30 June 2006
"A
Mandate from Brazil"
Presented by Jairo Paes de Lira Brazilian Pro-Legitimate Defense Coalition
Mr.
President, distinguished members of this honourable committee:
I
am Jairo Paes de Lira, a Brazilian citizen and retired police
officer, and I speak as representative of the 60 million Brazilian
voters who, during the national referendum held in 2005, said a loud
NO to a government attempt to ban the legitimate firearms ownership
by common, good, law-abiding people of our beloved Motherland.
{mosauthorxtd noshow}
In
my country, there has been a wave of political action directed
against gun ownership. As has often been the recent case in other
countries, the apparent--just apparent--intent of this legislation,
to reduce high levels of crime and violence. This was, shown by the
outcome of unique events in Brazil, to be disbelieved by the people
at large.
In
1997 a new firearms law made it extremely difficult for hunters,
sport shooters and other law-abiding owners to privately possess
firearms. In 2003, a new attempt was made for a complete ban on legal
firearms, disregarding. Even military and police personnel were also
to be forbidden to hold their official guns while off duty.
The
country, it was said, needed to pursue a "culture of peace", and
that goal would not be attainable if Brazilians continued to permit
the prevalence of ideas of people who, and I quote the slogan, "loved
to kill" (presumably meaning animals or other persons), as well as
men and women affected by a "fetish" for firearms - that is,
sport shooters, including Olympic competitors, and antique
collectors.
Mr.
President, these people daring to want firearms to hunt food for
their families or to shoot at targets on weekends in recreation were
the ordinary, law-abiding citizens of Brazil.
The
proposed ban was supported by a gigantic media network. A new law was
approved, almost as presented, by both Houses. The new law (number
10826 of December 23, 2003, known as the Statute of Disarmament)
brought much more restriction and also unbearable taxes (for example,
US$500 for a shooting permit, an amount equivalent to three months of
the minimum wage, renewable every three years) which made legitimate
licensing virtually impossible to the poor, especially rural people.
In
addition, the new Statute offered the Government unlimited power to
impose further regulations on, for example, the quantity of
ammunition one can buy during a certain time.
The
Statute also imposed total prohibition on the sale of firearms and
ammunition all over the country, except for official purposes,
depending on the decision of a popular referendum. As we shall see,
Mr. President, these sweeping requirements found no sympathy with the
ordinary men and women of the nation.
The
Members of Parliament who proposed the Statute of Disarmament set out
to gain total prohibition of lawfully owned guns by leaving the
decision directly to the electors, with the additional benefit of
going down in history as the first political representatives to give
the people a chance to decide a relevant issue in terms of direct
democracy since the introduction of the Constitution of 1988. This
is how a gun ban referendum was presented to the Brazilian people.
Opinion
polls initially indicated more than 80% of the population would
support the complete ban. So the government's political strategists
believed the referendum was as good as won, and went ahead with their
political show.
In
the referendum, set for October 23, 2005, the question for voters
was: "Should the sale of firearms and ammunition be forbidden in
Brazil?"
The
gigantic Globo Communications Network, a number of powerful NGOs
financed from Europe and USA, and many, indeed, most, governmental
representatives brazenly blamed law-abiding people, sport shooters,
hunters and civilian firearm owners for the homicides which occur
during gang wars, shootings involving police, and activities of armed
criminals which cause fatalities every day in cities like Rio de
Janeiro and São Paulo.
The
arguments they mounted were fallacious, and based on distorted
treatment of the available data about violent crime rates in Brazil.
However,
legislation assured both sides of the argument twenty days of free
programs on radio and television. It would be just a few minutes
twice a day, but would prove time enough to put the factual case to
voters.
When
the results were in, fully 65% of the Brazilian voters rejected the
prohibition.
Mr.
President, the people of Brazil in the world's first attempt at a
nationwide gun ban in a free country clearly favoured preservation of
the right to legally own firearms, for shooting and hunting
activities, as well as for legitimate home defence.
In
debates and live conferences with audiences all around the country,
and with radio and television time, Mr. President, the issues arising
from a threat to lawful civilian firearm ownership had been discussed
across Brazil, and the focus was on the issue of the constitutional
right.
The
referendum was not about disarmament, but about the total prohibition
of the sale of goods to civilians and law enforcement personnel. The
case against it was based on a simple and true message: the anti-gun
case jeopardized a citizen's rights. The Brazilians of today
could not afford to throw these away because if they did so they
would irreparably damage future generations' inheritance of rights.
This
message was delivered to the people plainly and without artifice, in
a direct manner, offering factual arguments which could be checked
and proved.
The
people's will was clearly, emphatically expressed in two thirds
vote defeating the so-called Statute of Disarmament.
The
October 23, 2005, referendum was a landmark for all Brazilians, a
signpost of political maturity, and it will no doubt go on to produce
other important stances to be taken by the population.
Mr.
President, it is my understanding that here at the UN one speaks in
terms of "mandates" - whether or not a body has the
authority, the authorizations, the commission as it were, to do
something. If a body has no mandate then it cannot act. Mr.
President, the vote in Brazil on last October 23rd was a
mandate. There is no greater mandate in a democracy than a vote
of the people. And on this subject, the voice of the majority of
the Brazilian people echoes through this international assembly.
Small
arms of good and lawful origin, destined exclusively for
legitimate hunting, sport shooting and home defence, should
never be confused with light weapons because they are not conceived
or owned for harming or for war, but for respectable and
traditional civilian purposes, linked with inalienable natural rights
of peaceful, law-abiding people.
Mr.
President, the international anti-gun community, especially powerful
NGOs, was intimately and extensively involved in supporting the gun
ban referendum. They lost.
They
did not receive the mandate.
Who
did receive the mandate? It was the people I humbly speak for
today, the millions of legal gun owners in my country and several
other millions of voters who, even though they were not themselves
firearms owners, understood and supported the profound need to keep
for everybody precious constitutional and human rights. It was
a mandate that rejected further erosion of their rights. It was a
mandate that rejected international interference. It was a
mandate that must be acknowledged and respected.
Thank
you.
Jairo Paes de Lira Brazilian Pro-Legitimate Defense Coalition
Click here to download the pdf version of Jairo Paes de Lira's presentation