28 July 2007

Judging "Good Faith"

I found this clip on Boortz’s website, which linked to Little Green Footballs. If there’s time to spare, watch the whole clip. It relates to a bill in Congress at the moment to hold harmless people who notify authorities that suspicious behavior is going on. The point of this legislation is to keep frivolous lawsuits out of the courts, to keep perpetrators of crimes from claiming that they are the victims of vigilant citizens.

In the clip, a spokesman for the Council of American Islamic Relations (CAIR) makes a lame attempt to validate filing lawsuits against persons only listed as “Doe” in the case known as the flying imams. The above mentioned legislation is a direct result of this case. The spokesman claims that no person has anything to worry about (read: don’t worry about losing money) as long as calls of concern are made in “good faith.” And just how will this “good faith” be tested? In court, of course. Never mind the cost in time and money of determining individual cases of “good faith.”

Why would a citizen have to defend himself or herself in court for attempting to protect both him or herself and the public in general? If any community panders to the type of claim made here by CAIR – that the judicial system must step in and decide, and the request of some person the intent and / or “good will” of another – is simply ludicrous and un-American. It ranks up there with the growing specter of “hate crime” legislation. It targets the wrong thing, the wrong person, the wrong attitude and perspective. Crime is no longer a crime. The good or bad will, the secret inner workings of the mind of both victim and perpetrator are put in the forefront instead of actions. What wonderful progress we must have made to judge such things.

No comments: