Accusation in a Mirror

by Kenneth L. Marcus

This is the first full-length exploration of "accusation in a mirror" or "human rights inversion" in international human rights law. Essentially, accusation in a mirror (AiM) is a common technique for inciting genocide by accusing one's intended victims of precisely the crimes that one intends to commit against them. This article argues that the usage of this common genocidal technique should satisfy the directness requirement for incitement to genocide under international law. The nature, functions, psychology, purpose and mechanisms of AiM are explored, and examples are drawn from Nazi Germany, Rwanda, Yugoslavia, Iran, the contemporary Middle East, and elsewhere. These genocidal uses of AiM are compared with similar techniques used historically to defame persecuted groups, such as the myths of the black rapist, the Indian giver, and the murderous Jew. This article is an expanded version of a conference paper delivered at a conference on incitement to genocide which the author co-convened at the Loyola University School of Law in Chicago.

Genres: Politics

37 pages, ebook

Published January 1, 2012

About the author

Kenneth L. Marcus, J.D. (University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, Boalt Hall, 1991; B.A., Williams College, 1988) is senior research associate at the Institute for Jewish & Community Research, and the founder and leader of the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law, named for the late associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. He served as Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights at the United States Department of Education in the Trump administration from August 6, 2018 to July 9, 2020. Previously, he served as General Deputy Assistant Secretary at the Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity during the Bush administration, and as Staff Director of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 2004–2008.

Numerous civil rights organizations, including Palestine Legal, have expressed concern that "his view of civil rights, and whose should take priority, was too narrow" and accusing him of pro-Israel bias.

Reviews

[Keith · Rating 3 out of 5]

In terms of laying out the history and tactics of "accusation in a mirror," I found this paper to be quite useful, especially now that it is so widespread. In a nutshell, this is the tactic of accusing your political (or ideological) opponent of the crime you intend to commit as a means of both deflecting similar accusations when you do it and inciting your supporters to carry it out as a putative defensive measure under the (rather perverse) rule of "do unto others before they do unto you."

Does it work? Well, a key Nazi excuse for "the final solution" was to prevent the Jewish plan for genocide outlined in the (fraudulent) Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, and the Hutus used the same tactic against the Tutsis in Rwanda.

Is it still used? Well, try these on for size: The War Against Christmas. Deficit spending. Antifa are domestic terrorists. Socialism will make everyone poor. Homosexuals are trying to convert your children. U.S. Christians are subject to religious oppression (for being prevented from carrying out their own plans for religious oppression). And of course the "boogaloo" rhetoric of swathes of the so-called Alt-Right in their ammosexual Turner Diaries fever dreams.

So, well and good, this provides a solid reference for the idea, explaining how it works and where it came from. But it's a legal paper, not a freshman definition essay, and the bulk of it attempts to make a case for accepting the evidence of the use of the accusation in a mirror tactic as a prima facie element of incitement to genocide charges before the International Criminal Court in an effort to improve its woeful failure to prevent (or often even to prosecute) genocide thus far.

Here is where I think it largely falls down, in large part because it fails to note that one can just as easily use accusation in a mirror to accuse your opponent of accusation in a mirror. This is especially the case in longstanding resistance movements where there have clearly been violent actions and rhetoric flowing in both directions (none of which shall I name lest I be accused of accusation in a mirror myself, but anyone with the smallest knowledge of the last century of geopolitics should be able to think of a few without much effort).

Also I find it ironic, to say the least, that this paper was produced by one who went on to serve as Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights in the Trump administration: an administration that can credibly be accused of genocidal tactics under the Geneva Conventions itself (which is not to say that previous presidential administrations are immune from such claims either), particularly with regard to the family separation policy that resulted in children being "stuck" in America and placed for adoption with white Christian families, i.e., "Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group" (Article 2(e)). Points off for hypocrisy about hypocrisy.