The freedom of lunatics

Portugal is a paradoxical country. The people are tolerant, serene and quiet. Always prefers consensus on conflict. The largest crises are navigated without large seizures. Democracy settled after some bumps. There was forgiveness for the nomenclature of the Old Regime and for the PIDE agents, for the leftists who wanted to take over the country, and even those who then practiced terrorist acts. The returned integrated in an exemplary way, without resentment. The successive crises were overcome with pain, some impatience, but without revolt. In a few decades, the country that was conservative, traditionalist, and ignorant has filed contemporary trends. If there is homophobia and racism, the truth is that these phenomena are now poorly seen and denounced by most citizens.

This ‘Pax Lusitanian ‘is more evident for those who visit us – or for those who are temporarily or definitely installed here than for us.

Still, the financial crisis is overcome and covid, the cost of living in which the housing and the health crisis afflicts everyone and there are people concerned with immigration, others with safety, and there are also those who confuse or mix both.

In this scenario, which favors and is being used by the populist fringes of the political spectrum, we cannot be condescending. We know, from the past in other countries, that a sudden increase in the number of immigrants introduces profound changes in social dynamics.

It would therefore be in contended to generate, as our tradition is, a consensus, at least among the traditional parties, and that there was common sense. Consensus seems to be achievable, even if it costs the PS to admit that during its governance it did not realize the size of the tide and recognize that, when ending SEF and creating AIMA replaced an experienced captain with a grumete in the storm.

It dictates the common sense we need immigrants, and that they cannot be seen as a mere production factor. We have to regulate flows, and all who are admitted must have guarantees and rights equivalent to ours, which implies that conditions of reception and integration are created.

Obviously, each has the full freedom to formulate their opinion according to their convictions, and to choose, by vote, who best represents it. There will continue to be those who argue that immigration must be looked at, and who thinks it should not even be regulated. This freedom of opinion should not, however, cover the exercise of public positions of appointment.

This comes about the recent statements of Pedro Góis, scientific director of the Migration Observatory, arguing that immigrants should have priority in access to housing because «The national population can stay at the home of parents a few more years» Of course, the Lord is in question is a colleague of the mythical Boaventura Sousa Santos at CES of Coimbra, which recommends that we do not take him seriously. The problem is that it talks about chair. Also because we will invite that there is nothing scientific in its proposal that is only provocative and discriminatory and has already contributed to intensifying xenophobic feelings and discourses.

To be clear, this gentleman should be immediately fired from his position, and then, as a sociologist and militant of his causes, to have all the freedom to say, where such dials. No, we cannot officialize and institutionalize lunatic discourses that only interest those who want to harass immigrants.