Julio Severo


Triumph of the state over the family: Brazilian Congress reinforces ban on homeschooling

Julio Severo

The Education and Culture Committee of the Chamber of Representatives in Brazil has unanimously rejected, October 19, a bill that would have authorized, under state supervision, parents to homeschool their children. The homeschool bill had been introduced in 2008 by Evangelical representative Henrique Afonso and Catholic Representative Miguel Martini.

In their rejection, the committee expressed its view that homeschooling “disrespects the Constitution, the Penal Code, the National Education Guidelines and Basic Law and the Child and Adolescent Statute.”

However, home education was not, in the past, a strange experience in Brazil. The constitutions of Brazil had protection and respect for the parents’ primary role in the children’s education, without removing from them their right to choose where and how to educate.

The Brazilian Constitution of 1937 said,

Article 125: The integral education of the children is the most important duty and natural right of parents. The State will get involved in that duty, collaborating, in a main or subsidiary way, to facilitate its implementation or supply the deficiencies and gaps in the private education.

That constitution recognized the function of the State as an assistant to parents in their educational choices for their children, instead of trying to substitute them or usurp their right to choose.

The Brazilian Constitution of 1946 said,

Article 166: The education is a right of all and it will be given at home and in the school. It should be inspired by the principles of freedom and in the ideals of human solidarity.

Dr. Rodrigo Pedroso, a Brazilian jurist, comments: “This confirms that the article 166 of the Constitution of that time was interpreted as allowing the education in the school or exclusively at home. Therefore, home education is, strictly speaking, a Brazilian juridical tradition that, for some unknown reason, was abandoned without anyone expressing a protest in the National Assembly that drafted the new constitution in 1987”.

The National Education Guidelines and Basic Law, in its Article 30 of December 20, 1961, said,

“A married man with children or a guardian cannot work public office, nor occupy employment in a company of society of mixed economy or a company concessionary of public service if he has presented no proof that his child is enrolled in a school, or that his child is being supplied home education”.

Yet, Brazilian socialist government officials were able to repeal this article in the 1990s.

The Brazilian Constitution of 1967 said,

Article 168: The education is a right of all and it will be given at home and in the school; being guaranteed opportunity-equality, the education should be inspired on the principle of the national unit and on the ideals of freedom and human solidarity.

So it is very clear that the Brazilian constitutions before the Constitution of 1988 guaranteed freedom for the parents to choose home education or institutional school. The Constitution of 1988 came, allegedly, as a better, more democratic document, but only later Brazilians woke up for the fact that that their modern constitution, drafted with the help of many leftist parliamentarians, instead of expanding the parents’ rights, quietly turned off the home education option. Parents’ right and freedom were usurped by an assumed “right” and “obligation” of the State. The State literally swallowed the rights of the families.

Other serious threat to the families’ rights in the education of their children has been the Child and Adolescent Statute (CAS), which is a direct product of the United Nations Children’s Rights Convention. CAS imposes many state interferences in the Brazilian families and their children, especially in the educational and health issues. CAS has been used by the Child Protective Services of Brazil to enforce the state ban on homeschooling, harass families and their children and put them under legal hardships.

Although homeschooling is common in many developed countries and is associated with higher levels of academic achievement, the increasingly-intrusive and socialist government in Brazil has not only abolished its constitutional tradition of home education, but has also repealed several homeschool bills in the Brazilian Congress since the 1990s.

Control over people requires quality and freedom to be discarded and sacrificed on behalf of compulsory indoctrination. For a State possessed by socialism, it does not matter if schoolchildren are not learning to read and write satisfactorily. What matters is to turn away children from parental sphere, authority and values in order to indoctrinate them directly into the state interests.

This indoctrination is a proven reality throughout Brazil. In a long story on the Brazilian schools, Veja magazine (the Brazilian counterpart of Time magazine) made the following revelations:

* A prevalent trend among Brazilian teachers of imposing leftism in the minds of children.

* Leftist indoctrination is predominant in private schools. It is something teachers take more seriously than classroom subjects, as a CNT/Sensus poll, ordered by Veja, found.

* It is embarrassing that Marxism has stayed alive only in Cuba, North Korea and in the Brazilian classrooms.

* CNT/Sensus poll interviewed 3,000 people from 24 Brazilian states, among students and teachers in public and private schools. Its conclusion in this issue was astonishing. Parents (61%) are aware that teachers make political discourses in the classroom and they find it normal. Most teachers recognize that they really indoctrinate children and they think this is their main mission — something more important than teaching how to interpret a text or excel in math. For 78% of teachers, political discourse makes sense, considering that they ascribe to school, above all, the function of “forming citizens” — above of “teaching subjects”.

* Many Brazilian teachers are fascinated by characters that in the classroom deserve a more critical approach, as the Argentinian guerilla Che Guevara, who in the poll appears with 86% of positive mentions, 14% neutral, and no negative comment.

This reality of Brazilian schools is in perfect harmony with the government policies, whose interest is not quality and freedom, but exclusively state control over children. This reality makes Brazil to look more like communist China, where four-year-old children are obliged to attend school just to receive state indoctrination. In fact, according to Brazilian newspaper Folha de S. Paulo, Brazil and China announced the “the creation of a quinquennial plan of targets, as the plans adopted by the Chinese communist government, to create a joint education model”.

Homeschool is illegal, according to the latest Brazilian Constitution and the Brazilian legal version of the United Nations Children’s Rights Convention, but it is not illegal to amend the Constitution for less honorable, state purposes. In its last days, the socialist Lula administration was able to change the Constitution to give 4-year-old children the “right to attend school”, which in China and Brazil means to force parents to deliver their 4-year-old children to the State for “education”.

The few homeschool families in Brazil in public legal battles have been put under educational surveillance and strict tests tailored to make their children fail. Even so, they have incredibly reached high scores. One wonders what the institutionalized schoolchildren would do if submitted to such harshness. But they are spared this shame, receiving graciously tests tailored to make any student easily successful. But even with such state condescension, success is hard for them to grasp.

On international tests, Brazilian students have been found to produce extremely low scores.

The 2007 Program for International Student Assessment (PISA), which compares student performance in 57 countries, gave Brazil well below-average scores in mathematics, reading, and science.

Domestically, more than 50% Brazilian students in the third year of the elementary school are unable to read the minimum required for math.

The rejected homeschool bill could have been an alternative to the educational chaos in Brazil. In 2005, I helped Dr. Paulo Fernando de Mello, a legislative consultant, to draft this federal homeschool bill. In that time, I was able to introduce in the bill the fundamental recommendations Dr. Brian Ray, the director of NHERI, had sent me. But I had always feared that if approved, the socialist government in Brazil would impose so much austerity, surveillance and intrusiveness that the Brazilian homeschool law eventually would turn home education into a state education at home!

So if approved, we parents would have very little to celebrate. If rejected, we would be “free” to remain illegal, ostracized, Catacomb-homeschoolers!

Now, we have only two choices: homeschool illegally and suffer the massive and violent state intervention in our parental, natural choice, or let our children suffer social, moral, psychological and spiritual violence in the public educational “jails”.

Physical and moral violence and functional illiteracy are rampant in the state education in Brazil. If homeschooling were commonplace in Brazil and produced the same results the state-controlled education has produced for years, it would deserve a complete ban and prosecution and punishment for the culprits.

Public schools make children abandon their intellectual potential. Even so, if a family homeschool their children, government officials in Brazil have a prepared legal charge: intellectual abandonment. Legally in Brazil, intellectual abandonment is not to keep children from education, but keep them from attending school institutions.

International tests have repeatedly proved the failure of the Brazilian public schools, but the government does not have the nerve to charge them of “intellectual abandonment”, under the risk of condemning itself.

If to force the presence of a child in a public school might make her educated, to force her to remain in a garage would turn her into a car!

In the Brazilian public schools, children can be whatever the State decides, not what their parents want. So, for the exclusive benefit of the state interests, the ban on homeschooling in Brazil has now been unanimously reinforced by the Brazilian Congress.

Share this article



Fatal mistake: Chinese pro-life activist seeking help from US government

Julio Severo

Chen Guangcheng, a pro-life activist in China, made the fatal mistake of seeking help from the US Embassy in China.

He was under house arrest in his home province, but other human rights activists made enormous sacrifices, risking their lives to elaborate a plan for him to flee to the US Embassy, where everyone thought refuge was guaranteed.

Everyone hoped he would ask for asylum, but the developments, unfolding in view of the international media, took an untoward turn. Chen, who is blind from childhood and has health problems after years of prison and torture, was promised by American authorities that he could stay in China and receive medical treatment, with an American companion present at all times.

As reported by the press and the US Embassy, Chen himself “wanted” to stay in China. This “decision” freed Hillary Clinton from diplomatic and commercial complications during her visit to China. After all, America has immense commercial interests in China, and Chen was a thorn in the side for the Chinese and American governments.

Hillary was satisfied with Chen’s “decision” not to seek asylum, saying that his exiting the embassy reflected his “choices” and the “values” of the USA. Meanwhile, the American officials breathed a sigh of relief at being able to return this thorny problem back to the Chinese!

However, after his transfer to a hospital in Peking, no American official stayed with him. The American commitment, made to a desperate soul, was insincere.

“They pressed me to leave, they promised that there would be people with me in the hospital, but when I entered my room, I perceived that everybody had left,” Chen revealed, according a report by the Brazilian newspaper Estadão.

When contacted at the hospital by the international media, he admitted the obvious: he could not request asylum from the US government, because his family was under a direct death threat and he was under pressure. According to his statement, if he dared to leave for America, Chinese authorities would have killed his wife and children.

Embassy officials were indifferent and evasive, stating they had not heard about any threat or pressure on Chen. Evidently, according to them, the entire sacrifice made for Chen to arrive at the embassy was just a noble gesture, sort of a way of saying “hi” to the Americans. Nothing else. After six days of being sheltered in the embassy and saying “hi,” at last the Chinese activist “chose” to leave and to stay in his homeland, to the relief of the Chinese and American governments,.

Chen’s “choice” greatly pleased the US government, because Chen is not the kind of activist that American authorities would have wanted to help. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are shamelessly pro-abortion, while Chen is pro-life.

Any individual, no matter how important, who is cruel enough to defend the murder of innocent unborn babies is capable of committing any other sin, including deceiving and lying to a poor, oppressed blind Chinese man who sees more of the true value of life than most representatives of the Chinese and American governments.

The communist government in China had always lied to the Chinese people and to Chen. And now Chen has the unpleasant experience of enduring attitudes that are not very different and total abandonment by a government that claims to stand for human rights, a government he had supposed was radically different from his.

But what would have happened if the US government had not been deceptive and if Chen had been granted asylum in the US? Would he have pursued his cause of denouncing the crime of abortion? In that case, the aim of the accusations would have been US officials themselves. This would certainly have been a major problem!

The kind of human rights work carried out by Chen doesn’t have the US government’s sympathy.

For 39 years, pro-abortion law has reigned in what was until recently the biggest evangelical nation in the world. If it is horrific for a communist nation like China to defend abortion tooth and nail, what about an evangelical nation?

The fact is, self-proclaimed “evangelicals” Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton and other powerful American officials have no interest in rescuing men that publicly plead for the rescue of the unborn.

Chen’s presence in the US Embassy in Peking was an inconvenience. His presence in America as a prominent pro-life activist would be a bigger inconvenience.

And yet if Chen were a homosexual activist, his presence in the embassy would be welcomed. Obama and Clinton would be highly supportive. In fact, since December of 2011, US embassies and consulates have been ordered by government to grant preferential treatment to gay activists.

For the US government, meeting homosexual demands is vastly more important than stopping the murder of unborn babies!

Disoriented and desperate, Chen doesn’t know what to do, except to direct appeal to the nation that was insincere and unfair to him: “I would like to ask to president Obama, I beg him, to do everything he can so that our family may leave.”

Perhaps, under pressure from the countless pro-life Americans, Obama may still act against his own pro-abortion conscience and give a chance to a defenseless Chinese surrounded by oppressors in the service of the State. Perhaps.

However, certainly, his oppression will not end in America, where pro-life activists are viciously arrested by police for the “crime” of praying in front of an abortion clinic, while murderous physicians and employees serenely kill babies under the protection of a law that, in many respects, is no better than Nazi law, which relegated Jews and other defenseless human beings to a class worthy of extermination. In America, unborn babies fall in that unhappy category.

If he wants help from the US government, Chen will need to pray, fast and wait for a long time until a new Ronald Reagan appears. But if he wants help from higher up, he won’t need to wait for decades or centuries, because God says:

“Do not trust influential people, mortals who cannot help you. When they breathe their last breath, they return to the ground. On that day their plans come to an end. Blessed are those who receive help from the God of Jacob. Their hope rests on the LORD their God, who made heaven, earth, the sea, and everything in them. The LORD remains faithful forever. He brings about justice for those who are oppressed. He gives food to those who are hungry. The LORD sets prisoners free. The LORD gives sight to the blind. The LORD straightens the backs of those who are bent over. The LORD loves righteous people.” (Psalms 146:3-8 GWV)


Share this article



Christian minister accused of ‘crime against humanity’ for homosexuality stance

Julio Severo

Two years ago, Scott Lively, author of “The Pink Swastika”, addressed members of the Ugandan Parliament, which was considering a bill criminalizing homosexuality. Lively urged an emphasis on therapy rather than punishment, and, after the bill was released he opposed the death penalty provision.

Now, on March 14th a lawsuit was filed in an American court alleging that Lively committed the “Crime Against Humanity,” by speaking against homosexuality in Uganda. The plaintiffs say that his address in Uganda is a cause of action in international law. The plaintiffs are the homosexualist organization Sexual Minorities Uganda (SMUG), and the law firm which filed the lawsuit, the Center for Constitutional Rights, a George Soros-funded Marxist group.

If Rev. Lively were a Russian citizen living in St. Petersburg, the second largest city in Russia, he would be safe. Recently, St. Petersburg passed a pro-family law banning homosexual propaganda. But Lively is an American citizen, living in a society where Christian and anti-homosexualist messages are increasingly under ban. When a hate crime law is passed, everything is possible, and America has such law, which was used specifically to make the lawsuit against Lively possible.

Rev. Lively has never advocated violence against homosexuals. Even so, the lawsuit makes it appear that his preaching against homosexuality in Uganda has been the singular cause of persecution of homosexuals in that country. According to Lively, “The centerpiece of the SMUG evidence that homosexuals have been persecuted in Uganda is the murder of their leader, David Kato, in 2011. Glaring omitted from the complaint is the fact (well known to SMUG) that Kato was killed by a ‘gay’ prostitute whom Kato had bailed out of jail to be his live-in lover. This man confessed to bashing in Kato’s head with a hammer for failing to pay him as promised and was prosecuted for the crime.”

Gay activists live risky lives with their lovers and male prostitutes, and should Christian ministers be blamed for their immoral choices?

I supposed that if Lively were a Muslim cleric visiting Uganda and preaching death to all homosexuals, he would be left in peace by homosexualist groups, by George Soros-funded groups, and even by American hate crime laws.

Capital punishment is used frequently against homosexuals in Muslim nations, even when these homosexuals did not commit any rape of children or another major crime. Yet, international groups never charge these nations of “Crimes against Humanity”. Certainly, there are Muslims preaching death to homosexuals. Where are the Western “human rights” groups to say that these Muslims committed “Crimes against Humanity”?

The lawsuit against Rev. Scott Lively is a very dangerous precedent for all Christians fighting the gay agenda. A powerful orchestration of homosexualist and socialist individuals and groups is using a gay group in Uganda to have Lively prosecuted as a “Criminal against Humanity”! If their efforts succeed, no pro-family Christian in the West will be safe.

You will not be safe. I will not be safe.

In my case, I fled my country, Brazil, to escape from pressures, persecutions and legal actions from federal prosecutors incited by ABGLT, the largest gay group in Brazil that, by the assistance of US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, was accredited in the UN system in 2009.

My departure from Brazil, with my pregnant wife and little children, should have been enough to make ABGLT forget me, but this is not so. Intercepted messages from ABGLT show that it has instructed Brazilian gay groups to find my location.

Besides, AllOut, the same US gay group that launched an international and unsuccessful campaign to defeat the pro-family law in St. Petersburg, was successful in its international campaign to have my PayPal account closed down. In fact, AllOUt had targeted Lively too!

Because of the massive and powerful influence of the pro-sodomy US government, gay groups have an “open season” on pro-family Christians.

While Russians in St. Petersburg are under the protection of a law banning homosexualist propaganda, Western Christians face threats for their pro-family message.

Pro-sodomy America and Europe have made the West a treacherous place, where pro-family Christians have to live under oppressive and deceiving hate crimes laws. And Brazil and other Latin American nations have been docilely copycatting these laws.

“Crime Against Humanity” is a very serious legal threat. If such baseless, ridiculous charge can be leveled against Lively as an American pro-family Christian, what will happen to Brazilian pro-family Christians?

Keep your eyes open: new Gulags for American and Brazilian Christians are coming, but not from Russia.

Share this article



Brazilian government wants all pregnant women registered

Julio Severo

Co-authored with Zenóbio Fonseca, law professor and legislative consultant

Brazilian public and private healthcare institutions will be forced, by compulsory norm, to identify and register all pregnant women in Brazil, according to the National System of Register, Surveillance and Follow-up of Pregnant Women for Maternal Mortality Prevention, established by the administration of Socialist President Dilma Rousseff in its Provisory Measure no. 557/11 in 26/12/11. A provisory measure is a legal act in Brazil through which the President of Brazil can enact laws without approval by the National Congress.

At first glance, the federal plan seems done out of concern for women, with its assumption of taking care of high-risk pregnant women, imposing prenatal exams and granting a maximum monetary aid of US $25 for prenatal and postpartum follow-up. The poorest women will jump of joy for the state generosity.

The government says that is forcing all healthcare institutions to register all the women just to know how many women are in a high-risk situation.

However, it is worthwhile to ask some questions: What is the reason for decreeing urgently a Provisory Measure right on December 26, when the whole population of Brazil, including congressmen, was distracted by Christmas? What is the reason to compulsorily register all pregnant women under the excuse of helping pregnancy if the politics and ideology of the ruling Workers’ Party of Rousseff is to legalize abortion in Brazil?

That Provisory Temporary was drafted by a government full of feminists that claim that legalization of abortion strengthens the women’s human rights, who treat abortion as a “right to choose” in the cases of normal pregnancy; in other words, to abort (kill) the baby “simply” because a woman should have the freedom of deciding if she wants to continue or not a pregnancy.

It is scary that the Provisory Measure, which is already in force, has focused on the compulsory control of all pregnant women in Brazil as public healthcare issue, but it remains totally silent on the unborn baby and his value and protection.

The 3rd article, clause V, points that the focus is only a woman, never her baby:

“V — to establish politics, programs and actions aimed at improving the healthcare for high-risk pregnant women.”

The 7th article, clauses IV and VI, establishes measures to avoid new female deaths, but it totally excludes unborn babies. Hey, don’t unborn babies also die?

So is it possible that there are other reasons behind the government’s plan? To establish and strengthen an obligatory system to prepare women to interrupt a pregnancy in certain cases? To implement eugenics? Let us see:

“IV: to inform, through computerized system, deaths of pregnant women, adding information about investigation on the death causes and of the measures to be taken to avoid new deaths;

“VI: to propose to federal, state, and municipal administrators of SUS (the Brazilian public healthcare system) the adoption of necessary measures to guarantee access and improve healthcare of pregnant women, and prevent maternal death.”

The most worrying fact is that the Provisory Measure limits the woman’s right to freedom when it forces her to register in a control and surveillance system just because she is pregnant, even though she has a personal health plan and is healthy, with no need for the State for anything. The Provisory Measure leaves pregnant women at the mercy of the state control and intrusion.

To remove the citizens’ freedom is not a democratic action. It is an action of totalitarian governments.

In Brazil, now it is enough for a woman to be pregnant and the State will begin, sooner or later, to control the fruit of her womb compulsorily, regardless of her choices. With such a control, it will be easy for the Brazilian government to impose the number of children that a woman can have and to demand birth control on her, as UN sees fit. After all, the compulsory register system of pregnant women in Brazil has been established to meet UN requirements.

In the short and long run, what will the Brazilian government do to regulate its control on pregnant women? What will happen to unborn babies and their protection? If the Brazilian government decides that an unborn baby with Down syndrome is a risk pregnancy and his mother decides to continue, what will the government do? If a mother has some health problem and decides that her pregnancy is to continue, what will the government do? Which “medical” pressures will a woman suffer in the compulsory system of state prenatal follow-up?

Because it removes the mothers’ freedom and completely overlooks the unborn babies’ protection, the Brazilian Provisory Measure should be denounced.

The perfect concern for mothers involves guaranteeing her full freedom and protection and the protection of life from conception on.



Share this article


Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook