If they’re the person I’m pretty sure they are, the evidence they presented was a UN report that accused China of several crimes against humanity that, by the definition of genocide in the genocide treaty that China signed, would each individually have been enough to declare genocide, provided that there was also proof of genocidal intent, which the report didn’t investigate. It was analogous to presenting a pathology report that said someone died of knife wounds as evidence that they weren’t murdered, just because the pathologist didn’t use the word murder, even though it’s not the pathologist’s job to decide if the knife wounds were a murder or a tragic accident with a cutlery drawer.
You can look up the UN’s definition of genocide, which is defined in the Genocide Convention. https://www.un.org/en/genocide-prevention/definition has an explanation and a link to a PDF of the actual treaty. he definition is given as:
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
Killing members of the group;
Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
China has ratified the Genocide Convention, so they’ve agreed to obey it.
It’s relatively easy to prove one or more of the acts, as they leave physical evidence and/or a paper trail. Intent is harder to prove. Some countries have found their own past administrations guilty of genocide because a government has access to its own paperwork that it might keep secret from outside observers, and in the case of Israel, there were plenty of ministers tweeting genocidal intent.
also not dissing, am legitimately curious, but do pathologists actually do that?
In the UK at least, the pathologist’s job is just to report to the coroner and/or police about physical evidence gathered from a body, and it’s up to the coroner and/or police to combine that with other evidence from other sources and come to a conclusion. If the police decide a death might be a murder, even they can’t make the final decision, they just use that as a sign that they should collect as much evidence as possible, and hand the evidence over to the Crown Prosecution Service, who’ll then decide whether or not there’s a charge to prosecute, and then it’s a jury that eventually decides it’s a murder. If there isn’t a charge to be brought (e.g. because it was an accident or a suicide) or the prosecution fails, the coroner can make the final decision about whether there was a murder without having to decide who did it.
If they’re the person I’m pretty sure they are, the evidence they presented was a UN report that accused China of several crimes against humanity that, by the definition of genocide in the genocide treaty that China signed, would each individually have been enough to declare genocide, provided that there was also proof of genocidal intent, which the report didn’t investigate. It was analogous to presenting a pathology report that said someone died of knife wounds as evidence that they weren’t murdered, just because the pathologist didn’t use the word murder, even though it’s not the pathologist’s job to decide if the knife wounds were a murder or a tragic accident with a cutlery drawer.
Can you go into detail about this?
also not dissing, am legitimately curious, but do pathologists actually do that?
You can look up the UN’s definition of genocide, which is defined in the Genocide Convention. https://www.un.org/en/genocide-prevention/definition has an explanation and a link to a PDF of the actual treaty. he definition is given as:
China has ratified the Genocide Convention, so they’ve agreed to obey it.
It’s relatively easy to prove one or more of the acts, as they leave physical evidence and/or a paper trail. Intent is harder to prove. Some countries have found their own past administrations guilty of genocide because a government has access to its own paperwork that it might keep secret from outside observers, and in the case of Israel, there were plenty of ministers tweeting genocidal intent.
In the UK at least, the pathologist’s job is just to report to the coroner and/or police about physical evidence gathered from a body, and it’s up to the coroner and/or police to combine that with other evidence from other sources and come to a conclusion. If the police decide a death might be a murder, even they can’t make the final decision, they just use that as a sign that they should collect as much evidence as possible, and hand the evidence over to the Crown Prosecution Service, who’ll then decide whether or not there’s a charge to prosecute, and then it’s a jury that eventually decides it’s a murder. If there isn’t a charge to be brought (e.g. because it was an accident or a suicide) or the prosecution fails, the coroner can make the final decision about whether there was a murder without having to decide who did it.