• @PugJesusOP
    link
    English
    114 months ago

    Even the US state dept gave up the ghost on this narrative after China ended the reeducation programs (because they achieved their goal of peacefully eliminating religious extremism in the targeted communities). The only people grasping to the Uyghur genocide narrative are terminally online debatebros who can’t accept that they were wrong.

    Best-informed tankie. I don’t know why I expect you to get the opinions of governments correct when you can’t even recognize a genocide in front of your face because it’s painted the extremely-effective camo pattern of ‘red fascism’.

      • @PugJesusOP
        link
        English
        174 months ago

        Fucking Christ, you didn’t even read your own link, did you?

        The U.S. State Department’s Office of the Legal Advisor concluded earlier this year that China’s mass imprisonment and forced labor of ethnic Uighurs in Xinjiang amounts to crimes against humanity—but there was insufficient evidence to prove genocide

        The cautious conclusions of State Department lawyers do not constitute a judgment that genocide did not occur in Xinjiang but reflects the difficulties of proving genocide, which involves the destruction “in whole or in part” of a group of people based on their national, religious, racial, or ethnic identity, in a court of law. It also points to a disconnect between public perception of the crime of genocide and the legal definition in the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, which has long been interpreted by State Department lawyers to require intent to bring about the physical and biological destruction of a group.

        “Genocide is difficult to prove in court,” said Richard Dicker, an expert on international justice at Human Rights Watch. Even the most horrific of crimes—burning of villages, systematic rape, or the execution of large numbers of civilians—can not be considered genocide unless the perpetrators carry out their crimes “with a very specific intent—the intent, of course, being to destroy in whole or in part a population based on their religious, ethnic, or national background,” he said.

          • @PugJesusOP
            link
            English
            124 months ago

            state dept: this isn’t a genocide (we still think it’s really bad though)

            That’s literally not what was said, but stunning reading comprehension, as usual.

              • @PugJesusOP
                link
                English
                84 months ago

                I see you didn’t even read the small excerpt I pulled out; I’ll post it again in the vain hope that you might read it this time.

                The cautious conclusions of State Department lawyers do not constitute a judgment that genocide did not occur in Xinjiang but reflects the difficulties of proving genocide, which involves the destruction “in whole or in part” of a group of people based on their national, religious, racial, or ethnic identity, in a court of law. It also points to a disconnect between public perception of the crime of genocide and the legal definition in the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, which has long been interpreted by State Department lawyers to require intent to bring about the physical and biological destruction of a group.

                “Genocide is difficult to prove in court,” said Richard Dicker, an expert on international justice at Human Rights Watch. Even the most horrific of crimes—burning of villages, systematic rape, or the execution of large numbers of civilians—can not be considered genocide unless the perpetrators carry out their crimes “with a very specific intent—the intent, of course, being to destroy in whole or in part a population based on their religious, ethnic, or national background,” he said.

                  • @PugJesusOP
                    link
                    English
                    64 months ago

                    You:

                    state dept: this isn’t a genocide (we still think it’s really bad though)

                    The source, explicitly:

                    The cautious conclusions of State Department lawyers do not constitute a judgment that genocide did not occur in Xinjiang

                    Sorry that English is so difficult for you to parse.

                    jk, I know you understand, you just find simping for fascism more fun. :)