In June, the month of LGBTQIA+Pride is celebrated. We invite Professor José Carvalho to talk about the rights acquired by this community in recent years, as well as the performance of the Legislative, Executive and Judiciary Powers in this struggle. Check out the following interview:

• Comment on some achievements of the LGBTQIA+ cause in recent years.

We had several achievements in Brazil and around the world. There are still countries that criminalize the sexual orientation of individuals, but we have seen a tendency to combat these laws. The most contemporary decisions implement the right to equality to protect LGBTQUIA+ people, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity.

In some situations, the advancement of the agenda ends up not occurring through legislation, but through interventions by the Judiciary which, in order to protect the fundamental rights provided for, needs to intervene in cases of omissions by the Executive and Legislative powers regarding the publication of public policies and normative acts that promote equality.

• How have judicial decisions contributed to the achievement of civil rights by the LGBTQIA+ population?

The role of the Federal Supreme Court (STF) and the Constitutional Court, in the fight for LGBTQIA+ civil rights, is essential. We are faced with a minority population, which is unable to make its demands heard in classical political institutions, especially within the scope of the legislative power.

The main achievements in Brazil, in relation to the LGBTQIA+ community, resulted from judicial decisions. There were rulings from the STF, for example, that recognized the legitimacy of stable unions between people of the same sex and the possibility of changing their civil registration by transgender people – regardless of sex reassignment surgery, facilitating the process. It was also the STF that declared the unconstitutionality of normative acts that prohibited homosexual and bisexual men from donating blood. Also, recently, the body deemed unconstitutional rules that prohibited sexual and gender education in schools, considering that human rights education is one of the main ways to combat discrimination.

We also see this action in other countries. In the United States, it was the American Supreme Court that recognized the possibility of marriage between people of the same sex and that determined the impossibility of discrimination, in the workplace, due to sexual orientation or gender identity.

• How important is the STF’s role in these issues for the population?

In addition to the contributions of curbing discriminatory practices and recognizing civil rights for the LGBTQIA+ population, the body also has the pedagogical function of guiding society and public authorities regarding respect and the need for a tolerant and pluralistic society, where diversity and the autonomy of people, so that they can live their lives without being persecuted, oppressed or deprived of basic rights.

There is a very symbolic decision by the STF, for me, in which the court recognized the unconstitutionality of the use of the terms “pederasty” and “homosexual”, in article 235 of the Military Penal Code (CPM), as it considered them discriminatory and reinforced prejudices. historical and systematic. This decision is representative because, in practice, the crime is the same, but the STF declared the use of a pejorative expression unconstitutional, which is very relevant in the construction of a more just and egalitarian society.

• What are the consequences, for Brazil, of the latest achievements and the actions of the STF in relation to the LGBTQIA+ movement? What can we expect for the future?

Expectations for the future are that the Executive and Legislative branches, both with regard to the elaboration of public policies and the edition of normative acts, do not use prejudiced terms and pay attention to the need for plurality, respect and diversity in decisions. policies implemented.

The idea is that these issues are already respected in decision-making by the powers. However, I realize that, at least in the near future, the intervention of the judiciary, especially the STF, will still be very necessary. We have some cases being processed by the STF regarding the discussion of basic rights of the LGTBQIA+ community, for example, a process in which the possibility of using a bathroom compatible with the individual's gender identity is discussed. Note that we are facing a basic reflection: we all use the bathroom daily and, in general, we do not need to claim this right, but some people in the LGBTQIA+ community have to request this.

Ideally, these decisions should be made by the executive and legislative powers, but because there is a structural omission in the protection of civil rights, it is necessary to intervene the judiciary in the protection of these minorities. Today, thanks to the STF, we can get married, adopt, and share health insurance. Therefore, it is preferable that the action comes from the judiciary to allow the violations of fundamental rights to continue to be perpetuated.