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.
me: even the state dept doesn’t consider it a genocide
state dept: this isn’t a genocide (we still think it’s really bad though)
you: dId YoU eVeN rEaD yOuR oWn LiNk?
I’m sorry that I chose to be concise rather than fully elucidate every single nuance of the state dept’s position. Regardless, my initial point still stands, that the evidence of the supposed crimes in Xinjiang is incredibly lacking compared to the allegations made against the Chinese government.
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.
You neglected to re-repost this critical paragraph.
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
and then there’s this part
Even the most horrific of crimes…can not be considered genocide unless the perpetrators carry out their crimes “with a very specific intent
In context, this means that the Chinese government has not shown this intent. Which means that they can not be considered to be committing genocide. Which is also what the title of the article says.
Is it ableist of me to tell you that you need some reeducation of your own? Not ideological reeducation - I’m talking about a rehash of middle school reading comprehension, because you somehow keep reading this paragraph that says “the Chinese are not committing genocide” and coming back to me saying “this proves that the Chinese are committing genocide”.
That link doesn’t work for me, I was referring to this.
Fucking Christ, you didn’t even read your own link, did you?
me: even the state dept doesn’t consider it a genocide
state dept: this isn’t a genocide (we still think it’s really bad though)
you: dId YoU eVeN rEaD yOuR oWn LiNk?
I’m sorry that I chose to be concise rather than fully elucidate every single nuance of the state dept’s position. Regardless, my initial point still stands, that the evidence of the supposed crimes in Xinjiang is incredibly lacking compared to the allegations made against the Chinese government.
That’s literally not what was said, but stunning reading comprehension, as usual.
How could you read an article about how there is insufficient evidence to prove a genocide and conclude that that means that there is a genocide?
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.
You neglected to re-repost this critical paragraph.
and then there’s this part
In context, this means that the Chinese government has not shown this intent. Which means that they can not be considered to be committing genocide. Which is also what the title of the article says.
Is it ableist of me to tell you that you need some reeducation of your own? Not ideological reeducation - I’m talking about a rehash of middle school reading comprehension, because you somehow keep reading this paragraph that says “the Chinese are not committing genocide” and coming back to me saying “this proves that the Chinese are committing genocide”.
You:
The source, explicitly:
Sorry that English is so difficult for you to parse.
jk, I know you understand, you just find simping for fascism more fun. :)
That sentence is from the POV of the article’s author, not the POV of the state dept’s lawyers.
Community college is very cheap, and offers English courses covering this very thing. You should consider it.