cada qual no seu galho...
segunda-feira, janeiro 30, 2006
As magistraturas queixam-se frequentemente, e muitas vezes com razão, de interferências externas, no seu trabalho, e na sua independência. Está mal, afinal a Constituição proclama solenenente a firme separação de poderes. Dito isto, nos últimos tempos assistimos a fenómenos verdadeiramente estranhos em que parece por demais evidente existir, também nas magistraturas, uma grande confusão sobre o que é, e quais os limites, a 'separação de poderes' consagrada na nossa Constituição. Primeiro, é o fenomeno verdadeiramente assombroso de um tribunal, de primeira instância, se julgar competente , para 'julgar' um acto legislativo, político, que - vá lá - considera legítimo, aprovado na AR por larga maioria, e que foi ractificado pelo Presidente da República, como o é a criação do concelho da Trofa, condenado o Estado a pagar uma indeminização ao concelho de Santo Tirso... Depois, e igualmente irresponsável, é o facto do Supremo Tribunal de Justiçase considerar competente para discutir o impeachment encapotado ao PGR proposto por Ferro Rodrigues, por causa de um processo que este nunca avocou, e onde nunca interveio processualmente, simplesmente não inviabilizou, esquecendo-se que a nomeação, e continuidade, deste depende só e apenas do PR e do Governo. Assim, não se vai longe.
Publicado por Manuel 14:02:00
Mas no mesmo dia, li outra ainda mais estranha. Esta:
VITERBO, Italy -- An Italian judge heard arguments Friday on whether a small-town parish priest should stand trial for asserting that Jesus Christ existed.
The priest's atheist accuser, Luigi Cascioli, says the Roman Catholic Church has been deceiving people for 2,000 years with a fable that Christ existed, and that the Rev. Enrico Righi violated two Italian laws by reasserting the claim.
Lawyers for Righi and Cascioli, old schoolmates, made their arguments in a brief, closed-door hearing before Judge Gaetano Mautone in Viterbo, north of Rome. They said they expected the judge to decide quickly.
Cascioli filed a criminal complaint in 2002 after Righi wrote in a parish bulletin that Jesus did indeed exist, and that he was born of a couple named Mary and Joseph in Bethlehem and lived in Nazareth.
Cascioli claims that Righi's assertion constituted two crimes under Italian law: so-called "abuse of popular belief," in which someone fraudulently deceives people; and "impersonation," in which someone gains by attributing a false name to a person.
"The point is not to establish whether Jesus existed or not, but if there is a question of possible fraud," Cascioli's attorney, Mauro Fonzo, told reporters before the hearing.
Cascioli says the church has been gaining financially by "impersonating" as Christ someone by the name of John of Gamala, the son of Judas from Gamala.
He has said he has little hope of the case succeeding in overwhelmingly Roman Catholic Italy, but that he is merely going through the necessary legal steps to reach the European Court of Human Rights, where he intends to accuse the church of what he calls "religious racism."
Righi, 76, has stressed substantial historical evidence " both Christian and non-Christian" of Jesus' existence.
"Don Righi is innocent because he said and wrote what he has the duty to say and write," Righi's attorney, Severo Bruno, told reporters.
He said he told Mautone during the hearing that Righi was not asserting a historical fact when he wrote of Jesus' existence, but rather "an expression of theological principles."
"When Don Righi spoke about Christ's humanity ... he was affirming that he needs to be considered as a man. What his name is, where he comes from or who his parents are is secondary," he said.
Fonza said he countered that there have long been questions of Christ's existence and that the matter warranted discussion in the court.
"When somebody states a wrong fact, abusing the ignorance of people, and gains from that, that is one of the gravest crimes," Cascioli told reporters.
Righi's brother, Luigi Righi, attended the hearing and said his brother was "serene but bitter."
I saw this story in the newspaper or on the net a few days ago...it slipped my mind to post it, props to my youngest sister Mary for bringing it to the forefront.
Does anyone doubt that Europe is becoming more secular in nature? The percentage of practicing Catholics in most of Europe has been declining for years...this is one more symptom of Catholicism dying on the vine Europe.
I have a hard time believing that this type of suit would have been brought to court in Europe (especially a heavily traditional Catholic country like Italy) 30 or more years ago.
And why was the plaintiff reading a church bulletin?????"
Acho que era assunto que o Tribunal de Santo Tirso não desdenharia...ahahahah!
O "meu post"?!
O postal é da responsabilidade de Manuel. Que não é pseudónimo de Manuel.
Mas já que me interpelou, deixe que lhe coloque também uma questão:
Se o SOuto Moura, enquanto PGR, já disse que nunca despachou no processo e que nunca o avocou ( disse na AR) então a que propósito é que é alvo de um pedido de escusa?!
A que propósito?
Que lei é que foi invocada que não conheço?
E a que propósito é que o STJ aceita assim, sem mais, uma coisa destas que só visa efectivamente a chicana?
Isto, se for como pressuponho- no que posso estar errado, claro.