Follow-up to the article titled "PORTUGAL POLICE VIOLENCE OR RACISM ?"

 (Published Friday, August 7, 2020 at 9:05 PM) at Saisinews Labels:  EDUCATION, HEALTH, IMMIGRATION, INFORMATION, INSURANCES, PEACE, POLICE, POLITICIONS, PUB, QUICK NEWS

Original RTP TV Film

https://www.rtp.pt/noticias/pais/faro-jovens-franceses-queixam-se-de-agressao-policial-injustificada_v1244320

Portugal (2020–2026): Justice, Public Authority and an Incident Captured on National Television

In 2020, a sequence broadcast by Portuguese national television (RTP) during its evening news coverage documented an incident in the Faro region that would later become a point of reference in ongoing discussions about public authority, accountability, and judicial procedures.

The archived RTP footage, recorded and disseminated in a limited form at the time, shows a physical intervention involving police officers and a civilian. This material has since remained a key reference point in public and private discussions surrounding the case and its subsequent legal developments.

While interpretations of the events differ, the video itself has contributed to sustained attention on questions relating to the proportionality of force, the context of the intervention, and the way such incidents are later assessed within judicial processes.

Over the following years, the case evolved into a prolonged legal procedure marked by procedural complexity, changes in legal representation, and uncertainty regarding key procedural deadlines. For those involved, particularly individuals residing abroad or without continuous legal assistance, the ability to fully understand and act within legal timeframes has been significantly affected by these constraints.

Within this context, the RTP broadcast remains an important archival element. It represents a fixed visual record that contrasts with the evolving and often technical nature of judicial interpretation over time.

This reflection does not seek to generalize or to make broad accusations against institutions. However, it does highlight a persistent concern frequently raised in similar cases: the gap between what is visible in recorded evidence and how such events are ultimately interpreted, qualified, and resolved within legal systems.

In any democratic framework, the legitimacy of institutions depends not only on their authority, but also on their transparency, consistency, and the perception of fairness in the treatment of all parties involved.

The central question that emerges is therefore not limited to this specific case:

How can judicial systems ensure that incidents documented in public media, including national television archives, are examined in a way that remains transparent, consistent, and fully accessible to all parties throughout lengthy legal procedures?

This question remains open — as part of a broader reflection on justice, accountability, and institutional trust.

Reference to archived video material

The following reflection is also supported by archival footage originally broadcast by Portuguese national television (RTP) in 2020. The video, recorded in the Faro region, shows a police intervention involving physical force during an incident that has since become part of an ongoing and unresolved judicial context.

This material has been preserved and circulated as part of the public record, and continues to be referenced in discussions surrounding the case and its long-term procedural developments.

While interpretations of the events may differ, the footage remains a key documentary element illustrating the interaction between citizens and law enforcement in a real-life operational context.

Adopting current laws, as well as upcoming European and international legislation, does not necessarily ensure effective justice, as laws are sometimes created without clear implementing regulations or specific decrees to enforce them.

SAISI 

Police Violence, Judicial Failure, Wars, Politics and the Persecution of a People for Centuries

 

Chapter One: What Happened After the Cameras Left

A Night in Faro – 11 July 2020

The question may appear simple, yet it touches one of the greatest dilemmas of our century.

Humanity has entered an era characterised not only by technological progress but also by profound moral, political and social uncertainty.

The Covid-19 pandemic exposed the fragility of institutions that many believed to be solid and reliable. Governments struggled, health systems were overwhelmed, and entire populations found themselves living under restrictions that would have seemed unimaginable only months before.

At the same time, the war in Ukraine demonstrated that large-scale armed conflict had not disappeared from Europe. Cities were destroyed, millions were displaced, and the world once again witnessed the devastating consequences of geopolitical confrontation.

In the Middle East, the attacks carried out by Hamas and the subsequent military response by Israel generated immense human suffering, reigniting historical wounds that continue to divide international opinion and challenge diplomatic solutions.

Across Africa, numerous conflicts continue to devastate communities. Civil wars, terrorism, ethnic tensions, political instability and humanitarian crises have become part of the daily reality of millions of people whose suffering rarely receives sustained international attention.

Meanwhile, confidence in public institutions continues to erode.

In Portugal, debates surrounding allegations of police violence, including the events that occurred in Faro in July 2020, have raised broader questions concerning police accountability, transparency and public trust.

Beyond Portugal, many countries continue to face accusations regarding excessive use of force, failures in protecting vulnerable individuals, violence against women, abuse of minors and shortcomings in judicial systems that are often perceived as slow, overwhelmed or disconnected from the realities faced by ordinary citizens.

In France, public debate surrounding the justice system intensified during the tenure of Justice Minister Éric Dupond-Moretti. His legal proceedings, although ending in acquittal, fuelled wider discussions regarding institutional independence, political influence and public confidence in the judiciary.

The Patrick Bruel affair also became emblematic of broader societal concerns. Regardless of the final legal outcome, the case highlighted difficult questions concerning allegations of sexual violence, delayed reporting, celebrity influence and the challenges faced by judicial systems when dealing with accusations spanning several decades.

These events do not exist in isolation.

Together they form part of a wider atmosphere of uncertainty, doubt and growing social tension.

Many citizens no longer trust political leaders.

Many no longer trust the media.

Many no longer trust the justice system.

Many no longer trust the police.

And increasingly, many no longer trust each other.

This climate of distrust has created fertile ground for conspiracy theories, ideological radicalisation and social hostility.

The result is a society that often appears exhausted, angry and divided.

A society connected by technology yet separated by suspicion.

A society flooded with information yet struggling to distinguish truth from manipulation.

A society capable of extraordinary scientific achievements yet unable to eradicate war, violence, injustice and hatred.

History teaches that periods of uncertainty often precede profound transformations.

The twentieth century witnessed dictatorships, propaganda, persecution, world wars and unprecedented human suffering.

Today, the warning signs are different, but the underlying questions remain remarkably similar.

How much power should institutions possess?

How much freedom should citizens sacrifice in the name of security?

How can justice remain independent from politics?

How can truth survive in an age dominated by algorithms, information overload and artificial intelligence?

And perhaps most importantly:

Can a civilisation survive when doubt becomes stronger than trust?

The answer to that question may well determine the future of humanity itself.

It also coincided with the rapid rise of artificial intelligence technologies, which have increasingly influenced political communication, information flow, and public perception, sometimes amplifying disagreement, confusion, and institutional mistrust.

In France, discussions around judicial reform and institutional balance were also highly visible during this period. The role of Minister of Justice Éric Dupond-Moretti became particularly symbolic, as he himself was subject to legal proceedings related to allegations of conflicts of interest involving magistrates. Although he was ultimately acquitted, the case contributed to wider public debate about the relationship between political power and the judiciary, and the level of trust between institutions and citizens.

Taken together, these developments reflect a broader shift: a period in which health crisis, political tension, technological acceleration, and institutional controversy converged, reshaping public perception of authority, justice, and social stability.

The return of beliefs and interpretations shaped by ideology is not a recent phenomenon. Its origins are deeply rooted in human history itself.

The reasons for this, in my view, go far beyond religion alone. They are linked to the broader nature of human ambition and the recurring desire for control over societies, resources, and ultimately the Earth itself.

Throughout centuries, different systems of belief — religious, political, or ideological — have often been used as instruments of influence, justification, or power.

Whether this dynamic is an unavoidable part of human nature or a long-standing historical pattern is still open to interpretation. Some may see it as a form of fiction repeated across centuries; others may see it as a constant structure of human civilisation.

Si les êtres humains ont été capables de créer des guerres, des dictatures, des propagandes et des injustices, seront-ils capables d'utiliser une intelligence artificielle avec suffisamment de sagesse pour qu'elle serve l'humanité plutôt que le pouvoir ?

SAISI

Humanity, Climate, Evolution and the Contradictions of Our Civilization

 

Today, I reflected on a television report in France stating that temperatures observed in May 2026 were comparable to those already recorded in 1922. This simple comparison led me to think beyond climate itself and to question humanity, our place in the Universe, and the contradictions of our civilisation.

If similar temperatures already existed more than one hundred years ago, then perhaps climate evolution cannot be reduced to a single explanation.

The Earth evolves.

The solar system evolves.

Stars are born, live and disappear.

Galaxies collide and transform.

The Universe itself is in motion.

And perhaps, beyond the Universe we know, there may exist realities and universes that humanity still understands very little about.

We humans often behave as if we fully understand existence, yet our knowledge remains limited. We are still discovering our oceans, our planet, our atmosphere, and the cosmos itself.

Scientists from past centuries already recognised that Earth is dynamic and constantly changing.

Milutin Milanković demonstrated how planetary movements influence long climate cycles.

Charles Lyell described Earth as evolving through immense natural timescales.

Alexander von Humboldt viewed nature as an interconnected living system.

Long before modern industry, Earth experienced climatic changes, warming periods, cooling periods and environmental transformations.

This does not remove human responsibility. Humanity affects nature. Industrialisation, pollution, deforestation and overexploitation have consequences.

But perhaps humanity is not the only factor in planetary evolution.

Natural mechanisms, oceans, solar activity, geological cycles and forces that we still do not entirely understand may also participate in these transformations.

Yet climate is only one part of a much larger reflection.

Humans call themselves rational animals.

But are we truly rational?

We have transformed oil into energy, fuel, plastics, medicine, transport and technologies that allow billions of people to live longer and more comfortably.

We have created science.

We have explored space.

We have cured diseases.

We have built civilisations.

And yet, despite all this intelligence, humanity still chooses war.

We continue to fight over land.

Over borders.

Over ideologies.

Over power.

History is filled with these tragedies:

The Napoleonic Wars.

The First World War.

The Second World War.

The Cold War.

And even today, conflicts continue in different parts of the world.

After centuries of suffering, humanity still struggles to learn the same lesson.

Power does not create wisdom.

Dominance does not create civilisation.

War does not create humanity.

If one believes in God, one may call this force “the Creator”.

If not, one may simply speak of nature, existence, or the Universe.

But the question remains the same:

Why has humanity been given intelligence, creativity and the ability to cooperate if we continue to choose destruction?

Perhaps the greatest environmental crisis is not climate.

Perhaps it is human behaviour.

Not because humans are evil, but because our civilisation often values domination more than harmony.

We possess extraordinary intelligence, yet we still behave as if strength were greater than wisdom.

The Earth evolves.

The Universe evolves.

Life evolves.

The question is whether human consciousness evolves at the same pace.

Because if we continue fighting for land, power and superiority, then our greatest enemy may never have been nature.

It may be ourselves.

SAISI

Sexual Violence, Power and Silence: A Post-COVID Global Reckoning

 

For decades, societies across the world lived with a paradox: sexual violence, domestic abuse and psychological coercion were widespread, yet structurally silenced.

Fear, shame, family pressure, social reputation and institutional delay ensured that most cases never reached public visibility. This silence affected women, children, and men alike, although women remained disproportionately exposed to sexual and domestic violence due to persistent structural inequalities.

Long before 2019, abuse of power and sexual coercion were already deeply embedded issues across all continents. What changed in the last decade was not only the reality of violence — but its visibility.

COVID-19: The accelerator of hidden violence

COVID-19 was identified in China in late 2019. The World Health Organization declared an international emergency on 30 January 2020 and a global pandemic on 11 March 2020.

Lockdowns created unprecedented conditions:

• forced cohabitation
• social isolation
• unemployment and financial stress
• increased alcohol consumption
• psychological distress
• reduced access to external support systems

Across multiple countries, researchers and NGOs reported increases in domestic violence indicators during lockdown periods, even if reporting mechanisms varied significantly between regions.

The result was widely described by observers as a “silent escalation” of domestic abuse.

Gendered visibility and hidden victims

Public discourse after COVID-19 overwhelmingly focused on violence against women — and rightly so, given the scale of reported cases globally. However, this visibility also exposed a second layer: under-recognised male victims and child victims, often less likely to report abuse due to stigma and social expectations.

At the same time, legal systems across Europe, North America and Australia recorded increased reporting rates, while many parts of Africa and South Asia continued to face structural barriers such as under-reporting, limited institutional access and strong cultural stigma around disclosure.

Global data consistently shows that violence against women remains a major worldwide issue, with significant proportions of women experiencing physical or sexual violence in their lifetime, while most cases remain unreported.

#MeToo and the transformation of testimony

The #MeToo movement, which gained global momentum from 2017 onwards, marked a turning point in how societies interpret consent, harassment and abuse of power.

Women who had remained silent for years began to speak publicly. Courts, media and institutions were forced to re-examine long-standing cultural norms.

However, this shift also generated tension:

• concerns about due process
• debates on presumption of innocence
• fear of reputational damage from public accusations
• growing anxiety among some men regarding social interaction boundaries

This created a complex social landscape where empowerment and fear coexisted.

High-profile cases and public attention

Several high-profile cases have shaped global perception of sexual abuse and power dynamics.

Jeffrey Epstein (United States / international case)

The case of Jeffrey Epstein became one of the most symbolic scandals involving allegations of sexual exploitation, trafficking and abuse of minors within networks linked to wealth and influence.

Epstein was arrested in 2019 on federal charges of sex trafficking of minors. He died in custody the same year, officially ruled a suicide. His case remains central to global discussions about elite networks, accountability and institutional failure.

Dominique Pelicot (France)

In France, the case involving Dominique Pelicot and Gisèle Pelicot shocked public opinion.

According to court proceedings reported in France, Dominique Pelicot was accused of drugging his wife over several years and facilitating sexual assaults by other men while she was unconscious. The case, uncovered in 2020 and later tried in Avignon in 2024, became one of the most widely discussed cases of chemical submission and systemic sexual abuse in Europe.

Dozens of co-accused men were also brought before the courts, highlighting questions about consent, responsibility and group behaviour.

Gérard Depardieu (France)

French actor Gérard Depardieu has faced multiple allegations of sexual assault in different legal complaints and investigations. He denies wrongdoing, and proceedings have varied in status, reflecting the complexity and ongoing nature of legal processes.

Patrick Bruel (France)

Singer and actor Patrick Bruel has also been named in public allegations and investigations related to inappropriate behaviour. He has denied wrongdoing in cases reported by the media.

These cases illustrate a broader societal shift: public figures are increasingly subject to scrutiny, and allegations alone can carry major social consequences even before judicial conclusions.

False accusations, justice and public debate

One of the most sensitive and polarising aspects of the post-MeToo era is the question of false allegations.

Legal studies generally indicate that false reporting exists but represents a minority of cases in most jurisdictions, while under-reporting of sexual violence remains a far larger documented issue.

However, professionals working in courts and law enforcement occasionally encounter cases where accusations are not substantiated or lead to acquittal. These cases, although statistically limited, can have significant personal and social consequences.

The challenge for modern justice systems is therefore not ideological, but structural:

to ensure protection for victims while preserving the presumption of innocence and evidentiary rigor.

A society in transition

Post-COVID society is marked by contradictory dynamics:

• greater visibility of sexual and domestic violence
• stronger institutional responses in some regions
• increased public awareness of consent and coercion
• but also growing social anxiety, mistrust and emotional fragmentation

Art, cinema, literature and journalism have increasingly explored themes such as trauma, coercive control, invisible violence, loneliness, psychological abuse and systemic power imbalance.

Conclusion

The modern world is no longer silent about sexual violence.

But it is still deeply divided in how it understands it.

Between exposure and accusation, between protection and doubt, between justice and perception — society is still negotiating the boundaries of truth, power and responsibility.

What remains constant is this:

violence did not begin with awareness, but awareness is now changing how violence is seen, spoken about, and judged.

SAISI

Courting a Woman: Has the Art Been Lost?

 

Does a man still have the right to court a woman today without being accused of violence?

Sadly, many men no longer know how to engage in the wonderful tradition of courtship. Even a friendly or suggestive glance can, in today’s climate, be misinterpreted as aggression. This reality is rooted in a broader context: women have historically been, and remain, victims of physical, emotional, and psychological abuse. Protecting women is essential, and measures—especially those heightened during Covid-19—have been crucial in addressing these injustices.

Yet, heightened awareness and legal protections can sometimes lead to misunderstandings or, occasionally, misuse of the system. In my experience as a judicial expert, I have observed cases where claims were not always made in good faith. Thankfully, many judges act with professionalism and fairness, taking context and evidence into account—but this is not consistent across all regions of France.

The result today is a certain instability in how men can express admiration or affection. Compliments that once might have been received as flattering can now be seen as offensive or even abusive. Social media platforms like Facebook, TikTok, and other international forums amplify this problem, exposing men to public criticism and misinterpretation more than ever before.

External factors further complicate the situation. Global conflicts, such as the war between Russia and Ukraine or the ongoing tensions between Israel and Palestine, have created widespread uncertainty and stress. History shows that societies living under prolonged conflict—from the World Wars to the Cold War—experience increased social anxiety, mistrust, and difficulty forming meaningful personal relationships. Stress and insecurity are powerful disruptors of human connection.

At the same time, popular beliefs about life, success, and happiness—whether from social media, cultural norms, or historical ideals of rational self-control—often add pressure rather than relief. Humans have always sought external validation to define their worth, from the Enlightenment era to today, and this continues to complicate the pursuit of authentic relationships.

Many now turn to dating apps to avoid loneliness. Historically, men bore the financial costs of these platforms, but today women often share expenses, which seems fair. Yet, meaningful human connection remains elusive for many. Why?

1.     Digital conversation cannot fully replicate face-to-face interaction.

2.   Even single women often struggle to form genuine connections online.

3.   Social and emotional education has not prepared us for these new ways of meeting people.

Humanity faces a digital inheritance. The next generation will grow up navigating these complexities, building the future based on the values and habits passed down to them. Much of today’s misunderstanding and emotional struggle is the legacy of previous generations.

The pandemic amplified these dynamics, exposing both societal strengths and weaknesses. Yet, history reminds us of human resilience: after the 1918 Spanish flu, and following the devastation of the World Wars, communities rebuilt social bonds, trust, and intimacy. Crises may challenge us, but they cannot extinguish the human desire for connection.

Despite conflicts, misunderstandings, and evolving social norms, one thing remains constant: humans seek companionship, emotional connection, and love. Courtship may have changed, and digital life has transformed the way we meet and interact, but the fundamental human need to connect endures.

This is my reflection—a synthesis from years of observing modern society, the evolving nature of courtship, and the many historical and contemporary factors that shape human happiness.

SAISI

The Disappearance of €44 Million in France: Political Privileges and Public Accountability

 

France is often criticized for its national debt and public spending, but a far more concrete issue has recently emerged: €44 million has reportedly disappeared, raising serious questions about government accountability and financial oversight.

1. Privileges of Former Presidents

Former Presidents of the Republic (e.g., Hollande, Sarkozy, Chirac, and eventually Macron) continue to cost taxpayers over €1 million per year in post-office benefits, including:

• An official office in Paris, fully funded by the State,
• Several staff members (secretaries, advisers, assistants),
• Chauffeur-driven vehicles,
• Lifetime police protection.

These privileges are permanent and illustrate how a small group of political elites can absorb enormous resources annually.

2. Privileges of Former Prime Ministers

Former Prime Ministers also maintain substantial benefits after leaving office:

• Chauffeur-driven car for life,
• Secretary for up to 10 years or until age 67,
• State-funded police protection, almost automatically,
• Exit indemnity: a one-time payment equal to three months’ salary (~€44,730 gross).

Annual cost per former Prime Minister ranges from roughly €60,000 to over €200,000, depending on individual staff and vehicle usage.

Notable recipients in 2023 included:

• Bernard Cazeneuve: ~€200,000 (staff + transport),
• Dominique de Villepin: ~€197,540,
• Lionel Jospin: ~€153,620,
• François Fillon: ~€140,039.

3. Former Ministers

Unlike Prime Ministers, most former ministers (Education, Justice, Culture, etc.) receive minimal post-office benefits:

• Transitional allowance: three months of gross salary (~€30,000 total),
• Privileges: almost none—no official car, staff, residence, or free travel,
• Police protection: only if their former role exposed them to threats.

Their cost to the State is negligible compared to former Presidents and Prime Ministers.

4. The Missing €44 Million

Amid these lavish privileges, reports indicate that €44 million have disappeared from public funds. Questions naturally arise:

• Where did this money go?
• Was it mismanaged, lost, or embezzled?
• Did it disappear through government budgets, public contracts, or corruption?

The scale of this missing sum highlights the contrast between public oversight and elite privileges. While millions are guaranteed annually to a few political figures, other large amounts can vanish without immediate explanation.

5. Summary Table: Approximate Annual Costs to the State

Position	Post-Office Benefits	Approx. Annual Cost to State
Former Presidents	Office, staff, chauffeur, police	€1,000,000
Former Prime Ministers	Chauffeur car, secretary, police	€60,000–€200,000
Former Ministers	3-month severance, optional police	€30,000 or less

Conclusion

France’s political elite enjoy lifelong benefits that cost taxpayers hundreds of thousands to over a million euros annually, yet €44 million can disappear, raising urgent questions about transparency, accountability, and public trust. Understanding the scale of these privileges alongside missing funds demonstrates why greater scrutiny of government spending is essential.

Saisi