The Venezuelan Supreme Court just said that those that accuse Hugo Chavze of “Bad Faith” can be prosecuted. I did not understand what it meant when it caem out and was going to write about it, but then Laureano Marquez in Tal Cual wrote this article entitled Bad Faith” that just about covers it all and with humor to boot. So, instead of writing, I translated his stuff:
Bad Faith by Laureano Marquez
How do you define bad faith? I ask the question in good faith, to know, because the Supreme Court just said that those who accuse the President of “bad faith” may be prosecuted. It is not clear whether the penalty is for those who accuse the President of “bad faith” or those that in “bad faith” accuse the President. The difference is not small. We know, and it is clear to all, that the Supreme Court, for now, will not promote any sanctions against Esteban, as demonstrated ad nauseum, but I imagine that in the future, what they pretend is that people simply will inhibit themselves and denunciations will not even take place. I guess the judges are feeling the legal tiredness that must arise from both having to twist the law to take away the reason from those who have it and they want to preserve their material and spiritual discomfort. But let’s look at a legal definition of bad faith, I mean, the term “bad faith”:
“Willful misconduct, intentionally malicious act by which rights of others are violated or a duty is not fullfilled.” Examining the concept, the first thing that comes to mind is that you know who could perfectly be accused of acting in bad faith (it is not an accusation, it is a fanciful exercise made in good faith, in order to understand bad faith) . “Acting intentionally malicious,” “harming the rights of others” and “failure to comply with a duty,” is the impression that many Venezuelans have of their head of state, among which I do not include myself, of course, because I’ve always believed that that guy acts in good faith, that is he acts correctly, according to his nature, aims and purposes.
Here is my doubt: He who acts in good faith to act with bad faith, can also be accused? Because even if it is true that he is acting in bad faith, he is telling it to you, which is an act of good faith. So, I become a tropical Kelsen and affirm – and forgive me – that this time the Supreme Court is correct: All charges against the aforementioned are in bad faith because he is accused of something he has admitted in good faith. Chesterton rightly said: “Some men are not disguised by their disguises, but they are revealed by them.
Each person disguised itself, according to what is inside “… and I quote it in good faith.