From Anonymity to the Media Pillory – Folha de S. Paulo, October 10, 1971
by Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira
My life of doctrinal struggles dates back a long way. I started around 1928 at our historic Law School, with the memorable clashes of the Catholic University Action. That was 43 years ago. During this long period, I have served the same ideals, constantly fighting, and therefore, constantly being fought.
Throughout these decades—everyone can attest to this—I have never strayed from my ideological stance or attacked anyone in their private life or business. Nor has there ever been any criticism of me in this regard.
Therefore, the reader can clearly see how much I dislike being forced by circumstances to point out fallacies, contradictions, and distortions in a letter from anonymous authors that has no doctrinal content.
However, since this letter has been published, how can I avoid responding to it?
* * *
It appeared in the “From the Readers” section of O Estado de S. Paulo on the 1st of this month. According to the newspaper, it was written by a “committee of residents from the Santa Cecília and Higienópolis neighborhoods.”
However, none of the committee members’ names were revealed. The authors still remain anonymous, at least to me and the public.
Moreover, I understand that the “residents’ committee” wanted to remain anonymous because, as will be seen, it is the easiest way to fulfill the task it has assigned itself.
* * *
Let us first examine the facts, not as the anonymous individuals narrate them, but as they truly happened. I will present them as clearly and briefly as possible.
Around 11:30 p.m. on the night of September 17-18, two young men approached TFP volunteers near 377 Dr. Martinico Prado Street, shouting obscene insults. One of the entity’s headquarters is located in this building.
The volunteers initially tried to end the episode politely. As the insults persisted, they needed another solution. It could have involved physical retaliation, but the TFP volunteers, used to peaceful and orderly conduct, chose to seek help from the authorities. Noticing an Army officer nearby—Cavalry Captain Carlos Antônio E. H. Poli—they asked him to help dissuade the two aggressors.
After observing the scene, Captain Poli approached the individuals, identified himself, and asked them to leave the area. One of them remained silent, while the other began to rudely disrespect the military officer. Captain Poli then ordered him to be detained. The aggressor punched the captain, who defended himself. As they both fell to the ground, the officer managed to subdue the angry and undisciplined young man.
The captain then called for an Army Police vehicle and kept the aggressor on the ground by stepping on his arm.
The vehicle arrived, and the soldiers picked up the assailant and his friend, then took them to the Military Police Headquarters to get an arrest warrant for resisting arrest. This was done based on witness testimony.
A simple police report was filed regarding the assailant’s companion, who was released. As for the assailant, the officer on duty ordered his detention at the disposal of the Military Justice System. In his statement, the assailant did not mention experiencing any bodily injuries.
As is evident, everything unfolded with the highest level of legality for both the insulted volunteers and the authorities. The incident stays within the normal range of events in a large city like São Paulo.
This account is not fabricated. Everything included here is part of the respective case file in the second audit of the Second Military Judicial District. Prosecutor Dr. Durval Moreira de Araújo, recognizing the alleged facts as accurate, filed the proper charges against the aggressor, which Judge Auditor Dr. Nelson da Silva Machado Guimarães accepted.
However,” the residents’ commission presented a highly misleading version of this incident. It ignored the background of the case, arbitrarily questioned Captain Poli’s identity, and offered a distorted account of the young man lying on the ground surrounded by TFP members and the “alleged military man,” who was supposedly a coward. In this false portrayal, the roles were reversed: the aggressor appeared to be a victim, and the victims appeared to be cruel aggressors.
Indeed, according to the committee, TFP volunteers stepped on the aggressor’s “stomach and mouth,” which is a clear falsehood. The young man himself does not mention this in the statements he gave to the police.
The committee’s account continues: “The scene only ended with the arrival of a police car that picked up the young man who had been trampled on. To this day, he has not returned home.” The committee pretends not to know that the young man was picked up by an Army Police vehicle, nor that he remained in custody at the disposal of the proper judicial authority. It thus tries to give readers the absurd impression that the vehicle belonged to a private individual and that the attacker had been kidnapped by the TFP!
It’s unnecessary to mention again that the aggressor was presented to the judicial authorities, who released him according to the law.
The committee’s procedure clearly reveals moral dishonesty, undermining the credibility of everything else in the letter.
* * *
Despite the falsehoods in the committee’s account, the facts are clear, simple, and lawful, and are not exploitable when properly told.
Feeling attacked, Captain Poli wrote a letter to O Estado de S. Paulo, which was published on October 2 under the headline “Captain Clarifies TFP Incident.” The same letter appeared in the open section of Folha de S. Paulo, also on October 2. This document exposes the Committee’s moral dishonesty.
* * *
I cannot conclude these observations without noting some contradictions the “residents’ committee” has made.
Its members stated: “We don’t know who this young man was,” etc.
It’s hard to reconcile this with the fact that the committee knows the young man’s address, since it stated he was “trampled at the door of the building where he lived.”
Furthermore, the committee also knows that the aggressor’s parents were there, as it stated that “at almost two o’clock in the morning, the boy’s already elderly parents came down.”
Even if it doesn’t know the young man, the committee still knows what’s happening at his home, as it stated that “he has not returned home to this day.”
Therefore, the committee foolishly added contradiction to slander.
* * *
I don’t want to confront respectable people who, stunned by the commission’s report, gave it unwarranted credibility.
Currently, I am concerned about another issue: What are the committee’s motives?
In my opinion, one idea is to use the sensational episode created with the lies that the reader saw to launch a series of defamation campaigns against the TFP.
If this hypothesis is correct, the reader will soon find supporting evidence. Some form of attack, whether for this reason or another, will appear in another newspaper, TV outlet, church, or civic venue. Then, more will follow quickly, sparking a media uproar.
I am writing this article on Thursday afternoon and will send it to Folha de S. Paulo today. It is possible that some fact will confirm this hypothesis even before it is published.
However, if that’s the case, the campaign has started poorly. It has already dropped the mask right from the beginning.
