2009
« Reply #7 on: June 12, 2009, 06:11:59 PM »
I have mixed feeling about this article. The author tries to be neutral, giving explanation for both side's actions.
However, the actions of one side, the mother that is, resulted in this 5 year battle that could have been avoided provided the mother had not been so selfish. Bruna should have never left Brazil for good without resolving her marital situation first. It seems David never had the chance. Now that Sean is "settled" in Brazil, after all their(mother and her family) wrongdoing, it's easy to come up with reasons about why Sean should stay in Brazil.
The brazilian media, for the most part, always refer to the "suffering" of the brazilian family with the possibility of Sean being "taken away". But they never question the suffering of David and his family - Sean's paternal grandparents. They too were robbed of their grandkid. If he's on our side, well that's good. One more sensible journalist in Brazil among the multitude of biased-nationalists ones.
* FC_Florida *

Offline :: ultranol ::

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 192
    • http://www.twitter.com/ultranol
Re: Epoca Magazine, 06/12/2009
« Reply #8 on: June 12, 2009, 06:24:59 PM »
Quote from: FC_Florida;32651
I have mixed feeling about this article. The author tries to be neutral, giving explanation for both side's actions.
However, the actions of one side, the mother that is, resulted in this 5 year battle that could have been avoided provided the mother had not been so selfish. Bruna should have never left Brazil for good without resolving her marital situation first. It seems David never had the chance. Now that Sean is "settled" in Brazil, after all their(mother and her family) wrongdoing, it's easy to come up with reasons about why Sean should stay in Brazil.
The brazilian media, for the most part, always refer to the "suffering" of the brazilian family with the possibility of Sean being "taken away". But they never question the suffering of David and his family - Sean's paternal grandparents. They too were robbed of their grandkid. If he's on our side, well that's good. One more sensible journalist in ffice:smarttags" />Brazil among the multitude of biased-nationalists ones.

I see that he's on our side but he is pessimistic about it.

Offline FC_Florida

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 569
Re: Epoca Magazine, 06/12/2009
« Reply #9 on: June 12, 2009, 06:35:31 PM »
Ultranol,
 
I'm glad you think he's on your side. I prefer your optimism that the author's pessimism!:)
* FC_Florida *

Offline heatheram29

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 763
Re: Epoca Magazine, 06/12/2009
« Reply #10 on: June 12, 2009, 06:51:21 PM »
"Maybe they would want to set the jurisprudence that in Brazil rich people cannot be sad.

The dispute involves affection. But we are talking about power."


LOVE IT!

Offline joey2051

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 412
Re: Epoca Magazine, 06/12/2009
« Reply #11 on: June 12, 2009, 06:54:51 PM »
I wonder why she titles it truth when it was an opinated article. I like the part when she says the ministers and judges don't talk about how wrong this is. I just want a judgento tell him how sorry they are for this to happen. The Brazilian gov should also issue an apology. That's the smallest thing they can do but would be the best.  I guess Brazilian judges are taught to not be sentimental.

Offline joey2051

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 412
Re: Epoca Magazine, 06/12/2009
« Reply #12 on: June 12, 2009, 06:58:49 PM »
No one in brazil seems to even acknowlege the kidnapping!!!!! They just seem to ignore it.

Offline Irish17

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 325
Re: Epoca Magazine, 06/12/2009
« Reply #13 on: June 12, 2009, 06:59:07 PM »
It is simple, it is pessimestic, yet it is for David & Sean being together. It highlights what is wrong with Brazilian Justice system and the rich being treated differently.  
 
And yes, it is that simple.

Offline :: ultranol ::

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 192
    • http://www.twitter.com/ultranol
Re: Epoca Magazine, 06/12/2009
« Reply #14 on: June 12, 2009, 09:29:17 PM »
Quote from: FC_Florida;32657
Ultranol,
 
I'm glad you think he's on your side. I prefer your optimism that the author's pessimism!:)


Yeah, actually, I'm optimistic about him being on our side, but regarding the pessimism about the whole case, I'm not too far from his opinion. But let's not talk about it. I just hope I am not only pessimistic but WRONG about the outcome.