The victim cannot define the wrong done him

 Let’s do a far-out kind of thought experiment to help us understand a complex principle that has been marred by waves of haggling tsunamis, it can no longer be discussed using a normal language, or be resolved to the satisfaction of anyone.

 

So, let’s imagine that Planet Mars is populated by “little green people” called Martians. Centuries ago we, Earthlings, travelled to Mars and established close relations with its inhabitants. Some Earthlings migrated to Mars and made it their home planet. Given that more Martians loved life on Earth than Earthlings loved life on Mars, large numbers of Martians migrated to Earth and made it their home planet.

 

Earthlings, who are endowed with a peculiar trait, began to discriminate against the Martians that came to live among them and be of them. When discrimination became so intense that it began to disrupt the social order, the Central Government of Earth passed a law prohibiting discrimination against the Martians. The law is based on the definition of what constitutes anti-Martian sentiment as defined by the Martians themselves who took into account the history of anti-Martian discrimination on Earth when formulating their definition.

 

Then it happened one day that a Martian businessman fired one of his employees that happened to be an Earthling. The businessman argued that he had to do it because business slowed, and he was forced to trim the workforce. But immediately after that, the Martian businessman hired a Martian worker to fill the position. Upon learning this, the fired Earthling started picketing the building where he used to work, holding a sign that read: My little green Martial boss illegally replaced me with a little green Martian.

 

The lawyer for the Martian went to court seeking an injunction to prohibit the Earthling from picketing. He also sued the Earthling for violating the anti-discrimination law that’s meant to protect Martians from the utterings of Earthling hatemongers. While the courts and the lawyers were busy considering what fell into their laps, the media and general public earnestly debated the subject of discrimination.

 

Here is what it all boiled down to:

 

In the definition of what constitutes anti-Martianism devised by the Martians themselves, there is the provision that to refer to Martians as being green or little, is to use old tropes and memes that help spread anti-Martian hate. And so the question is this: Was the fired worker guilty of something because in the past, people cringed at the mention of Martians being green or little? This is a relevant question to ask because Earthlings have gotten so used to the Martians being green and little, they no longer react to the mention of what is true and visible. Thus, to refer to Martians as being green or little, is no longer an insult or a means to stir up antimartian hatred.

 

So now, my friend, you want to know what this is about. I’ll tell you what it is. It’s about an article that came under the title: “Federal courts shouldn’t force Texas to subsidize discrimination,” and the subtitle: “It is well-settled that states may prevent their funds from being used for discriminatory conduct.” It was written by Kenneth L. Marcus, and published on May 9, 2022 in The Washington Times.

 

Here is the issue that Kenneth Marcus has taken up: “In A&R Engineering and Testing v. City of Houston, a federal trial court blocked enforcement of the Texas law that bans anti-Israel boycotters from state contracts during the duration of their boycotts”.

 

Kenneth Marcus goes on to argue in favor of the Texas Law which says that if you’re going to adhere to the principles of BDS, you cannot deal with a publicly financed Texas institution. This is wat happened when the engineering firm wanted to do business for the City of Houston, and the latter said it could not deal with the engineering firm due to the Texas law that prohibits such interactions. The engineering firm sued in the federal trial court, which ruled in favor of the firm by invalidating the Texas law.

 

Marcus is not happy with that ruling, and so he advanced a huge mass of mumbo-jumbo haggling to try refuting it. But like all such attempts, Marcus failed to produce a work that can be respected by serious people who search for workable solutions to a problem that endures.

 

What Marcus is missing in all of this, is the logic behind the saying that he who claims was made to suffer a wrong, cannot formulate a definition of the wrong that was supposedly committed. That is, the Jews or their friends cannot define antisemitism anymore than the Martians could define antimartianism. That’s because to define the wrong done is to formulate half the verdict that follows, and that would be unfair to the accused.

 

And yet, in haggling his gobbledygook presentation, Kenneth Marcus attacked the BDS movement because he says that in addition to dredging out old tropes and memes such as those used in the past to spread anti-Jewish hatred, BDS violates the definition of antisemitism as formulated by the Jews themselves who rightly or wrongly claim to be Semites.

 

Thus, judging people today by what happened in the past, and judging them according to a definition that was formulated by the accusers, is a sickly nonsense that the Federal Court rejected when it rejected the impractical Texas law.

 

More power to the Federal Court.