On Tuesday, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a resolution to censure Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) over comments she made advocating for Palestinians to be free.
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
“With intent to destroy” is the key part here. Throwing around “genocide” using a dictionary term is meaningless. Genocide is a legal concept. Use the legal definition.
To be 100% clear, I am now quoting from the UN:
The popular understanding of what constitutes genocide tends to be broader than the content of the norm under international law. Article II of the Genocide Convention contains a narrow definition of the crime of genocide, which includes two main elements:
A mental element: the “intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such” […]
The intent is the most difficult element to determine. To constitute genocide, there must be a proven intent on the part of perpetrators to physically destroy a national, ethnical, racial or religious group. Cultural destruction does not suffice, nor does an intention to simply disperse a group. It is this special intent, or dolus specialis, that makes the crime of genocide so unique. In addition, case law has associated intent with the existence of a State or organizational plan or policy, even if the definition of genocide in international law does not include that element.
You’re a coward, if you had any backbone you could argue the actions instead of hiding behind semantics. You’re weak stupid and callous and your argument is as thin as your skin.
Fucking liberals. You care so much about law and decoram that you will argue a mass killing done by a state isn’t a genocide because of “legal definitions”. I can’t imagine caring that much about what a bunch of suits and papers say when people are being slaughtered for living in the place they and their parents have lived for generations.
Btw Rape is as much a legal term as genocide. So those 1960s housewives whose husbands forced themselves on did not get raped by your logic, making you a rape apologist.
You either believe this is a genocide and that’s rape or you believe it’s not genocide and not rape because they’re both “legal concepts”
Wrong.
From the Geneva Convention:
“With intent to destroy” is the key part here. Throwing around “genocide” using a dictionary term is meaningless. Genocide is a legal concept. Use the legal definition.
To be 100% clear, I am now quoting from the UN:
Source: https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention
You’re a coward, if you had any backbone you could argue the actions instead of hiding behind semantics. You’re weak stupid and callous and your argument is as thin as your skin.
Fucking liberals. You care so much about law and decoram that you will argue a mass killing done by a state isn’t a genocide because of “legal definitions”. I can’t imagine caring that much about what a bunch of suits and papers say when people are being slaughtered for living in the place they and their parents have lived for generations.
Btw Rape is as much a legal term as genocide. So those 1960s housewives whose husbands forced themselves on did not get raped by your logic, making you a rape apologist.
You either believe this is a genocide and that’s rape or you believe it’s not genocide and not rape because they’re both “legal concepts”
You’d be defending the genocide of indigenous people as “just warcrimes” under the same logic.