Etching in caves, from a time before the Pharaonic era,
suggests that human beings have projected into themselves the attributes they
saw in animals. The practice became a big part of the Egyptian culture, and has
persisted to this day as I can tell, having seen it in every culture I
encountered. For example, to call someone lionhearted in most cultures means to
see them as courageous. In some cultures, dog means to be sycophantic. In other
cultures, owl means to be wise … and so on.
Thus, to call someone a hawk or a dove does not upset
someone as much as being called a jackass or an alley cat, for example. But
what would happen if someone that views himself as a hawk was called a dove––to
question his credibility––during a convention held by hawks? Could the
aggrieved party sue for being insulted? If there is no law covering this kind
of situation, should there be one?
If this game is name-calling, might there be another kind of
name-calling game we should take into account in this discussion? Yes there is.
But because that's where things start to get complicated, this other game is
better explained with examples:
Example one: I call Johnny a thief and say he stole the car
he is driving. Johnny sues me and proves that he did not steal the car but
bought and paid for it. I lose the case and am condemned to pay damages.
Example two: I call Johnny a thief – as a general term –
without specifying what, where or when he steals occasionally or habitually.
Can he sue me? Yes he can, and he may win unless I can prove that he stole
something at least once. The thing to note, however, is that a case like this
can be used to highlight the difference between hurting someone and attempting
to hurt someone.
For example, if I am alone with Johnny and I call him names,
and he happens to be recording my voice, he'll get nowhere in a court of law
suing me for insulting him. But if I call him names in front of people who are
here to judge him by his character and deal with him accordingly, he might try
suing me. If my “insult” had fallen on deaf ears, I'll be deemed to have
attempted hurting him. But if my “testimony” had resulted in Johnny getting
hurt, and I have no proof to back my “accusation,” I'll be deemed to have hurt
him. The punishment I'll receive will be different in each case.
So the question is this: What's the difference between
associating someone with an animal trait, or associating him with a human trait
that’s deemed unacceptable or even illegal? The answer is that the first is
hypothetical with no consequence; the second is real with potential
consequences. For example, if someone annoys me and I call him a pig, my
outburst should be taken as getting something off my chest to decrease the
feeling of annoyance. The matter, being hypothetical, usually ends here. But if
I call him a wife-beater in front of an audience that will not wait to hear
evidence to the contrary, and passes a real and harsh judgment on him, he'll
have a case against me.
With this in mind, we look at the article that came under
the title: “Keith Ellison's Association with Louis Farrakhan a 'Stain on
Democratic party,'” written by Mairead McArdle and published on March 9, 2018
in National Review Online. It is a case that pits the Jewish establishment against
Louis Farrakhan, head of the Nation of Islam.
I do not know how the feud between the two started, and so
have no history to tell. What I know is the existing situation, which is that
Farrakhan called the Jews Satanic. On the other hand, Jewish organizations,
such as the Anti-Defamation League and others, called Farrakhan America 's
leading anti-Semite and other similar names. The case seems to boil down to
Farrakhan throwing one epithet at the Jews; and the Jews throwing another
epithet at Farrakhan. At first glance, both cases sound hypothetical and
innocuous.
Was this a well balanced tit for tat, prompting us to remain
neutral; to dismiss the exchange between the two, and to consider the case
closed? If that's all the information we had, we might be tempted to do just
that. But the story is told by a third party, Mairead McArdle, who quoted
several other players beside the Anti-Defamation League, all calling for action
against Louis Farrakhan. The Jewish establishment has thus turned the
hypothetical into real action … and that's a whole new ball game.
Whereas Farrakhan's outburst was no worse than me calling
someone a pig, and seeing the matter end here, what the Jews did to Farrakhan
is something else. Their attack on him was studied, coordinated and systematic
in that they called on several third parties to take action against him. Their
intent was to hurt the man as indeed such has been the long sordid history of
the Jews during the past half century. They hurt the people that refused to toe
their line by accusing them of being anti-Semitic.
For this reason, different people project the trait of a
different animal into them. Some people – such as yours truly – even called
them animals without specifying which, to let everyone in the audience choose
the animal they believe fits the occasion.
As to Louis Farrakhan, he should sue the Anti-Defamation
League and the other Jewish organizations because the accusation of
anti-Semitism has become a consequential charge that continues to ruin lives.
Millions have suffered already, and this horrific crime must end here and now.
Long ago I argued that the accusation of anti-Semitism must
be criminalized. The way to achieve this goal is for Louis Farrakhan to launch
a lawsuit with the aim of putting one or more Jewish organizations into
bankruptcy.