• 0 Posts
  • 21 Comments
Joined 3 years ago
cake
Cake day: June 30th, 2023

help-circle
  • The accepted definition of genocide isn’t what you think it is. It isn’t what I thought it was either, until I educated myself.

    I can’t see any way to argue that blocking food to a large population of civilians is NOT genocidal. It doesn’t require active military action to meet agreed UN criteria:

    https://www.un.org/en/genocide-prevention/definition

    Article II

    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.




















  • I don’t follow. I’m not saying its either/or, I’m saying the voice looks like it will achieve nothing if it has no powers or additional rights. If it has the same access to parliament as existing lobbying bodies, why is it needed?

    I understand the need for reconciliation and to improve outcomes for indigenous people, I just don’t see how a body with no power can achieve it.

    It seems like the yes camp are trying to have it both ways. To those leaning towards yes: “Yay its going to make a difference!” While at the same time those wary and leaning to no: “It won’t change anything or have any real power”. Which is it? I’m confused.