71–80 of 102 posts
No, it isn't. From the article: > It has forcibly sterilised some Uyghur women. But it is not slaughtering them. Not slaughtering them makes no difference to whether it's genocide. Genocide is about "intent to destroy in whole or in part a national, ethnic, racial or religious group". Sterilizing them counts. As would snatching the children of that group and placing them in families of your own group (to give an exam…
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Dude, take a deep breath and chill. Your "Red Rage" led you to confuse the Economist - always a stalwart champion of British Liberal Capitalism - with The Guardian, a somewhat leftish newspaper from the UK.
What do you mean by `Red Rage` ?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Judge de current situation by ethical standards of the present and judge historic ones with the eyes of those days. Eugenics was, once upon a time, seen like "good stuff" all around the globo, not anymore.
But we have an essential difference I think between the genocide that China stands accused of, which you yourself see as a "temporally relative evil" (yes the US did it, but it was a while ago), and the genocide of the German attempt to destroy European Jewry (which was also a while ago) that I think we would all agree is an "absolute evil". So perhaps the Economist have a point here.
[deleted]
Some unknown but probably large number of people is executed in China every year. Some of them are Uyghurs. For organ transplantation, a corpse is a corpse, whether they died in a traffic accident or were executed doesn't matter (except probably execution by poison as practiced in the US). So yes, executed Uyghurs are used as organ donors in China, but the causality is inverted: they're not killed for organ harvestin…
[deleted]
Some unknown but probably large number of people is executed in China every year. Some of them are Uyghurs. For organ transplantation, a corpse is a corpse, whether they died in a traffic accident or were executed doesn't matter (except probably execution by poison as practiced in the US). So yes, executed Uyghurs are used as organ donors in China, but the causality is inverted: they're not killed for organ harvestin…
> Calling it genocide depends on a definition rooted in a UN convention which suggests that one need not actually kill anyone to commit it This article is ignoring the history of the word "genocide". It was coined by the Polish Jewish lawyer Raphael Lemkin, during the Second World War, to describe what the Nazis were doing to his own people (and to others too). However, Lemkin himself never defined it so narrowly as…
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide
4.3 Genocidal intent
...
4.3.3 "A national, ethnic, racial or religious group"
4.4 Genocidal acts
4.4.1 Killing members of the group
...
4.4.4 Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the groupEarlier quoted context omitted.
There's strong evidence of the one doctor and concerns that it might be more widespread. Were there people that knew about it and didn't stop it? And it very much is a failure of government if an individual is systematically abusing people that are in government custody.
Who are you asking this question? Let's stick to the facts of the investigation, please, and not cast about beyond what we know. A failure of government ≠ intent, which is what I indicated with my use of the word machinations.
And I wasn't arguing that there was intent, I was arguing that intent isn't the standard that we should use to judge governance.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Some unknown but probably large number of people is executed in China every year. Some of them are Uyghurs. For organ transplantation, a corpse is a corpse, whether they died in a traffic accident or were executed doesn't matter (except probably execution by poison as practiced in the US). So yes, executed Uyghurs are used as organ donors in China, but the causality is inverted: they're not killed for organ harvestin…
You have many comments sympathetic to the CCP. Your suggestions on the topic of organ harvesting are unsubstantiated, and significant evidence has been presented to the contrary.
I do? What gave you that impression? I oppose death sentences on principle (hard to reverse in case of wrongful conviction), so I would count my comment above as unsympathetic to the CCP.
> significant evidence has been presented to the contrary
Evidence that Uyghurs would not be killed if there was no shortage of organs for transplantation? What evidence?
No, it isn't. From the article: > It has forcibly sterilised some Uyghur women. But it is not slaughtering them. Not slaughtering them makes no difference to whether it's genocide. Genocide is about "intent to destroy in whole or in part a national, ethnic, racial or religious group". Sterilizing them counts. As would snatching the children of that group and placing them in families of your own group (to give an exam…
This really makes me question the narrative of it even happening. If it were, then there needs to be a prelude to all of the stories of "China invents female sterilisation without surgery", which in itself is a huge scientific achievement, since even with surgery female sterilistaion is only 99% effective.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
These aren't extermination camps, people are eventually being released from them. Their notional aim is re-education and making people genuinely love Big Brother/the Communist Party, but I doubt the deciders are naive enough to believe that will actually happen. Instead, it's sufficient that the detainees become broken, intimidated and compliant.
Recent interview showed they also round up people for "further education" after releasing them the first time. Assuming the allegations are true- psychological, physical torture, rape, forced work and so on- is it not reasonable to assume that not all who enter will leave?