Imagine protesters violently invade a protected federal area, break down security doors, injure agents, and advance into restricted zones where international authorities circulate. Naturally, you’d expect a firm response from the State, right?

However, when this happened at COP30 in Belém this Tuesday (11/11), with the Guarantee of Law and Order (GLO) declared, the response was practically null. Consequently, this exposes glaring hypocrisy: why are protesters who invade COP30 treated with leniency, while those from January 8 remain imprisoned for nearly two years?

The Violent Invasion Nobody Wants to Name

First of all, let’s look at the facts recorded on video. Indigenous protesters broke through the doors of COP30’s Blue Zone, a highly restricted area where State ministers, diplomats, and international negotiators circulate.

Furthermore, the images clearly show the moment when the first door falls. Subsequently, a crowd advances and knocks down other doors, occupying the credentialing area and metal detectors. Therefore, we’re not talking about a peaceful protest — we’re talking about invasion of federal facilities.

Security Agent Injured and Chaos Installed

Even more serious, at least one UN security member was injured, being seen bleeding and needing to be taken in a wheelchair by colleagues. Similarly, the security team had to set up improvised barricades with wooden tables after expelling the invaders.

Consequently, the question that won’t go away is: if this had happened in Brasília on January 8, 2023, what would the government’s response be?

GLO Declared — But For What?

On the other hand, here’s the most absurd detail of this entire story: the Guarantee of Law and Order was officially declared for COP30. This means the Armed Forces had legal authorization to act in the event’s security.

However, even with GLO active, protesters managed to invade a restricted federal area, damage public property, and injure an international security agent. So what’s the point of declaring GLO if it’s not applied when needed?

Convenient Selectivity

Moreover, it’s worth remembering that the same GLO was used to justify mass arrests after January 8. At the time, the government argued the measure was essential to “protect democratic institutions.” Yet when protesters invade UN facilities during an international event, apparently democracy doesn’t need protection.

Clearly, we’re facing a classic case of selective law enforcement. Therefore, GLO only serves when politically convenient.

The Stark Contrast with January 8

Now, let’s make the comparison the government doesn’t want made. On January 8, 2023, protesters invaded public buildings in Brasília. The response was immediate and draconian.

Consequently, nearly two years later, hundreds of people remain imprisoned. Additionally, many were sentenced to years in prison, had assets confiscated, and lives destroyed. Similarly, the Supreme Court created specific inquiries to punish even those who were present but didn’t actively participate.

Two Weights, Two Measures

On the other hand, in the COP30 invasion, what do we see? Deafening silence. No mass arrests, no Supreme Court inquiry, no inflammatory speeches about “terrorism” or “attack on democracy.”

On the contrary, the event organization quickly distanced itself, stating that the invaders “were not part of the official organization.” However, this excuse wasn’t accepted for January 8 protesters, many of whom also claimed not to be part of organized groups.

COP30: Waste and Disorganization

Furthermore, this invasion exposes much bigger problems with COP30’s organization. First, the event already cost millions from Brazilian public coffers. However, for what?

Indeed, the conference recorded the lowest presence of heads of state in its history, being nicknamed “Flop30.” Moreover, the presidential couple was criticized for using a luxury yacht while preaching “COP without luxury.” Consequently, all of the event’s credibility was compromised before it even started.

Incompetent Security

Additionally, how do you explain that a supposedly high-security area, with GLO declared and UN protection, was invaded by protesters? Clearly, there was a grotesque failure of planning and execution.

Therefore, Brazilian taxpayers paid millions for a poorly organized event, with incompetent security that became a stage for invasion and violence. Similarly, this situation raises serious questions about Brazil’s capacity to host large-scale international events.

The Hypocrisy of Environmental Discourse

On the other hand, let’s talk about the irony of this situation. The protesters who invaded COP30 allegedly fight for environmental and climate causes. However, their actions included violence, property destruction, and attacks on security agents.

Consequently, the question arises: if the cause is just, does that justify any means? Apparently, for the current government, the answer is “yes” — but only when protesters share the same ideology.

Selective Activism

Moreover, it’s worth noting that traditional media treated this invasion much more mildly than they treated January 8. In this sense, terms like “coup attempt” and “terrorism” were widely used in 2023. On the other hand, the COP30 invasion is described as “confusion” or “protest that got out of control.”

Clearly, the narrative framing depends more on who’s protesting than what’s being done.

Questions That Need Answers

First, the government needs to explain why there were no significant consequences for COP30 invaders. After all, if the law is equal for all, where are the preventive arrests? Where are the Supreme Court inquiries?

Additionally, why wasn’t GLO, which was officially declared, effectively applied? Similarly, who will answer for the security failure that allowed invasion of an international restricted area?

The Missing Coherence

On the other hand, if the government insists that January 8 arrests were just and necessary, then it needs to apply the same rigor to COP30 invaders. Otherwise, it explicitly admits there’s a selective justice system in Brazil.

Consequently, this selectivity destroys any pretense of impartiality in the Brazilian judicial system.

The Real Cost of COP30

Meanwhile, let’s talk about how much this “Flop30” is costing Brazilians. Millions were spent on access road construction (criticized by Trump himself as a “scandal”), event organization, and security that clearly failed.

Furthermore, the government built luxury infrastructure for an event that didn’t attract major world leaders. Therefore, the return on this investment is practically nil.

Inverted Priorities

On the other hand, while millions are spent on low-impact international events, states like Rio de Janeiro fight narcoterrorism alone without adequate federal support. Similarly, public health and education remain underfunded.

Consequently, it’s clear the government’s priorities are completely inverted.

The Accountability Question

Moreover, we need to seriously discuss the issue of accountability. If there are no consequences for invading federal facilities, destroying public property, and assaulting security agents, what does that say about the Rule of Law in Brazil?

Clearly, we’re moving toward a situation where law applies selectively based on political and ideological criteria. Therefore, this isn’t justice — it’s arbitrariness.

The Dangerous Precedent

Additionally, by not punishing COP30 invaders, the government establishes an extremely dangerous precedent. Essentially, the message is: you can invade federal facilities, as long as you’re on the “right” side of the political spectrum.

Consequently, this encourages more violence and disrespect for institutions in the future.

Where Are the Democracy Defenders?

On the other hand, the silence of those who call themselves “democracy defenders” is notable. The same voices that clamored for severe punishment after January 8 are curiously quiet about the COP30 invasion.

Similarly, the Supreme Court, which was so zealous in persecuting 2023 protesters, seems completely uninterested in this case. Therefore, it’s clear that defense of democratic institutions is selective and convenient.

Credibility in Ruins

Consequently, this hypocrisy destroys any credibility these public figures might have. After all, if you only defend the law when it punishes your political opponents, you’re not a democrat — you’re a partisan in disguise.

Conclusion: A Nation of Two Justices

In summary, the contrast between treatment given to COP30 invaders and January 8 protesters exposes an uncomfortable truth: Brazil operates under a two-justice system.

On one hand, we have draconian and relentless justice for those considered political adversaries of the establishment. On the other hand, we have benevolence and impunity for those ideologically aligned with power.

Furthermore, the COP30 fiasco — with its exorbitant cost, low international presence, security failures, and now unpunished invasion — perfectly symbolizes the current government’s distorted priorities.

Finally, as long as the government spends millions on façade international events and applies the law selectively based on ideological criteria, Brazil will continue being a democracy in name only.

Therefore, the question remains: how long will the Brazilian people accept this system of double standards? How long will we tolerate justice being a political tool instead of a pillar of democracy?

What’s your opinion on this difference in treatment? Should COP30 invaders be treated the same way as those from January 8? Share in the comments!