On May 28 2008, a young Cape Verdean female student, attending the 11th grade at the Januario Leite Secondary School, District of Paul (Santo Antao Island), was asked to cancel her enrolment after delivering a baby. Distraught by the bitter taste of women discrimination in Cape Verdean schools, Ana Rodrigues wrote a letter to the Minister of Education, requesting her right to remain at school and avoid an unwanted interruption in this nearly finishing school year. In face of this event, and being aware of the existence of similar cases, we demand a special framework for pregnant girls at school, emphasising that our intention is not to encourage girl pregnancy, but rather combat school drop-outs and discrimination implied in the above mentioned suspension measure. Subscribe this petition in favour of Ana Rodrigues and leave your opinion on this suspension measure. Do you agree that pregnant women should be suspend from school?

The above excerpt is from a petition against the school's decision, whose link has been circulating around the Cape Verdean blogosphere. So far, the online petition organized by the Citizenship Movement and Cape Verdean Blogs has already been signed by over 220 netizens and support is growing fast. Many of the island's bloggers have been mobilized and they are posting about the issue, some of them generating a good debate about human rights, sex education and society's hypocrisy. Below is a roundup of the strong reactions, starting with Eurídice Monteiro [pt], the first blogger to call for action:

Fiquei furiosa ao saber da situação da jovem Ana, que, apesar de estar a enfrentar dificuldades económicas acrescidas, é uma das melhores alunas da sua escola, com uma média acima dos 17 valores. Ainda a poucos dias, na Feira do Livro de Lisboa, durante a apresentação da Revista Direito e Cidadania, uma distinta senhora de nome Ernestina Santos contestava a discriminação das jovens e adolescentes grávidas nas escolas cabo-verdianas, como que adivinhando o caso da Ana. Como tenho uma preocupação particular com a feminização do abandono escolar, principalmente no ensino básico e secundário, e com a elevada taxa de gravidez precoce, que condena as jovens e as adolescentes a abandonarem os estabelecimentos de ensino, muitas vezes definitivamente, não podia ficar calada perante este caso.

I was furious to learn of Ana's situation, the girl who, despite facing increased economic difficulties, is one of the best students of her school with an above average mark for 17 subjects. A few days ago at the Book Fair in Lisbon, during the launch of the Law and Citizenship Magazine, a distinguished lady called Mrs Ernestina Santos contested the discrimination against pregnant youngsters and teenagers in Cape Verdean schools, as if guessing Ana's case. As I have a particular concern with the feminization of the school dropout issue, especially in primary and secondary education, and with the high rate of teen pregnancy, which condemns youngsters and teenagers to leave their schools often for good, I could not keep quiet when faced with this case.

Photo by NineInchNachosIII used under a CC licence.

Many other bloggers heard about the case through the above post, and they were quick to react. João Branco [pt], who has seen his two daughters through motherhood, says that this all happened in a incredibly surreal fashion:

Andamos a brincar? Uma grávida é uma doente infecto-contagiosa neste país? Onde pára o direito constitucional à educação? Ainda para mais parece que a aluna em causa - Ana Rodrigues - escreveu uma carta para à Sra. Ministra da Educação, suplicando pelo direito de continuar os seus estudos, sem uma interrupção indesejada neste ano lectivo preste a findar. Suplicando? Suplicando por um direito? E se fosse ao contrário? O Estado a suplicar aos cidadãos que paguem os seus impostos, por exemplo. Este caso é um escândalo, fere o direito à educação, pedra basilar do desenvolvimento de Cabo Verde desde sempre. Ainda mais preocupante quando este é um caso tornado público, dando-nos a sensação que muitos mais haverá, similares a este, um pouco por todos os estabelecimentos de ensino.

Is this a joke? Is a pregnant woman in this country an infectious and contagious person? Where is the constitutional right to education? It is even worse because the student concerned - Ana Rodrigues - wrote a letter to Ms Minister of Education, begging for the right to continue her studies without an unwanted interruption in this nearly complete school year. Begging? Begging for a right? And what if it was the other way around? The State begging the citizens to pay their taxes, for example. This is a scandal, this violates the right to education, the cornerstone of the Cape Verdean development. It is even more worrying when this is just one case made public, giving us the feeling that there may be many more cases, similar to this, happening in all educational establishments.

However, a commentator on the above post disagrees. Kuskas [pt] says that her sister was expelled from school when she got pregnant and missed the term, but she was better prepared to go back to her studies a year later, with the help of her family. She stresses that parents are responsible for ensuring that children do not get pregnant in the first place:

João, gravidez não é doença e nem deve ser, mas a adolescente gravida que frenquenta as aulas é prejudicada em relação aos colegas de muitas formas: as faltas são injustificadas (pelo que sei PARTO não é justificação para faltas, pelo menos nas escolas secundárias), nas aulas de educação fisica ela é tratada como as outras alunas e ela não tem direito a licença maternidade. SE as nossas escolas e as FAMILIAS estivessem PREPARADAS para lidar com essas situações, que eu continuo a dizer NÃO È e NÂO DEVE ser NORMAL, não haveria problemas nenhuns.

João, pregnancy is not a disease and it should not be, but the pregnant teenager who goes to school is in jeopardy in relation to her colleagues in many ways: the missed days are unjustified (and we know childbirth is no justification for missing [lessons], at least not in secondary schools), she is treated like other students in the physical education classes and she is not entitled to maternity leave. IF our schools and families were PREPARED to deal with these situations, I still say they ARE NOT and this MUST NOT be NORMAL, there would be no problems.

Abstract painting by Carina used under a CC licence.

Not exactly linked to the comment above, Eileen Barbosa [pt] criticizes this very mentality towards young mothers, and people who think they are less capable of completing their studies:

Já ouvi vozes dizerem qualquer coisa como “Unh, não me parece que fique bem ter grávidas a conviver com outros alunos…” Porquê, pergunto? Dá um mau exemplo? Serei inocente quando penso que pode até funcionar do outro jeito: a grávida sente-se mal disposta, a grávida não pode participar nos jogos violentos; quando o bebé nascer, virá com umas olheiras enormes por estar a perder sono… e as despesas… é melhor adiar…

Uma futura mãe precisa, mais do que ninguém, de meios para ganhar a vida e sustentar a cria. Negar-lhe as ferramentas para isso parece-me uma maldade injustificável.

I have heard voices saying something like “Unh, I do not think it looks good that pregnant girls mingle with other students…” Why, I wonder? Can you give me a bad example? Am I being naive when I think it could actually be the other way around: [people saying] the pregnant girl feels unwell, the pregnant girl can not participate in violent games; when the baby is born, she will come with bags under her eyes for not getting enough sleep… and the expenses… it is better to put it off…
A future mother needs, more than anyone else, the means to earn a living and support her offspring. Denying her the tools to do so seems to me an unjustifiable wicked thing.

On the grounds of childbirth

More than just granting that Ana Rodrigues is given the opportunity to resume her studies, bloggers want an investigation into the school headmistress' decision to force the girl to give up school, on the grounds of “childbirth”. The notice, signed by headmistress Alda Maria Martins Lima, reads as follows: “The Directorate of Januario Leite Secondary School hereby gives notice to teachers and students of the 11C class of the Economic and Social Course that the student Ana Maria Rodrigues is suspended from classes on the grounds of childbirth. She must apply herself for the cancellation of her matriculation for this school year”.

Virgílio Brandão [pt] publishes excerpts of the Constitution which shows that not only every citizen has the right to education, but also that “The agents of the state and other public entities are, by law, criminally and disciplinarily responsible for actions or omissions that lead to violation of rights, freedoms and guarantees.” On another long and well thought of post, he reminds readers that this is not the first time [pt] that a young girl has been driven to drop out of school after getting pregnant. In fact, if not normal, this seems to happen quite often in Cape Verde and that it is a fact society and government need to better acknowledge and address:

O extraordinário é que as Instituições que deveriam proteger a infância, a juventude e os direitos humanos em geral não fazem (não fizeram, que eu tenha conhecimento) nada de prático para evitar este e outros males. Quantas Anas existem e já existiram em Cabo Verde? O que aconteceu com elas, depois de decisões como esta? A estatística não deve servir somente a política e a economia, não…

The amazing point is that the institutions that should protect the children, youth and [advocate] human rights in general don't do (they haven't done, as far as I know) anything practical to prevent this and other evils. How many Anas are there and have already been in Cape Verde? What has happened to them, after decisions like this? Statistics should serve not only politics and economy…

Photo by O Pirata used under a CC licence.

Furnas [pt] carries on the same idea to say that it is high time society debated these issues in an open manner:

Se os caboverdianos querem discutir a questão da gravidez na adolescência que o façam de forma séria, madura, ponderada e científica, não na perspectiva moralista e, muito menos de valores pessoais discutíveis e de origem e finalidade duvidosas! Acho que por uma questão de cidadania, que nos toca a todos, deveríamos estudar a possibilidade de entrar com um processo-crime no tribunal contra o estado de Cabo Verde! Está mais do que na hora de começarmos a quebrar o silêncio…

If Cape Verdeans want to discuss the issue of teenage pregnancy they should do so in a serious, mature, thoughtful and scientific way, not with the moralist view only, and even less with debatable personal values of dubious origin/means! I think that as it is a matter of citizenship, which concerns us all, we should consider the possibility of joining with the criminal proceedings in a court against the state of Cape Verde! It is high time we began to break the silence…

Paulino Dias [pt] believes that talking about it is not as easy when people just close their eyes to the problem.

O problema é mais profundo, minha amiga. Tem a ver com a (re)avaliação da legalidade e da “humanidade” da medida de afastamento das alunas grávidas das escolas, tem a ver com a desconstrução das famílias e dos seus valores que vimos assistindo diariamente, tem a ver com um certo “lavar de mãos” dos pais no que diz respeito à educação sexual dos filhos (sim senhor, isso não é assunto apenas do Ministério da Educação ou das Delegacias de Saúde!), tem a ver com a passividade de todos nós que tranquilamente vamos assistindo a esses “pequenos” dramas e assobiamos para o lado com a consciência limpa de quem pagou já os seus impostos.

The problem is deeper, my friend. It has to do with the (re) assessment of legality and “humanity” of the schools' removal order for pregnant students, it is about the deconstruction of families and their values that we have watched daily, it is about a certain “washing of hands” of parents regarding sex education of children (yes sir, this matter does not only concern the Ministry of Education or the Health Authorities!), it has to do with the passivity of all of us who quietly watch these “small” dramas and turn our backs with the clear conscience of those who have already paid their taxes.

Photo by elisnice used under a CC licence.

Coming back to Virgílio Brandão [pt], this time on a comment on a Cafe Margoso post, he shares this anecdote about one of his past colleagues at Law School who had three kids during the university course:

Um dia, perguntei-lhe porque é que ela estava quase sempre grávida na altura dos exames e ela respondeu-me, com um extraordinário sentido de humor:

- Virgílio, fico mais inteligente quando estou grávida.

One day, I asked her why she was almost always pregnant when the examinations were up, to which she answered me, with an extraordinary sense of humour:
- Virgílio, I get more clever when I am pregnant.

Art. 4º. É vedada, desde 48 horas antes até 24 horas depois da eleição, a veiculação de qualquer propaganda política na Internet, no rádio ou na televisão – incluídos, entre outros, as rádios comunitárias e os canais de televisão que operam em UHF, VHF e por assinatura –, e, ainda, a realização de comícios ou reuniões públicas.

Art 4. Broadcasting of any political propaganda on the Internet, radio or television - including, among others, community radio stations and television channels operating in UHF, VHF and by subscription - and, besides, rallies or public meetings are prohibited, from 48 hours before through 24 hours after the election.

This leads to the interpretation that blog posts and pieces of news written way before the elections would be banned on the day, according to judge-blogger Jorge Alberto Araujo [pt], who interprets the resolution as the same as trying to forbid people from reading yesterday's papers on the election day:

Impedir que matérias de conteúdo político sejam veiculadas na Internet, no dia da eleição, dá a impressão que o TSE, futuramente, pode admitir que haja propaganda política obrigatória na Web, algo do tipo: “Interrompemos a programação normal (a leitura deste blog, por exemplo) para exibir a propaganda obrigatória nos termos da Lei…” absurdo, não? Eu e você achamos. Parece que o TSE, não.

Preventing political content to circulate on the Internet, on the election day, gives the impression that the TSE, in future, could admit that there will be free political advertising on the Web, something like: “we interrupt the normal schedule (reading of this blog, for example) to broadcast the free political advertising program under the Law…” It is absurd, no? You and I believe so. It seems that the TSE, don't.

Lawyer Adauto de Andrade [pt] publishes the picture above and gives his two cents:

Internet não é televisão. Internet não é rádio. Você “vai” à Internet, ela não “vem” até você. Será que o TSE não consegue dar uma dentro?

Internet is not television. Internet is not radio. You “go” to the Internet, it doesn't “come” to you. Is it possible that the TSE can't get anything right?

Another Brazilian blogger and Judge George Marmelstein [pt] watched the TSE session in person. Below is a summary of his impressions:

Na medida em que eu ia vendo as argumentações apresentadas, ficava cada vez mais surpreso ante o despreparo dos ministros para entenderem o que é a internet. Parecia – e essa impressão foi muito forte – que eles não sabiam do que estavam falando. Para se ter uma idéia, Youtube virou U2.

As I heard the arguments being presented, I was increasingly surprised in face of the ministers' lack of knowledge to understand what the Internet is. It seemed - and this impression was very strong - that they did not know what they were talking about. To get an idea, Youtube was turned into U2.

No entanto, merece destaque o posicionamento do Min. Carlos Ayres Brito nesse assunto. Ele disse algo que eu já defendi: em matéria de liberdade de expressão, o Judiciário não deveria tentar regulamentar a internet sem saber do que se trata. Querer igualar a internet com as demais mídias é um grave equívoco. A internet, ao contrário da imprensa tradicional, não tem dona e a informação é livre e gratuita.

However, it is worth noting Minister Carlos Ayres Brito's position n this matter. He said something I have advocated: when it comes to freedom of expression, the judiciary should not try to regulate the Internet without knowing what it is. Trying to make the Internet equal to other media is a serious mistake. The Internet, unlike traditional media, has no owner and the information is free and gratis.

No final das contas, a solução foi uma amostra clara de que eles não sabiam direito o que estavam decidindo naquele momento. Ficou decidido que à medida em que os problemas surgissem, a solução seria dada caso a caso. Tanto melhor para os advogados e tanto pior para os eleitores, que ficam com uma espada de Dâmocles em suas cabeças sem saber direito o que podem e o que não podem fazer.

In the end, the decision was a clear sample that they did not know what they were deciding right then. It was decided that to the extent that problems arise, they would be dealt with, case by case. This is great for lawyers and too bad for voters, who are left with a Sword of Damocles hanging over their heads without knowing what they can and can not do.

Meanwhile, bewilderment reigns, with mismatched information and misunderstandings being shared among blogs, newspapers and other media outlets - everyone seems still to be confused.

Global Voices Online has been following this discussion closely.

Both pieces of news were covered here, at Global Voices Online, in March and January respectively and the two of them were pieced together last week, when Pedro Dória [pt] and other bloggers had to delete the banners they had displayed on their blogs in support of the now Mayoral candidate Fernando Gabeira, following a Regional Electoral Court decision. According to the law, political propaganda for this year's elections is only allowed from July 6, and the Rio de Janeiro Regional Electoral Court (the acronym TRE-RJ in Portuguese) demanded the banners be taken off, otherwise Gabeira's candidacy would be banned. Pedro Dória broke the news and expressed his indignation in a post that has amassed no less than 210 comments:

Nenhum político paga por este banner. É uma declaração de voto pessoal de minha parte. O banner leva a um argumento pela sua candidatura. É o meu direito como cidadão de manifestar o que penso, qual o caminho que desejo para minha cidade. Ninguém deve ser punido porque exerci meu direito de cidadão em uma democracia de manifestar minha opinião.

Mas a Justiça considerou que deve impor limites ao meu direito de expressar minha opinião. É um fato grave.

O Weblog é um veículo jornalístico. Eu sou jornalista. O gesto do Tribunal é uma censura à liberdade de imprensa.

No politician pays for this banner. It is a declaration of mine of my personal vote. The banner links to an argument for his candidacy. It is my right as a citizen to express what I think, what path I want for my city. No one else should be punished because I exercised my right as citizen in a democracy to express my opinion. However the Justice ruled that it should impose limits on my rights to express my opinion. It is a really serious issue. The Weblog is a journalistic vehicle. I am a journalist. The court decision is a gesture of press freedom censorship.

“Gabeira Rio 2008″vs “Censored by the Rio de Janeiro Regional Electoral Court”

The previous banner, the first one above, stating “Gabeira Rio 2008″ had been online for months even before the politician made his mind up about running for the elections. It has been substituted by a new one that now reads “Censored by the Rio de Janeiro Regional Electoral Court”, still linking to the post back in January calling for the Green Party politician to stand for elections. In another post that attracted hundreds of comments [pt], Dória answers readers comments on the new debate about censorship that this event sparked on the Brazilian blogosphere:

Que não fiquem dúvidas: o Tribunal me censurou. Censura é isso, é dizer que não pode publicar algo em meu espaço. Uma intromissão em minha liberdade de colocar o que quiser aqui. Uma inteferência em minha independência editorial. Esta é a informação no novo banner. E este aqui, no Brasil, ainda é um regime democrático mesmo que capenga. Um Estado de leis. O tribunal decidiu que não posso publicar, não publico. Mas digo que fui censurado.

Let there be no doubt: the Court censored me. Censorship is this, to say that I can not publish something in my own space. An intrusion into my freedom to put whatever I like here. An interference in my editorial independence. This is the new banner's message. And this regime here in Brazil is still a democratic one even if a lame one. A state of law. The court decided that I can not publish it, I do not publish it. But I do say that I was censored.

Sociologist and political scientist Sérgio Amadeu [pt] blames the Brazilian blogosphere, himself included, for not fighting against the new regulations as soon as they were announced, and called the decision a grave interference with freedom of expression:

Não concordo nem um pouco com a candidatura do Gabeira, mas isso não me dá o direito de impedir que as pessoas, que com ela concordam, discutam a necessidade de sua candidatura. O objetivo da esfera pública é o debate entre os cidadãos sobre as escolhas que definem os destinos de sua cidade, estado, nação e planeta. Em vez de incentivar o espítito deliberacionista, a discussão política sobre as melhores alternativas para os governos, a Justiça Eleitoral do Rio de Janeiro age contra o direito de opinião e o uso público da razão. Ela acaba de exigir que Gabeira mande os blogueiros retirarem os banners que declaravam seu apoio. Um ato de confusão e censura. Isto é o que dá, não termos reagido com a força necessária a Resolução do TSE que restringe o uso da Internet nas eleições deste ano.

I do not agree even slightly with Gabeira's candidacy, but that does not give me the right to prevent people who agree with it discussing the need for his candidacy. The purpose of the public sphere is the debate between citizens on the choices that define the fate of their cities, state, nation and planet. Instead of encouraging the deliberating spirit and the political discussion about the best alternatives for governments, the Electoral Justice in Rio de Janeiro acts against the right of opinion and public use of reason. It has just demanded that Gabeira asks the bloggers to withdraw the banners in which they declared their support. An act of confusion and censorship. That is the consequence of not having reacted with the necessary strength to the TSE resolution that restricted the use of the Internet in this year's elections.

Rogério Christofoletti [pt] is among the bloggers who got confused about what they can say and what they can not on their on blogs:

Não voto no Rio. Não poderia manifestar meu voto no Gabeira, embora simpatize com ele. Mas será que a Justiça vai me censurar também por comentar a censura ao blog do Pedro Doria???

I don't vote in Rio, so I could not express my vote for Gabeira, although I have sympathy for him. But will the Justice censor me too for commenting on the censorship on Pedro Dória's blog?

“If I was from Rio, I would vote for Gabeira”

Glaydson Lima [pt] can not vote in Rio either, but launched a protest publishing the above banner. He reminds readers that thanks to the Internet help, Barack Obama might win the American elections and stresses that any political debate is healthy for the population:

Debate na internet só é danoso para um grupo de raposas políticas que detêm o poder de mídia. Aqueles que conseguiram concessões públicas através de “arranjos” políticos. Que estão anos e anos sugando o dinheiro público através de todo tipo de ladroagem. Este tipo de gente não quer debate na internet. Este tipo de gente está batendo palmas para a decisão do TRE-RJ.

The debate on the Internet is only harmful to a group of political foxes who have the power of media. Those who managed to get public concessions through “political arrangements”. [Those who] have been for years and years sucking public money through all kinds of thievery. Such people do not want the debate on the Internet [to happen]. Such people are clapping the TRE-RJ's decision.

Gisele Honscha [pt], on the other hand, ponders other consequences of the non-regulation of blogs:

Não sou a favor da censura muito menos da coibição da liberdade de expressão. Por outro lado, devemos refletir: a partir da prática cada vez mais comum dos posts patrocinados, levando em conta que alguns blogueiros não costumam ser transparentes quanto a esta prática, como vamos saber quando um artigo em um blog é opinião e quando é propaganda? É possível que tenhamos “opiniões patrocinadas” nas próximas eleições? Como avaliar? Como julgar? Punir? Quem?

I'm not for censorship much less for hindering freedom of expression. On the other hand, we must think about it: considering the increasingly common practice of sponsored posts, taking into account that some bloggers do not tend to be transparent about this practice, how do we know whether an article on a blog is personal opinion or propaganda? Will we have “sponsored reviews” in the coming elections? How to evaluate? How to judge? To punish? Who?

Raquel Recuero [pt] believes that it is high time that what is regarded as electoral propaganda and what is a constitutionally guaranteed right of expression is clarified:

Inicialmente, estranho a ordem para que Gabeira retirasse do blog que não é seu e com o qual não tem nenhuma participação (exceto, talvez, por uma amizade com Pedro Doria) o banner e a campanha. Além de criar um precedente absurdo, não faz qualquer sentido. Isso quer dizer que, se eu fizesse aqui um blog em favor de um cadidato que detesto, o Exmo. Juiz mandaria cassar o candidato que não tem nada a ver com isso? Percebam o problema: com a lógica da Internet, onde cada indivíduo é um potencial produtor de conteúdo, é humanamente impossível ao mais bem intencionado candidato controlar o que 30 milhões de brasileiros estão fazendo aqui com o seu nome. Quero dizer, para mim, a ordem tem um vício em sua emissão, pois ela responsabiliza alguém que não pode ser responsabilizado pois não teria (tecnicamente) nenhum controle sobre os fatos. Em uma analogia simplória, seria como responsabilizar um candidato porque as pessoas estão falando sobre ele na rua.

To start with, it was odd to demand Gabeira to withdraw the banner and campaign from a blog that is not his and with which he has nothing to do (except, perhaps, being friends with Pedro Doria). In addition to creating an absurd precedent, it makes no sense. Does this mean that if I create a blog in support of a candidate that I hate, the Sir. Judge would ban the candidate that has nothing to do with it? See the problem: with the Internet logic, where each individual is a potential content producer, it is humanly impossible for the most well-intentioned candidate to control what 30 million Brazilians are doing here in his name. I mean, to me, the order is defectively issued, because someone who can not be held anyway responsible because he/she would have (technically) no control over the facts is made liable. In a simple analogy, it would be like making a candidate responsible of what people are saying about him/her on the streets.

Marcos Faria [pt] follows the logic explained by Recuero above and publishes banners supporting candidates that he does NOT want to see as the new Rio Mayor. He explains:

Agora, das duas, uma: ou os senhores juízes cassam todo candidato cujo banner eu resolver publicar ou então devolvem o meu direito a manifestar minha opinião. Porque quem proíbe um banner hoje proíbe um artigo amanhã, uma discussão outro dia, e acaba resolvendo que essa tal de democracia é uma coisa muito perigosa.

Now it is either one or another, the hounorable judges ban any candidate whose banner I decide to publish or give me back my right to express my opinion. Because he who forbids a banner today forbids an article tomorrow, a discussion another day, and eventually decides that this thing called democracy is a very dangerous thing.

Apparently, the judges went for the second choice. Thalles Waichert [pt] brings a piece of good news among all the confusion: in an overnight U-turn, the Justice decided that bloggers are now welcome to debate and express their opinions and candidates can now also use social networking tools to promote their campaign. He concludes that together the blogosphere is stronger than ever:

A voz da blogosfera se fez ouvir muito mais alto. O post do Pedro Dória falando sobre o caso foi publicado ontem. Hoje o JB Online publicou uma matéria dizendo que o TRE-RJ lançou uma portaria liberando a “campanha eleitoral nos blogs”. Olha que curioso… o discurso dos blogueiros forçaram uma alteração nas regras da eleição desse ano! Isso é grande heim…

The blogosphere voice speaks louder. Pedro Dória's post talking about the case was published yesterday [May 29]. Today the Online JB [Jornal do Brazil Online] published a piece of news saying that the TRE-RJ has launched an ordinance allowing the “election campaign on blogs” [pt]. Look… how curious that bloggers arguments forced a change in the rules of this year's election! This is the greatest point…