.

ALINE CÂMARA

A religião ajuda a produzir guerras: 

O que ninguém quer admitir

FONTE:  Aline Câmara - Desperta-02/04/26. 

.

BOM DIA

.

 .

andré, tens de ir ao dentista,

é da pocilga onde chafurdas.

.

.

418-ARTE ARRISCADA

Il mare in catene

Interpretação:

Compagnia Eliopoli 

di Francesco Ventriglia

Concepção:

Massimo Corona Marco Grassi 

 Rivkha Hetherington 

 Paolo Lombardi

Música:

Emiliano Palmieri

FONTE:  lucaparme .

.

Far From The Tree

lewisjackmusic
.

.

O FIM DA MESOPOTÂMIA

Histórias Milenares e mais 2
.

FERNANDA CÂNCIO

 .

Porque é que sou machista,

por Cristina Ferreira

Cristina foi à antena sossegar-nos: por mais ódio que, por mais falta de empatia que, por mais maliciosamente que a interpretem, ela está bem e é até feminista, vejam lá. Quanto à miúda de Loures, quem?

"𝑄𝑢𝑒𝑟𝑜 𝑠𝑎𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜 𝑞𝑢𝑒 𝑒́ 𝑞𝑢𝑒 𝑝𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑎 𝑛𝑎 𝑐𝑎𝑏𝑒𝑐̧𝑎 𝑑𝑒 𝑞𝑢𝑎𝑡𝑟𝑜 𝑗𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑛𝑠 𝑞𝑢𝑒, 𝑜𝑢𝑣𝑖𝑛𝑑𝑜 𝑢𝑚 𝑛𝑎̃𝑜, 𝑛𝑎̃𝑜 𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑝𝑒𝑖𝑡𝑎𝑟𝑎𝑚 𝑎𝑞𝑢𝑒𝑙𝑎 𝑟𝑎𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑔𝑎 (𝑎 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑣𝑎𝑟-𝑠𝑒 𝑖𝑠𝑠𝑜, 𝑝𝑜𝑟𝑞𝑢𝑒 𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑎́ 𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑑𝑎 𝑒𝑚 𝑗𝑢𝑙𝑔𝑎𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑜). 𝑄𝑢𝑒𝑟𝑜 𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑏𝑒𝑟, 𝑞𝑢𝑎𝑛𝑑𝑜 𝑢𝑚 𝑣𝑖𝑜𝑙𝑎𝑑𝑜𝑟 𝑜𝑢𝑣𝑒 𝑜 𝑛𝑎̃𝑜, 𝑝𝑜𝑟𝑞𝑢𝑒 𝑒́ 𝑞𝑢𝑒 𝑒𝑙𝑒 𝑛𝑎̃𝑜 𝑜 𝑜𝑢𝑣𝑖𝑢. 𝐸 𝑛𝑎̃𝑜 𝑜 𝑜𝑢𝑣𝑖𝑢 𝑛𝑎̃𝑜 𝑒́ 𝑛𝑜 𝑠𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑑𝑜 𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑙 𝑑𝑜 𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑚𝑜. 𝑃𝑜𝑟𝑞𝑢𝑒, 𝑒́ 𝑐𝑙𝑎𝑟𝑜, 𝑒𝑙𝑒 𝑛𝑎̃𝑜 𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑠 𝑜𝑢𝑣𝑖𝑟. 𝑃𝑜𝑟𝑞𝑢𝑒 𝑒́ 𝑞𝑢𝑒 𝑒𝑢 𝑠𝑜𝑢 𝑚𝑎𝑐ℎ𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑎 𝑒𝑚 𝑞𝑢𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑟 𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜 𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑝𝑜𝑟𝑡𝑎𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑜 𝑑𝑒 𝑢𝑚 𝑣𝑖𝑜𝑙𝑎𝑑𝑜𝑟.ᐣ”

𝐸𝑠𝑡𝑎 𝑒́ 𝑎 𝑒𝑥𝑝𝑙𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑐̧𝑎̃𝑜 𝑞𝑢𝑒 𝐶𝑟𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑎 𝐹𝑒𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑖𝑟𝑎 𝑑𝑒𝑢 𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑎 𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑐̧𝑎 𝑛𝑜 𝐽𝑜𝑟𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝑁𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝑑𝑎 𝑇𝑉𝐼, 𝑒𝑚 𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑣𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑎 𝑎 𝐽𝑜𝑠𝑒́ 𝐴𝑙𝑏𝑒𝑟𝑡𝑜 𝐶𝑎𝑟𝑣𝑎𝑙ℎ𝑜, 𝑠𝑜𝑏𝑟𝑒 𝑎𝑠 𝑝𝑎𝑙𝑎𝑣𝑟𝑎𝑠 𝑞𝑢𝑒 𝑙ℎ𝑒 𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑚 𝑢𝑚𝑎 𝑚𝑢𝑙𝑡𝑖𝑑𝑎̃𝑜 𝑑𝑒 𝑐𝑟𝜄́𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑠, 𝑚𝑎𝑖𝑠 𝑑𝑒 𝑞𝑢𝑎𝑡𝑟𝑜 𝑚𝑖𝑙 𝑞𝑢𝑒𝑖𝑥𝑎𝑠 𝑛𝑎 𝐸𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑑𝑎𝑑𝑒 𝑅𝑒𝑔𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑑𝑜𝑟𝑎 𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑎 𝑎 𝐶𝑜𝑚𝑢𝑛𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑐̧𝑎̃𝑜 𝑆𝑜𝑐𝑖𝑎𝑙 𝑒 𝑢𝑚𝑎 𝑐𝑎𝑟𝑡𝑎 𝑎𝑏𝑒𝑟𝑡𝑎 𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑡𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑑𝑎 “𝐴 𝑣𝑖𝑜𝑙𝑎𝑐̧𝑎̃𝑜 𝑛𝑎̃𝑜 𝑒́ 𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑒́𝑟𝑖𝑎 𝑑𝑒 𝑜𝑝𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑎̃𝑜”, 𝑛𝑎 𝑞𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝑒́ 𝑎𝑐𝑢𝑠𝑎𝑑𝑎 𝑑𝑒 𝑏𝑎𝑛𝑎𝑙𝑖𝑧𝑎𝑐̧𝑎̃𝑜 𝑑𝑎 𝑣𝑖𝑜𝑙𝑒̂𝑛𝑐𝑖𝑎 𝑒 𝑎𝑢𝑠𝑒̂𝑛𝑐𝑖𝑎 𝑑𝑒 𝑒𝑚𝑝𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑎.

𝐿𝑒𝑚𝑏𝑟𝑒𝑚𝑜𝑠 𝑞𝑢𝑒 𝑝𝑎𝑙𝑎𝑣𝑟𝑎𝑠 𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑎𝑚 𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑎𝑠, 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑑𝑎𝑠 𝑛𝑢𝑚 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑔𝑟𝑎𝑚𝑎 𝑑𝑎 𝑚𝑎𝑛ℎ𝑎̃ 𝑒𝑚 𝑞𝑢𝑒 𝑜𝑠 𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑠 𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑣𝑎𝑚 𝑜 𝑖𝑛𝜄́𝑐𝑖𝑜 𝑑𝑜 𝑗𝑢𝑙𝑔𝑎𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑜 𝑑𝑒 𝑞𝑢𝑎𝑡𝑟𝑜 𝑗𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑛𝑠 𝑎𝑐𝑢𝑠𝑎𝑑𝑜𝑠 𝑑𝑒, 𝑒𝑚 𝑓𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑖𝑟𝑜 𝑑𝑒 𝟸𝟶𝟸𝟻 𝑒𝑚 𝐿𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑒𝑠, 𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑚 𝑣𝑖𝑜𝑙𝑎𝑑𝑜 𝑢𝑚𝑎 𝑎𝑑𝑜𝑙𝑒𝑠𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑒 𝑑𝑒 𝟷𝟼 𝑎𝑛𝑜𝑠 𝑒 𝑑𝑖𝑓𝑢𝑛𝑑𝑖𝑑𝑜 𝑎𝑠 𝑖𝑚𝑎𝑔𝑒𝑛𝑠 𝑑𝑜 𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑚𝑒: “𝑇𝑒𝑚𝑜𝑠 𝑑𝑒 𝑓𝑎𝑙𝑎𝑟 𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑜: 𝑚𝑒𝑠𝑚𝑜 𝑞𝑢𝑒 𝑒𝑙𝑎 [𝑎 𝑚𝑖𝑢́𝑑𝑎] 𝑡𝑒𝑛ℎ𝑎 𝑑𝑖𝑡𝑜 𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑎 𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑎𝑟, 𝑞𝑢𝑎𝑛𝑑𝑜 𝑠𝑎̃𝑜 𝑞𝑢𝑎𝑡𝑟𝑜 𝑞𝑢𝑒 𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑎̃𝑜 𝑛𝑎𝑞𝑢𝑒𝑙𝑎 𝑎𝑑𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑎𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑎 𝑑𝑒 𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑟 𝑎 𝑓𝑎𝑧𝑒𝑟 𝑠𝑒𝑥𝑜 𝑐𝑜𝑚 𝑢𝑚𝑎 𝑟𝑎𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑔𝑎, 𝑎𝑙𝑔𝑢𝑒́𝑚 𝑜𝑢𝑣𝑒.ᐣ 𝐶𝑙𝑎𝑟𝑜 𝑞𝑢𝑒 𝑡𝑒̂𝑚 𝑑𝑒 𝑜𝑢𝑣𝑖𝑟, 𝑚𝑎𝑠 𝑎𝑙𝑔𝑢𝑒́𝑚 𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑑𝑒 𝑎𝑞𝑢𝑒𝑙𝑒 ‘𝑛𝑎̃𝑜 𝑞𝑢𝑒𝑟𝑜 𝑚𝑎𝑖𝑠’.ᐣ”

𝐻𝑎́ 𝑣𝑎́𝑟𝑖𝑜𝑠 𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑜𝑠 𝑚𝑢𝑖𝑡𝑜 𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑎𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑠 — 𝑝𝑜𝑟𝑞𝑢𝑒 𝑚𝑢𝑖𝑡𝑜 𝑟𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑙𝑎𝑑𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑠 — 𝑛𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑜 𝑞𝑢𝑒 𝐶𝑟𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑎 𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑠𝑒 𝑒 𝑞𝑢𝑒 𝑎𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎 𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑜 𝑢𝑚𝑎 𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑔𝑢𝑛𝑡𝑎. 𝐷𝑒𝑠𝑑𝑒 𝑙𝑜𝑔𝑜, 𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑢𝑚𝑖𝑟 𝑞𝑢𝑒 𝑜𝑠 𝑟𝑎𝑝𝑎𝑧𝑒𝑠 (𝑝𝑜𝑟𝑞𝑢𝑒 𝑠𝑎̃𝑜 𝑟𝑎𝑝𝑎𝑧𝑒𝑠, 𝑛𝑎̃𝑜 𝑒́.ᐣ) 𝑝𝑜𝑑𝑒𝑚 𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑟 “𝑎 𝑓𝑎𝑧𝑒𝑟 𝑠𝑒𝑥𝑜 𝑐𝑜𝑚 𝑢𝑚𝑎 𝑟𝑎𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑔𝑎” 𝑠𝑒𝑚 𝑎 𝑜𝑢𝑣𝑖𝑟, 𝑠𝑒𝑚 𝑑𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑚 𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑐̧𝑎̃𝑜 𝑎𝑜 𝑞𝑢𝑒 𝑒𝑙𝑎 𝑑𝑖𝑧, 𝑓𝑎𝑧, 𝑠𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑒, 𝑠𝑒 𝑞𝑢𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑢 𝑛𝑎̃𝑜 𝑞𝑢𝑒𝑟, 𝑒 𝑞𝑢𝑒 𝑖𝑠𝑠𝑜 𝑒́ 𝑢𝑚𝑎 𝑐𝑜𝑖𝑠𝑎 𝑏𝑎𝑛𝑎𝑙, 𝑛𝑎𝑑𝑎 𝑡𝑒𝑚 𝑑𝑒 𝑣𝑖𝑜𝑙𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑜, 𝑟𝑒𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑣𝑎́𝑣𝑒𝑙 𝑜𝑢 𝑖𝑙𝜄́𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑜: “𝐸𝑠𝑡𝑎̃𝑜 𝑛𝑎𝑞𝑢𝑒𝑙𝑎 𝑎𝑑𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑎𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑎.”

𝐷𝑒𝑝𝑜𝑖𝑠, 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑑𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑟 𝑞𝑢𝑒 𝑒́ 𝑎𝑡𝑒́ 𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑑𝜄́𝑣𝑒𝑙, 𝑒𝑥𝑝𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑎́𝑣𝑒𝑙, “𝑟𝑎𝑝𝑎𝑧𝑒𝑠” 𝑛𝑎̃𝑜 𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑜𝑟𝑖𝑧𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑚 𝑢𝑚 “𝑛𝑎̃𝑜 𝑞𝑢𝑒𝑟𝑜 𝑚𝑎𝑖𝑠”. 𝑃𝑜𝑟𝑞𝑢𝑒 𝐶𝑟𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑎 𝑞𝑢𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑎: “𝐴𝑙𝑔𝑢𝑒́𝑚 𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑑𝑒 𝑎𝑞𝑢𝑒𝑙𝑒 𝑛𝑎̃𝑜 𝑞𝑢𝑒𝑟𝑜 𝑚𝑎𝑖𝑠”.ᐣ

“𝐴𝑙𝑔𝑢𝑒́𝑚”. 𝐶𝑜𝑚𝑜 𝑞𝑢𝑒𝑚 𝑑𝑖𝑧 “𝑐𝑎𝑏𝑒 𝑛𝑎 𝑐𝑎𝑏𝑒𝑐̧𝑎 𝑑𝑒 𝑎𝑙𝑔𝑢𝑒́𝑚 𝑞𝑢𝑒 𝑢𝑚𝑎 𝑟𝑎𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑔𝑎 𝑞𝑢𝑒 𝑎𝑙𝑒𝑔𝑎𝑑𝑎𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑒 𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑠 𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑠𝑒𝑥𝑜 𝑑𝑒𝑖𝑥𝑒 𝑑𝑒 𝑞𝑢𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑟 𝑎 𝑚𝑒𝑖𝑜.ᐣ”. 𝐶𝑜𝑚𝑜 𝑞𝑢𝑒𝑚 𝑑𝑖𝑧 “𝑚𝑎𝑠 𝑜 𝑞𝑢𝑒 𝑒́ 𝑞𝑢𝑒 𝑒𝑙𝑎 𝑒𝑠𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑣𝑎, 𝑎𝑜 𝑝𝑜̂𝑟-𝑠𝑒 𝑛𝑎𝑞𝑢𝑒𝑙𝑎 𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑢𝑎𝑐̧𝑎̃𝑜.ᐣ” 𝑄𝑢𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑎̃𝑜, 𝑑𝑒 𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑜, 𝑟𝑒𝑖𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑑𝑎 𝑝𝑒𝑙𝑎 𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑣𝑒𝑛𝑐̧𝑎̃𝑜 𝑑𝑒 𝑢𝑚𝑎 𝑑𝑎𝑠 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑣𝑖𝑑𝑎𝑑𝑎𝑠 𝑛𝑜 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑔𝑟𝑎𝑚𝑎, 𝑎 𝑝𝑠𝑖𝑐𝑜́𝑙𝑜𝑔𝑎 (𝑝𝑠𝑖𝑐𝑜́𝑙𝑜𝑔𝑎, 𝑖𝑚𝑎𝑔𝑖𝑛𝑒-𝑠𝑒) 𝐼𝑛𝑒̂𝑠 𝐵𝑎𝑙𝑖𝑛ℎ𝑎 𝐶𝑎𝑟𝑙𝑜𝑠: “𝑁𝑜́𝑠 𝑡𝑒𝑚𝑜𝑠 𝑑𝑒 𝑠𝑒𝑟 ℎ𝑜𝑛𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑜𝑠 𝑒 𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑞𝑢𝑒 𝑒́ 𝑚𝑢𝑖𝑡𝑜 𝑚𝑎𝑖𝑠 𝑑𝑖𝑓𝜄́𝑐𝑖𝑙 — 𝑛𝑎̃𝑜 𝑞𝑢𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑑𝑜 𝑗𝑢𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑟 𝑛𝑎𝑑𝑎 — 𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑎𝑟 𝑎 𝑚𝑒𝑖𝑜; 𝑒́ 𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑖𝑠𝑜 𝑚𝑢𝑖𝑡𝑜 𝑚𝑎𝑖𝑠 𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑖𝑑𝑎𝑑𝑒 𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑎 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑜𝑙𝑎𝑟 𝑜𝑠 𝑠𝑒𝑢𝑠 𝑖𝑚𝑝𝑢𝑙𝑠𝑜𝑠 𝑞𝑢𝑎𝑛𝑑𝑜 𝑗𝑎́ 𝑣𝑎𝑚𝑜𝑠 𝑎 𝑚𝑒𝑖𝑜 𝑑𝑜 𝑎𝑡𝑜 𝑑𝑜 𝑞𝑢𝑒 𝑎𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑠 𝑑𝑒 𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑒𝑐̧𝑎𝑟 𝑜 𝑎𝑡𝑜. 𝑇𝑒𝑚𝑜𝑠 𝑑𝑒 𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑎 ℎ𝑜𝑛𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑑𝑎𝑑𝑒 𝑒 𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑎 𝑖𝑑𝑎𝑑𝑒 𝑑𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑠, 𝑠𝑒𝑚 𝑗𝑢𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑟 𝑟𝑖𝑔𝑜𝑟𝑜𝑠𝑎𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑒 𝑛𝑎𝑑𝑎.”

𝐸́ 𝑐𝑒𝑟𝑡𝑜 𝑞𝑢𝑒, 𝑛𝑜 𝐽𝑜𝑟𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝑁𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑎𝑙, 𝑎 𝑎𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑑𝑜𝑟𝑎 (𝑎 𝑞𝑢𝑎𝑙, 𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑒-𝑠𝑒, 𝑒́ 𝑡𝑎𝑚𝑏𝑒́𝑚 𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑎 𝑒 𝑎𝑑𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑑𝑜𝑟𝑎 𝑑𝑜 𝑐𝑎𝑛𝑎𝑙), 𝑙𝑎𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑜𝑢 “𝑛𝑎̃𝑜 𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑢𝑠𝑎𝑑𝑜 𝑎𝑠 𝑝𝑎𝑙𝑎𝑣𝑟𝑎𝑠 𝑐𝑒𝑟𝑡𝑎𝑠” 𝑛𝑎 𝑠𝑢𝑎 “𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑔𝑢𝑛𝑡𝑎”, 𝑎𝑑𝑚𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑑𝑜 𝑞𝑢𝑒 𝑠𝑒 𝑎 𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑒 𝑒𝑠𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑡𝑜 𝑛𝑎̃𝑜 𝑠𝑎𝑖𝑟𝑖𝑎 𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑚. 𝑀𝑎𝑠 𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑢𝑠𝑜𝑢 𝑝𝑒𝑑𝑖𝑟 𝑑𝑒𝑠𝑐𝑢𝑙𝑝𝑎, 𝑒 𝑠𝑜𝑏𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑢𝑑𝑜 𝑛𝑎̃𝑜 𝑑𝑖𝑟𝑖𝑔𝑖𝑢 𝑢𝑚𝑎 𝑝𝑎𝑙𝑎𝑣𝑟𝑎 𝑎̀ 𝑗𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑚 𝑑𝑒 𝑐𝑢𝑗𝑎 𝑎𝑙𝑒𝑔𝑎𝑑𝑎 𝑣𝑖𝑜𝑙𝑎𝑐̧𝑎̃𝑜 𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑣𝑎 𝑎 𝑓𝑎𝑙𝑎𝑟 — 𝑛𝑎̃𝑜 𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑠𝑒: 𝑝𝑒𝑐̧𝑜 𝑑𝑒𝑠𝑐𝑢𝑙𝑝𝑎 𝑠𝑒 𝑎𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑙𝑜 𝑞𝑢𝑒 𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑠𝑒 𝑡𝑒 𝑚𝑎𝑔𝑜𝑜𝑢, 𝑠𝑒 𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑒𝑢 𝑞𝑢𝑒 𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑣𝑖𝑎𝑙𝑖𝑧𝑒𝑖, 𝑞𝑢𝑒 𝑡𝑒 𝑐𝑢𝑙𝑝𝑎𝑏𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑧𝑒𝑖.

𝑁𝑎̃𝑜: 𝑛𝑒𝑚 𝑞𝑢𝑎𝑛𝑑𝑜 𝐽𝑜𝑠𝑒́ 𝐴𝑙𝑏𝑒𝑟𝑡𝑜 𝑟𝑒𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑢 𝑜 𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜 𝑑𝑒 𝐶𝑟𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑎 𝑠𝑒𝑟 𝑎𝑐𝑢𝑠𝑎𝑑𝑎 𝑑𝑒 𝑓𝑎𝑙𝑡𝑎 𝑑𝑒 𝑒𝑚𝑝𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑎 𝑒 𝑜𝑏𝑠𝑒𝑟𝑣𝑜𝑢 𝑞𝑢𝑒 𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑎 𝑎𝑞𝑢𝑒𝑙𝑎 𝑟𝑎𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑔𝑎 𝑠𝑜́ 𝑝𝑜𝑑𝑒 𝑠𝑒𝑟 𝑎𝑙𝑡𝑎𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑒 𝑑𝑜𝑙𝑜𝑟𝑜𝑠𝑜 𝑜𝑢𝑣𝑖𝑟 𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑐𝑢𝑡𝑖𝑟 𝑜 𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑢𝑛𝑡𝑜, 𝑟𝑒𝑣𝑖𝑣𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑠 𝑑𝑒𝑡𝑎𝑙ℎ𝑒𝑠 𝑠𝑜𝑏𝑟𝑒 𝑜 𝑞𝑢𝑒 𝑠𝑢𝑐𝑒𝑑𝑒𝑢, 𝑎 𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑣𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑑𝑎 𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑏𝑒𝑢 𝑎 𝑑𝑒𝑖𝑥𝑎. 𝐸𝑚 𝑣𝑒𝑧 𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑠𝑜, 𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑜𝑟𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑢, 𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑡𝑒: “𝑁𝑎̃𝑜 𝑡𝑒𝑛ℎ𝑜 𝑑𝑢́𝑣𝑖𝑑𝑎 𝑛𝑒𝑛ℎ𝑢𝑚𝑎. 𝐶𝑜𝑚𝑜 𝑑𝑒𝑣𝑒 𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑠𝑖𝑑𝑜 𝑚𝑎𝑖𝑠 𝑑𝑜𝑙𝑜𝑟𝑜𝑠𝑜 𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑑𝑎 𝑡𝑢𝑑𝑜 𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑜 𝑞𝑢𝑒 𝑠𝑒 𝑓𝑒𝑧 𝑛𝑜𝑠 𝑑𝑖𝑎𝑠 𝑠𝑒𝑔𝑢𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑠.” 𝑂𝑢 𝑠𝑒𝑗𝑎, 𝑑𝑜𝑙𝑜𝑟𝑜𝑠𝑜 𝑚𝑒𝑠𝑚𝑜 𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑎́ 𝑠𝑖𝑑𝑜 𝑎 𝑜𝑛𝑑𝑎 𝑑𝑒 𝑐𝑟𝜄́𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑠 (𝑖𝑛𝑐𝑙𝑢𝑖𝑛𝑑𝑜 𝑑𝑎 𝑓𝑎𝑚𝜄́𝑙𝑖𝑎 𝑑𝑎 𝑗𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑚) 𝑞𝑢𝑒 𝑠𝑒 𝑎𝑏𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑢 𝑠𝑜𝑏𝑟𝑒 𝑎 𝑎𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑑𝑜𝑟𝑎. 𝑄𝑢𝑒 𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑑𝑎 𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑔𝑢𝑛𝑡𝑜𝑢: “𝑀𝑎𝑠 𝑎 𝑚𝑖𝑛ℎ𝑎 𝑒𝑚𝑝𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑎 𝑒𝑟𝑎 𝑜 𝑞𝑢𝑒̂.ᐣ 𝑁𝑎̃𝑜 𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑔𝑢𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑟 𝑠𝑜𝑏𝑟𝑒 𝑜 𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑝𝑜𝑟𝑡𝑎𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑜 𝑑𝑜 𝑣𝑖𝑜𝑙𝑎𝑑𝑜𝑟.ᐣ 𝐸𝑟𝑎 𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑎 𝑎 𝑒𝑚𝑝𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑎.ᐣ”

𝑃𝑜𝑟𝑞𝑢𝑒 𝐶𝑟𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑎 𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑎́, 𝑔𝑎𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑡𝑒, 𝑓𝑜𝑐𝑎𝑑𝑎 𝑛𝑜 “𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑝𝑜𝑟𝑡𝑎𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑜 𝑑𝑜 𝑣𝑖𝑜𝑙𝑎𝑑𝑜𝑟”. 𝐷𝑎𝜄́ 𝑞𝑢𝑒 𝑓𝑟𝑖𝑠𝑒 𝑞𝑢𝑒 𝑎 𝑠𝑢𝑎 “𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑔𝑢𝑛𝑡𝑎” 𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑔𝑖𝑢 𝑛𝑎 𝑠𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑒̂𝑛𝑐𝑖𝑎 𝑑𝑜 𝑞𝑢𝑒 𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑠𝑒 𝑜𝑢𝑡𝑟𝑜 𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑑𝑜𝑟 𝑑𝑜 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑔𝑟𝑎𝑚𝑎 𝑑𝑎 𝑚𝑎𝑛ℎ𝑎̃, “𝑝𝑠𝑖𝑐𝑜́𝑙𝑜𝑔𝑜 𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑒”: 𝑞𝑢𝑒 “𝑒𝑚 𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑏𝑢𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝑒́ 𝑑𝑖𝑓𝑖𝑐𝜄́𝑙𝑖𝑚𝑜 𝑢𝑚𝑎 𝑣𝜄́𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑎 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑣𝑎𝑟 𝑜 𝑛𝑎̃𝑜.” 𝐸́ 𝑞𝑢𝑒, 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑠𝑠𝑒𝑔𝑢𝑒, ”𝑠𝑎̃𝑜 𝑓𝑒𝑖𝑡𝑎𝑠 𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑔𝑢𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑠 𝑚𝑢𝑖𝑡𝑜 𝑑𝑖𝑓𝜄́𝑐𝑒𝑖𝑠. 𝑇𝑒𝑚𝑜𝑠 𝑢𝑚 𝑗𝑢𝑖𝑧 𝑎̀ 𝑓𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑒 𝑞𝑢𝑒 𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑔𝑢𝑛𝑡𝑎: 𝑀𝑎𝑠 𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑠𝑒 𝑛𝑎̃𝑜.ᐣ 𝑀𝑎𝑠 𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑠𝑒 𝑛𝑎̃𝑜 𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑜.ᐣ 𝐸 𝑜 𝑛𝑎̃𝑜 𝑓𝑜𝑖 𝑒𝑥𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑣𝑜.ᐣ 𝐸 𝑜 𝑛𝑎̃𝑜 𝑓𝑜𝑖 𝑑𝑖𝑡𝑜 𝑒𝑚 𝑎𝑙𝑡𝑎 𝑣𝑜𝑧.ᐣ 𝐸 𝑜 𝑛𝑎̃𝑜 𝑓𝑜𝑖 𝑜𝑙ℎ𝑎𝑑𝑜 𝑝𝑒𝑙𝑜 𝑠𝑒𝑢 𝑣𝑖𝑜𝑙𝑎𝑑𝑜𝑟.ᐣ” 𝑃𝑎𝑟𝑎 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑐𝑙𝑢𝑖𝑟: “𝑃𝑒𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑏𝑒𝑠 𝑜 𝑑𝑖𝑓𝜄́𝑐𝑖𝑙 𝑞𝑢𝑒 𝑒́, 𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑎 𝑢𝑚𝑎 𝑣𝜄́𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑎, 𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑞𝑢𝑒, 𝑒𝑚 𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑏𝑢𝑛𝑎𝑙, 𝑑𝑖𝑧𝑒𝑟 𝑢𝑚𝑎 𝑣𝑒𝑧 𝑚𝑎𝑖𝑠… 𝐸 𝑚𝑎𝑖𝑠, 𝑛𝑒𝑚 𝑠𝑒𝑚𝑝𝑟𝑒 𝑎 𝑣𝜄́𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑎 𝑡𝑒𝑚 𝑐𝑎𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑑𝑎𝑑𝑒 𝑑𝑒 𝑑𝑖𝑧𝑒𝑟 𝑞𝑢𝑒 𝑛𝑎̃𝑜. 𝐻𝑎́ 𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑐̧𝑜̃𝑒𝑠 𝑚𝑢𝑖𝑡𝑜 𝑑𝑖𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑠. 𝐸 𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑜 𝑒𝑢 𝑜𝑢𝑐̧𝑜 ℎ𝑎́ 𝑚𝑢𝑖𝑡𝑜𝑠 𝑎𝑛𝑜𝑠. 𝐻𝑎́ 𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑐̧𝑜̃𝑒𝑠 𝑚𝑢𝑖𝑡𝑜 𝑑𝑖𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑠 𝑑𝑒 𝑣𝜄́𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑎𝑠. 𝐻𝑎́ 𝑣𝜄́𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑎𝑠 𝑞𝑢𝑒 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑔𝑒𝑙𝑎𝑚. 𝑄𝑢𝑒 𝑠𝑎̃𝑜 𝑖𝑛𝑐𝑎𝑝𝑎𝑧𝑒𝑠 𝑑𝑒 𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑞𝑢𝑎𝑙𝑞𝑢𝑒𝑟 𝑡𝑖𝑝𝑜 𝑑𝑒 𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑐̧𝑎̃𝑜. 𝐻𝑎́ 𝑣𝜄́𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑎𝑠 𝑞𝑢𝑒 𝑔𝑟𝑖𝑡𝑎𝑚 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑒 𝑞𝑢𝑒 𝑠𝑒 𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑒, 𝑒 𝑞𝑢𝑒 𝑜 𝑛𝑎̃𝑜 𝑠𝑒𝑗𝑎 𝑐𝑢𝑚𝑝𝑟𝑖𝑑𝑜. 𝐸 𝑠𝑒 𝑒𝑙𝑒 𝑛𝑎̃𝑜 𝑒́, 𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑚𝑜𝑠 𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑡𝑒 𝑢𝑚𝑎 𝑣𝑖𝑜𝑙𝑎𝑐̧𝑎̃𝑜.”

𝑁𝑎̃𝑜 𝑠𝑎𝑏𝑒𝑚𝑜𝑠 𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑜 𝑠𝑎𝑖𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑚 𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑠 𝑒𝑥𝑝𝑙𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑐̧𝑜̃𝑒𝑠 𝑠𝑒 𝐶𝑟𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑎 𝑎𝑠 𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑒 𝑒𝑠𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑡𝑜, 𝑚𝑎𝑠 𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑎 𝑏𝑎𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑡𝑒 𝑐𝑙𝑎𝑟𝑜 𝑞𝑢𝑒 𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑎 𝑒𝑙𝑎 𝑛𝑎̃𝑜 𝑒́ 𝑢𝑚𝑎 𝑞𝑢𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑎̃𝑜 𝑞𝑢𝑒 𝑜𝑠 𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑏𝑢𝑛𝑎𝑖𝑠 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑚 𝑜 𝑠𝑒𝑢 𝑞𝑢𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑎𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑜, 𝑎 𝑠𝑢𝑎 𝑎𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑖𝑎𝑐̧𝑎̃𝑜, 𝑒𝑚 𝑠𝑢𝑚𝑎, 𝑜 𝑠𝑒𝑢 𝑗𝑢𝑙𝑔𝑎𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑜, 𝑛𝑎 𝑣𝜄́𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑎, 𝑚𝑒𝑠𝑚𝑜 𝑠𝑒, 𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑜 𝑠𝑢𝑐𝑒𝑑𝑒 𝑑𝑒𝑠𝑑𝑒 𝟸𝟶𝟷𝟿, 𝑎 𝑙𝑒𝑖 𝑝𝑒𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝑑𝑒𝑓𝑖𝑛𝑒 𝑣𝑖𝑜𝑙𝑎𝑐̧𝑎̃𝑜 𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑜 𝑝𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑐̧𝑎̃𝑜 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑎 𝑎 “𝑣𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑑𝑒 𝑐𝑜𝑔𝑛𝑜𝑠𝑐𝜄́𝑣𝑒𝑙 𝑑𝑎 𝑣𝜄́𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑎” (𝑎𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑠 𝑑𝑒 𝟸𝟶𝟷𝟻 𝑎 𝑗𝑢𝑟𝑖𝑠𝑝𝑟𝑢𝑑𝑒̂𝑛𝑐𝑖𝑎 𝑒𝑥𝑖𝑔𝑖𝑎 𝑎̀ 𝑣𝜄́𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑎 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑣𝑎𝑠 𝑑𝑒 “𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑒̂𝑛𝑐𝑖𝑎”, 𝑛𝑎̃𝑜 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑑𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑑𝑜 𝑠𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑒𝑟 𝑢𝑚 𝑛𝑎̃𝑜 𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑜 𝑠𝑢𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑒).

𝐸 𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑎 𝐶𝑟𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑎 𝑖𝑠𝑠𝑜 𝑛𝑎̃𝑜 𝑒́ 𝑢𝑚𝑎 𝑞𝑢𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑎̃𝑜 𝑝𝑜𝑟𝑞𝑢𝑒, 𝑠𝑒 𝑟𝑒𝑝𝑒𝑡𝑒 𝑞𝑢𝑒 𝑞𝑢𝑒𝑟 𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜 𝑣𝑖𝑜𝑙𝑎𝑑𝑜𝑟, 𝑛𝑎 𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑑𝑎𝑑𝑒 𝑒́ 𝑎 𝑣𝜄́𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑎 𝑞𝑢𝑒 𝑛𝑎̃𝑜 𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑛𝑑𝑒 — 𝑒́ 𝑜 𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑝𝑜𝑟𝑡𝑎𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑜 𝑑𝑎 𝑣𝜄́𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑎 𝑞𝑢𝑒 𝑒𝑙𝑎 𝑝𝑜̃𝑒 𝑒𝑚 𝑐𝑎𝑢𝑠𝑎. 𝐷𝑎𝜄́ 𝑞𝑢𝑒 𝑛𝑜𝑠 𝑞𝑢𝑎𝑠𝑒 𝟹𝟶 𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑢𝑡𝑜𝑠 𝑞𝑢𝑒 𝑑𝑢𝑟𝑜𝑢 𝑎 𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑣𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑎 𝑛𝑢𝑛𝑐𝑎 𝑡𝑒𝑛ℎ𝑎 𝑚𝑎𝑛𝑖𝑓𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑑𝑜 𝑎 𝑠𝑢𝑎 𝑖𝑛𝑑𝑖𝑔𝑛𝑎𝑐̧𝑎̃𝑜 𝑝𝑜𝑟, 𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑜 𝑟𝑒𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑎, 𝑜𝑠 𝑗𝑢𝜄́𝑧𝑒𝑠 𝑠𝑒 𝑓𝑜𝑐𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑚 𝑛𝑎 𝑒𝑥𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑒̂𝑛𝑐𝑖𝑎 𝑎𝑢𝑑𝜄́𝑣𝑒𝑙 𝑑𝑒 𝑢𝑚 𝑛𝑎̃𝑜 𝑜𝑢 𝑑𝑒 𝑢𝑚𝑎 𝑐𝑙𝑎𝑟𝑎 𝑜𝑏𝑗𝑒𝑐̧𝑎̃𝑜 𝑝𝑜𝑟 𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑡𝑒 𝑑𝑎 𝑣𝜄́𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑎, 𝑒𝑚 𝑣𝑒𝑧 𝑑𝑒 𝑓𝑎𝑧𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑚 𝑎𝑜 𝑎𝑟𝑔𝑢𝑖𝑑𝑜 𝑎 𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑔𝑢𝑛𝑡𝑎 𝑜́𝑏𝑣𝑖𝑎: 𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑜 𝑒́ 𝑞𝑢𝑒 𝑠𝑒 𝑐𝑒𝑟𝑡𝑖𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑜𝑢 𝑑𝑎 “𝑣𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑑𝑒 𝑐𝑜𝑔𝑛𝑜𝑠𝑐𝜄́𝑣𝑒𝑙” 𝑑𝑎𝑞𝑢𝑒𝑙𝑎 𝑝𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑜𝑎 𝑑𝑒 𝑠𝑒𝑟 𝑝𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑑𝑎.ᐣ 𝐹𝑜𝑖 𝑎𝑙𝑔𝑢𝑚𝑎 𝑐𝑜𝑖𝑠𝑎 𝑞𝑢𝑒 𝑒𝑙𝑎 𝑓𝑒𝑧.ᐣ 𝐹𝑜𝑖 𝑎𝑙𝑔𝑢𝑚𝑎 𝑐𝑜𝑖𝑠𝑎 𝑞𝑢𝑒 𝑒𝑙𝑎 𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑠𝑒.ᐣ 𝑂𝑢 𝑒𝑙𝑎 𝑛𝑎̃𝑜 𝑓𝑒𝑧 𝑛𝑒𝑚 𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑠𝑒 𝑛𝑎𝑑𝑎 𝑒 𝑚𝑒𝑠𝑚𝑜 𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑚 𝑎𝑐ℎ𝑜𝑢 𝑞𝑢𝑒 𝑒𝑟𝑎 𝑑𝑒 𝑎𝑣𝑎𝑛𝑐̧𝑎𝑟.ᐣ

𝑃𝑜𝑟 𝑚𝑎𝑖𝑠 𝑞𝑢𝑒 𝑛𝑜𝑠 𝑔𝑎𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑡𝑎 𝑞𝑢𝑒 ℎ𝑎́ 𝑚𝑢𝑖𝑡𝑜𝑠 𝑎𝑛𝑜𝑠 “𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑢𝑑𝑎” 𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑒 𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑢𝑛𝑡𝑜, 𝑜 𝑑𝑎 𝑣𝑖𝑜𝑙𝑒̂𝑛𝑐𝑖𝑎 𝑑𝑒 𝑔𝑒́𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑜, 𝑒 𝑞𝑢𝑒 𝑎𝑠 𝑠𝑢𝑎𝑠 𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑔𝑢𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑠 𝑠𝑎̃𝑜 𝑓𝑒𝑖𝑡𝑎𝑠 𝑑𝑒 𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑚𝑎 𝑎 “𝑎𝑗𝑢𝑑𝑎𝑟 𝑎 𝑖𝑛𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑚𝑎𝑟 𝑎𝑠 𝑝𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑜𝑎𝑠 𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑜𝑠 𝑖𝑛𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑚𝑎𝑑𝑎𝑠”, 𝐶𝑟𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑎 𝑠𝑜́ 𝑒𝑣𝑖𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑖𝑎 𝑎 𝑠𝑢𝑎 𝑑𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑚𝑎𝑐̧𝑎̃𝑜, 𝑖𝑔𝑛𝑜𝑟𝑎̂𝑛𝑐𝑖𝑎, 𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑐𝑒𝑖𝑡𝑜. 𝐸 𝑎 𝑠𝑢𝑎 𝑖𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑎, 𝑑𝑒𝑠𝑚𝑒𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑎𝑑𝑎, 𝑎𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑔𝑎𝑛𝑡𝑒, 𝑐𝑟𝑢𝑒𝑙𝑑𝑎𝑑𝑒.

𝐹𝑜𝑖 𝑒𝑙𝑎 𝑎 𝑎𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑑𝑜𝑟𝑎 𝑞𝑢𝑒 𝑒𝑚 𝟸𝟶𝟸𝟶, 𝑎𝑛𝑡𝑒 𝑎 𝑑𝑖𝑓𝑢𝑠𝑎̃𝑜 𝑑𝑒 𝑖𝑚𝑎𝑔𝑒𝑛𝑠 𝑑𝑒 𝑢𝑚𝑎 𝑗𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑚 𝑎 𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑠𝑒𝑥𝑜 𝑐𝑜𝑚 𝑑𝑜𝑖𝑠 𝑗𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑛𝑠 𝑛𝑢𝑚 𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑏𝑜𝑖𝑜, 𝑓𝑎𝑙𝑜𝑢 𝑑𝑜 𝑐𝑎𝑠𝑜 𝑝𝑠𝑖𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑎𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑧𝑎𝑛𝑑𝑜-𝑎, 𝑒𝑛𝑞𝑢𝑎𝑛𝑡𝑜 𝑑𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑠 𝑑𝑖𝑧𝑖𝑎 𝑞𝑢𝑒 𝑒𝑟𝑎 𝑛𝑜𝑟𝑚𝑎𝑙, 𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑜 𝑟𝑎𝑝𝑎𝑧𝑒𝑠 𝑞𝑢𝑒 𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑚, 𝑓𝑎𝑧𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑚 𝑠𝑒𝑥𝑜 𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑚, 𝑒𝑚 𝑞𝑢𝑎𝑙𝑞𝑢𝑒𝑟 𝑠𝜄́𝑡𝑖𝑜, 𝑒𝑙𝑎 𝑒́ 𝑞𝑢𝑒 𝑖𝑎 “𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑟 𝑚𝑎𝑟𝑐𝑎𝑑𝑎”. 𝐹𝑜𝑖 𝑒𝑙𝑎 𝑎 𝑎𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑑𝑜𝑟𝑎 𝑞𝑢𝑒, 𝑓𝑎𝑙𝑎𝑛𝑑𝑜 𝑑𝑒 𝑢𝑚𝑎 𝑚𝑢𝑙ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑞𝑢𝑒 𝑡𝑖𝑛ℎ𝑎 𝑠𝑖𝑑𝑜 𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑑𝑎 𝑝𝑜𝑟 𝑢𝑚 𝑒𝑥-𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑝𝑎𝑛ℎ𝑒𝑖𝑟𝑜, 𝑎 𝑎𝑐𝑢𝑠𝑜𝑢 𝑑𝑒 “𝑠𝑒 𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑝𝑜𝑠𝑡𝑜 𝑎 𝑗𝑒𝑖𝑡𝑜”. 𝐽𝑢𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑛𝑑𝑜, 𝑛𝑎 𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑣𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑎 𝑎 𝐽𝑜𝑠𝑒́ 𝐴𝑙𝑏𝑒𝑟𝑡𝑜 𝐶𝑎𝑟𝑣𝑎𝑙ℎ𝑜: “𝐸𝑠𝑠𝑎 𝑒𝑥𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑎̃𝑜 𝑓𝑜𝑖 𝑢𝑡𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑧𝑎𝑑𝑎 𝑝𝑜𝑟𝑞𝑢𝑒 𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑎́𝑣𝑎𝑚𝑜𝑠 𝑎 𝑓𝑎𝑙𝑎𝑟 𝑑𝑒 𝑢𝑚𝑎 𝑠𝑒𝑛ℎ𝑜𝑟𝑎 𝑞𝑢𝑒 𝑗𝑎́ 𝑒𝑟𝑎 𝑎𝑔𝑟𝑒𝑑𝑖𝑑𝑎 ℎ𝑎́ 𝑎𝑙𝑔𝑢𝑚 𝑡𝑒𝑚𝑝𝑜. 𝐸 𝑛𝑜́𝑠, 𝑎𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑙𝑜 𝑞𝑢𝑒 𝑒́ 𝑜 𝑛𝑜𝑠𝑠𝑜 𝑑𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑟, 𝑒 𝑞𝑢𝑒 𝑜 𝑓𝑖𝑧𝑒𝑚𝑜𝑠, 𝑓𝑜𝑖 𝑎𝑙𝑒𝑟𝑡𝑎𝑟 𝑞𝑢𝑎𝑙𝑞𝑢𝑒𝑟 𝑣𝜄́𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑎 𝑑𝑒 𝑎𝑔𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑎̃𝑜 𝑑𝑒 𝑞𝑢𝑒 𝑛𝑎̃𝑜 𝑝𝑜𝑑𝑒 𝑎𝑏𝑟𝑖𝑟 𝑎 𝑝𝑜𝑟𝑡𝑎 𝑎 𝑢𝑚 𝑎𝑔𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑜𝑟. 𝑁𝑎̃𝑜 𝑝𝑜𝑑𝑒 𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑟 𝑛𝑜 𝑐𝑎𝑟𝑟𝑜 𝑐𝑜𝑚 𝑎𝑙𝑔𝑢𝑒́𝑚 𝑞𝑢𝑒 𝑗𝑎́ 𝑎 𝑎𝑔𝑟𝑒𝑑𝑖𝑢, 𝑐𝑜𝑚 𝑎𝑙𝑔𝑢𝑒́𝑚 𝑞𝑢𝑒 𝑗𝑎́ 𝑎 𝑎𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑐̧𝑜𝑢. 𝑃𝑜𝑟𝑞𝑢𝑒̂.ᐣ 𝑃𝑜𝑟𝑞𝑢𝑒 𝑠𝑎𝑏𝑒𝑚𝑜𝑠 𝑞𝑢𝑒 𝑒́ 𝑎𝜄́ 𝑞𝑢𝑒 𝑎𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑐𝑒.”

𝐸́ 𝑡𝑢𝑑𝑜 𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑎 𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑟 𝑎𝑠 𝑝𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑜𝑎𝑠, 𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑏𝑒𝑚.ᐣ 𝑃𝑎𝑟𝑎 𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑟 𝑎𝑠 𝑝𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑜𝑎𝑠 𝑎 𝑐𝑢𝑙𝑝𝑎𝑏𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑧𝑎𝑟 𝑎𝑠 𝑣𝜄́𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑎𝑠, 𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑎 𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑟 𝑞𝑢𝑒 𝑎𝑠 𝑚𝑢𝑙ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑠 𝑡𝑒̂𝑚 𝑑𝑒 𝑚𝑒𝑑𝑖𝑟 𝑏𝑒𝑚 𝑜𝑠 𝑟𝑖𝑠𝑐𝑜𝑠, 𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑐𝑢𝑖𝑑𝑎𝑑𝑜, 𝑒 𝑞𝑢𝑒 𝑜𝑠 ℎ𝑜𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑠, 𝑜𝑠 𝑟𝑎𝑝𝑎𝑧𝑒𝑠, 𝑠𝑎̃𝑜 𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑚 𝑢𝑚𝑎 𝑒𝑠𝑝𝑒́𝑐𝑖𝑒 𝑑𝑒 𝑎𝑛𝑖𝑚𝑎𝑖𝑠 𝑠𝑒𝑙𝑣𝑎𝑔𝑒𝑛𝑠 𝑖𝑛𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑜𝑙𝑎́𝑣𝑒𝑖𝑠, “𝑛𝑎𝑞𝑢𝑒𝑙𝑎 𝑎𝑑𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑎𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑎”.

𝐸 𝑝𝑜𝑟 𝑓𝑎𝑣𝑜𝑟 𝑛𝑎̃𝑜 𝑠𝑒 𝑠𝑒 𝑑𝑖𝑔𝑎, 𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑜 𝐶𝑟𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑎 𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑣𝑖𝑢 𝑞𝑢𝑒 𝑠𝑒 𝑑𝑖𝑟𝑖𝑎 𝑚𝑎𝑙 𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑒 𝑎 𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑣𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑎, 𝑞𝑢𝑒 𝑒𝑙𝑎 𝑠𝑒 𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑣𝑒 𝑎 𝑣𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑖𝑧𝑎𝑟, 𝑞𝑢𝑒 𝑒́ 𝑛𝑎𝑟𝑐𝑖𝑠𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑎, 𝑞𝑢𝑒 𝑛𝑎̃𝑜 𝑡𝑒𝑚 𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑐̧𝑎̃𝑜 𝑑𝑜𝑠 𝑠𝑒𝑢𝑠 𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑝𝑜𝑟𝑡𝑎𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑜𝑠, 𝑞𝑢𝑒 𝑛𝑎̃𝑜 𝑡𝑒𝑚 𝑞𝑢𝑎𝑙𝑞𝑢𝑒𝑟 𝑡𝑖𝑝𝑜 𝑑𝑒 𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑝𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑎𝑏𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑑𝑎𝑑𝑒 𝑠𝑜𝑐𝑖𝑎𝑙. 𝑅𝑒𝑎𝑙𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑒: 𝑛𝑒𝑚 𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑒𝑐̧𝑜𝑢 𝑎 𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑣𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑎 𝑝𝑜𝑟 𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑒𝑔𝑢𝑟𝑎𝑟 “𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑜𝑢 𝑏𝑒𝑚”, 𝑛𝑒𝑚 𝑟𝑒𝑑𝑢𝑧𝑖𝑢 𝑎𝑠 𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑠 𝑞𝑢𝑒 𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑒𝑏𝑒𝑢 𝑎 “𝑜́𝑑𝑖𝑜” 𝑒 “𝑏𝑢𝑠𝑐𝑎 𝑑𝑒 𝑣𝑖𝑠𝑢𝑎𝑙𝑖𝑧𝑎𝑐̧𝑜̃𝑒𝑠”, 𝑛𝑒𝑚 𝑎𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑐̧𝑜𝑢 𝑞𝑢𝑒 𝑛𝑜 𝑑𝑖𝑎 𝑒𝑚 𝑞𝑢𝑒 𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑎 𝑞𝑢𝑒 “𝑎𝑜 𝑚𝑒 𝑠𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑟 𝑛𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑎 𝑐𝑎𝑑𝑒𝑖𝑟𝑎 𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒𝑟 𝑎 𝑝𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑎𝑟 𝑛𝑎𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑙𝑜 𝑞𝑢𝑒 𝑣𝑜𝑢 𝑑𝑖𝑧𝑒𝑟, 𝑛𝑜 𝑞𝑢𝑒 𝑛𝑎̃𝑜 𝑝𝑜𝑠𝑠𝑜 𝑑𝑖𝑧𝑒𝑟, 𝑛𝑎𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑙𝑜 𝑞𝑢𝑒 𝑛𝑎̃𝑜 𝑚𝑒 𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑚𝑖𝑡𝑒𝑚 𝑑𝑖𝑧𝑒𝑟, 𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑎́ 𝑛𝑎 ℎ𝑜𝑟𝑎 𝑑𝑒 𝑖𝑟 𝑒𝑚𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑎.”

𝐶𝑜𝑚𝑜 𝑒́ 𝑞𝑢𝑒 𝑎𝑙𝑔𝑢𝑒́𝑚 𝑠𝑒 𝑝𝑜𝑑𝑒𝑟𝑎́ 𝑎𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑟 𝑎 𝑒𝑥𝑖𝑔𝑖𝑟 𝑎 𝐶𝑟𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑎 𝑞𝑢𝑒, 𝑎𝑛𝑡𝑒 𝑜𝑠 𝑚𝑖𝑙ℎ𝑜̃𝑒𝑠 𝑞𝑢𝑒 𝑎 𝑣𝑒𝑒𝑚 𝑒 𝑠𝑒𝑔𝑢𝑒𝑚, 𝑛𝑜 𝑙𝑢𝑔𝑎𝑟 𝑒𝑚 𝑞𝑢𝑒 𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑎́, 𝑝𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑒 𝑛𝑎𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑙𝑜 𝑞𝑢𝑒 𝑣𝑎𝑖 𝑑𝑖𝑧𝑒𝑟 𝑒 𝑛𝑜 𝑞𝑢𝑒 𝑛𝑎̃𝑜 𝑑𝑒𝑣𝑒 𝑑𝑖𝑧𝑒𝑟.ᐣ

𝐸 — 𝑖𝑠𝑠𝑜 𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎̃𝑜 — 𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑜 𝑝𝑜𝑑𝑒𝑚 𝑐ℎ𝑎𝑚𝑎𝑟-𝑙ℎ𝑒 𝑚𝑎𝑐ℎ𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑎, 𝑙𝑜𝑔𝑜 𝑎 𝑒𝑙𝑎 𝑞𝑢𝑒, 𝑠𝑒 𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑠 𝑣𝑒𝑧𝑒𝑠 𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑒𝑔𝑢𝑟𝑜𝑢 𝑛𝑎̃𝑜 𝑠𝑒𝑟 𝑓𝑒𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑎, 𝑑𝑒𝑐𝑖𝑑𝑖𝑢 𝑎𝑔𝑜𝑟𝑎 𝑟𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑙𝑎𝑟 -𝑛𝑜𝑠 𝑜 𝑠𝑒𝑢 𝑓𝑒𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑠𝑚𝑜 𝑑𝑒 “𝟸𝟶 𝑎𝑛𝑜𝑠 𝑑𝑒 𝑡𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑣𝑖𝑠𝑎̃𝑜 𝑎 𝑚𝑜𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑟 𝑎𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑣𝑒́𝑠 𝑑𝑜 𝑚𝑒𝑢 𝑒𝑥𝑒𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑜 𝑞𝑢𝑒 𝑒́ 𝑝𝑜𝑠𝑠𝜄́𝑣𝑒𝑙, 𝑞𝑢𝑒 𝑎 𝑖𝑔𝑢𝑎𝑙𝑑𝑎𝑑𝑒 𝑠𝑒 𝑝𝑜𝑑𝑒 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑟”.ᐣ 𝑀𝑎𝑠, 𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑐̧𝑎̃𝑜, 𝑎𝑣𝑖𝑠𝑎: “𝐼𝑠𝑠𝑜 𝑛𝑎̃𝑜 𝑠𝑒 𝑓𝑎𝑧 𝑐𝑜𝑚 𝑜 𝑑𝑒𝑟𝑟𝑢𝑏𝑒 𝑑𝑜 ℎ𝑜𝑚𝑒𝑚.” 𝑃𝑜𝑟𝑞𝑢𝑒, 𝑗𝑎́ 𝑠𝑒 𝑠𝑎𝑏𝑒, 𝑎𝑠 𝑜𝑢𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑠 𝑓𝑒𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑠, 𝑎𝑠 𝑞𝑢𝑒 𝑛𝑎̃𝑜 𝑠𝑎̃𝑜 𝑎 𝐶𝑟𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑎, 𝑎𝑠 𝑚𝑎́𝑠 𝑒 𝑑𝑜𝑖𝑑𝑎𝑠 𝑞𝑢𝑒 𝑎 𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑚, 𝑞𝑢𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑚 𝑒́ “𝑑𝑒𝑟𝑟𝑢𝑏𝑎𝑟 𝑜 ℎ𝑜𝑚𝑒𝑚”. 𝑂 𝑓𝑒𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑠𝑚𝑜 𝑑𝑎 𝐶𝑟𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑎 𝑛𝑢𝑛𝑐𝑎 𝑝𝑜̃𝑒 𝑒𝑚 𝑐𝑎𝑢𝑠𝑎 𝑜 𝑙𝑢𝑔𝑎𝑟 𝑑𝑜 ℎ𝑜𝑚𝑒𝑚, 𝑑𝑜𝑠 “𝑟𝑎𝑝𝑎𝑧𝑒𝑠”; 𝑑𝑒𝑟𝑟𝑢𝑏𝑎𝑟, 𝑠𝑜́ 𝑚𝑢𝑙ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑠. 𝑆𝑒𝑚𝑝𝑟𝑒.

* Jornalista, Grande repórter

IN "DIÁRIO DE NOTÍCIAS" - 23/04/26 .