logo
Indigenous groups rally in Brasilia to demand land rights

Indigenous groups rally in Brasilia to demand land rights

Reuters10-04-2025

BRASILIA, April 10 (Reuters) - Thousands of Indigenous people from across Brazil are rallying in the nation's capital this week to demand protection for their land rights, fighting legislation that could make it impossible for some tribes to reclaim territory they were forced to leave.
Disputes over the 2023 law, backed by the powerful farm lobby, have fomented the protests by Indigenous groups who say it violates their rights to ancestral lands recognized in Brazil's 1988 constitution.
The dispute is now in the hands of Supreme Court Justice Gilmar Mendes, whom a year ago set up a conciliation chamber for representatives of both Indigenous groups and the farm sector to find common ground.
Indigenous umbrella group APIB, which is challenging the law in the court, has left the chamber set up by the Supreme Court, arguing that its existence was disrespectful to the constitutional rights of Brazil's native communities.
"What we have there is an attempt to despoil Indigenous rights in various ways," said Mauricio Terena, an APIB lawyer, after he left a meeting with Mendes on Tuesday.
Indigenous leaders asked Mendes to disband the chamber and allow the rest of the court's bench to rule on whether the 2023 law limiting their rights is constitutional. But this week both the speaker of the House of Representatives and the president of the Senate issued letters asking Mendes to keep the conciliation chamber open.
In a statement, the justice's office said that "the chamber will not take away any protections to Indigenous peoples," but did not clarify whether the chamber would remain open.
A senior Supreme Court source said on condition of anonymity that many Indigenous groups not represented by the protesters have embraced the chamber's discussions, including proposals to organize and allow more economic activities on their lands.
At one march in Brasilia this week, Indigenous demonstrators carried a replica of the statue of Justice blindfolded in front of Brazil's Supreme Court, adding an Indigenous headdress.
Protesters carried signs decrying the 2023 law and the violence against tribes that they say the legislation has fueled.
In Mato Grosso do Sul, for example, a clash between farmers and members of the Guarani Kaiowa group has left several dead in recent years.
The group, which was expelled from their land in the 1950s, has been demanding the government demarcates their land as they try to reoccupy it. But during the many decades the Guarani Kaiowa were forced to stay out, several farms were established in the area, setting the stage for violent clashes.
"The situation we are going through is massacre, murder, illegal mining and logging," said Norivaldo Mendes, a leader of the Guarani Kaiowá people who took part in the march. "We need our demarcation to guarantee our lives, to guarantee the future of our children."

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Wisconsin group sues Elon Musk, alleging million-dollar check giveaways were voter bribes
Wisconsin group sues Elon Musk, alleging million-dollar check giveaways were voter bribes

NBC News

time2 hours ago

  • NBC News

Wisconsin group sues Elon Musk, alleging million-dollar check giveaways were voter bribes

A Wisconsin watchdog group has filed a lawsuit against Elon Musk claiming that he unlawfully bribed voters with million dollar checks and $100 giveaways in the state's latest Supreme Court election. Wisconsin Democracy Campaign — a non-partisan, nonprofit organization that investigates election transparency — along with two Wisconsin voters, filed the suit against Musk, his super PAC America PAC, and another Musk-owned entity called the United States of America Inc.. In the suit, the plaintiffs claimed that Musk and his entities violated state laws that prohibit vote bribery and unauthorized lotteries. It also accuses Musk of conducting civil conspiracy and acting as a public nuisance. Musk and America PAC did not respond to a request for comment. 'In the context of an election for Wisconsin's highest court, election bribery—providing more than $1 to induce electors (that is, voters) to vote— undermines voters' faith in the validity of the electoral system and the independence of the judiciary,' the suit reads. The complaint alleges that Musk violated state laws giving away $100 to voters who signed a petition 'in opposition to activist judges' and handing out million dollar checks to those who signed the petition. and The suit says that those who had won the checks had voted for candidate Brad Schimel. At a town hall in Green Bay, Musk gave away million dollar checks to two different people, both of which the suit claims voted for Schimel. In a video America PAC posted on X, one of the winners said he had voted for Schimel and encouraged others to do the same. 'Everyone needs to do what I just did, sign the petition, refer your friends, and go out to vote for Brad Schimel,' the winner, Nicholas Jacobs, said in the video. The suit mentions that Musk had said that the $1 million awards would be given 'in appreciation' for those 'taking the time to vote.' Despite Musk's America PAC spending over $12 million dollars on Schimel's campaign, candidate Susan Crawford still won the race. Before the race had been called, Wisconsin attorney general Josh Kaul filed a similar lawsuit against Musk for his involvement in the state Supreme Court election, but a county judge declined to immediately hold a hearing. A Pennsylvania judge similarly declined a request to block Musk's million-dollar giveaways in the state. During the presidential election, Musk's America PAC had also given out million dollar checks to people registered to vote in swing states, which the Justice Department had warned could be illegal. Musk defended his giveaways during the presidential election despite the allegations of unlawfulness by saying that those who signed the petition weren't given the money as a prize and that chance 'was not involved here.' Those who signed the petition were instead America PAC spokespeople with the 'opportunity to earn' $1 million. 'Make no mistake: an eligible voter's opportunity to earn is not the same thing as a chance to win,' Musk said, according to Reuters. Jeff Mendel, the co-founder of Law Forward — the law firm that filed the suit on behalf of the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign — said in an interview with NBC News that this lawsuit has the advantage of additional time. 'The election is over. Some passions have cooled, and we are bringing this in a normal posture, asking the court to go through its normal procedure,' Mendel said. 'We are confident that we'll get a complete and fair adjudication.' The Wisconsin Democracy Campaign's lawsuit also seeks to bar Musk from 'replicating any such unlawful conduct in relation to future Wisconsin elections.' 'Almost everyone who was watching closely or saw what was happening here in Wisconsin in that very tight period was pretty horrified, and would say things like, 'Well, this can't possibly be legal,' or 'he can't possibly get away with this,'' Mendel said. 'That's really the purpose of this lawsuit, is to make sure that a court does say — in accord with both the law and, I think people across the political spectrums intuition — that this is not legal conduct, this is not consistent with how our democracy works, and to make sure it doesn't happen again.'

Trump attorneys argue for hush-money appeal to move to federal court
Trump attorneys argue for hush-money appeal to move to federal court

BBC News

time2 hours ago

  • BBC News

Trump attorneys argue for hush-money appeal to move to federal court

Attorneys for Donald Trump on Wednesday argued that the appeal of his felony conviction in New York should be moved to federal court because the case related to official acts as president, while the state said it was too late to make the was convicted last May of lying in relation to a hush-money payment to adult-film star Stormy Daniels, which he appealed. Then, in July, the US Supreme Court granted the president immunity for official acts. For Trump's legal team, the goal of moving to federal court is for the conviction to be overturned on immunity sides made their case during a one-hour hearing before a three-judge panel of the 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals. Trump's attorney, Jeffrey Wall, argued that the president's appeal belonged in federal court because the Manhattan District Attorney's Office chose to include evidence that they say relates to Trump's official acts as president, including testimony from former White House Communications Director Hope Hicks."Everything about this cries out for federal court," Mr Wall told the three-judge panel. The Manhattan District Attorney's Office, meanwhile, argued Trump's legal team took too long to ask for the case to be moved, after his sentencing. "After sentencing, removal is no longer available," said Steven Wu of the Manhattan District Attorney's Office. "Even if it were technically available, there are compelling reasons not to permit it."Mr Wu also disagreed with Trump's attorneys that some of the evidence presented in the hush-money trial related to his official acts. He gave an example of a postal worker who robbed someone while not at work, but then chose to confess his crimes in the postal office. The confession in the office, he argued, would not be related to the postal worker's official duties. Trump's crime, Mr Wu argued, "was completed before the White House evidence". During the hearing, the three judges pressed both sides, noting the case was "extraordinary" and "highly unusual". One judge told Mr Wall it would be "quite anomalous" for an appeal to be moved to federal another noted that the Supreme Court in their immunity ruling used "broad" language to describe which evidence is related to "official acts" as president. The panel is expected to issue a written opinion at a later date. Trump's attorneys argued last September to move his New York case to the federal courts, but that request was denied by US District Judge Alvin Hellerstein. The 2nd US Circuit court is now hearing the appeal of that decision. Trump was sentenced in the hush-money case ten days before taking office in January. He was given an unconditional discharge, meaning he received no fines, probation or jail time, but the conviction will stay on his record. Trump was indicted in several criminal state and federal cases before his latest run for office, but the New York case was the only one to go to trial before he won the presidency. Trump's defence lawyers in the New York case, including Todd Blanche and Emil Bove, have since been promoted to positions in the justice department.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store