Puerto Príncipe, 22 oct (Prensa Latina) Jerry Tardieu, uno de los 17 candidatos a las próximas elecciones haitianas, transmitió su aspiración de resolver la crisis de seguridad que sufre hoy el país a causa de las bandas criminales que imponen la violencia.
The post Candidato presidencial haitiano promete restablecer la seguridad first appeared on Noticias Prensa Latina.
Hay que volver a Arthur Miller como uno de los dramaturgos que mejor han escarbado en el alma humana y sus deseos. Lo sostienen la directora Sílvia Munt y todos los demás embarcados en el nuevo montaje de Panorama desde el puente, Panorama des del pont en traducción catalana de Joan Sellent, que puede verse en el teatro Goya de Barcelona en una producción de Bitó.
Vice President JD Vance led a crowd in prayer after he checked on a woman who experienced a medical event and collapsed during a Thursday rally in Nebraska.
The post Watch: JD Vance Checks on Woman Who Collapsed at Rally, Leads Crowd in Prayer for Her appeared first on Breitbart.
Lev Radin/Pacific Press/LightRocket via Getty Images
Kevin O'Leary's data center company has a message for analysts who doubt its enormous AI ambitions: You're not seeing the whole picture.
Paul Palandjian, CEO of O'Leary Digital, pushed back on a Bernstein Research assessment that put the firm near the bottom of the data center industry's credibility rankings. In an emailed response to Business Insider, he detailed land agreements, water applications and licensing, engineering work, and funding that he said the analysis overlooks.
"Scrutiny during this cycle is fair," Palandjian wrote. He added, "A score built from announced-capacity data ranks every pre-construction project low on construction progress by definition, and it cannot see confidential work."
His response gets at a central question in the AI building boom: How much weight should investors give the work that happens before data center construction begins?
Paul Palandjian/O'Leary Digital
Bernstein examined thousands of data center projects using data from the tracking firm Aterio, assessing factors such as construction progress, electricity availability, and industry experience. Its analysis concluded that only about 35% of announced data center capacity in the US will get built.
O'Leary Digital received a credibility score of 0.35 out of 5. Bernstein estimated that 489 megawatts of its announced 15-gigawatt pipeline would materialize, roughly 3%. The analysts grouped it with ambitious newcomers described as "bragawatts."
Palandjian said the 15-gigawatt figure represents the full build-out of two campuses in Utah and Alberta over several years.
"We would rather be judged on milestones than on a model," he wrote.
Palandjian's clearest distinction concerns electricity, one of the biggest obstacles facing data center developers.
"We are not in an interconnection queue," he wrote, referring to the waiting lists for connections to the electricity grid.
Instead, both campuses are designed to generate all their electricity on-site, he said, with direct access to natural gas pipelines and supplies. That's what the industry calls "behind the meter": producing power at the facility rather than relying on an electricity utility to supply it from the grid.
In Utah, Palandjian said the Military Installation Development Authority had approved and executed a 30-year development agreement naming O'Leary Digital as master developer of the project area.
About 11,000 acres are under binding agreements, he said. Master planning, ground studies, and laser-based land surveying have finished at both sites, and the company filed an engineered Utah water application in late September, he added.
In Alberta, about 13,000 acres are under a binding agreement, and a water license for 6 million cubic meters a year has been granted, Palandjian said. He also said that both sites are away from densely populated residential communities.
On money, Palandjian said his firm has capital for both pre-development and advancing the project toward key milestones. He did not specify a funding amount or say the entire build-out was financed.
He said that the engineering, power, and construction firms working with the company, and the global banks advising it, provide evidence of its ability to deliver.
"With that team, every critical part of the project is being worked through, gaps are identified early, and we are closing them to raise our probability of success," he wrote.
Palandjian said that while O'Leary Digital is young, its team has decades of experience in real estate, power, and infrastructure.
Bernstein's skepticism does not mean every newcomer will fail.
"It's not that all of these guys are sort of terrible and not going to deliver, but we just have lower confidence because we don't know them," analyst Madison Rezaei said.
With Palandjian's update, now we know a bit more.
Sign up for the AI Insider newsletter here. Reach out to me via email at abarr@businessinsider.com
Oklahoma City Thunder e Denver Nuggets se encontram nesta quinta-feira (22), às 22h30 (horário de Brasília), no Oklahoma City Paycom Center, em Oklahoma City, em mais um duelo válido pela NBA.
As duas franquias integram a Conferência Oeste e historicamente figuram entre as organizações mais competitivas da liga, tornando este confronto um dos mais aguardados da temporada.
A partida será transmitida pela ESPN 2, Disney+ e NBA League Pass.
Las acciones de Moderna Inc. y Merck & Co. han caído después de que los datos sobre la vacuna personalizada contra el melanoma, ampliamente esperada por el mercado, decepcionaran a Wall Street. Los títulos de Moderna se han desplomado hasta un 26% este jueves, una caída récord intradía, mientras que las de Merck han retrocedido un 3,9%.
© Dado Ruvic (REUTERS)
Demon Slayer: Kimetsu no Yaiba prepara su participación en Jump Festa 2027 con una actualización que podría ser muy esperada. La franquicia estará presente en el evento anual organizado por Shueisha, donde podría ofrecer novedades sobre la segunda película de Infinity Castle, cuya producción todavía no ha revelado su ventana de estreno ni otros detalles importantes.
El panel tendrá lugar el domingo 20 de diciembre en Japón y contará con varios de los actores de doblaje originales. Entre ellos estarán Natsuki Hanae, voz de Tanjiro; Akari Kito, que interpreta a Nezuko; Hiro Shimono, conocido por dar vida a Zenitsu; y Yoshitsugu Matsuoka, que pone voz a Inosuke. Durante el encuentro, los intérpretes doblarán escenas seleccionadas mediante votación de los propios asistentes.
Aunque esta actividad ya forma parte de lo anunciado, la principal expectativa está puesta en la posibilidad de se ofrezcan noticias sobre la continuación de Infinity Castle. Por ahora, no se ha confirmado que el panel vaya a mostrar un primer avance ni imágenes de la película, por lo que cualquier novedad sobre el proyecto sigue siendo una incógnita.
La segunda entrega de la trilogía cinematográfica todavía no tiene una fecha de estreno anunciada. Tampoco se han comunicado su ventana de lanzamiento, los detalles de su reparto o nuevas imágenes oficiales. Por eso, Jump Festa 2027 podría convertirse en una ocasión importante para que el estudio Ufotable empiece a ofrecer información sobre el futuro de la saga.
El largo recorrido comercial de la primera película ayuda a explicar la falta de novedades. La primera cosechó un gran éxito en los cines japoneses y permaneció en cartelera durante nueve meses. De esta forma, su llegada a tiendas digitales y streaming no se produjo hasta aproximadamente un año después, lo que permitió mantener el foco promocional en la primera entrega durante buena parte de ese periodo.
© Difoosion
O influenciador Lorenzo Fischer, 19, mostrou nas redes sociais nesta quinta-feira (22) o momento em que raspou o cabelo após anunciar que está fazendo tratamento para câncer.
“Por mais que às vezes as coisas pareçam pouco difíceis, a gente consegue levar a vida de jeito melhor, que é sorrindo. É bom sorrir, mesmo quando parece difícil“, refletiu, emocionado, em um vídeo.
Lorenzo contou aos seguidores que está com câncer de uma forma descontraída. Em vez de fazer um anúncio, ele gravou um vídeo no estilo “arrume-se comigo”, contando que estava indo para uma sessão de quimioterapia.
“Às vezes a vida vai ser difícil, vai jogar problema pra cima da gente, mas a gente tem que levar da melhor forma possível, que é com leveza e positividade”, disse.
E finalizou: “Sim, o câncer é uma bosta, mas vou ficar bem e eu vou superar tudo isso e vou me tornar uma pessoa ainda mais forte. Deus não joga pra nós nenhum desafio que a gente não consiga superar”.
Como o câncer acontece? Especialistas explicam o que se sabe
Republican Study Committee members praised Trump's crackdown on nearly $42 million in SNAP fraud and emphasized the need to continue the initiative.
The post EXCLUSIVE: RSC Members Tout Trump’s SNAP Fraud Crackdown Ahead of Midterms appeared first on Breitbart.
A group of violent far-left rioters in Spain attempted to crash a Wednesday rally led by VOX party leader Santiago Abascal in A Coruña.
The post Watch: Spanish Far-Left Rioters Try to Crash VOX Party Rally in A Coruña, Stage Night of Chaos appeared first on Breitbart.
In 2016, the HBO comedian and political commentator John Oliver produced a terrific segment on how TV pundits routinely cite garbage science. After showing clips of newscasters and commentators making absurd claims such as, "A new study showing that drinking a glass of red wine is just as good as spending an hour at the gym," and The Today Show's Al Roker commenting, "You find the study that sounds best to you, and you go with it," Oliver commented, "No! No, no, no, no, no, no, no! You don't just get to cherry-pick the parts that justify what you were going to do anyway."
Then Oliver added a useful rule: "If they are going to keep saying 'a study says,' they should have to provide sourcing and context or not mention it at all." (Though the segment specifically targeted the misuse of "scientific" studies, all the same principles apply to the social sciences.)
What's so noteworthy about that 2016 segment is that in his other monologues, on issues ranging from SWAT teams to homelessness, Oliver has routinely ignored the principles he laid out. In his overly simplistic takes on complex policy issues (often designed to dunk on his ideological opponents for comedic effect), he often fails to provide appropriate context and appears to be guilty of choosing research "that sounds best," as Roker put it, or at least that supports whatever point he's determined to make.
Oliver is one of America's most influential pundits, so he should be held to the highest of journalistic standards. And Last Week Tonight is indeed more diligent than many TV news programs. The show employs researchers who interview the authors of the studies it cites. Oliver is a comic, not an academic, so we can excuse him for not posting footnotes, and he routinely cites his sources on screen. When we emailed the show's producers to point out problems with their research, to their credit, they sent back a detailed response that we'll quote from in this article. (In a few cases, they pointed to Reason articles using some of the same studies, albeit with full citations and more context. In cases in which their criticisms were correct, we've annotated the original articles.)
Many of the show's researchers are former reporters and editors who abide by journalistic standards. Nevertheless, the show has a long track record of citing social science findings without the appropriate context, massaging them to support whatever point Oliver is trying to make.
In his excellent 2016 segment on scientific studies, Oliver noted: "There is a lot of bullshit currently masquerading as science. Not all scientific studies are equal. Some may appear in less-than-legitimate scientific journals, and others may be subtly biased because of scientists feeling pressured to come up with eye-catching positive results."
Cut to a 2022 segment titled "Rent," and we find Oliver citing a study that his wiser self would have characterized as "bullshit."
"Right now, there is not a single county in the U.S. where a worker earning minimum wage can afford a modest two-bedroom rental home," he said. He was citing a study designed to produce an "eye-catching" result. It was published not by a reputable journal, but by the National Low Income Housing Coalition, an advocacy group that lobbies for government spending on housing and rent subsidies, including expanding the National Housing Trust Fund and increasing federal appropriations to the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
The biases are not particularly subtle. Why would a minimum-wage worker need a two-bedroom home? In the study, "can afford" doesn't mean "have enough money to buy the cheapest available," as most English speakers would interpret it. The authors use it to mean renting a two-bedroom home at the 40th percentile price point of the local market (that is, a little cheaper than the median unit), using no more than 30 percent of their income, excluding government benefits, pensions, or other nonearned support.
Oliver also didn't mention who these minimum-wage workers are. In 2025, according to the Current Population Survey, a third of hourly workers paid the federal minimum or less lived in a parent's or grandparent's home, a fifth were married and living with a spouse, and only one in eight lived alone.
When we asked the show's producers why they failed to disclose that their source was an advocacy group seeking government funds, they pointed to the onscreen credit and responded: "We trust our viewers' intelligence enough to think they might be able to read it and conclude that the National Low Income Housing Coalition is interested in building low-income housing, nationwide, possibly even as part of a coalition."
I don't share their confidence that most viewers can read the onscreen source line and tell from the organization's name whether it's an advocacy group. There's a double standard here: When Oliver doesn't like what a study says, he's not content to just trust his viewers; he makes it explicit, as he did with the "ethanol lobbying groups" mentioned above.
Oliver's producers wrote us: "When we rely on studies from advocacy groups, we look at the underlying data and speak to researchers to better understand it; we discard many studies as a result."
This one belonged in the trash.
In a 2025 segment, Oliver cited an eye-catching statistic about how sports betting was driving a spike in bankruptcies. "Unsurprisingly, the rise of online sports betting has been found to correlate with a rise in gambling harms, with one study showing that in states that allowed it, there was a 28 percent increase in bankruptcies, translating to about 100,000 extra bankruptcies a year."
I'll give Oliver credit for saying "correlate with" rather than "cause," but the rest of that sentence ("in states that allowed it, there was a 28 percent increase") implies direct causality.
The bigger problem is that the "100,000" figure is clearly wrong. When I contacted the study's authors, they told me they don't know where that figure came from, and it doesn't appear anywhere in the study. Last Week Tonight's producers told us they pulled it from a Business Insider article, but in the video, Oliver said it came from the study.
If Oliver's researchers had done the same calculation as the authors, multiplying the per-person effect by the at-risk population, they'd have found about 30,000 extra bankruptcies a year, not 100,000, and a 6 percent to 7.5 percent increase, not 28 percent.
Oliver also left out important context: He was citing an unpublished working paper. The peer-reviewed version appeared after the Last Week Tonight segment aired, and it included substantive changes. Working papers from credible researchers, like this one, are valuable, but Oliver should have made it clear he was citing a preliminary draft circulated to other researchers for comment, not a published study.
In 2021, Oliver did a segment making a case for a policy called "Housing First," which includes placing more homeless people in permanent supportive housing. The problem is that building and maintaining these units is expensive, so permanent supportive housing doesn't scale easily. Oliver set out to dismiss that objection by citing research showing the alternative is even more costly.
"One study in Florida," Oliver said, "found that, just between money spent on incarceration and emergency medical treatment, their communities and local governments had spent an average of just over $31,000 per person per year, when the estimated cost of providing them with permanent supportive housing would have only been around $10,000 per year."
The Florida study's finding was an outlier. The Central Florida Commission on Homelessness commissioned it, and Housing First advocates promoted it because it produced the headline they wanted. I give Oliver credit for noting that the study "tracked a decade's worth of spending on just 107 chronically homeless people," but he left out additional context.
In 2018, a committee convened by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine evaluated permanent supportive housing. It concluded that there is "no substantial evidence that [it] contributes to improved health outcomes" and "insufficient evidence" that it's cost-effective.
Studies exist on both sides of this issue, and we can debate whether permanent supportive housing is more cost-effective than the alternative, but Oliver cited one study and implied it was conclusive.
Oliver also neglected to mention that the paper was written by a consulting firm led by a supportive-housing advocate, though if you looked closely, you could see the organization's name on the screen as he delivered his monologue.
Oliver and I agree that the federal government shouldn't be subsidizing ethanol. But in a 2024 segment titled "Corn," Oliver pointed to a study claiming that ethanol is more harmful to the environment than gasoline and implied that only self-interested lobbyists say otherwise.
"While ethanol lobbying groups have long argued that it slashes greenhouse emissions," he said, "one recent study found that corn ethanol produced under the renewable fuel standard has a carbon footprint at least 24 percent higher than regular gasoline."
What Oliver doesn't mention is that the 2022 study he cited was highly contested. It was challenged not only by "ethanol lobbying groups" but also by the U.S. Department of Agriculture under the Biden administration. The study's claim that ethanol has a higher carbon footprint than gasoline also contradicts a 2010 Environmental Protection Agency projection that ethanol would be about 20 percent cleaner than gasoline. Argonne National Laboratory, running the government's standard model, credits ethanol with cutting greenhouse emissions by more than 500 million tons in 15 years.
The problem isn't that Oliver is wrong; it's how he presented this study. Whether ethanol mandates are good or bad for the environment is a complicated, contested issue, with strong studies on both sides (and plenty of weak ones). Plucking one from the pile and reporting its findings is misleading.
Ethanol subsidies are bad because they involve politicians using mandates to buy farmers' votes, and top-down mandates generally lead to less optimal decision-making. But it's not clear that ethanol increases carbon emissions.
In a 2014 segment on police militarization after the fatal shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, Oliver said, "There has been a massive rise in both the number and the use of police department SWAT teams," and showed a news clip that stated: "The number of SWAT raids has gone up by 1,400 percent since the 1980s. An estimated 50,000 now take place every year." Instead of mocking the clip, as he often does, Oliver cited it approvingly.
So where did the claim of a 1,400 percent increase come from? It's based on a voluntary mail-in survey, which isn't a reliable way to gather data. No official count of SWAT raids exists, and almost nobody tracks them, then or now, so the figure rests on departments' self-reporting of how often they "deployed," with no shared definition of what that means.
The 1980s figures that form the baseline for the 1,400 percent increase in SWAT raids come from a mid-1990s survey, making them especially unreliable. No one was counting SWAT raids at the time, and there's no way to verify them.
Oliver followed that clip by citing another study: "Just keep that clip in mind," he said, "when I tell you that 79 percent of SWAT deployments are now for executing search warrants, and most of those were for drug investigations."
Again, there's missing context. That 79 percent figure comes from a small, nonrandom sample generated by an American Civil Liberties Union records request; the organization could get data from just 20 of America's roughly 18,000 police agencies.
When we pointed out to Oliver's producers that the data on SWAT teams were stripped of their context, they replied that since this segment aired, "We've become more diligent about critically interrogating the sourcing on studies in our shows." They also argued that more "recent studies," if anything, suggest that the studies they cited "understated the true scope of things." And they pointed to instances of Reason citing the same data.
I agree with Oliver's position on SWAT raids, but he really should be agitating for better data. We're permitting state violence without anyone keeping the detailed records that could help us understand the costs and benefits. But that doesn't excuse citing two studies based on weak data and presenting them as fact.
In a 2025 segment on tipping, Oliver said, "Recent analyses have found that poverty rates for tipped workers are over twice as high as for nontipped workers."
Twice as high as for which nontipped workers? The analysis he's citing included all nontipped workers in the U.S., including CEOs and neurosurgeons. Oliver, who reportedly makes $30 million a year, also pulled up the nontipped average. The right way to evaluate tipping is to match tipped and untipped workers by job: Waiters have about the same poverty rate as fast-food workers, and hotel maids about the same as other cleaners. If you control for job, age, and hours, the gap closes.
It's another study designed to generate a talking point, which isn't surprising since it was published by the Economic Policy Institute, a progressive, left-of-center think tank. The organization's name appeared onscreen as Oliver delivered his monologue, but, once again, viewers would need to hit pause to look it up and figure out what the Economic Policy Institute stands for.
Oliver's 2016 segment on "scientific studies" shows that he should know better. It's possible to construct arguments by citing good research responsibly, while providing the proper context and sourcing. It's possible to follow research where it leads, instead of retrofitting it to preconceived ideas. You just have to be willing to present data that capture reality in all its messiness, even if that means it won't generate an easy laugh line.
To keep up with our video series Wrong Number featuring Aaron Brown, and to receive bonus content and more, click here to enter your email address.
The post John Oliver Warned Against Cherry-Picked Studies. Then He Cherry-Picked His Own. appeared first on Reason Magazine.
A Anvisa (Agência Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária) determinou na manhã desta quinta-feira (22) a proibição da venda do medicamento Fauldleuco 10 mg/mL solução injetável vendido em frascos de 30 mL, produzido pela Libbs farmacêutica.
Em resolução publicada no DOI (Diário da União, a agência determinou a interdição cautelar por 90 dias do lote 25D0808 por suspeita de desvio de qualidade relacionado à presença de material particulado.
Isso significa uma possível presença de materiais não dissolvidos da fórmula ou partículas estranhas como borracha, plástico ou vidro dentro do frasco, o que viola além de violar as normas sanitárias pode causar o entupimento de pequenos vasos sanguíneos e reações alérgicas quando injetado nos pacientes.
O Fauldleuco é um medicamento usado para reduzir a toxicidade e como antídoto após tratamentos de quimioterapia, no tratamento de anemia megaloblástica quando a absorção oral não funciona, e ainda no tratamento paleativo de pacientes com carcicoma colorretal.
Em nota, a Libbs Farmacêutica informou que está adotando todas as medidas necessárias em atendimento à determinação da Anvisa, que é preventiva e restrita exclusivamente ao lote mencionado.
A empresa alega que conforme investigação técnica própria, o material particulado observado é da formação de cristais do próprio princípio ativo do medicamento, o folinato de cálcio, o que pode pode acontecer por fatores como variações de temperatura durante o armazenamento.
Além disso, a Libbs orienta que caso a formação dos cristais seja identificado pelos profissionais da saúde, ele não deve ser administrado ao paciente, conforme descrito em bula, e seguirá acompanhando a investigação junto à Anvisa e às demais autoridades competentes.
O empresário Ivo Kos, de 48 anos, preso por suspeita de agredir e ameaçar a esposa, teve prisão preventiva revogada pela Justiça de São Paulo e deixou o presídio nesta quarta-feira (21).
De acordo com a SAP (Secretaria da Administração Penitenciária), ele estava na Penitenciária de Potim II, no interior do estado.
O caso aconteceu na zona Oeste da capital paulista, na madrugada de 15 de agosto. Segundo o relato da esposa, a dentista Giullia Falcão, de 27 anos, ele teria a agredido na mão direita com um golpe de taco de beisebol e a ameaçado com um taser.
Na data, Ivo foi preso em flagrante e teve a prisão convertida em preventiva durante audiência de custódia. Imagens de uma câmera de segurança, obtidas pela CNN Brasil, registraram o momento da agressão. Veja:
Em depoimento à polícia, Giullia afirmou que a discussão começou após um jantar do casal com clientes de Ivo. Segundo ela, durante o trajeto de volta para casa, o empresário teria iniciado as agressões.
Ao chegar à residência, Giullia disse que tentou impedir a entrada no imóvel, mas teria sido puxada para dentro com o auxílio de um segurança da rua, identificado no boletim de ocorrência como Cosme.
Já dentro da casa, segundo o relato, as agressões teriam continuado. A dentista afirmou que Ivo utilizou um taco de beisebol para atingir sua mão direita, provocando a fratura de um dedo.
Ela também relatou ter sido ameaçada com uma arma de choque e disse que o marido tomou seu celular para impedir que ela acionasse a Polícia Militar. Segundo Giullia, o empresário ainda teria feito ameaças de morte caso ela tentasse fugir ou deixar o relacionamento.
Giullia afirmou nas redes sociais que a agressão registrada na data não teria sido um episódio isolado. Segundo ela, outros casos de violência ocorreram durante os quase três anos de casamento.
Em um vídeo publicado nas redes sociais, a dentista mostrou ferimentos no rosto e afirmou ter sofrido uma fratura no dedo.
“Esta é a situação em que meu marido me deixou. Veja, um dedo quebrado, meu rosto todo deformado”, disse. Giullia também relatou que já havia registrado uma ocorrência anterior contra o marido e procurado um advogado criminalista.
Após receber atendimento médico, a vítima retornou à residência do casal e encontrou a porta trancada e a fechadura trocada.
“Vai ser bem ruim para você”: veja mensagens de ameças de Ivo Kos à esposa
Em depoimento, Ivo Kos apresentou uma versão diferente dos fatos. O empresário afirmou que a discussão começou depois de comentários feitos pela esposa durante o jantar. Ele afirmou que ela teria o menosprezado diante de clientes.
Kos disse ainda que os dois possuem histórico de problemas relacionados ao consumo de álcool. Durante o trajeto de carro, segundo o empresário, Giullia teria afirmado que ele a havia traído durante uma viagem a Miami e iniciado agressões com socos e chutes.
Ele negou ter agredido a esposa dentro do carro ou da residência. Também negou ter usado um taco de beisebol, uma arma de choque ou feito ameaças de morte.
O investidor, no entanto, admitiu ter dado um soco no rosto de Giullia enquanto os dois estavam na calçada. Segundo ele, o golpe foi uma reação às agressões que estaria sofrendo.
Kos também confirmou ter tomado o celular da esposa para impedir que ela ligasse para a polícia.
Ainda segundo o empresário, ele tentou oferecer gelo à esposa para tratar um ferimento no rosto. Kos afirmou que Giullia teria arremessado o gelo contra sua cabeça, provocando lesões na testa e na orelha direita.
O empresário também disse que pediu ajuda ao segurança Cosme para levar a esposa para dentro da residência e afirmou que foi ameaçado de morte por ela.
A CNN Brasil entrou em contato com as defesas de Ivo e Giullia sobre a soltura e aguarda retorno.
A campanha Vote Segura elaborou um guia com um conjunto de boas práticas legislativas para orientar a formulação de programas de mandato, projetos de lei, atividades de fiscalização e articulação política.
O guia reúne 11 recomendações para os próximos parlamentares eleitos:
A coordenadora executiva da Rede Justiça Criminal, Janine Salles de Carvalho, destaca que as mulheres brasileiras estão com medo, e com razão. Elas mudam suas rotinas, compartilham a localização em tempo real quando saem à noite, preocupam-se com a própria segurança.
“Esse medo, infelizmente, também se tornou um ativo político capaz de mobilizar votos. Mas responder à insegurança não significa apostar apenas em mais polícia ou prisões. Precisamos olhar para aquilo que impede que a violência aconteça.”
Login