Verboten to Accuse Hugo Chavez of Bad Faith

January 24, 2011

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.

16 Responses to “Verboten to Accuse Hugo Chavez of Bad Faith”

  1. A_Antonio Says:

    From a cartoon, you can extract the thinking of a Chavez’s follower: “Lie to me more, that your “good faith” makes me happy”

  2. loroferoz Says:

    And now that I think, why not make Hugo Chavez happy?

    I propose we call him names that reflect his good faith and ours, without any sarcasm whatsoever.

    Some ideas, in part ripped off from titles (self) conferred by people he admires:

    El Benemérito

    Padre de los Pueblos

    Querido Líder

    Gran Líder

    Líder Supremo de la Revolución Bolivariana

    El Líder

    Héroe de la República (y del Museo Militar de la Planicie)

    There, if we call him that, he cannot accuse anyone of bad faith, can he?

  3. bobthebuilder Says:

    Is ‘bad faith’ receiving a blessing on Alo Presidente after you’ve called the Vatican’s representative a troglodyte?

    Is it saying you don’t hate golf when you said something opposite last year?

    Is it depending on a judicial system ruled by the President?

    Or is it contradicting your promises to the Venezuelan people?

  4. PB Says:

    I think the ambiguity in itself should be used to run rings round the court system and Kepler has it right, but use clever words (anything more than 2 syllables should do it).

  5. Kepler Says:

    When certain authoritarian regimes tried to impose something on the Danes, what the Danes did was to defy them: they all from the king to the common worker did what was prohibited.

    I declare: Chávez is acting in bad faith.

  6. Lim Says:

    Indifferent faith is something in between good faith and bad faith. It can be morally neutral, and is usually based on laws of some type. When our politicians act in response to the enabling law, they act with indifferent faith. If you are a soldier who has to seize somebody’s property following legal procedures, you act in indifferent faith. If you beat up the owner because he objects, you would be exercising good faith. If you beat him up to steal his cash for your own benefit, you act in bad faith. Either way, the guy loses his farm or house, will have to spend some money on plastic surgery, and may have to pay compensation to the owner of the crane.

  7. odef007 Says:

    Thanks to our host…

    It sounds to me as though it is the TSJ that is now acting in “Bad Faith”. No one brings an action against the “ Benevolent “ to the TSJ in bad faith. ( apparently a few have been made ) All actions that have been put to the court have been done in good faith and the accusers hope that the TSJ will do its work in Good Faith. ( or at least they are giving them the rope to hang themselves with – later )

    I think one of the ( Center Left-no such thing as a right wing in VE ) Governors should start building a prison. A His and Hers. Just so they will be ready in time. ( what a mind F that would be ) Oh well, no blocks, no cement, no steel, no pip, no brick ….. hmmmm wonder how his Majesty is going to build all those dignified homes too.

    Snr Octavio, I did not see any legal reference on the statement in the Tal Cual. so out of curiosity …if anyone here happens to know, did this “statement” put out by the TSJ follow a Law that is in the Gaceta Oficial or are they just blowing smoke. As far as I know the TSJ does not make laws, they follow them. If it is a law, who the heck passed it and when? Is it in the Red version of the Constitution or the Blue version?

  8. roy Says:

    “When this is all over, those who have served on the Venezuelan Supreme Court during this period will be deeply ashamed.”

    as trey count their money in Switzerland.

  9. OldSarg Says:

    It may be off topic but I just wanted to say congratulations to all of Venezuela for the wonder victory of Jhonattan Vegas!

  10. wanderer Says:

    When this is all over, those who have served on the Venezuelan Supreme Court during this period will be deeply ashamed.

  11. I understood the second (even if I still have no clue what it means)

  12. RF Says:

    Laureano Marquez writes El Tribunal Supremo de Justicia acaba de señalar que <> Are the words in angled brackets what the court actually said? This is significant because the words are ambiguous in Spanish and could be translated either as “those accusing the President in bad faith will be prosecuted” or as “those accusing the President of bad faith will be prosecuted”.

  13. megaescualidus Says:

    Bullies are never fond of criticism. I betcha “Esteban” was somewhat more open to it right after April 11, 2002, when he technically couldn’t be a bully since, at least for a couple days, he was stripped of all power (

  14. loroferoz Says:

    I hope they have some kind of mind reader ready, if it is the bad faith of the writer they are trying to gauge. Laws that try to penalize or regulate speech are a pox and a plague, plus they make their drafters sound like complete imbeciles (or complete scoundrels).

    And I thought all my adult life that anybody who wanted to be a Venezuelan public official (and much more, President) HAD to be acting in bad faith, or had to have serious mental issues.

    At least he can be called insane?

    Instituting State Socialism is an act in bad faith and malicious, towards every single person owning an object that can be used to produce wealth, including their own persons and minds. Never mind all the lies and robbery that precede such a process.

    Of course, it could be countered that liberalism would make things so that a Socialist, come to power, could never legislate and decree citizens into slavery, that is, make a “Revolution”. But liberals say so clearly.

  15. A_Antonio Says:

    Sorry I mean in good faith, the fate not change at all. 🙂

  16. A_Antonio Says:

    The not so hidden massage from VSC is if you accuse Chavez, even if you accuse him in god faith, your “fate” is finish in jail.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: