JOANA LOUÇÃ

 .

Perguntarias à Marlboro

como deixar de fumar?

Há uma enorme falta de transparência em tudo o que rodeia a determinação de políticas da UE. Qualquer indústria com conflito de interesses não devia poder ter um lugar na mesa de negociações de políticas públicas que vão afectar todas as pessoas. A boa notícia é que há um precedente.

𝖢𝗈𝗆 𝖼𝖾𝗋𝖼𝖺 𝖽𝖾 𝟥𝟢 𝗆𝗂𝗅 𝗅𝗈́𝖻𝗂𝗌𝗍𝖺𝗌, 𝖡𝗋𝗎𝗑𝖾𝗅𝖺𝗌 𝖾́ 𝖺 𝗌𝖾𝗀𝗎𝗇𝖽𝖺 𝖼𝖺𝗉𝗂𝗍𝖺𝗅 𝖽𝗈 𝗆𝗎𝗇𝖽𝗈 𝖼𝗈𝗆 𝗆𝖺𝗂𝗌 𝗉𝗋𝗈𝖿𝗂𝗌𝗌𝗂𝗈𝗇𝖺𝗂𝗌 𝖽𝗈 𝗅𝗈𝖻𝖻𝗒𝗂𝗇𝗀, 𝖽𝖾𝗉𝗈𝗂𝗌 𝖽𝖾 𝖶𝖺𝗌𝗁𝗂𝗇𝗀𝗍𝗈𝗇 𝖣𝖢. 𝖠 𝗌𝗎𝖺 𝗉𝗋𝖾𝗌𝖾𝗇𝖼̧𝖺 𝗍𝖾𝗆 𝗎𝗆 𝗂𝗆𝗉𝖺𝖼𝗍𝗈 𝖿ı́𝗌𝗂𝖼𝗈 𝗇𝖺 𝖼𝗂𝖽𝖺𝖽𝖾, 𝖼𝗈𝗆 𝖺 𝖼𝗋𝗂𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖽𝖾 𝗎𝗆𝖺 𝖺𝗋𝗊𝗎𝗂𝗍𝖾𝖼𝗍𝗎𝗋𝖺 𝖽𝗈 𝗉𝗈𝖽𝖾𝗋 𝗇𝗈 𝖻𝖺𝗂𝗋𝗋𝗈 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖼𝗂𝗋𝖼𝗎𝗇𝖽𝖺 𝖺𝗌 𝗂𝗇𝗌𝗍𝗂𝗍𝗎𝗂𝖼̧𝗈̃𝖾𝗌 𝖾𝗎𝗋𝗈𝗉𝖾𝗂𝖺𝗌, 𝗈𝗇𝖽𝖾 𝖺 𝗆𝖺́𝗑𝗂𝗆𝖺 𝖽𝗈 𝗂𝗆𝗈𝖻𝗂𝗅𝗂𝖺́𝗋𝗂𝗈 “𝗅𝗈𝖼𝖺𝗍𝗂𝗈𝗇, 𝗅𝗈𝖼𝖺𝗍𝗂𝗈𝗇, 𝗅𝗈𝖼𝖺𝗍𝗂𝗈𝗇” 𝗇𝖺̃𝗈 𝗉𝗈𝖽𝗂𝖺 𝗌𝖾𝗋 𝗆𝖺𝗂𝗌 𝖼𝗅𝖺𝗋𝖺. 𝖮𝗌 𝗉𝗋𝖾́𝖽𝗂𝗈𝗌 𝗌𝖺̃𝗈 𝗆𝖺𝗂𝗈𝗋𝗂𝗍𝖺𝗋𝗂𝖺𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾 𝖾𝖽𝗂𝖿ı́𝖼𝗂𝗈𝗌 𝖽𝖾 𝖾𝗌𝖼𝗋𝗂𝗍𝗈́𝗋𝗂𝗈𝗌 𝗅𝗎𝗑𝗎𝗈𝗌𝗈𝗌, 𝖾 𝗊𝗎𝖾𝗆 𝗈𝗌 𝗈𝖼𝗎𝗉𝖺 𝗇𝖺̃𝗈 𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖺́ 𝗅𝖺́ 𝗉𝗈𝗋 𝖺𝖼𝖺𝗌𝗈. 𝖠𝗌 𝖾𝗌𝗍𝗋𝖺𝗍𝖾́𝗀𝗂𝖺𝗌 𝖾 𝗍𝖾́𝖼𝗇𝗂𝖼𝖺𝗌 𝖽𝖾 𝗅𝗈𝖻𝖻𝗒𝗂𝗇𝗀 𝗍𝖾̂𝗆 𝖿𝗂𝖼𝖺𝖽𝗈 𝖼𝖺𝖽𝖺 𝗏𝖾𝗓 𝗆𝖺𝗂𝗌 𝗌𝗎𝖻𝗍𝗂𝗌 𝖾 𝗌𝗈𝖿𝗂𝗌𝗍𝗂𝖼𝖺𝖽𝖺𝗌, 𝖾 𝗏𝗈𝗎 𝖿𝖺𝗅𝖺𝗋 𝗇𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖾 𝗍𝖾𝗑𝗍𝗈 𝖽𝖺𝗌 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗌𝖾𝗊𝗎𝖾̂𝗇𝖼𝗂𝖺𝗌 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗍𝖾̂𝗆, 𝗆𝖺𝗌 𝗉𝗈𝗋 𝗏𝖾𝗓𝖾𝗌 𝖺𝗂𝗇𝖽𝖺 𝗍𝖾̂𝗆 𝗎𝗆𝖺 𝖼𝗈𝗆𝗉𝗈𝗇𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾 𝗆𝗎𝗂𝗍𝗈 𝖿ı́𝗌𝗂𝖼𝖺 𝖾 𝗆𝖾𝗌𝗆𝗈 𝖻𝖺́𝗌𝗂𝖼𝖺. 𝖴𝗆 𝖾𝗎𝗋𝗈𝖽𝖾𝗉𝗎𝗍𝖺𝖽𝗈 𝗁𝗈𝗅𝖺𝗇𝖽𝖾̂𝗌 𝖽𝖾𝗌𝖼𝗋𝖾𝗏𝖾𝗎-𝗆𝖾 𝗎𝗆𝖺 𝗏𝖾𝗓, 𝗉𝗈𝗋 𝖾𝗑𝖾𝗆𝗉𝗅𝗈, 𝖼𝗈𝗆𝗈 𝖿𝗈𝗂 𝗌𝖾𝗀𝗎𝗂𝖽𝗈 𝖺𝗍𝖾́ 𝖽𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗋𝗈 𝖽𝖺 𝖼𝖺𝗌𝖺 𝖽𝖾 𝖻𝖺𝗇𝗁𝗈 𝗉𝗈𝗋 𝗎𝗆 𝗅𝗈𝖻𝗂𝗌𝗍𝖺 𝖽𝖺 𝗂𝗇𝖽𝗎́𝗌𝗍𝗋𝗂𝖺 𝖿𝗈́𝗌𝗌𝗂𝗅 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗈 𝗊𝗎𝖾𝗋𝗂𝖺 𝗈𝖻𝗋𝗂𝗀𝖺𝗋 𝖺 𝗈𝗎𝗏𝗂𝗋 𝗈 𝗌𝖾𝗎 𝗉𝗈𝗇𝗍𝗈 𝖽𝖾 𝗏𝗂𝗌𝗍𝖺!

𝟩𝟧𝟢𝟢 𝗉𝖾𝗌𝗌𝗈𝖺𝗌 𝗍𝖾̂𝗆 𝗎𝗆 𝗉𝖺𝗌𝗌𝖾 𝖽𝖾 𝗅𝗈𝖻𝗂𝗌𝗍𝖺 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝖺 𝖺𝖼𝖾𝖽𝖾𝗋 𝖺𝗈 𝖯𝖺𝗋𝗅𝖺𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗈 𝖤𝗎𝗋𝗈𝗉𝖾𝗎, 𝗈 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗌𝗂𝗀𝗇𝗂𝖿𝗂𝖼𝖺 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗉𝗈𝖽𝖾𝗆 𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗋𝖺𝗋 𝖾 𝗌𝖺𝗂𝗋 𝗌𝖾𝗆𝗉𝗋𝖾 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗊𝗎𝗂𝗌𝖾𝗋𝖾𝗆, 𝗌𝖾𝗆 𝗊𝗎𝖺𝗅𝗊𝗎𝖾𝗋 𝗌𝗎𝗉𝖾𝗋𝗏𝗂𝗌𝖺̃𝗈 (𝖺𝗈 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗍𝗋𝖺́𝗋𝗂𝗈 𝖽𝖾 𝗍𝗈𝖽𝖺𝗌 𝖺𝗌 𝗈𝗎𝗍𝗋𝖺𝗌 𝗉𝖾𝗌𝗌𝗈𝖺𝗌 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗏𝗂𝗌𝗂𝗍𝖺𝗆 𝖺𝗌 𝗂𝗇𝗌𝗍𝗂𝗍𝗎𝗂𝖼̧𝗈̃𝖾𝗌) 𝖾 𝗉𝗈𝖽𝖾𝗆 𝗈𝗋𝗀𝖺𝗇𝗂𝗓𝖺𝗋 𝖾𝗏𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗈𝗌 𝖽𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗋𝗈 𝖽𝗈 𝗆𝖾𝗌𝗆𝗈. 𝖧𝖺́ 𝗎𝗇𝗌 𝖺𝗇𝗈𝗌 𝖺𝗍𝗋𝖺́𝗌 𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖺𝗏𝖺 𝖾𝗆 𝖽𝗂𝗌𝖼𝗎𝗌𝗌𝖺̃𝗈 𝖺 𝗋𝖾𝖿𝗈𝗋𝗆𝖺 𝖽𝗈 𝖱𝖤𝖠𝖢𝖧 (𝗈 𝗋𝖾𝗀𝗎𝗅𝖺𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗈 𝗋𝖾𝗅𝖺𝗍𝗂𝗏𝗈 𝖺𝗈 𝗋𝖾𝗀𝗂𝗌𝗍𝗈, 𝖺𝗏𝖺𝗅𝗂𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈, 𝖺𝗎𝗍𝗈𝗋𝗂𝗓𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖾 𝗋𝖾𝗌𝗍𝗋𝗂𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖽𝖾 𝗌𝗎𝖻𝗌𝗍𝖺̂𝗇𝖼𝗂𝖺𝗌 𝗊𝗎ı́𝗆𝗂𝖼𝖺𝗌), 𝖺 𝗉𝗋𝗂𝗇𝖼𝗂𝗉𝖺𝗅 𝗅𝖾𝗀𝗂𝗌𝗅𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖽𝖺 𝖴𝖤 𝖽𝖾𝗌𝗍𝗂𝗇𝖺𝖽𝖺 𝖺 𝗉𝗋𝗈𝗍𝖾𝗀𝖾𝗋 𝖺 𝗌𝖺𝗎́𝖽𝖾 𝖾 𝗈 𝖺𝗆𝖻𝗂𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾 𝖽𝖺𝗌 𝗌𝗎𝖻𝗌𝗍𝖺̂𝗇𝖼𝗂𝖺𝗌 𝗊𝗎ı́𝗆𝗂𝖼𝖺𝗌. 𝖭𝖺 𝖺𝗅𝗍𝗎𝗋𝖺, 𝗏𝖺́𝗋𝗂𝖺𝗌 𝗂𝗇𝗏𝖾𝗌𝗍𝗂𝗀𝖺𝖼̧𝗈̃𝖾𝗌 𝖼𝗈𝗆𝖾𝖼̧𝖺𝗋𝖺𝗆 𝖺 𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖺𝖻𝖾𝗅𝖾𝖼𝖾𝗋 𝗎𝗆𝖺 𝗅𝗂𝗀𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗋𝖾 𝗎𝗇𝗌 𝗊𝗎ı́𝗆𝗂𝖼𝗈𝗌, 𝗇𝖾𝗈𝖼𝗈𝗍𝗂𝗇𝗈́𝗂𝖽𝖾𝗌, 𝖾 𝗈 𝖽𝖾𝖼𝗅ı́𝗇𝗂𝗈 𝖽𝖺 𝗉𝗈𝗉𝗎𝗅𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖽𝖾 𝖺𝖻𝖾𝗅𝗁𝖺𝗌 𝖾 𝗈𝗎𝗍𝗋𝗈𝗌 𝗂𝗇𝗌𝖾𝖼𝗍𝗈𝗌 𝗉𝗈𝗅𝖺𝗋𝗂𝗓𝖺𝖽𝗈𝗋𝖾𝗌. 𝖤𝗆 𝗉𝗅𝖾𝗇𝖺 𝖻𝖺𝗍𝖺𝗅𝗁𝖺 𝗉𝖾𝗅𝖺 𝗉𝗋𝗈𝗂𝖻𝗂𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖽𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖺𝗌 𝗌𝗎𝖻𝗌𝗍𝖺̂𝗇𝖼𝗂𝖺𝗌, 𝖺 𝗀𝗂𝗀𝖺𝗇𝗍𝖾 𝖺𝗅𝖾𝗆𝖺̃ 𝖡𝖠𝖲𝖥, 𝗎𝗌𝖺𝗇𝖽𝗈 𝗎𝗆 𝗀𝗋𝗎𝗉𝗈 𝖽𝖾 𝖿𝖺𝖼𝗁𝖺𝖽𝖺 𝖼𝗁𝖺𝗆𝖺𝖽𝗈 “𝖱𝖾𝖽𝖾 𝖽𝖾 𝖡𝗂𝗈𝖽𝗂𝗏𝖾𝗋𝗌𝗂𝖽𝖺𝖽𝖾 𝖽𝖺𝗌 𝖠𝖻𝖾𝗅𝗁𝖺𝗌” 𝗈𝗋𝗀𝖺𝗇𝗂𝗓𝗈𝗎 𝗎𝗆𝖺 𝖾𝗑𝗉𝗈𝗌𝗂𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖽𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗋𝗈 𝖽𝗈 𝖯𝖺𝗋𝗅𝖺𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗈 𝖤𝗎𝗋𝗈𝗉𝖾𝗎 𝖾𝗆 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗋𝖾𝖽𝗎𝗓𝗂𝖺 𝗈 𝗂𝗆𝗉𝖺𝖼𝗍𝗈 𝗇𝖾𝗀𝖺𝗍𝗂𝗏𝗈 𝖽𝗈𝗌 𝗉𝖾𝗌𝗍𝗂𝖼𝗂𝖽𝖺𝗌 𝖾 𝖺𝗍𝗋𝗂𝖻𝗎ı́𝖺 “𝗈𝗎𝗍𝗋𝖺𝗌 𝖼𝖺𝗎𝗌𝖺𝗌” 𝖺𝗈 𝖽𝖾𝖼𝗅ı́𝗇𝗂𝗈 𝖽𝖺 𝗉𝗈𝗉𝗎𝗅𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖽𝖾 𝖺𝖻𝖾𝗅𝗁𝖺𝗌.

𝖤𝗑𝗂𝗌𝗍𝖾 𝗎𝗆 𝗋𝖾𝗀𝗂𝗌𝗍𝗈 𝖽𝖾 𝗍𝗋𝖺𝗇𝗌𝗉𝖺𝗋𝖾̂𝗇𝖼𝗂𝖺 𝖽𝖺 𝖴𝖤, 𝗈𝗇𝖽𝖾 𝖺𝗌 𝖾𝗆𝗉𝗋𝖾𝗌𝖺𝗌 𝖺𝗎𝗍𝗈𝖽𝖾𝖼𝗅𝖺𝗋𝖺𝗆 𝗊𝗎𝖺𝗇𝗍𝗈 𝖽𝗂𝗇𝗁𝖾𝗂𝗋𝗈 𝗀𝖺𝗌𝗍𝖺𝗆 𝖾𝗆 𝗅𝗈𝖻𝖻𝗒𝗂𝗇𝗀, 𝗌𝗈𝖻𝗋𝖾 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗍𝖾𝗆𝖺𝗌 𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖺̃𝗈 𝖺 𝗍𝗋𝖺𝖻𝖺𝗅𝗁𝖺𝗋 𝖾 𝗊𝗎𝖾𝗆 𝗍𝖾̂𝗆 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗍𝗋𝖺𝗍𝖺𝖽𝗈 𝖼𝗈𝗆 𝖺𝖼𝗋𝖾𝖽𝗂𝗍𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝖺 𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗋𝖺𝗋 𝗇𝗈 𝖯𝖺𝗋𝗅𝖺𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗈 𝖤𝗎𝗋𝗈𝗉𝖾𝗎. 𝖲𝖾𝗀𝗎𝗇𝖽𝗈 𝗈 𝗋𝖾𝗀𝗂𝗌𝗍𝗈 𝖽𝖾 𝗍𝗋𝖺𝗇𝗌𝗉𝖺𝗋𝖾̂𝗇𝖼𝗂𝖺, 𝖺𝗌 𝖾𝗆𝗉𝗋𝖾𝗌𝖺𝗌 𝖾 𝖺𝗌 𝗌𝗎𝖺𝗌 𝖺𝗌𝗌𝗈𝖼𝗂𝖺𝖼̧𝗈̃𝖾𝗌 𝖼𝗈𝗋𝗉𝗈𝗋𝖺𝗍𝗂𝗏𝖺𝗌 (𝗉𝗈𝗋 𝖾𝗑𝖾𝗆𝗉𝗅𝗈, 𝗎𝗆𝖺 𝖾𝗆𝗉𝗋𝖾𝗌𝖺 𝖼𝗈𝗆𝗈 𝖺 𝖵𝗈𝗅𝗄𝗌𝗐𝖺𝗀𝖾𝗇 𝖺𝖼𝗍𝗎𝖺 𝖽𝗂𝗋𝖾𝖼𝗍𝖺𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾, 𝗆𝖺𝗌 𝗍𝖺𝗆𝖻𝖾́𝗆 𝖾𝗇𝗊𝗎𝖺𝗇𝗍𝗈 𝗆𝖾𝗆𝖻𝗋𝗈 𝖽𝖺 𝖠𝗌𝗌𝗈𝖼𝗂𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖤𝗎𝗋𝗈𝗉𝖾𝗂𝖺 𝖽𝖾 𝖥𝖺𝖻𝗋𝗂𝖼𝖺𝗇𝗍𝖾𝗌 𝖠𝗎𝗍𝗈𝗆𝗈́𝗏𝖾𝗂𝗌) 𝗀𝖺𝗌𝗍𝖺𝗆 𝖼𝖾𝗋𝖼𝖺 𝖽𝖾 𝟣.𝟥 𝖻𝗂𝗅𝗂𝗈̃𝖾𝗌 𝖽𝖾 𝖾𝗎𝗋𝗈𝗌 𝗉𝗈𝗋 𝖺𝗇𝗈. 𝖤𝗌𝗍𝖾 𝗏𝖺𝗅𝗈𝗋 𝗋𝖾𝖿𝖾𝗋𝖾-𝗌𝖾 𝖺𝗉𝖾𝗇𝖺𝗌 𝖺𝗈 𝗇ı́𝗏𝖾𝗅 𝖽𝖺 𝖴𝗇𝗂𝖺̃𝗈 𝖤𝗎𝗋𝗈𝗉𝖾𝗂𝖺, 𝗉𝗈𝗋𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖺𝗌 𝗉𝗋𝗂𝗇𝖼𝗂𝗉𝖺𝗂𝗌 𝗂𝗇𝖽𝗎́𝗌𝗍𝗋𝗂𝖺𝗌 𝗍𝖺𝗆𝖻𝖾́𝗆 𝗌𝖾 𝖽𝖾𝖽𝗂𝖼𝖺𝗆 𝖺𝗈 𝗅𝗈𝖻𝖻𝗒𝗂𝗇𝗀 𝗇𝗈𝗌 𝖽𝗂𝖿𝖾𝗋𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾𝗌 𝗉𝖺ı́𝗌𝖾𝗌. 𝖯𝗈𝗋𝖾́𝗆, 𝖼𝗈𝗆𝗈 𝖾𝗌𝗌𝖾 𝗋𝖾𝗀𝗂𝗌𝗍𝗈 𝖾́ 𝖺𝗎𝗍𝗈𝖽𝖾𝖼𝗅𝖺𝗋𝖺𝖽𝗈, 𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖾 𝗏𝖺𝗅𝗈𝗋 𝖾́ 𝗌𝖾𝗀𝗎𝗋𝖺𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾 𝗎𝗆𝖺 𝗌𝗈𝖻𝗋𝖾 𝖾𝗌𝗍𝗂𝗆𝖺𝗍𝗂𝗏𝖺.

𝖧𝖺́ 𝗎𝗇𝗌 𝖺𝗇𝗈𝗌 𝖺𝗍𝗋𝖺́𝗌 𝖺 𝖬𝗈𝗇𝗌𝖺𝗇𝗍𝗈 (𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖺𝖼𝗍𝗎𝖺𝗅𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾 𝗉𝖾𝗋𝗍𝖾𝗇𝖼𝖾 𝖺̀ 𝖡𝖺𝗒𝖾𝗋) 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗍𝗋𝖺𝗍𝗈𝗎 𝖺 𝗀𝗂𝗀𝖺𝗇𝗍𝖾 𝖾𝗆𝗉𝗋𝖾𝗌𝖺 𝖽𝖾 𝖼𝗈𝗆𝗎𝗇𝗂𝖼𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖥𝗅𝖾𝗂𝗌𝗁𝗆𝖺𝗇 𝖧𝗂𝗅𝗅𝖺𝗋𝖽 (𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗈𝖼𝗎𝗉𝖺 𝗈 𝗉𝗋𝗂𝗆𝖾𝗂𝗋𝗈 𝗅𝗎𝗀𝖺𝗋 𝗇𝗈 𝗋𝖺𝗇𝗄𝗂𝗇𝗀 𝖽𝖾 𝗊𝗎𝖾𝗆 𝗆𝖺𝗂𝗌 𝖽𝖾𝖼𝗅𝖺𝗋𝖺 𝗀𝖺𝗌𝗍𝖺𝗋 𝖾𝗆 𝗅𝗈𝖻𝖻𝗒𝗂𝗇𝗀 𝗇𝖺 𝖴𝖤, 𝗆𝖺𝗂𝗌 𝖽𝖾 𝟣𝟣 𝗆𝗂𝗅𝗁𝗈̃𝖾𝗌 𝖺𝗇𝗎𝖺𝗅𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾) 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝖺 𝗍𝗋𝖺𝖻𝖺𝗅𝗁𝖺𝗋 𝗌𝗈𝖻𝗋𝖾 𝖺 𝖺𝗎𝗍𝗈𝗋𝗂𝗓𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖽𝖾 𝗎𝗍𝗂𝗅𝗂𝗓𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖽𝗈 𝗀𝗅𝗂𝖿𝗈𝗌𝖺𝗍𝗈. 𝖤𝗌𝗍𝖾 𝖾́ 𝗈 𝗉𝖾𝗌𝗍𝗂𝖼𝗂𝖽𝖺 𝗆𝖺𝗂𝗌 𝗎𝗍𝗂𝗅𝗂𝗓𝖺𝖽𝗈 𝗆𝗎𝗇𝖽𝗂𝖺𝗅𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾, 𝗍𝖺𝗆𝖻𝖾́𝗆 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗁𝖾𝖼𝗂𝖽𝗈 𝗉𝖾𝗅𝗈 𝗇𝗈𝗆𝖾 𝖼𝗈𝗆𝖾𝗋𝖼𝗂𝖺𝗅 𝖽𝖾 𝖱𝗈𝗎𝗇𝖽 𝖴𝗉, 𝖾 𝗁𝖺́ 𝖽𝖾́𝖼𝖺𝖽𝖺𝗌 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗌𝖾 𝖺𝖼𝗎𝗆𝗎𝗅𝖺𝗆 𝖾𝗌𝗍𝗎𝖽𝗈𝗌 𝖾 𝗉𝗋𝗈𝗏𝖺𝗌 𝖽𝖺 𝗌𝗎𝖺 𝗅𝗂𝗀𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖼𝗈𝗆 𝖽𝖾𝗍𝖾𝗋𝗆𝗂𝗇𝖺𝖽𝗈𝗌 𝗍𝗂𝗉𝗈𝗌 𝖽𝖾 𝖼𝖺𝗇𝖼𝗋𝗈 𝖾 𝗈𝗎𝗍𝗋𝗈𝗌 𝗉𝗋𝗈𝖻𝗅𝖾𝗆𝖺𝗌 𝖽𝖾 𝗌𝖺𝗎́𝖽𝖾. 𝖭𝖺 𝖺𝗅𝗍𝗎𝗋𝖺, 𝖺 𝖬𝗈𝗇𝗌𝖺𝗇𝗍𝗈 𝖽𝖾𝖼𝗅𝖺𝗋𝗈𝗎 𝗇𝗈 𝗋𝖾𝗀𝗂𝗌𝗍𝗈 𝖽𝖾 𝗍𝗋𝖺𝗇𝗌𝗉𝖺𝗋𝖾̂𝗇𝖼𝗂𝖺 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗉𝖺𝗀𝗈𝗎 𝟣.𝟦 𝗆𝗂𝗅𝗁𝗈̃𝖾𝗌 𝖺̀ 𝖥𝗅𝖾𝗂𝗌𝗁𝗆𝖺𝗇 𝖧𝗂𝗅𝗅𝖺𝗋𝖽 𝗉𝖾𝗅𝗈 𝗍𝗋𝖺𝖻𝖺𝗅𝗁𝗈, 𝗆𝖺𝗌 𝗎𝗆 𝗐𝗁𝗂𝗌𝗍𝗅𝖾𝖻𝗅𝗈𝗐𝖾𝗋 𝖽𝗂𝗏𝗎𝗅𝗀𝗈𝗎 𝖽𝗈𝖼𝗎𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗈𝗌 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗉𝗋𝗈𝗏𝖺𝗋𝖺𝗆 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗇𝖺 𝗏𝖾𝗋𝖽𝖺𝖽𝖾 𝗍𝗂𝗇𝗁𝖺 𝗉𝖺𝗀𝗈 𝖽𝖾𝗓 𝗏𝖾𝗓𝖾𝗌 𝗆𝖺𝗂𝗌, 𝟣𝟦.𝟧 𝗆𝗂𝗅𝗁𝗈̃𝖾𝗌. 𝖤 𝖺 𝗂𝗇𝖽𝗎́𝗌𝗍𝗋𝗂𝖺 𝗇𝗎𝗇𝖼𝖺 𝗀𝖺𝗌𝗍𝗈𝗎 𝗍𝖺𝗇𝗍𝗈 𝖽𝗂𝗇𝗁𝖾𝗂𝗋𝗈 𝖾𝗆 𝗅𝗈𝖻𝖻𝗒𝗂𝗇𝗀 𝖼𝗈𝗆𝗈 𝗈 𝖿𝖺𝗓 𝗁𝗈𝗃𝖾 𝖾𝗆 𝖽𝗂𝖺. 𝖠𝗉𝖾𝗇𝖺𝗌 𝖺𝗌 𝟧𝟢 𝖾𝗆𝗉𝗋𝖾𝗌𝖺𝗌 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗆𝖺𝗂𝗌 𝖽𝖾𝗌𝗉𝖾𝗇𝖽𝖾𝗆 𝖾𝗆 𝗅𝗈𝖻𝖻𝗒𝗂𝗇𝗀, 𝗀𝖺𝗌𝗍𝖺𝗆 𝖼𝖾𝗋𝖼𝖺 𝖽𝖾 𝟤𝟢𝟢 𝗆𝗂𝗅 𝗆𝗂𝗅𝗁𝗈̃𝖾𝗌 𝖽𝖾 𝖾𝗎𝗋𝗈𝗌 𝗉𝗈𝗋 𝖺𝗇𝗈 𝗇𝖺 𝖴𝖤 – 𝗎𝗆 𝖺𝗎𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗈 𝖽𝖾 𝖽𝗈𝗂𝗌 𝗍𝖾𝗋𝖼̧𝗈𝗌 𝖾𝗆 𝗋𝖾𝗅𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖺 𝟤𝟢𝟣𝟧.

𝖢𝗈𝗆𝗈 𝗌𝖾 𝗏𝖾̂ 𝗉𝖾𝗅𝗈𝗌 𝖾𝗑𝖾𝗆𝗉𝗅𝗈𝗌 𝖺𝖼𝗂𝗆𝖺, 𝗁𝖺́ 𝗎𝗆𝖺 𝖾𝗇𝗈𝗋𝗆𝖾 𝖿𝖺𝗅𝗍𝖺 𝖽𝖾 𝗍𝗋𝖺𝗇𝗌𝗉𝖺𝗋𝖾̂𝗇𝖼𝗂𝖺 𝖾𝗆 𝗍𝗎𝖽𝗈 𝗈 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗋𝗈𝖽𝖾𝗂𝖺 𝖺 𝖽𝖾𝗍𝖾𝗋𝗆𝗂𝗇𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖽𝖾 𝗉𝗈𝗅ı́𝗍𝗂𝖼𝖺𝗌 𝖽𝖺 𝖴𝖤, 𝖺𝗈 𝗊𝗎𝖺𝗅 𝗌𝖾 𝗌𝗈𝗆𝖺 𝗈 𝖽𝖾́𝖿𝗂𝖼𝗂𝗍 𝖽𝖾𝗆𝗈𝖼𝗋𝖺́𝗍𝗂𝖼𝗈 𝖽𝖺𝗌 𝗂𝗇𝗌𝗍𝗂𝗍𝗎𝗂𝖼̧𝗈̃𝖾𝗌 (𝖺 𝗎́𝗇𝗂𝖼𝖺 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗍𝖾𝗆 𝖼𝖺𝗉𝖺𝖼𝗂𝖽𝖺𝖽𝖾 𝗅𝖾𝗀𝗂𝗌𝗅𝖺𝗍𝗂𝗏𝖺, 𝖺 𝖢𝗈𝗆𝗂𝗌𝗌𝖺̃𝗈 𝖤𝗎𝗋𝗈𝗉𝖾𝗂𝖺, 𝖾́ 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗌𝗍𝗂𝗍𝗎ı́𝖽𝖺 𝗉𝗈𝗋 𝗆𝖾𝗆𝖻𝗋𝗈𝗌 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗇𝖺̃𝗈 𝗌𝖺̃𝗈 𝖾𝗅𝖾𝗂𝗍𝗈𝗌 𝗉𝖾𝗅𝗈𝗌 𝖼𝗂𝖽𝖺𝖽𝖺̃𝗈𝗌 𝖾𝗎𝗋𝗈𝗉𝖾𝗎𝗌). 𝖴𝗆 𝗈𝗎𝗍𝗋𝗈 𝗉𝗋𝗈𝖻𝗅𝖾𝗆𝖺 𝖾́ 𝗊𝗎𝖾𝗆 𝖾́ 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗌𝗎𝗅𝗍𝖺𝖽𝗈 𝗉𝖾𝗅𝖺 𝖢𝗈𝗆𝗂𝗌𝗌𝖺̃𝗈 𝖤𝗎𝗋𝗈𝗉𝖾𝗂𝖺 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝖺 𝗌𝗎𝗀𝖾𝗋𝗂𝗋 𝖺 𝗆𝖾𝗅𝗁𝗈𝗋 𝗏𝗂𝖺 𝖽𝖾 𝖺𝖼𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈. 𝖯𝖺𝗋𝖾𝖼𝖾 𝖺𝖻𝗌𝗎𝗋𝖽𝗈, 𝗆𝖺𝗌 𝖺𝗌 𝗂𝗇𝗌𝗍𝗂𝗍𝗎𝗂𝖼̧𝗈̃𝖾𝗌 𝖾𝗎𝗋𝗈𝗉𝖾𝗂𝖺𝗌 𝗍𝖾̂𝗆 𝖿𝖺𝗅𝗍𝖺 𝖽𝖾 𝗉𝖾𝗌𝗌𝗈𝖺𝗅, 𝖾, 𝗉𝗈𝗋𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗍𝖾̂𝗆 𝖽𝖾 𝗉𝗈𝗌𝗌𝗎𝗂𝗋 𝗎𝗆 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗁𝖾𝖼𝗂𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗈 𝖺𝗈 𝗆𝖾𝗌𝗆𝗈 𝗍𝖾𝗆𝗉𝗈 𝗀𝖾𝗇𝖾𝗋𝖺𝗅𝗂𝗓𝖺𝖽𝗈 𝖾 𝗁𝗂𝗉𝖾𝗋 𝖾𝗌𝗉𝖾𝖼𝗂𝖺𝗅𝗂𝗓𝖺𝖽𝗈, 𝖺𝗈 𝗆𝖾𝗌𝗆𝗈 𝗍𝖾𝗆𝗉𝗈 𝗍𝖾́𝖼𝗇𝗂𝖼𝗈 𝖾 𝗉𝗈𝗅ı́𝗍𝗂𝖼𝗈, 𝗆𝗎𝗂𝗍𝖺𝗌 𝗏𝖾𝗓𝖾𝗌 𝗋𝖾𝖼𝗈𝗋𝗋𝖾𝗆 𝖺 𝗉𝖾𝗋𝗂𝗍𝗈𝗌. 𝖤𝗌𝗍𝖾𝗌 𝗀𝗋𝗎𝗉𝗈𝗌 𝖽𝖾 𝗉𝖾𝗋𝗂𝗍𝗈𝗌 𝗌𝖺̃𝗈 𝖾𝗌𝖼𝗈𝗅𝗁𝗂𝖽𝗈𝗌 𝗉𝖾𝗅𝖺 𝗉𝗋𝗈́𝗉𝗋𝗂𝖺 𝖢𝗈𝗆𝗂𝗌𝗌𝖺̃𝗈 𝖾, 𝗌𝗎𝗋𝗉𝗋𝖾𝗌𝖺 𝖽𝖺𝗌 𝗌𝗎𝗋𝗉𝗋𝖾𝗌𝖺𝗌, 𝗌𝖺̃𝗈 𝖽𝗈𝗆𝗂𝗇𝖺𝖽𝗈𝗌 𝗉𝖾𝗅𝖺𝗌 𝖾𝗆𝗉𝗋𝖾𝗌𝖺𝗌 𝖾, 𝗉𝗂𝗈𝗋 𝖺𝗂𝗇𝖽𝖺, 𝗉𝖾𝗅𝖺𝗌 𝖾𝗆𝗉𝗋𝖾𝗌𝖺𝗌 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗍𝖾̂𝗆 𝗎𝗆 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝖿𝗅𝗂𝗍𝗈 𝖽𝖾 𝗂𝗇𝗍𝖾𝗋𝖾𝗌𝗌𝖾𝗌 𝖼𝗅𝖺𝗋𝗈, 𝗉𝗈𝗂𝗌 𝖻𝖾𝗇𝖾𝖿𝗂𝖼𝗂𝖺𝗆 𝖽𝖺𝗌 𝖽𝖾𝖼𝗂𝗌𝗈̃𝖾𝗌 𝗍𝗈𝗆𝖺𝖽𝖺𝗌 𝗉𝖾𝗅𝖺 𝖢𝗈𝗆𝗂𝗌𝗌𝖺̃𝗈. 𝖯𝗈𝗋 𝖾𝗑𝖾𝗆𝗉𝗅𝗈, 𝖽𝖾𝗉𝗈𝗂𝗌 𝖽𝖺 𝖼𝗋𝗂𝗌𝖾 𝖾𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗈́𝗆𝗂𝖼𝖺 𝖽𝖾 𝟤𝟢𝟢𝟪, 𝖺 𝖢𝗈𝗆𝗂𝗌𝗌𝖺̃𝗈 𝖼𝗋𝗂𝗈𝗎 𝗎𝗆 𝗀𝗋𝗎𝗉𝗈 𝖽𝖾 𝗉𝖾𝗋𝗂𝗍𝗈𝗌 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝖺 𝖺𝗋𝗋𝖺𝗇𝗃𝖺𝗋 𝗌𝗈𝗅𝗎𝖼̧𝗈̃𝖾𝗌 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝖺 𝗌𝖺𝗂𝗋 𝖽𝖺 𝖼𝗋𝗂𝗌𝖾. 𝖮 𝗀𝗋𝗎𝗉𝗈 𝖾𝗋𝖺 𝗉𝗋𝖾𝗌𝗂𝖽𝗂𝖽𝗈 𝗉𝗈𝗋 𝖩𝖺𝖼𝗊𝗎𝖾𝗌 𝖽𝖾 𝖫𝖺𝗋𝗈𝗌𝗂𝖾̀𝗋𝖾, 𝖿𝗂𝗀𝗎𝗋𝖺 𝗌𝖾́𝗇𝗂𝗈𝗋 𝖽𝖺 𝗂𝗇𝖽𝗎́𝗌𝗍𝗋𝗂𝖺 𝖿𝗂𝗇𝖺𝗇𝖼𝖾𝗂𝗋𝖺, 𝖾 𝗊𝗎𝖺𝗍𝗋𝗈 𝖽𝗈𝗌 𝗈𝗂𝗍𝗈 𝖾𝗅𝖾𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗈𝗌 𝖽𝗈 𝗀𝗋𝗎𝗉𝗈 𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖺𝗏𝖺𝗆 𝗅𝗂𝗀𝖺𝖽𝗈𝗌 𝖺̀𝗌 𝗆𝖾𝗌𝗆𝖺𝗌 𝗀𝗂𝗀𝖺𝗇𝗍𝖾𝗌 𝖽𝖺 𝖻𝖺𝗇𝖼𝖺 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗍𝗂𝗇𝗁𝖺𝗆 𝗌𝗂𝖽𝗈 𝗋𝖾𝗌𝗉𝗈𝗇𝗌𝖺́𝗏𝖾𝗂𝗌 𝗉𝖾𝗅𝖺 𝖼𝗋𝗂𝗌𝖾 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝖺 𝖼𝗈𝗆𝖾𝖼̧𝖺𝗋 (𝖫𝖾𝗁𝗆𝖺𝗇 𝖡𝗋𝗈𝗍𝗁𝖾𝗋𝗌, 𝖡𝖭𝖯 𝖯𝖺𝗋𝗂𝖻𝖺𝗌, 𝖦𝗈𝗅𝖽𝗆𝖺𝗇 𝖲𝖺𝖼𝗁𝗌 𝖾 𝖢𝗂𝗍𝗂𝗀𝗋𝗈𝗎𝗉). 𝖠 𝖢𝗈𝗆𝗂𝗌𝗌𝖺̃𝗈 𝗋𝖾𝖼𝖾𝖻𝖾𝗎 𝗋𝖾𝖼𝗈𝗆𝖾𝗇𝖽𝖺𝖼̧𝗈̃𝖾𝗌 𝗌𝗈𝖻𝗋𝖾 𝖼𝗈𝗆𝗈 𝗋𝖾𝗀𝗎𝗅𝖺𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖺𝗋 𝗈 𝗌𝖾𝖼𝗍𝗈𝗋 𝖿𝗂𝗇𝖺𝗇𝖼𝖾𝗂𝗋𝗈 𝖽𝗈 𝗉𝗋𝗈́𝗉𝗋𝗂𝗈 𝗌𝖾𝖼𝗍𝗈𝗋 𝖿𝗂𝗇𝖺𝗇𝖼𝖾𝗂𝗋𝗈. 𝖭𝖺̃𝗈 𝖺𝖽𝗆𝗂𝗋𝖺 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖺 𝗋𝖾𝖿𝗈𝗋𝗆𝖺 𝖽𝗈 𝗌𝖾𝖼𝗍𝗈𝗋 𝗍𝖾𝗇𝗁𝖺 𝗌𝗂𝖽𝗈 𝗍𝖺̃𝗈 𝗉𝗈𝗎𝖼𝗈 𝖺𝗆𝖻𝗂𝖼𝗂𝗈𝗌𝖺. 𝖬𝖺𝗂𝗌 𝗋𝖾𝖼𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾, 𝖽𝖾𝗉𝗈𝗂𝗌 𝖽𝖺 𝗂𝗇𝗏𝖺𝗌𝖺̃𝗈 𝖽𝖺 𝖴𝖼𝗋𝖺̂𝗇𝗂𝖺 𝗉𝖾𝗅𝖺 𝖱𝗎́𝗌𝗌𝗂𝖺, 𝖺 𝖺𝗂𝗇𝖽𝖺 𝗉𝗋𝖾𝗌𝗂𝖽𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾 𝖽𝖺 𝖢𝗈𝗆𝗂𝗌𝗌𝖺̃𝗈, 𝖴𝗋𝗌𝗎𝗅𝖺 𝗏𝗈𝗇 𝖽𝖾𝗋 𝖫𝖾𝗒𝖾𝗇, 𝖺𝗇𝗎𝗇𝖼𝗂𝗈𝗎 𝖺 𝖼𝗋𝗂𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖽𝖾 𝗎𝗆 𝗀𝗋𝗎𝗉𝗈 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝖺 𝖺𝗃𝗎𝖽𝖺𝗋 𝖺 𝖴𝖤 𝖺 𝖺𝖻𝖺𝗇𝖽𝗈𝗇𝖺𝗋 𝗈 𝗀𝖺́𝗌 𝗋𝗎𝗌𝗌𝗈 𝖾 𝗉𝗋𝖾𝗏𝖾𝗋 𝖺𝗌 𝗇𝖾𝖼𝖾𝗌𝗌𝗂𝖽𝖺𝖽𝖾𝗌 𝖿𝗎𝗍𝗎𝗋𝖺𝗌 𝗉𝗈𝗋 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝗍𝖾 𝖽𝖺 𝖴𝖤. 𝖮 𝗀𝗋𝗎𝗉𝗈 𝖿𝗈𝗂 𝖼𝗋𝗂𝖺𝖽𝗈 𝖺 𝗉𝖾𝖽𝗂𝖽𝗈 𝖽𝖺 𝖡𝖯, 𝖳𝗈𝗍𝖺𝗅 𝖾 𝖤𝗇𝗂 𝖾 𝖽𝖾𝗅𝖾 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗌𝗍𝖺𝗏𝖺𝗆 𝖺𝗉𝖾𝗇𝖺𝗌 𝖾𝗆𝗉𝗋𝖾𝗌𝖺𝗌, 𝖺 𝗅𝖺𝗋𝗀𝖺 𝗆𝖺𝗂𝗈𝗋𝗂𝖺 𝖽𝖺𝗌 𝗊𝗎𝖺𝗂𝗌 𝖽𝖾 𝖼𝗈𝗆𝖻𝗎𝗌𝗍ı́𝗏𝖾𝗂𝗌 𝖿𝗈́𝗌𝗌𝖾𝗂𝗌, 𝖺𝗈 𝗆𝖾𝗌𝗆𝗈 𝗍𝖾𝗆𝗉𝗈 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖺 𝖢𝗈𝗆𝗂𝗌𝗌𝖺̃𝗈 𝗌𝖾 𝗋𝖾𝖼𝗎𝗌𝖺𝗏𝖺 𝖺 𝗋𝖾𝖼𝖾𝖻𝖾𝗋 𝗋𝖾𝗉𝗋𝖾𝗌𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖺𝗇𝗍𝖾𝗌 𝖽𝖾 𝗀𝗋𝗎𝗉𝗈𝗌 𝖺𝗆𝖻𝗂𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖺𝗅𝗂𝗌𝗍𝖺𝗌. 𝖤́ 𝗆𝖺𝗂𝗌 𝗎𝗆 𝖼𝗅𝖺𝗋ı́𝗌𝗌𝗂𝗆𝗈 𝖾𝗑𝖾𝗆𝗉𝗅𝗈 𝖽𝖾 𝗎𝗆 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝖿𝗅𝗂𝗍𝗈 𝖽𝖾 𝗂𝗇𝗍𝖾𝗋𝖾𝗌𝗌𝖾𝗌, 𝖽𝖺𝗇𝖽𝗈 𝖺𝗈 𝗅𝗈́𝖻𝗂 𝖽𝗈 𝗀𝖺́𝗌 𝗈 𝗉𝗈𝖽𝖾𝗋 𝖽𝖾 𝗂𝗇𝖿𝗅𝗎𝖾𝗇𝖼𝗂𝖺𝗋 𝖺 𝗉𝗈𝗅ı́𝗍𝗂𝖼𝖺 𝖾𝗇𝖾𝗋𝗀𝖾́𝗍𝗂𝖼𝖺 𝖽𝖺 𝖴𝖤 𝖾𝗆 𝗋𝖾𝗌𝗉𝗈𝗌𝗍𝖺 𝖺̀ 𝗂𝗇𝗏𝖺𝗌𝖺̃𝗈, 𝖼𝗅𝖺𝗋𝖺𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾 𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖺𝗆𝗈𝗌 𝖺 𝗉𝗋𝗈𝗅𝗈𝗇𝗀𝖺𝗋 𝖺 𝗇𝗈𝗌𝗌𝖺 𝖽𝖾𝗉𝖾𝗇𝖽𝖾̂𝗇𝖼𝗂𝖺 𝖾𝗆 𝖼𝗈𝗆𝖻𝗎𝗌𝗍ı́𝗏𝖾𝗂𝗌 𝖿𝗈́𝗌𝗌𝖾𝗂𝗌.

𝖬𝖺𝗌 𝖾𝗆 𝟤𝟢𝟤𝟨 𝗇𝖺̃𝗈 𝗉𝗈𝖽𝖾𝗋ı́𝖺𝗆𝗈𝗌 𝖿𝖺𝗅𝖺𝗋 𝖽𝖾 𝗅𝗈𝖻𝖻𝗒𝗂𝗇𝗀 𝗇𝖺 𝖤𝗎𝗋𝗈𝗉𝖺 𝗌𝖾𝗆 𝗋𝖾𝖿𝖾𝗋𝗂𝗋 𝗈 𝗆𝖺𝗂𝗌 𝗉𝗈𝖽𝖾𝗋𝗈𝗌𝗈 𝗌𝖾𝖼𝗍𝗈𝗋, 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗀𝖺𝗌𝗍𝖺 𝗆𝖺𝗂𝗌 𝖽𝗂𝗇𝗁𝖾𝗂𝗋𝗈 𝖺 𝗂𝗇𝖿𝗅𝗎𝖾𝗇𝖼𝗂𝖺𝗋 𝖺𝗌 𝗉𝗈𝗅ı́𝗍𝗂𝖼𝖺𝗌 𝖾𝗎𝗋𝗈𝗉𝖾𝗂𝖺𝗌 𝖽𝗈 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖺𝗅𝗀𝗎𝗆𝖺 𝗏𝖾𝗓 𝖺𝗅𝗀𝗎𝗆 𝗌𝖾𝖼𝗍𝗈𝗋 𝗀𝖺𝗌𝗍𝗈𝗎. 𝟣𝟧𝟣 𝗆𝗂𝗅𝗁𝗈̃𝖾𝗌 𝖾́ 𝗊𝗎𝖺𝗇𝗍𝗈 𝗈𝗌 𝗀𝗂𝗀𝖺𝗇𝗍𝖾𝗌 𝖽𝖺 𝗂𝗇𝖽𝗎́𝗌𝗍𝗋𝗂𝖺 𝗍𝖾𝖼𝗇𝗈𝗅𝗈́𝗀𝗂𝖼𝖺, 𝖻𝗂𝗀 𝗍𝖾𝖼𝗁, 𝖽𝖾𝖼𝗅𝖺𝗋𝖺𝗆 𝗀𝖺𝗌𝗍𝖺𝗋 𝖺𝗇𝗎𝖺𝗅𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾 𝖾𝗆 𝗅𝗈𝖻𝖻𝗒𝗂𝗇𝗀 𝖾𝗆 𝖡𝗋𝗎𝗑𝖾𝗅𝖺𝗌, 𝗎𝗆 𝖺𝗎𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗈 𝖽𝖾 𝟧𝟨% 𝖾𝗆 𝗋𝖾𝗅𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖺 𝟤𝟢𝟤𝟣. 𝖮𝗌 𝗇𝗈𝗆𝖾𝗌 𝗆𝖺𝗂𝗌 𝗌𝗈𝗇𝖺𝗇𝗍𝖾𝗌 𝗌𝖺̃𝗈 𝖺 𝖬𝖾𝗍𝖺, 𝖠𝗆𝖺𝗓𝗈𝗇, 𝖦𝗈𝗈𝗀𝗅𝖾, 𝖠𝗉𝗉𝗅𝖾 𝖾 𝖬𝗂𝖼𝗋𝗈𝗌𝗈𝖿𝗍, 𝖾 𝗈𝗌 𝗍𝖾𝖼𝗁 𝖻𝗋𝗈𝗌 𝗇𝖺̃𝗈 𝗀𝖺𝗌𝗍𝖺𝗆 𝖽𝗂𝗇𝗁𝖾𝗂𝗋𝗈 𝖾𝗆 𝗏𝖺̃𝗈, 𝗈 𝖽𝗂𝗇𝗁𝖾𝗂𝗋𝗈 𝗀𝖺𝗋𝖺𝗇𝗍𝖾 𝗉𝗋𝖾𝗌𝖾𝗇𝖼̧𝖺 𝖾 𝖺𝖼𝖾𝗌𝗌𝗈. 𝖯𝗋𝖾𝗌𝖾𝗇𝖼̧𝖺 𝗉𝗈𝗂𝗌 𝗁𝖺́ 𝗇𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖾 𝗆𝗈𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗈 𝟪𝟫𝟢 𝗅𝗈́𝖻𝗂𝗌𝗍𝖺𝗌 𝖽𝖾𝖼𝗅𝖺𝗋𝖺𝖽𝗈𝗌 𝖺 𝗍𝗋𝖺𝖻𝖺𝗅𝗁𝖺𝗋 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝖺 𝖾𝗌𝗌𝖺 𝗂𝗇𝖽𝗎́𝗌𝗍𝗋𝗂𝖺 – 𝗌𝖺̃𝗈 𝗆𝖺𝗂𝗌 𝖽𝗈 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗈𝗌 𝖾𝗎𝗋𝗈𝖽𝖾𝗉𝗎𝗍𝖺𝖽𝗈𝗌. 𝖤 𝖺𝖼𝖾𝗌𝗌𝗈 𝗉𝗈𝗋𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖺𝗌 𝖼𝗂𝗇𝖼𝗈 𝖾𝗆𝗉𝗋𝖾𝗌𝖺𝗌 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗋𝖾𝖿𝖾𝗋𝗂 – 𝖺𝗉𝖾𝗇𝖺𝗌 𝖾𝗌𝗌𝖺𝗌 𝖼𝗂𝗇𝖼𝗈 – 𝗍𝗂𝗏𝖾𝗋𝖺𝗆 𝖾𝗆 𝗆𝖾́𝖽𝗂𝖺 𝗍𝗋𝖾̂𝗌 𝗋𝖾𝗎𝗇𝗂𝗈̃𝖾𝗌 𝗉𝗈𝗋 𝖼𝖺𝖽𝖺 𝖽𝗂𝖺 𝖽𝖾 𝗍𝗋𝖺𝖻𝖺𝗅𝗁𝗈 𝖼𝗈𝗆 𝖽𝖾𝖼𝗂𝗌𝗈𝗋𝖾𝗌 𝗉𝗈𝗅ı́𝗍𝗂𝖼𝗈𝗌, 𝖽𝗎𝖺𝗌 𝗉𝗈𝗋 𝖽𝗂𝖺 𝖼𝗈𝗆 𝖾𝗎𝗋𝗈𝖽𝖾𝗉𝗎𝗍𝖺𝖽𝗈𝗌, 𝗎𝗆𝖺 𝖼𝗈𝗆 𝗆𝖾𝗆𝖻𝗋𝗈𝗌 𝖽𝖺 𝖢𝗈𝗆𝗂𝗌𝗌𝖺̃𝗈. 𝖳𝗎𝖽𝗈 𝗂𝗌𝗍𝗈 𝖾𝗇𝗊𝗎𝖺𝗇𝗍𝗈 𝖺𝗌 𝗋𝖾𝗀𝗋𝖺𝗌 𝖾 𝗈𝗌 𝗇𝗈𝗌𝗌𝗈𝗌 𝖽𝗂𝗋𝖾𝗂𝗍𝗈𝗌 𝖽𝗂𝗀𝗂𝗍𝖺𝗂𝗌 𝖽𝖺 𝖴𝖤 𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖺̃𝗈 𝗌𝗈𝖻 𝖾𝗇𝗈𝗋𝗆𝖾 𝗉𝗋𝖾𝗌𝗌𝖺̃𝗈 – 𝗍𝖺𝗇𝗍𝗈 𝖾𝗑𝗍𝖾𝗋𝗇𝖺, 𝗉𝖾𝗅𝗈 𝗀𝗈𝗏𝖾𝗋𝗇𝗈 𝖽𝖾 𝖳𝗋𝗎𝗆𝗉, 𝖼𝗈𝗆𝗈 𝗂𝗇𝗍𝖾𝗋𝗇𝖺 𝗉𝖾𝗅𝖺 𝗉𝗋𝗈́𝗉𝗋𝗂𝖺 𝖢𝗈𝗆𝗂𝗌𝗌𝖺̃𝗈 -, 𝗉𝗈𝗇𝖽𝗈 𝖾𝗆 𝗉𝖾𝗋𝗂𝗀𝗈 𝗅𝖾𝗂𝗌 𝖼𝗈𝗆𝗈 𝗈 𝖱𝖦𝖣𝖯 𝖾 𝖺 𝗋𝖾𝗀𝗎𝗅𝖺𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖽𝖺 𝖨𝖠. 𝖮 𝗉𝗈𝖽𝖾𝗋 𝖽𝗈𝗌 𝗍𝖾𝖼𝗁 𝖻𝗋𝗈𝗌 𝗇𝖺̃𝗈 𝖾́ 𝖺𝗉𝖾𝗇𝖺𝗌 𝗌𝖾𝗆 𝗉𝗋𝖾𝖼𝖾𝖽𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾𝗌, 𝖾́ 𝖺𝗅𝗍𝖺𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾 𝗉𝗋𝖾𝗈𝖼𝗎𝗉𝖺𝗇𝗍𝖾 𝖾 𝖺𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗍𝖾𝖼𝖾 𝖺̀ 𝗆𝖾𝖽𝗂𝖽𝖺 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗈 𝗅𝗈𝖻𝖻𝗒𝗂𝗇𝗀 𝗉𝗈𝗋 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝗍𝖾 𝖽𝖺 𝗂𝗇𝖽𝗎́𝗌𝗍𝗋𝗂𝖺 𝗅𝗁𝖾𝗌 𝗀𝖺𝗋𝖺𝗇𝗍𝖾 𝖺𝖼𝖾𝗌𝗌𝗈 𝖺 𝖺𝗌𝗉𝖾𝖼𝗍𝗈𝗌 𝖼𝖺𝖽𝖺 𝗏𝖾𝗓 𝗆𝖺𝗂𝗌 𝖾𝗌𝗌𝖾𝗇𝖼𝗂𝖺𝗂𝗌 𝖽𝖺 𝗌𝗈𝖼𝗂𝖾𝖽𝖺𝖽𝖾, 𝖽𝖺 𝗂𝗇𝖿𝗈𝗋𝗆𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗌𝗎𝗆𝗂𝗆𝗈𝗌 𝖺̀ 𝗂𝗇𝖿𝗋𝖺-𝖾𝗌𝗍𝗋𝗎𝗍𝗎𝗋𝖺 𝖽𝗂𝗀𝗂𝗍𝖺𝗅 𝖽𝖺 𝗊𝗎𝖺𝗅 𝖽𝖾𝗉𝖾𝗇𝖽𝖾𝗆𝗈𝗌.

𝖣𝖾𝗌𝖽𝖾 𝟤𝟢𝟢𝟧 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖺 𝖮𝖭𝖴 𝗂𝗆𝗉𝗅𝖾𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗈𝗎 𝗈 𝖰𝗎𝖺𝖽𝗋𝗈 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝖺 𝗈 𝖢𝗈𝗇𝗍𝗋𝗈𝗅𝗈 𝖽𝗈 𝖳𝖺𝖻𝖺𝖼𝗈, 𝗎𝗆 𝖺𝖼𝗈𝗋𝖽𝗈 (𝖺𝗌𝗌𝗂𝗇𝖺𝖽𝗈 𝗉𝖾𝗅𝖺 𝖴𝖤 𝖾 𝗍𝗈𝖽𝗈𝗌 𝗈𝗌 𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖺𝖽𝗈𝗌 𝗆𝖾𝗆𝖻𝗋𝗈𝗌), 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖾𝗑𝗂𝗀𝖾 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗈𝗌 𝗅𝗈́𝖻𝗂𝗌𝗍𝖺𝗌 𝖽𝖺 𝗂𝗇𝖽𝗎́𝗌𝗍𝗋𝗂𝖺 𝗍𝖺𝖻𝖺𝗊𝗎𝖾𝗂𝗋𝖺 𝗇𝖺̃𝗈 𝗉𝗈𝗌𝗌𝖺𝗆 𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖺𝗋 𝗉𝗋𝖾𝗌𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾𝗌 𝗊𝗎𝖺𝗇𝖽𝗈 𝗌𝖾 𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖺̃𝗈 𝖺 𝖽𝖾𝖼𝗂𝖽𝗂𝗋 𝗉𝗈𝗅ı́𝗍𝗂𝖼𝖺𝗌 𝖽𝖾 𝗌𝖺𝗎́𝖽𝖾 𝗉𝗎́𝖻𝗅𝗂𝖼𝖺. 𝖵𝗈𝗅𝗍𝗈, 𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖺̃𝗈, 𝖺̀ 𝗉𝖾𝗋𝗀𝗎𝗇𝗍𝖺 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖽𝖺́ 𝗍ı́𝗍𝗎𝗅𝗈 𝖺 𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖾 𝖺𝗋𝗍𝗂𝗀𝗈: 𝗉𝖾𝖽𝗂𝗋𝗂𝖺𝗌 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗌𝖾𝗅𝗁𝗈𝗌 𝖺 𝗎𝗆𝖺 𝖾𝗆𝗉𝗋𝖾𝗌𝖺 𝖽𝖾 𝗍𝖺𝖻𝖺𝖼𝗈 𝗌𝗈𝖻𝗋𝖾 𝖼𝗈𝗆𝗈 𝖽𝖾𝗂𝗑𝖺𝗋 𝖽𝖾 𝖿𝗎𝗆𝖺𝗋? 𝖢𝗅𝖺𝗋𝗈 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗇𝖺̃𝗈, 𝖾 𝖽𝖺 𝗆𝖾𝗌𝗆𝖺 𝖿𝗈𝗋𝗆𝖺 𝗊𝗎𝖺𝗅𝗊𝗎𝖾𝗋 𝗂𝗇𝖽𝗎́𝗌𝗍𝗋𝗂𝖺 𝖼𝗈𝗆 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝖿𝗅𝗂𝗍𝗈 𝖽𝖾 𝗂𝗇𝗍𝖾𝗋𝖾𝗌𝗌𝖾𝗌 𝗇𝖺̃𝗈 𝗉𝗈𝖽𝖾 𝗍𝖾𝗋 𝗎𝗆 𝗅𝗎𝗀𝖺𝗋 𝗇𝖺 𝗆𝖾𝗌𝖺 𝖽𝖾 𝗇𝖾𝗀𝗈𝖼𝗂𝖺𝖼̧𝗈̃𝖾𝗌 𝖽𝖾 𝗉𝗈𝗅ı́𝗍𝗂𝖼𝖺𝗌 𝗉𝗎́𝖻𝗅𝗂𝖼𝖺𝗌 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗏𝖺̃𝗈 𝖺𝖿𝖾𝖼𝗍𝖺𝗋 𝗍𝗈𝖽𝖺𝗌 𝖺𝗌 𝗉𝖾𝗌𝗌𝗈𝖺𝗌. 𝖠 𝖻𝗈𝖺 𝗇𝗈𝗍ı́𝖼𝗂𝖺 𝖾́ 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗁𝖺́ 𝗎𝗆 𝗉𝗋𝖾𝖼𝖾𝖽𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾, 𝖾𝗑𝖺𝖼𝗍𝖺𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾 𝖼𝗈𝗆 𝖺 𝗂𝗇𝖽𝗎́𝗌𝗍𝗋𝗂𝖺 𝖽𝗈 𝗍𝖺𝖻𝖺𝖼𝗈. 𝖡𝖺𝗌𝗍𝖺 𝗂𝗆𝗉𝗅𝖾𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖺́-𝗅𝗈 𝗇𝗈𝗌 𝗈𝗎𝗍𝗋𝗈𝗌 𝗌𝖾𝖼𝗍𝗈𝗋𝖾𝗌.

*Doutorada em sociologia da infância

IN "Anticapitalista-Maio/26 .