We need to talk about spittle

People in China have a disgusting habit, which the government is trying to change since the Beijing 2008 Olympic Games: spitting on the streets. For them, it's no mischief or bad attitude – if they feel having too much saliva in their mouth, they just spit it out wherever they are. Although all efforts from the government to stop this, Chinese people is still spitting on the streets when they're walking. The new generations were the first ones to be caught by this new wave, and they're the least spitter nowadays; the old ones are still connected to their freedom of spitting wherever they want to, so the worst ones to change the behavior are them.

Brazilians, otherwise, don't believe that spitting is a common thing to do on their daily basis. Moreover, spitting on the streets is seen as a disgusting thing and some people even recriminate the ones who do it regularly or hardly ever. But, since the impeachment voting process for the President Dilma Rousseff, on August 17th, spittles have become part of our routine, especially in the newspapers. The first case to be set at the news was the fight between Jair Bolsonaro and Jean Wyllys, two parliamentarians, at the voting, and the most recent one was a case involving the actor José de Abreu and a couple who were dining in the same restaurant as him and his wife, which happened last Saturday (23).

About Bolsonaro and Wyllys: I have already written about them and their conflicts in another chronicle, but some things must be clarified here. When the voting was happening at the Chamber of Deputies, previous things had happened between the two parliamentarians. Since Bolsonaro was eligible to preside the Human Rights Comission at the House, Wyllys was enraged with it because Bolsonaro is known for being an evangelical pastor, so a very homophobic figure, and Wyllys was in charge to discuss his Law Project about the enlargement of civil rights for homosexuals and all classes inside the LGBT community, which could be despised by the Directory of the House if Bolsonaro were ruling the commission. Because of this massive confusion, both are still struggling due to their opposite causes, and keep on criticizing each other whatever opportunities they have. After the hate speech given by Bolsonaro when declaring his vote for the impeachment of Rousseff, Jean Wyllys was outraged with his colleague and made a speech despising Bolsonaro's words before saying he was against the process. When Wyllys was going back to his place, Bolsonaro called him "faggy" and other dirty words against his enemy's sexuality. In response to the verbal aggression, Wyllys spat on Bolsonaro's face, being apart by his other colleagues quickly enough to avoid a physical shock between the two parliamentarians. In order to defend his father, Eduardo Bolsonaro, also a federal deputy and Jair's son, have spat on Wyllys's face.

Conclusions about this case: 1) was any of them right about the spittle? Response: absolutely nobody was doing right – Bolsonaro, dedicating his vote to a military torturer , was wrong, as long as Wyllys was also wrong for defending himself with a hideous and totally condemnable attitude (he had disrespected the rules of parliamentary decorum), and as long as Eduardo Bolsonaro was wrong too for repeating the same unsanitary gesture in response to this father's detractor (he also disobeyed the decorum); 2) is it right to have Bolsonaro as the Head of Human Rights Commission, considering all his scrutiny with homosexuals? Response: no, it's absolutely unacceptable having a parliamentary as Bolsonaro, known for his hate speeches and efforts to rebuke all social minorities, such as the LGBT community and the Afro-Brazilian religious, but he is a very powerful and influential figure among his political party, which makes him an important piece to balance the political game; and 3) is Wyllys a victim or a prosecutor? Response: Wyllys is both a victim of homophobia, and he was right in his effort to fight against this daily prejudice he suffers due to his sexuality, and a prosecutor of an illegal gesture inside an official head office of Brazilian government, because the Internal Regiment of the Chamber of Deputies considers behaviors like these completely unacceptable and passible of several legislative punishments.

About José de Abreu: before this event, Abreu was widely known for the great public as one of the biggest stars of the most watched TV channel in Brazil, Rede Globo. Since 1980, he is frequently seen acting in the soap operas produced by Globo, portraying from hideous villains to great protagonists, and also in many movies (he's a regular cinema actor since 1968). However, Abreu is also known for his strong political views and his recent involvements with hot-blooded discussions and controversies. He declares himself as a lefty-wing man, and has shown publicly his affection for the communism and the proposals done by the left-wing parties. On last Saturday (23), almost a week after the controversial spittle from Jean Wyllys to Jair Bolsonaro, José de Abreu wrote in his Twitter account that he was faced by a right-wing couple when he was having dinner with his wife in an expensive Japanese restaurant in Rio de Janeiro, who started provoking Abreu, mocking about his sympathy to the communism, and, outraged, he spat on the couple answering their provocations. Abreu also wrote that he would treat anyone who would mock on him the same way he did with the aforementioned couple, and dedicated his spittle to Wyllys, as a signal of complicity between them. The discussion about this case resides in two directions: the first is the right-wing people, who started writing outraging texts criticizing Abreu and his attitude, as they have already did when Wyllys spat on Bolsonaro, and the second is the left-wing people, who supported Abreu's attitude but forgot to say a word about his aggressions against the lady part of the couple.

Conclusions about this second case: 1) was José de Abreu right in spitting on the couple's face during the discussion? Response: absolutely not, because there are more polite ways to defend your cause in a discussion, and, by going on an impolite way, he definitely lost his point at the shock; 2) was the couple right on condemning publicly Abreu for defending the communism but keep on going to elite restaurants? Response: no, because Abreu has his own private life, and he shouldn't be accused of anything since the Federal Constitution safeguard him his right to do whatever he wants with his life, which means going wherever he would like to go to and defending any political view he feels the most appealed to; 3) should the leftists, being important defenders of social minorities, have said anything about the lady whom Abreu spat on? Response: these defenders are not obliged to take a part on every discussion about prejudice, feminism, homophobia, and all themes involving minorities, but this case was defended by them only by a single side (the political one), which meant to anyone else that the leftists were overlaying their political beliefs over the social causes they regularly defend; and 4) was Abreu's attitude defensible in the same way as Wyllys's? Response: absolutely yes, since none of them were right in their gestures and did no good spitting on their opponents – moreover, they weren't reasonable nor aren't they in the right way to defend their causes, because, again, being polite is the best first step to do well in a discussion.

Summing up: spittle isn't the most polite attitude when in a discussion, independently whether you are in a restaurant or in the Parliament, and shouldn't be encouraged nor supported. Both cases have their mistakes, big enough to make both situations indefensible under any pleas. Bolsonaro and Wyllys were one of the biggest shames of the impeachment voting at the Chamber of Deputies, so were Abreu and the rightist couple one of the biggest shames to both sides of political battle. Concluding: do as the new Chinese generations, and stop spittle.