Conib takes legal action against journalist for supporting “anti-Semitic speech”

Conib takes legal action against journalist for supporting “anti-Semitic speech”

[ad_1]

The Brazilian Israeli Confederation (Conib) once again took legal action in São Paulo against the journalist and left-wing activist, Breno Altman. This time, Conib filed a lawsuit with the Federal Regional Court of the 3rd Region in which it accuses Altman of endorsing an “anti-Semitic speech” given by the former president of the PT, José Genoino, and “inciting a hunt for Jews”.

On Saturday (20), when participating in a broadcast on the Diário do Centro do Mundo (DCM) channel, Genoino suggested a boycott of companies run by Jews or linked to the state of Israel.

Genoino’s comment on DCM was made after the program’s presenters read a message from one of the viewers criticizing the owner of Magazine Luiza for leading a petition against the Lula government’s support for the investigation against Israel for alleged genocide in the Gaza Strip.

When commenting on the fact, Genoino suggested a boycott of certain Jewish companies. “This idea of ​​rejection, this idea of ​​boycotting for political reasons, which hurts economic interests, is an interesting way. There was even this boycott of certain Jewish companies”, stated the PT member.

Genoino also said that the government should cut ties with the state of Israel in the Security sectors.

A day later, journalist Breno Altman took to social media to support Genoino.

“Full support for the position of José Genoíno, a historic left-wing activist and former national president of the PT, who proposed, in addition to breaking relations with Israel, a boycott of companies whose owners, supporters of the State of Israel, signed a manifesto against President Lula […] José Genoino is right. The racist colonial state of Israel must be subjected to boycott, divestment and sanctions, like South Africa during apartheid. Companies that support this criminal regime, including Brazilian ones, must receive the same punishment”, wrote the journalist on his profile on the social network X.

According to Conib, “by agreeing with the suggestion to boycott these companies, Breno Altman once again makes his anti-Semitism evident and, more than that, his high degree of dangerousness, by reinforcing harmful stereotypes, fueling prejudices and contributing for the spread of hostile feelings against the Jews”.

In the action, Conib asks that Altman be suspended from social media and banned, under penalty of imprisonment, from holding public demonstrations against Jews.

In a previous action, on January 11, 2024, the Confederation requested the suspension of the journalist’s social networks for “incitement to violence against Jews”. It turns out that the journalist had already been notified, in November last year, as part of another action filed by Conib at the 16th Civil Court of the Court of Justice of São Paulo (TJ-SP), to delete a series of publications on his social networks for “injury or even possible slander” against the Jewish people.

Conib alleged that, even after the November court decision, Altman continued with posts offensive to Jews and, therefore, disrespected justice.

In another action, Conib also reported José Genoino to the Federal Public Ministry of São Paulo for the “anti-Semitic” statement in which he proposed a boycott of Jews.

Altman and Genoino are also targets of a criminal report sent by federal deputy Carla Zambelli (PL-SP) to the Federal Public Ministry of São Paulo due to the speech about the boycott of Jews.

According to the deputy, the two accused committed the crime of racism for “anti-Semitic speech”. Zambelli based the complaint on Law 7,716/89, known as the racism law.

According to Law 7,716/89, the crime of racism is non-bailable and imprescriptible. Furthermore, it is considered aggravating if the crime is committed on a social network, which can result in a prison sentence of up to 5 years. It is also worth it for those who express public support for the statement considered racist, which in this case would be seen as speaking against the Jews.

[ad_2]

Source link