Two legal cases, still in the making
through the courts and still debated in public, are inching forward in the
courts, but publicly sinking into the cesspool of journalistic ignorance and prejudice.
To discuss them intelligently, we need to remember that legal cases range from
the simple to the complex.
A simple case may unfold as follows: An
incident has become a legal concern because someone who believes he is doing
the right thing looking after his interests, finds himself accused by someone
else of damaging his interests. The case goes to court where the question to
resolve is this: When operating in a pool where competitors have the same kind
of interests as you, how far can you jostle your way ahead before crossing the
line that separates what you can do and what you cannot?
A complex case may unfold as follows: A
child is taken to hospital and the doctor determines he needs a blood
transfusion but the parents object on religious ground. While the haggling
drags on, the child's condition worsens, and the doctor administers the
transfusion anyway. But it was too late and the child dies. The parents sue the
doctor, not because the child died, which they expected will happen with or without
the transfusion, but because the doctor violated their religious right.
This is a case of two competing rights:
that of the parents whose religion should have been respected, and that of the
doctor whose right is an obligation rooted in the Hippocratic Oath he took.
What the courts must resolve in a case like this, is the question of which
right precedes the other … or if possible, find a creative solution that will
fully or partially satisfy both sides.
One of the two actual cases being debated
in public and may end up in court, came in the form of an article under the
title: “Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison just declared war on religious
freedom and free speech,” written by Kaylee McGhee and published on October 5,
2019 in the Washington Examiner. The other article is actually an editorial
that came under the title: “What Rashida Tlaib doesn't get about policing,”
published the next day, October 6, 2019 in the New York Post. It too may end up
in court, and here is why:
Worried that the facial recognition
technology is not yet perfect, the Brooklyn Representative in Congress
initiated a bill to ban the technology from federally funded public housing,
and Rashida Tlaib, who represents a Michigan district, supported the bill.
Aware that the same technology is used in Michigan by the Detroit Police, Tlaib
wrote to the Chief suggesting that he should rethink using the technology.
The Chief invited Tlaib to tour the Crime
Center and see for herself. She did, and then further suggested that the Center
should at least, hire black analysts to run the software. This is when the
editors of the New York Post unloaded on her despite the fact that they
admitted: “This tech so far doesn't do well at ID'ing women or people with
darker skin tones. It's a known problem”.
But what on earth was that? What was it
that caused the editors to unload on Rashida Tlaib? The answer is that, unable
to win an argument proceeding the civilized human way, the Post editors chose
to proceed the Jewish savage way. This is what they did: “What Tlaib and
cop-bashers refuse to recognize is that the rich can spend on private security,
the middle class can move to safer areas, the poor are law-abiding, and Detroit
has a Chief to counter Tlaib's racist, ignorant poison”.
This is so horrifically dumb, if there was
a witch that could turn the New York Post editors into cockroaches, the
authentic cockroaches of the world would commit mass suicide to avoid being
associated with the ignorant calamity that the witch has inflicted on them. To
think that these characters dare to mention the name Rashida Tlaib, having
assumed that cockroaches are equipped to judge the motives of a human being,
makes you wonder: What's the world coming to?
As to the Kaylee McGhee article, it deals
with two competing rights. One is the right of an individual to run a business
that caters to the public according to religious beliefs that compel him to
refuse catering to certain “people,” a stance that would be illegal. The other
right pertains to one of those “people” being served by someone that runs a
business catering to the public, and obligated under the law to avoid
discriminating against anyone. How to resolve a problem like this?
One actual case went through the courts in
Minnesota, at which time the Court of Appeal ruled in favor of the business
owner. This did not sit well with Attorney General Keith Ellison who said he'll
continue the fight through the courts to have the decision of the Court of
Appeal reversed. He wrote an op-ed piece detailing his reasons for making that
decision. The readers who are interested in such matters should read the McGhee
piece where they'll find a link to the Ellison op-ed piece. They will find the
back-and-forth debate interesting and stimulating to the intellect.
Unfortunately, everything got spoiled at
the end of the Kaylee McGhee article when he proved to be competing with the
cockroaches of the New York Post for the trophy of being the dumbest cockroach
alive. See for yourself how McGhee ended his article:
“Ellison is a tyrant in the making. Full
of conviction and hungry for power, he would dictate moral choices and compel
his constituents to act against their consciences”.
But nothing in the Keith Ellison piece
suggests anything like that. On the contrary, the piece he wrote proves that he
is a strict observer of the laws of the land which are derived from the
American Constitution he swore to uphold and defend.