Three-person civil union sparks controversy in Brazil
A notary in the Brazilian state of Sao Paulo has sparked controversy by accepting a civil union between three people.
Public Notary Claudia do Nascimento Domingues has said the man and two women should be entitled to family rights.
She says there is nothing in law to prevent such an arrangement.
But the move has angered some religious groups, while one lawyer described it as “absurd and totally illegal”.
The three individuals, who have declined to speak to the press, have lived in Rio de Janeiro together for three years and share bills and other expenses.
Ms Domingues says they have already opened a joint bank account, which is also not prohibited by any law.
According to Globo TV, the union was formalised three months ago, but only became public this week.
Nathaniel Santos Batista Junior, a jurist who helped draft the document, said the idea was to protect their rights in case of separation or death of a partner, Globo reports.
Ms Domingues, who is based in the Sao Paulo city of Tupa, said the move reflected the fact that the idea of a “family” had changed.
“We are only recognising what has always existed. We are not inventing anything.”
“For better or worse, it doesn’t matter, but what we considered a family before isn’t necessarily what we would consider a family today.”
But lawyer Regina Beatriz Tavares da Silva told the BBC it was “absurd and totally illegal”, and “something completely unacceptable which goes against Brazilian values and morals”.
Ms da Silva, who is president of the Commission for the Rights of the Family within the Institute of Lawyers, says the union will not be allowed to remain in place.
Some religious groups have also voiced criticism of the move.
While Ms Domingues has approved the union, it is not clear whether courts, service providers and private companies such as health insurance providers will accept the ruling.
Obviously it doesn’t go against Brazilian morals and values, if the arrangement is between Brazilians; it goes against Ms da Silva’s narrow perception of morals and values.
Religious groups can stay out of my bedroom if I am not of your religion; and, if your sensibilities are so damned intolerant, then I wouldn’t want any part of your religion.
Bravo to Public Notary Claudia do Nascimento Domingues and her stance on freedom.
Black teenager ‘stopped 50 times’ plans to sue Met police for harassment
Youth claims false charges motivated by racism as CCTV footage leads to collapse of court case
The video is not available on YouTube, so you’ll have to check the link below.
A black teenager who says he has been stopped about 50 times by the Metropolitan police is planning to sue the force, claiming he has suffered almost four years of harassment and false charges, which he believes have been motivated by racism.
Between the ages of 14 and 17, the college student says he has faced a series of charges of which he has either been found not guilty or which have been dropped before getting to court, as well as numerous stops and searches and two strip searches, none of which identified any criminal activity. He says he has also been detained several times in police cells after which he was released without charge.
Last week the teenager appeared at Bromley youth court, south London, charged with assaulting a police officer. The case collapsed after CCTV footage contradicted the evidence in court of PC John Lovegrove, who claimed to have been assaulted by the youth during a stop and search.
The Crown Prosecution Service has admitted it did not review the case fully before it went to court and is to apologise to the youth for allowing the case to go ahead.
The Met police confirmed the acquittal but declined to comment further. However, it is understood concerns about this and other failed charges against the youth, and all the stops and searches, are being investigated by police.
A case of racial profiling. Quite frankly you expect this to happen in America, but the rot seems to have spread across the Atlantic.
We call ourselves ‘civilised,’ we are not even close.