- The New Anti-Semitism
- Anti-Semitism
- Anti-Semitism
- Anti-Semitism
- Anti-Semitism
- Anti-Semitism
- Anti-Semitism
- Anti-Semitism
- Anti-Semitism
- Anti-Semitism
- Anti-Semitism
- Anti-Semitism
- Anti-Semitism
- Anti-Semitism
- Anti-Semitism
- Anti-Semitism
- Anti-Semitism
- Anti-Semitism
- Anti-Semitism
- Anti-Semitism
- Anti-Semitism
- Anti-Semitism
- Anti-Semitism
- Anti-Semitism
- Anti-Semitism
- Anti-Semitism
- Anti-Semitism
- Anti-Semitism
- Anti-Semitism
- Anti-Semitism
- Anti-Semitism
- Anti-Semitism
- Anti-Semitism
- Anti-Semitism
Anti-Semitism
This a series of posts explores anti-Semitism, its origins, the motivations behind it, its various manifestations, its consequences, and its possible future. The series also proposes a method for determining when an act or statement is anti-Semitic and concludes with some suggestions for remedying the consequences of anti-Semitism. A series of discussion questions is also included.
Review of the previous post.
The previous post, post number 26 of 33, was the third of ten posts discussing a process for determining if an act or statement is anti-Semitic.
Preview of this post.
This post, post number 27 of 33, is the fourth of ten posts discussing a process for determining if an act or statement is anti-Semitic.
Determining Anti-Semitism
- Introduction
The World Definition cites several specific examples of anti-Semitic acts and/or statements. Much like certain acts are considered by law, negligence per se, perhaps one doing the specified acts or saying the specified things would be considered anti-Semitic per se. In the case of negligence per se, the burden of proof shifts to the actor to prove that he was not negligent (contrary to the usual situation where the burden of proof lies with the party trying to prove negligence). Thus, in the case of anti-Semitic per se, the burden of proof would shift to the actor to prove that his action or statement was not anti-Semitic. This would narrow the investigation for requiring the person alleging anti-Semitism to prove both (1) the statement or act was anti-Semitic; and (2) the actor had Jew hatred in mind when he did the act or made the statement. Under this concept, the first portion of the case would be assumed, to wit: the act was anti-Semitic and the actor is charged with proving that it was not anti-Semitic. However, the burden of proving the motivation remains with the person alleging anti-Semitism.
Preview of the next post.
The next post, post number 28 of 33, is the fifth of ten posts discussing a process for determining if an act or statement is anti-Semitic.