The author recalls vividly fleeing police in Lisbon's Rossio square on October 12, 1973, a time when freedom of assembly did not exist under the dictatorship of Marcello Caetano. Having lived through that era, where protesters were labeled as "disobedient" and faced brutal force from officers like Captain Maltez, he asserts a clear distinction between protesting in a dictatorship versus doing so in a democracy. He suggests that those currently claiming to be tormented souls should be asked where they were during the April 25 revolution, emphasizing that the context of today's actions differs fundamentally from the past.
While defending freedom of expression to the point of including the freedom to offend, the author argues that conflicting rights require a balance rather than unrestricted exercise. He supports the legal analysis presented by Vital Moreira, which states that installing tents implies the exclusive appropriation of public space at the expense of everyone else's freedom of circulation. The author notes that no one has the right to privately appropriate public space without a state or municipal license, making wild occupation incompatible with the regime of common use.
Regarding the recent court decision allowing Renata Cambra to set up a tent, the author clarifies that the ruling does not establish an unrestricted collective right to occupy public spaces. The judge's 78-page document explicitly limits the scope to the specific situation of the applicant, prohibiting permanent occupation or structures that significantly affect third-party use. He criticizes opposition parties and protesters for framing this as an absolute freedom, calling such claims demagogic.
The text further challenges the narrative that recent protesters were entirely peaceful, arguing that many militants used pacifism as a mask to provoke clashes with police and seek victimization. The author points out that police intervention in Porto only occurred after days of repeated requests to remove tents, suggesting the protests were prepared for confrontation. He contends that housing was merely a pretext for revolution, with the radical core remaining peaceful only by tactic rather than conviction.
Finally, the author questions the consistency of those who defended Cambra's right to protest, asking if they would support similar actions by figures like André Ventura or groups such as Reconquista in locations like Martim Moniz. He suggests that while the right to manifest is sacred, it does not override other rights, and even laudable ends do not justify any means. The piece concludes by rejecting comparisons between the current democratic context and the authoritarian past, noting the difference between facing Captain Maltez then and Intendant Iúri Rodrigues now.
Sources: Observador.