When used loosely in everyday parlance, the word “crime” can
take on a different meaning from its use in a legal sense. In both cases,
however, a crime is defined as a serious offense.
In the law, a crime is the killing of someone, the stealing
of something, the written or verbal threatening of others, the forging of a
document, and so on. Let's characterize such crimes as being physical in
nature. When engaged in loose talk, on the other hand, a crime might refer to a
decision that was taken lawfully but proven to have been ill-advised or lacking
in foresight, or being self-defeating, for example. Let's characterize such
crimes as being metaphysical in nature.
Offenders are punished by a jail term, a fine or both for
committing a physical crime that falls under the purview of the law in the
jurisdiction where the crime happened. On the other hand, offenders are only
ridiculed and treated with contempt by society for committing metaphysical
crimes that offend the sensibilities of ordinary human beings, but do not
violate any written law.
An important question poses itself: Can there be a moment
when a metaphysical offense will be so severe, it should be treated not as a
junior category but an adult category offense, approaching the physical kind …
and do so without violating the principle of free speech? It is necessary to
probe the ramifications of this question because the day may come when we'll
need a tool that will deter offenders who refuse to respond to society's
revulsion at their comportment, thus remain entrenched in their destructive
ways.
Before contemplating a course of action, however, we must
import into our thinking the restrictive safeguards that will prevent us from
going overboard in proposing a remedy. To that end, we say that the offender
will have to be a repeat wrongdoer, will have to be warned that he or she is
coming close to crossing the line separating the metaphysical from the
physical, and that their repeated activities have a detrimental effect on
everyone; especially the young minds which are not yet equipped to do critical
analysis on the work of a propaganda master or a seasoned spin doctor. Only
then, can such offender be recommended for punishment.
Two articles that appeared on the same day, August 31, 2018
in the same publication, Algemeiner, will help us illustrate that case. One
article came under the title: “Why did Nearly 40 Percent of Norwegians Compare
Israelis to Nazis?” It was written by Abraham Cooper and Manfred Gerstenfeld.
The second article came under the title: “Jewish Students Should Be Prepared
for Hate on Campus,” written by Paul Miller.
These are two of the hundreds of articles which are written
by Jews every year to complain about antisemitism somewhere on the planet. The
writers always blame others for the phenomenon and never (I mean absolutely
never) hint at anything that they, as Jewish leaders, can or should do to help
address the phenomenon. They treat it as if it were a defect in the genetic
code of human beings, and demand only one kind of remedy to cure it. It is for
every authority––be it that of government or school or whatever––to pass laws
specific to Jews. They would punish ordinary citizens who mind their own
business, but refuse to love the Jews and Israel no matter what the latter do;
no matter what they stand for.
I wrote almost 2,750 articles on this blog alone, hundreds
of which discuss this subject, each written in response to one or more Jewish
articles calling on the authorities to intervene on behalf of Jews. The Jewish
articles take on an approach such as this: “In any culture, the tone comes from
the top –– and Norway's festering zeitgeist of antisemitism proves this point,”
a quote that came in the first paragraph of the Cooper and Gerstenfeld article.
The Jewish articles also take on an approach such as this: “Jewish students are
rarely protected by administrators who are incapable of distinguishing between
political and hate speech, or whose personal views may be affecting their
objectivity,” a quote that came near the end of the Miller article.
What this attitude does is encourage and perpetuate the
phenomenon they call antisemitism. It must be considered borderline criminal of
the physical kind because it leads to the sort of violence that is shown in the
following quote from the Miller article:
“A sophomore arrived at the screening of a documentary about
Israel's [army]. She was met by chants against Israel. Such incidents are not
isolated. Studies found that campuses with active anti-Israel groups are more
likely to experience antisemitic incidents than schools that don't harbor such
groups. 2,100 antisemitic incidents were tracked since 2015”.
Here, Paul Miller is urging that groups which refuse to love
the Jews and/or Israel's army of occupation, should be banned on the campuses of
America.
This being the mentality with
which we're dealing, each time that a Jewish leader calls on a school authority
to intervene on behalf of Jews, or calls on the Congress to pass laws that
would punish citizens for not loving Jews or Israel – must be told they
committed a borderline infraction, and warned never again to repeat it, or
they'll be facing the consequences.