1.Everyone shall possess the right to freely express and publicise his thoughts in words, images or by any other means, as well as the right to inform others, inform himself and be informed without hindrance or discrimination 2.Exercise of the said rights shall not be hindered or limited by any type or form of censorship Constitution of the Portuguese Republic, Article 37.º

A step forward towards Freedom of Expression

Francisco Teixeira da Mota, is a well-known Media Portuguese lawyer, he is also a man of many virtues and works. Francisco Teixeira da Mota has been writing for the last ten years as a columnist for the Portuguese daily newspaper Público and he also collaborated on the extinct Independente - a newspaper that almost every Portuguese politician dreaded. Dr. Francisco Teixeira da Mota is also a renowned and prolific book author, his insights in 'Alves dos Reis - Uma História Portuguesa', 'Escrever a Direito' or 'O Tribunal Europeu dos Direitos do Homem e a Liberdade de Expressão' are surely not to be missed - his latest book 'Faça-se Justiça' [Let Justice be made] is a realistic and sometimes humorous take on the Portuguese Justice system. More than being a lawyer he is a man that is not afraid of speaking, a man that fully understands the values of Freedom of Expression [and the 48 years of Salazar's dictatorship].
Currently he is one of the faces that we can watch on TVI24 every Saturday night at 22 pm debating politics and Portuguese matters, along with Francisco José Viegas [another man that I profoundly admire], Constança Cunha e Sá, João Pereira Coutinho [all of them brilliant people]; the TVI24 show is called 'A Torto e a Direito' [Bent and Straight], from which I will translate an excerpt of the views by Francisco Teixeira da Mota about the McCanns injunction that seek to destroy?! all the books and documentary that are fundamented in the conclusions made by an international team of police forces. Let's watch (and read for those who don't understand Portuguese).

First the very, very clipped interview given to BBC on the 14th of January.

Then, a more detailed view of Dr.Francisco Teixeira da Mota opinion, during the 'A Torto e a Direito'- transcript is bellow. Don't forget to sign the petition that will be sent to the European Court of Human Rights against Censorship. Thank you.

Constança Cunha e Sá (CCS) on the center, João Pereira Coutinho (JPC) on the further left, Francisco Teixeira da Mota (FTM) on the right, e Francisco José Viegas (FJV) on the left. Broadcast by TVI24, Saturday 22pm and Sunday 17pm, 17 and 18 January 2009.

Constança Cunha e Sá (CCS): And now an issue totally different that had...

Francisco José Viegas (FJV): Ohhhhhh... (laughs shared by all)

CCS: That had «honours» at the BBC, the trial of Gonçalo Amaral and of the McCann couple, after the claim against João Amaral.. err...João..

FJV: Gonçalo Amaral.

CCS: Gonçalo Amaral. Here, Francisco Teixeira da Mota has already explained, in BBC - I saw your declarations earlier on BBC. Francisco, in this trial, the couple wants to forbid the..errr...

Francisco Teixeira da Mota (FTM): The book was already forbidden...

CCS: ...the book is already forbidden and so...

FTM:... temporarily, temporarily and so they now seek for a permanent banning of the book.

Constança Cunha e Sá (CCS): Yes.

FTM: As a lawyer, evidently, I shouldn't speak on the process itself, because I don't want to influence in any way*. What I understand, and what I declared to BBC, and that is a matter that surpasses this process and its decisions, is the question: does it make any sense in a democratic society and of information like ours is, and globalized, the prohibition of a book? The book now has a French edition, there is a Spanish edition, in May 2009, the French in June 2009, a German one for the Swiss-Austrian markets in June 2009 and later an Italian and a Dutch version...

Francisco José Viegas (FJV): There are 130 thousand copies circulating...

Francisco Teixeira da Mota (FTM): And there is the internet....

FJV:...besides the ones that were sold.

João Pereira Coutinho (JPC): Exactly, I actually bought one.

FTM: How(?), independently of the content of the text, because, in fact what is asked by the McCann couple... - the prohibition of the book is based on two points: one is, because it's defamatory, since it raises the suspicion that they are involved in the invention...

Constança Cunha e Sá (CCS): In the disappearance.

Francisco Teixeira da Mota (FTM): No, no, not in the disappearance, in the simulation of a kidnapping.

CCS: Of a kidnapping, but what...

FTM: Which doesn't mean that they were involved in the disappearence, what they say is, the thesis of Gonçalo Amaral is in one sense: the child is already dead, they are simulating the kidnapping - but he is not saying in any way that they are involved in the death, not even in the kidnapping itself, nor in the simulation of the abduction.

CCS: simulation or kidnapping...

Francisco Teixeira da Mota (FTM): Now the other matter, and this is the defamatory one, where the other process is occurring, that's the main action, where they are asking for compensations - I don't know, for 1 million euros (I read that) - that is one issue; the other one has to do with the divulgation of Gonçalo Amaral thesis- that the child is dead, prevents a commitment, or diminishes a commitment in the search for the child. This are the points where the court has to make a decision and over which I will not make a judgment. What I question is, in what measure, in an European modern society is it possible to forbid books, still? And, if that measure is capable of being effective in the country, because as I said, there are several editions, they might be in the internet, in what measure is that effective and in what measure is that legitimate?

CCS: One thing is being effective, another is being legitimate. Isn't there also the issue of the defamation in this case?

FTM: That is the defamation side, and they [McCanns] have a claim where they are asking for a big compensation, now, to forbid the book, it's a very questionable issue. And that was what I was saying- if they [Gonçalo Amaral, Guerra e Paz, Valentim de Carvalho and TVI] go to the European Court of Human Rights, will the European Court validate it or not, in the sense of accepting that Portugal is forbidding a book; for example - and it [the European court] has already pronounced over various cases: when Mitterrand died, eight days later appeared a book written by his doctor [Dr. Claude Gubler] which revealed that he had a cancer, and that Mitterrand had been tricking the French for years on a roll since he divulged every six months medical reports stating that his health was fine, until he died of cancer. At that time, at request of the family, the French Government, the courts, also prohibited with a provisional measure the book, and 9 months later the prohibition was definitive - the European court then considered that France had the legitimacy to have forbidden at that time, eight days later after the death since [the book] was placing before the French people the idea that their President that had died, was a liar. So, they thought that it was possible [the banning], even because of the medical confidentiality, but considered the definitive prohibition of the book, nine months later, to be a violation of freedom of expression.

*Unfortunately that was not the opinion shared by the McCanns lawyer, the former head of the Lawyers Order, Rogério Alves, who, for almost an year, every week would appear on SIC «airing» his views on a favorable manner towards his clients. It appears that whilst some layers know about their deontological codes and respect them, others turn a blind eye - two weights, two measures?


  1. Spudgun had an image once (I think it was Spudgun) of Madeleine and Amaral on one scale and a whole team of others on the other side.
    I think Amaral is gaining support on his scale and his support are people of integrity and value unlike the pink fluff and others on the McCanns scale.
    This is very heartening to see that people are not lying down and taking this crap anymore.
    What a good start for the day.

  2. In Portugal, Maddie case is TABU!

    Wonder why Marcelo Rebelo de Sousa, Jose Vitorino, Garcia Pereira and some others never made any comment about this issue in RTP? Because RTP is controlled by the government and have an International Channel reaching all the world and all the Portuguese communities.

    I just want to share with you an article written By Jose Antonio Saraiva, which I receive yesterday:

    "O PROCESSO chamado 'Face Oculta'"

    José António Saraiva

    "O PROCESSO chamado 'Face Oculta' tem as suas raízes longínquas num fenómeno que podemos designar por 'deslumbramento'.

    Muitos dos envolvidos no caso, a começar por Armando Vara, são pessoas nascidas na Província que vieram para Lisboa, ascenderam a cargos políticos de relevo e se deslumbraram.

    Deslumbraram-se, para começar, com o poder em si próprio. Com o facto de mandarem, com os cargos que podiam distribuir pelos amigos, com a subserviência de muitos subordinados, com as mordomias, com os carros pretos de luxo, com os chauffeurs, com os salões, com os novos conhecimentos.

    Deslumbraram-se, depois, com a cidade. Com a dimensão da cidade, com o luxo da cidade, com as luzes da cidade, com os divertimentos da cidade, com as mulheres da cidade.

    ORA, para homens que até aí tinham vivido sempre na Província, que até aí tinham uma existência obscura, limitada, ligados às estruturas partidárias locais, este salto simultâneo para o poder político e para a cidade representou um cocktail explosivo.

    As suas vidas mudaram por completo. (CONT)

  3. (CONT)

    Para eles, tudo era novo - tudo era deslumbrante.

    Era verdadeiramente um conto de fadas - só que aqui o príncipe encantado não era um jovem vestido de cetim mas o poder e aquilo que ele proporcionava.

    Não é difícil perceber que quem viveu esse sonho se tenha deixado perturbar.

    CURIOSAMENTE, várias pessoas ligadas a este processo 'Face Oculta' (e também ao 'caso Freeport') entraram na política pela mão de António Guterres, integrando os seus Governos.

    Armando Vara começou por ser secretário de Estado da Administração Interna, José Sócrates foi secretário de Estado do Ambiente, José Penedos foi secretário de Estado da Defesa e da Energia, Rui Gonçalves foi secretário de Estado do Ambiente.

    Todos eles tiveram um percurso idêntico.

    E alguns, como Vara e Sócrates, pareciam irmãos siameses: Naturais de Trás-os-Montes, vieram para o poder em Lisboa, inscreveram-se na universidade, licenciaram-se, frequentaram mestrados.

    Sentindo-se talvez estranhos na capital, procuraram o reconhecimento da instituição universitária como uma forma de afirmação pessoal e de legitimação do estatuto.

    A QUESTÃO que agora se põe é a seguinte: por que razão estas pessoas apareceram todas na política ao mais alto nível pela mão de António Guterres?

    A explicação pode estar na mudança de agulha que Guterres levou a cabo no Partido Socialista.

    Guterres queria um PS menos ideológico, um PS mais pragmático, mais terra-a-terra.

    Ora estes homens tinham essas qualidades: eram despachados, pragmáticos, activos, desenrascados.

    E isso proporcionou-lhes uma ascensão constante nos meandros do poder.(CONT)

  4. (CONT)

    Só que, a par dessas inegáveis qualidades, tinham também defeitos.

    Alguns eram atrevidos em excesso.

    E esse atrevimento foi potenciado pelo tal deslumbramento da cidade e pela ascensão meteórica.

    QUANDO o PS perdeu o poder, estes homens ficaram momentaneamente desocupados.

    Mas, quando o recuperaram, quiseram ocupá-lo a sério.

    Montaram uma rede para tomar o Estado.

    José Sócrates ficou no topo, como primeiro-ministro, Armando Vara tornou-se o homem forte do banco do Estado - a CGD -, com ligação directa ao primeiro-ministro, José Penedos tornou-se presidente da Rede Eléctrica Nacional, etc.

    Ou seja, alguns secretários de Estado do tempo de Guterres, aqueles homens vindos da Província e deslumbrados com Lisboa, eram agora senhores do país.

    MAS, para isso ser efectivo, perceberam que havia uma questão decisiva: o controlo da comunicação social.

    Obstinaram-se, assim, nessa cruzada.

    A RTP não constituía preocupação, pois sendo dependente do Governo nunca se portaria muito mal.

    Os privados acabaram por ser as primeiras vítimas.

    O Diário Económico, que estava fora de controlo e era consumido pelas elites, mudou de mãos e foi domesticado.

    O SOL foi objecto de chantagem e de uma tentativa de estrangulamento através do BCP (liderado em boa parte por Armando Vara).

    A TVI, depois de uma tentativa falhada de compra por parte da PT, foi objecto de uma 'OPA', que determinou a saída de José Eduardo Moniz e o afastamento dos ecrãs de Manuela Moura Guedes.

    O director do Público foi atacado em público por Sócrates - e, apesar da tão propalada independência do patrão Belmiro de Azevedo, acabou por ser substituído.

    A Controlinvest, de Joaquim Oliveira (que detém o JN, o DN, o 24 Horas, a TSF) está financeiramente dependente do BCP, que por sua vez depende do Governo.

    SUCEDE que, na sua ascensão política, social e económica, no seu deslumbramento, algumas destas pessoas de quem temos vindo a falar foram deixando rabos de palha.

    É quase inevitável que assim aconteça.

    O caso da Universidade Independente, o Freeport, agora o 'Face Oculta', são exemplos disso - e exemplos importantes da rede de interesses que foi sendo montada para preservar o poder, obter financiamentos partidários e promover a ascensão social e o enriquecimento de alguns dos seus membros.

    É isso que agora a Justiça está a tentar desmontar: essa rede de interesses criada por esse grupo em que se incluem vários "boys" de Guterres.


    Não deixa de ser triste, entretanto, ver como está a acabar esta história para alguns senhores que um dia se deslumbraram com a grande cidade."


  5. Bom dia!

    Equipa: copiei e colei no blogue das cópias.....


    Gonçalo Amaral não tem sido intimidado,perseguido,caluniado desde 2007?

    observação : parece que já se estão a debruçar e a fazer todo o levantamento dos adjectivos utilizados pelos media de Uk ,sobre ele.


  6. Why the injunction was even granted is beyond belief.

    After all, nobody is stopping the McCanns from their so called 'search' for Madeleine, or from telling others about their abduction story for which there is no proof it ever happened.

    Yet, to ban people from being able to discuss a book or information based on the case which points to a different scenario, is absurd.

    It's life McCanns, people don't always agree or do what you want. Because what you really want is to stifle free speech, but not only that, because you are also getting money sent you on the strenth of your story.

    That should also be thrown into the equation of your agenda.

    Is it money, more than the search for Madeleine, that is really at the bottom of all this?

    People are certainly going to be asking that question.

  7. To poster 1


  8. It doesnt matter what is said here, the UK is 'sown up' - the McCanns are very powerful people.

  9. One of the incredible aspects of this case is that in the UK there are no discussions on late night programming for 'intellectuals' - no discussions at all anywhere about freedom of speech or privacy or any aspect of the McCanns - and this is not down to 'sub judice' - though I suspect it may have something to do with the the 'Carter Ruck' effect - which is having a severe impact on the operation of the UK constitution. Sadly the general intelligence and education of the UK public is now so low and they are so used to obeying their masters, the argument is beyond them. Ask them about X Factor and they have an opinion, ask them about freedom of speech and they will look blank!

  10. You are an absolute treasure Joana - you work so hard for justice - thank you so much.

    Anon 8 - I agree. I think Newsnight is one of the only TV programmes left that have decent discussions, and even they have been stamped on by Carter Ruck over the Trafigura afair. Radio 4 still has some discussion programmes but they can be biased at times (BBC controlled).

  11. To 8

    Well said.
    Dumbing down has a lot to answer for.

  12. Young men and women went to war to protect our freedom.

  13. It is very interesting that José Antonio Saraiva hat forgotten the 3 men anomymous refere : ROGERIO ALVES; MARINHO PINTO e PINTO MONTEIRO hummmm

  14. #7, I don't agree that the McCanns are very powerful people. They are a pair of nobodies who are being protected by a group of very powerful people for reasons that will become clear one day. They just seem more important than they really are because the press is portraying them that way and they are getting unseen help to keep their secrets well hidden.

    louise h

  15. In post 12, when I said 'to 8' I obviously meant 'To 9'!

  16. ANON 9

    "sadly the general intelligence and education of the UK public is now so low and they are so used to obeying their masters"

    I have some family in England and I have learned to know the people. It's more complex than it seems. English people are intelligent in their way to cope. For exemple it they have watched last week SKY's breaking news "Madeleine died in holiday appartment" they will dicreetly agree (or not) but they wont make a big fuss of it on TV talk shows ; they could have got round Carter Ruck ban, but they wont if they feel their is someting hidden that is not public business...

  17. Isto está a compor-se!

  18. Anon 17

    The trouble is we don't get access to make many comments on articles about McCanns in UK, because the newspapers either wont let us, or they limit the comments to a very few. Bet they get thousands though.

    The majority that are allowed are not saying much good about the McCanns, and still not buying their 'we were good, responsible parents' bleat, even if they have believed their abduction story.

    Most would no doubt like to have seen them prosecuted like other people have been for leaving their kids and they come to harm.

    The people I know don't believe them, or think there is something fishy about it all.

  19. Anon at 11 , about the BBC. Only three(?) weeks ago on the sensible Radio4 one evening, there was Gerry McCann moaning away about being surrounded by a media circus.
    He was talking to Sir Christopher Meyer, former Washington diplomat and Press Complaints officer. It was another shocking instant of parody as the two chatted together......

  20. A straw in the wind - in my office today a colleague remarked that he had seen for the first time the transcript of what Kate McCann actually said to teh Police. In other words he for the first time is getting info from the files, presumably on the internet and as a direct result of the latest case in Portugal which is bringing out the evidence and testimony into public view. He wasn't best pleased by what he read (although I have to add he is already anti-McCann - but now he has even more reason to be).

    Incidentally I never initiate McCann orientated conversations in the office, so this was completely spontaneous. I am sure this has been mirrored around the country - more people checking out on the internet what was actually said etc.

  21. My mum has always been unable to accept that Doctors could do anything wrong, and also she is the sort of person that tries to see the good in people and finds it hard to talk about issues like child neglect as she loves her own children so much she cannot understand people who don't feel the same way about theirs. She would be, you think ,the perfect pro -McCann supporter. Yesterday she said that she had seen some of the reports from Lisbon last week and wanted me to fill her in as 'something was not right'. We talked for about an hour about this case, that did not even begin to scratch the surface and I did not touch on the Gaspar allegations as I know she would not be able to take it, but by the end she was in agreement that abduction was not possible and that the parents had a case to answer, if not only for neglect. I am sure there are many more people now in a similar situation, after last week they are seeking out information. My pensioner mother does not even know how to work a computer, but she knows I have very firm views on the McCanns, (she had previously refused to engage in conversation about them with me as 'they were doctors so must be innocent')so when she wanted to know something she sought out my views. I really believe if Gerry McCann is no longer capable of fooling my mum, the most beleiving, accepting and non suspicious person in the world, then he has no bloody chance in fooling anyone anymore. The game is up!!

  22. Anon 20 this just proves his level of arrogance from Gerry, on the MM forum they say that Mitchell has parted company with Gerry and Kate, this I truly believe, as Mitchell has probably got fed up of Gerrys arrogance, and Gerry fed up of Mitchells arrogance, disaster waiting to happen imo

    Anon 22 My Mum was just the same but she changed her mind about a year ago, after Lisbon last week, she actually hates Gerry and Kate now my Mum doesn't hate anyone so that says it all.

  23. rwt

    here ia link to an interesting article concerning UK LIBEL LAWS -which go against natural justice.

    not an excuse for the lack of good investigative journalism in the uk-but goes some way to help me understand why the Mccann case is not rigorously investigated


  24. @22.

    I hear you! I am in a similar position. Interestingly, my Mother mirrors yours as she was a nurse many years ago. She didn't believe the McCanns could have done anything wrong either. I told her one name:

    Harold Shipman.

    She then took notice. I think she is coming round now, to the idea that all is not right. Everybody else in my circle of friends/ family/ colleagues doesn't believe the McCanns. But now, even my Mother, bless her, has questions.

    They are lying, these McCanns. They have covered it up since day one. The 'Media Circus' that GM moans about is their own creation. It was okay when they were getting money in envelopes, but now that is dwindling, they complain!

    The fund is a fraud. Their version of events inconsistent. The 'evidence' of 'Abduction' is based on one very dubious sighting. I don't believe a word they say.

    Were getting there Portugal! Hang in with us! Many of us in Britain are fed up with the McCanns and their spin.


Powered by Blogger.