The result of decades of feminist mobilization, legal battles to transform Brazilian legislation, and a movement that passed through the streets, the National Constituent Assembly, women's organizations, and the international human rights field, the Maria da Penha Law had its trajectory recovered at the first table of the seminar.Maria da Penha Law: 20 years of history and 40 years of struggleHeld at the Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS) Cultural Center, the event took place on Monday, (14th).
The panel included Leila Linhares Barsted from Cidadania, Estudo, Pesquisa, Informação e Ação (Cepia); Carmen Hein de Campos from Themis - Gênero, Justiça e Direitos Humanos; Silvia Pimentel from the Latin American and Caribbean Committee for the Defense of Women's Rights (Cladem), participating remotely; and Iáris Cortês from the Feminist Center for Studies and Advice (Cfemea), also remotely. The moderation was by Denise Dora.
The four debaters were part ofThe Maria da Penha Law Consortiumformed in the early 2000s with the aim of elaborating legislation that would remove domestic violence from the scope of Law No. 9.099/1995, which treated these cases as minor offenses and provided, among other measures, for the payment of basic food baskets.
Promoted byUFRGS Gender Violence ObservatoryThe event, in partnership with Themis - Gender, Justice and Human Rights and the Alas Network, brings together researchers, professionals from the justice system, members of social movements and representatives of public institutions to discuss the progress and challenges of policies to combat violence against women. The program runs until Friday, November 18. The first day ended with the performance "Fragments from the Confessionary: Home Stories" with Deborah Finocchiaro, Andrea Cavalheiro, and Angelo Primon.
A very determined, constant, persistent walk.
Upon opening the table, Denise Dora emphasized that the Maria da Penha Law did not emerge suddenly, but was the result of a trajectory built over decades byfeminist movement"The law was not a magical episode in Brazilian history. It required a very determined, constant, persistent walk for years," he said.
As per Dora's point, this trajectory began during the process of democratization, with experiences like SOS Mulher and, subsequently, with the creation of the Specialized Delegacies for Women's Attendant (Deams). The mobilization reached the National Constituent Assembly, when feminists started to demand that the State take responsibility for violence against women.
Leila Linhares Barsted recovered significant moments from the feminist mobilization in the decades preceding the Maria da Penha Law. Among them, she highlighted the World Conference on Women, held by the United Nations (UN) in 1975 in Mexico, and the approval of theConvention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women(Cedaw, in its English acronym). "We had a law absolutely discriminatory against women."
She also remembered feminist campaigns from the late 1970s, such as "Who loves does not kill," and highlighted the importance of that period's in-person mobilization. "This is an important point that we need to recover in times of digital activism. We were in the streets."
Barsted also emphasized the need to interpret legislation from a gender perspective: "We need to read the law with a gender lens, with the eyes of women."
When discussing the 1988 Constitution, she stated that the expression "domestic violence" appeared for the first time in the constitutional text. The World Conference on Human Rights in Vienna in 1993 and the Belém do Pará Convention of 1994 were also cited as milestones. "The Maria da Penha Law brings together what is in the Constitution and what is in the Belém do Pará Convention," she said.
Participating remotely, Silvia Pimentel emphasized that the construction of the Maria da Penha Law involved local, regional, national, and international articulations and consolidated the understanding of violence against women as a human rights violation.
For her, the feminist perspective cannot limit the discussion to the criminal dimension, but should also consider the economic, social, and psychological autonomy of women. Pimentel further emphasized the role of movements in the elaboration of laws and public policies, based on dialogue with the concrete experiences of women.
Alert for punitivism
Carmen Hein de Campos reminded that before the Maria da Penha Law, women victims of violence were subjected to inadequate responses. "Instead of applying the law, they told women to pray." For her, one of the current challenges for feminism is to confront the advancement of punitivism. "I think this is a very strong challenge for feminism today: it is to contain this punitive impulse that has been consolidating, even within the left."
The researcher evaluated that the Maria da Penha Law played an important role in removing domestic violence from the private sphere. "I think the Maria da Penha Law brought visibility, it gave a lot of visibility to the debate on domestic violence, which ceases to be a private matter and becomes a public issue."
At the same time, she questioned the concentration of responses in the justice system. According to data from aDatafolha surveypresented by Campos, only 17% of those surveyed trust the Justice system and 19% trust the police. "Women do not go to the Judiciary, they do not go to the Justice system. This is an interesting data for us to consider, this concentration in the Justice system."
In a doctoral research on attempts offemicide in the Federal DistrictCampos identified that 47% of cases were interrupted by third-party actions. "That gives us a very interesting data, I think, to consider: where are we putting our bets? Or should we not review?"
She also criticized the lack of follow-up after the granting of protective measures. "The justice system grants, for example, a protective measure and does not continue monitoring." For Campos, it is necessary to strengthen the protection network and expand alternatives to the justice system. "Decentralize from the justice system, strengthen the protection network, strengthen other possibilities other than the justice system."
She also criticized the priority given to police structure over services aimed at women's care. "There is much more investment in creating a police station, for example, than in creating servers to attend to women."
Questioning the paths for the feminist movement, Campos emphasized: "How do we reinvent ourselves?"
Education and accountability of men
Also participating virtually, Iáris Cortês reported the feminist movement's participation in the proposal that led to the Maria da Penha Law, forwarded to the government through the Secretariat of Policies for Women. The process faced obstacles in the National Congress, especially related to expenses and budget, but had the support of the female caucus and male parliamentarians.
For Cortês, prevention should start in school. "Schools must talk about violence, to boys and girls. Because they need to grow up, they and they need to know that this is a thing that exists."
She also advocated for accountability actions against men authors of violence. "They need to be called when there is a [violent act], they need to go to a psychologist, to a job that they recognize they are doing things wrong. (...) Men should be forced to memorize Maria da Penha," she stated.
Courtes also reminded that the feminist movement needed to act to prevent changes that would weaken the legislation.
Prevention and autonomy
After public interventions, Barsted highlighted the link between violence and inequalities in work and income, as well as the need for day care centers, full-time schools, and economic autonomy policies. "In other words, we have a picture of discrimination that fuels this violence, creating conditions for this violence to occur."
In an interview withBrazil de FatoBarsted assessed that the law also led to a significant judicialization of violence. "So we always say that theMaria da Penha Law"She placed the violence against women in the hands of the Judiciary. I believe that's what happened.
She acknowledged advancements in the justice system, such as the adoption of gender and racial perspective trial protocols and the monitoring of protective measures. 'I believe we managed to impact the justice system in some way.'
At the same time, she pointed out limitations in the existing structure, such as the absence of hybrid courts that articulate civil and criminal dimensions and the concentration of public policies in major urban centers. 'Campaigns focused a lot on violence after it happened. We have a deficit in investment in prevention.'
Barsted emphasized that black and poor women are among the most affected by violence, due to inequalities and lack of access to rights. 'So it's not surprising that in the absence of these rights, in their concreteness, these are the women most victimized by violence, because they are placed in situations that create greater vulnerabilities.'
In her view, confronting this issue requires shared responsibility. 'We cannot expect a society that remains silent while only the state acts.'
We haven't won a cultural battle.
Campos evaluated that legal advancements were not accompanied by a cultural transformation capable of breaking with patriarchy. 'We are fighting against a patriarchal culture, a nearly inglorious, secular struggle. So we make progress, but these advances are always challenged permanently. We won, let's say, a legal battle, but we haven't won a cultural battle.'
She also related the current scenario to the growth of authoritarian and hate speeches. 'Even with this authoritarian culture present, it was not explicit as it has become today. Hate speeches, Bolsonaro was an isolated politician in the Chamber of Deputies. When he became president, this speech emerged, it broke socially. (...) There were some social mechanisms that prevented this speech from flourishing. (...) Today, there are no more of these brakes. I think this makes the struggle against the far right more difficult.'
Campos argued that accountability for men should not be limited to punishment but should include work on violent masculinities and expanding groups of men beyond the judiciary. As a public policy perspective, he pointed to the need for an integrated, intersectoral, and intersectional structure. "Perhaps we should think, between quotes, of this SUS structure with this intersectionality."
The law was born of many hands.
Unable to attend in person, Maria da Penha sent a message to the seminar. She emphasized the importance of the meeting and the articulation between the university, the justice system, public policies, civil society, and researchers.
Maria da Penha emphasized that the legislation is not the result of an individual trajectory. "Celebrating 20 years of the Maria da Penha Law is to remember that it was never an individual construction. The law that bears my name because of a story I never wanted to live. But it was born of many hands. It was born from the women's movement, from the actions of organizations that took my case to the Inter-American System of Human Rights, and from the work of jurists, researchers, managers, and many people who participated in its construction."
She also highlighted the role of the feminist organization consortium that participated in the law's elaboration. "I consider it important that this seminar also celebrate the history of the consortium that worked on the law's elaboration. Recognizing this construction is preserving the memory of the Brazilian women's struggle."
Speaking about the two decades of the legislation,Maria da Penhastated that the law is, at the same time, "ground and beacon." "When I look at these two decades, I like to think that the Maria da Penha Law has been, at the same time, ground and beacon. It is ground because it was on it that we built many of the rights, services, and policies that currently exist to confront violence against women. It also taught us to prevent, protect, educate, produce knowledge, and articulate a true network of care."
And she continues to be a beacon. A beacon because it indicates the path we need to follow so that no woman's rights are conditional on where she lives, so that every protective measure represents true protection, so that institutions are prepared to welcome, and so that we can invest more and more in prevention and education.
For Maria da Penha, the university plays a central role in continuing this path. 'That's why meetings like this are so important. To research, produce data, evaluate public policies, train professionals, and help transform knowledge into practices that can reach women's lives. (...) Twenty years later, we have much to celebrate, but we have even more to build. May this law continue to be the solid ground on which we build rights and the beacon that shows the path ahead. And may we walk this path together, leaving no woman behind.