[HN Gopher] Canada's parliament votes to label China's persecuti...
___________________________________________________________________
Canada's parliament votes to label China's persecution of Uighurs
as genocide
Author : lawrenceyan
Score : 272 points
Date : 2021-02-24 18:46 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.cbc.ca)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.cbc.ca)
| dilap wrote:
| They're using "genocide" in the same sense of the word as people
| who allege "white genocide", i.e., to mean that policies are
| reducing fertility of a certain demographic.
|
| Specifically, they allege:
|
| > the use of arbitrary detention, political re-education, forced
| labour, torture and forced sterilization
|
| The traditional, dictionary definition of genocide is "the
| deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular
| nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or
| group".
|
| To use genocide in this other sense seems to me disingenous; it's
| an attempt to invoke the strong emotional reaction we have to
| mass-killings when that is not what is alleged to be ocurring.
|
| It is, in a sense, fake news: many people will see just the
| headlines, and assume that China is in fact carrying out vast,
| demographically targeted killings.
| ygjb wrote:
| No, they aren't.
|
| They are using genocide as a generally accepted legal term, and
| not a dictionary definition, or an interpretation of the root
| words that make up the word. Read the definition of genocide as
| it pertains to international law by reviewing the UN page on
| the topic[1].
|
| There is a specific meaning, and it relates to the intention of
| destroying the Uigher people as a cultural identity through a
| campaign of imprisonment, physical harm, forced sterilization
| and family separations. Each of those are detailed in well
| respected publications around the world, and links to the
| articles backing that can be found by reviewing the citations
| on the Wikipedia article on the Uigher Genocide[2].
|
| [1]https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/genocide.shtml
| [2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uyghur_genocide
| user764743 wrote:
| Meanwhile at home, Canada tortures people. [1]
|
| [1] https://www.vice.com/en/article/93wj78/canada-is-
| torturing-i...
| omginternets wrote:
| If you can't see the difference between this and what's
| happening in China, I don't know what to tell you.
|
| We can agree that solitary confinement is also bad, and still
| think that China's treatment of Uighurs is much, _much_ worse.
|
| Your whatabboutism is not helpful. Nor is it original, deep or
| interesting, to be frank.
| ygjb wrote:
| Yes. This is a problem, and folks in Canada are working to hold
| our government to task for it, in the same way we are working
| to hold our government to task for other bad acts.
|
| I am not sure what point you are trying to make?
| [deleted]
| aaron695 wrote:
| I think she is lying.
|
| > Tursun said she was forcibly sterilized in 2019 through a
| surgical procedure, along with hundreds of other Uighur women.
|
| (2019) "Kalbinur Tursun, 36, entrusted five of her children to
| relatives when she left Xinjiang to give birth in Istanbul but
| has been unable to contact them for several years" -
| https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/28/world/asia/china-xinjiang...
|
| But happy for a logical explanation, since we are talking
| genocide after all.
| RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote:
| There is a big danger in labeling it genocide: what are you going
| to do about it?
|
| If you label it genocide, and continue doing business as usual
| apart from some strongly worded letters, you are in effect saying
| that "genocide" is not a big deal.
| DFHippie wrote:
| This is false and China obviously considers it so, otherwise
| they wouldn't apply so much political and economic pressure on
| countries simply to prevent them from calling their treatment
| of the Uighurs genocide. And they aren't alone: Turkey behaves
| the same way.
| [deleted]
| dominotw wrote:
| what happens next? Wouldn't this now imply canadians are now open
| to doing business with genocidal govt?
| TheCapn wrote:
| We continue to sell military equipment to Saudi Arabia despite
| objections to their actions in Yemen. A lot of what our gov't
| does is very ceremonial with no teeth
| dominotw wrote:
| > We continue to sell military equipment to Saudi Arabia
| despite objections to their actions in Yemen.
|
| But we never declared it a genocide. Isn't a big difference,
| otherwise why would this even be news worthy.
| mito88 wrote:
| https://www.economist.com/leaders/2021/02/13/genocide-is-the...
| dleslie wrote:
| It's the correct word if Canada is to apply the definition on
| others that it applies upon itself.
| AnimalMuppet wrote:
| Paywalled for me. Can you give us the gist of it?
| dleslie wrote:
| TLDR: The Economist tries to argue that without death camps
| there is no genocide; which is false.
| jcranmer wrote:
| It's _slightly_ more nuanced, arguing that referring to
| such scenarios as genocide lessens the impact of the term
| for the more murderous forms of genocide.
|
| I don't agree with that viewpoint at all. Both forms are
| vehemently barbarous, and the world has enough problems
| with genocide denialism that engaging in technical
| arguments over the definition is only going to give more
| cover to denialists.
| rob74 wrote:
| Ok... I'll play devil's advocate here: genocide (quoting
| Wikipedia) "is the intentional action to destroy a people--
| usually defined as an ethnic, national, racial, or religious
| group--in whole or in part" - meaning physically killing them.
| What China is doing (forced reeducation, mass surveillance etc.)
| is of course worthy of condemnation, but calling it "genocide"
| goes too far in my opinion, and diminishes the _real_ genocides
| of the past. There are enough holocaust deniers already (not to
| mention the other skeletons that countries like Turkey would like
| to keep in their closets). If this "Uighur genocide" is not
| actually as bad as it sounds, it'll make it even easier to say
| that the Shoah or other genocides weren't such a big deal
| either...
| neaden wrote:
| It's not really necessary to play the devil's advocate to an
| ongoing genocide. In fact, it's a pretty bad idea. The
| definition of Genocide clearly includes destroying a culture
| with forced removal, education, and forced birth control all of
| which China is doing.
| sleepysysadmin wrote:
| The liberals abstained but the far left like the NDP and Greens
| and the centrist conservative party all voted in favour. Overall,
| they would be included in voting in favour but abstaining was
| just politics.
|
| I think the reality is that it's not really genocide. It's not a
| holocaust in that sense. Rather than genocide, the reality is
| that it's Gulags. Communism basically can't function without some
| sort of forced labour. Vietnam has their "Rehab concentration
| camps", USSR had the gulags, North Korea has their concentration
| camps: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pukchang_concentration_camp
|
| It's not genocide exactly. The problem is that China can't give
| up their concentration camps.
| tibbydudeza wrote:
| Genocide is a bit of a hyperbole if you looked at what happened
| to the Jews/Cambodia under Pol Pot/Rwanda Tutsi's and
| Armenians.
|
| It would call it forced cultural assimilation by taking away
| their religion , language and culture and making them conform
| to the dominant Han culture.
| kareemm wrote:
| This is largely a (smart) political move by the opposition right-
| wing party.
|
| Canada is embroiled in a political issue with China right now.
| They're holding a Huawei exec named Meng Wanzhou at the request
| of the US, who are investigating Huawei for violating sanctions
| against China[1].
|
| China retaliated by arresting two Canadians without apparent
| cause[2]. They're been in jail for two years.
|
| The Conservative party put forth this motion for a vote as a move
| to put Trudeau's Liberal government in an awkward place: they
| would either condemn China's treatment of the Uighurs and make
| the Michaels/Meng Wanzhou situation more painful, or they
| wouldn't and would appear to condone genocide.
|
| FWIW I suspect Trudeau and the Liberal party do believe Uighur
| treatment to be genocide (I do). But stating it publicly would
| make life even more difficult for them.
|
| 1- https://www.bbc.com/news/business-46462858
|
| 2- https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/two-michaels-mark-two-
| jailed-y...
| dleslie wrote:
| It's supported by the NDP, Greens, and Bloc as well. In fact,
| it was all Yay and Abstains.
| gruez wrote:
| >it was all Yay and Abstains.
|
| not surprising. Voting nay would be political suicide.
| reducesuffering wrote:
| None of those parties are the Cabinet, the face of Canada on
| the international stage, and the one China is looking at.
| dleslie wrote:
| AFAICT from the way that China's diplomats engage with
| Canada, they don't seem to understand how Canada operates.
| While the PMO is powerful, it's not able to dictate how the
| judiciary operates or pass legislation without house/senate
| approval.
|
| OIC notwithstanding, I guess. ;)
| dvduval wrote:
| They have been relocating Uighurs to different parts of China.
| I've talked to a number of different friends who live in China
| about this. So it seems that at the end of the re-education, they
| reintroduced them at other locations so it likely limits their
| ability to organize.
|
| because I've been studying Chinese and speaking with Chinese
| people online for the last few years, I've also met quite a few
| Uighurs who were studying English. They are fluent in Chinese
| plus a couple of other languages, and as best as I can tell, I
| have been reintroduced as they say. This is not a topic I was
| able to discuss with them, but they seems like nice people that
| were living a decent life.
|
| Now what happened in the past and maybe what still continues to
| happen in these camps is surely something that will be discussed
| for years, and China will have a better reputation. I just study
| what's happening and I'm hoping that there will be some good that
| comes out of it too.
| fakeslimshady5 wrote:
| https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/02/19/china-uighurs-genocide-...
|
| US State Department own lawyers recently admitted no evidence of
| genocide.
|
| How can the engineers of hackernews who have to thinking
| logically all be party to this debunked CIA narrative.
| abhinav22 wrote:
| Good to see a stand being taken. Hopefully allows for more
| pressure put on China to be more humane.
|
| Also I think there is too much us vs China going around - another
| war would be terrible, and even without a war, negative
| consequences could arise.
|
| One world should be the dream we aspire for.
| federona wrote:
| There is no way to avoid another Cold War. A hot war is
| impossible. I am glad that the Soviet Union ceased to exist. I
| will be glad with China being contained. I will also be glad in
| a multi-lateral world where America does not go unchecked and
| can be held up by others to its ideals.
| fullshark wrote:
| Cold War already started years ago, the leadership in the
| west was just was too naive and arrogant to see it.
| cbozeman wrote:
| A hot war is most certainly _not_ impossible. Just because
| nuclear weapons might be off the table doesn 't mean
| conventional bombs aren't. And frankly, even nuclear weapons
| might not be off the table fully.
|
| Desperation leads people to do strange things.
|
| China really is a sort of "early 1900s Germany" stage, which
| is rather frightening.
| federona wrote:
| China is in some ways like pre-WWI Germany in that it does
| not have an empire and everyone else does so it wants one
| to. But Chinese are not starving due to sanctions and have
| not lost a war, etc. Chinese are doing well. China is just
| flexing its muscle because it can. That is all. Not because
| it needs to or that it's people are psychologically in
| fascism mode.
| redis_mlc wrote:
| What you wrote demonstrates a superficial understanding.
|
| > But Chinese are not starving due to sanctions
|
| They are starving due to natural (floods and locusts) and
| manmade (dams) disasters. Pre-corona, China imported 30%
| of its food, and today it's over 50%. Mining their few
| harbors would starve half of their population to death in
| 6 months. China has basically no welfare programs for
| non-CCP citizens.
|
| If Trump's policies are continued by Biden, China will
| also suffer financially and technology-wise. Trump's
| policies would have crumbled China in 4-8 years.
|
| > Not because it needs to or that it's people are
| psychologically in fascism mode.
|
| The CCP has to flex because of ideology. It has been in a
| quiet war with the US since Mao in the 1950's, and it
| needs to usurp and destroy the US to maintain absolute
| hold on power - there cannot be an alternative for people
| to compare to the CCP in their minds. That means an
| invasion of Taiwan ASAP and war with the US after that
| (China has more military ships now than the US, which is
| a certain sign of preparation for war.)
| Dirlewanger wrote:
| There's also the whole frightening frame of thought that as
| people who were alive to see nuclear detonations being
| performed in the 50s/60s continue to die off, as a society
| we're going to slowly forget what makes nuclear weapons so
| awesome (in the original definition of the word), and the
| willpower around their restraint will slowly be eroded away
| until it's too late.
| Mitzi wrote:
| This might be a bit naive but doesn't a cold war by
| definition imply the possibility of it getting hot? Or in
| other words: Isn't a cold war that is impossible to get hot
| just peace?
| csomar wrote:
| A hot war is very likely. Why do you think everyone is
| building armies, weapons and trying to get nuclear toys
| (Iran). Just look up what triggered world war I and II.
| jonathannat wrote:
| China poses several of the biggest threats to humanity
|
| - infectious disease: China has released infectious disease
| time after time: bird flu, SARS, covid that has killed millions
| around the world
|
| - climate change: China, leader in coal production by large
| amount, ramping up even more coal factories in 2020
| https://thecoalhub.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Coal-Produ...
|
| - world war: on its way to Hitler Germany's nationalistic
| dictatorship. with concentration camps for its minority,
| threatened invasion to Taiwan, an independent democratic
| country, conflicts and threats with most democratic countries
| around the world, man-made islands, capacity to ramp up
| military production.
|
| We need to stop contributing cash to China. Stop buying from
| China. Apple is moving away from China fast. Biden just signed
| an order for China-free technology supply chain. Factories are
| moving faster out of China.
| [deleted]
| inglor_cz wrote:
| One of our dirty secrets is that we in the West improved our
| own local environment by shipping off all the polluting
| industries to somewhere else, preferably overseas.
|
| While all of your points are valid and I believe we should
| stop being deferential to China (including on topics like
| Taiwan), their pollution is our pollution, too, at least
| partly so.
| jonathannat wrote:
| china _overproduces_ things and trade dumps on other
| countries because of local government quota and made-up
| numbers for GDP. that 's not a country we want to produce
| goods for the long term. buying from democratic countries
| would be a good start
| cyberlurker wrote:
| Agreed and per person the Chinese actually pollute less
| than Americans.
|
| Same with NYC vs all of Nebraska. Per person, sure NYC is
| very low as most of the 8 million citizens use public
| transportation. But the number of trucks and busses
| bringing people and goods into the city still results in a
| huge amount of pollution. Also the heating and cooling for
| buildings that are hundred+ years old or super tall
| structures.
|
| In comparison, Nebraska has a small population but they
| have a thing for trucks and no subway. Less pollution
| overall but more per person.
| stanislavb wrote:
| Totally! I've been avoiding "Made in China" products for the
| last 3 years. I'm always looking for alternatives. Yet, there
| are cases when there aren't ... but still, in most of the
| time there are.
| justicezyx wrote:
| Well, now we see the true color of some of the visitors:
|
| None of these points make much sense after some minimal
| amount of facts and reasoning. But I'll add more counter
| points to these items because of typing on iPad.
|
| Why I am doing this? Because I am a CCP buyout!
|
| No, unfortunately, anything important is never that easy. I
| was indeed called that before, for stating facts as well.
|
| I have to make facts straight, because I am a Chinese
| immigrant to US. For that I have to clear out the facts. I am
| not going to let some mental bias and laziness threaten my
| family's chance in this wonderful land.
|
| And, US deserves the openness and rationality that made her
| great! I am not letting it gone without some fight.
| neolog wrote:
| If you buy from another country, that country will need to
| burn fuel to make your products.
| jonathannat wrote:
| not all countries run mostly on coal.
|
| before you say "but then we won't have enough production"
| good, maybe we should create less things based on coal. we
| have item shortages now, and the world hasn't ended.
| Dirlewanger wrote:
| We're in the beginnings of a new Cold War with China, and we're
| not winning.
| medium_burrito wrote:
| Finally peace in our time!
| AnimalMuppet wrote:
| If we aspire to one world, and that one world is going to be
| persecuting minorities, who's going to stand up and tell the
| whole world that it's doing it wrong?
| wcarss wrote:
| Not snark: in the ideal case, that would be the people.
| [deleted]
| president wrote:
| The war has been waged for decades already and the west has
| already lost. This was a war fought with information,
| influence, and economic warfare. When you think about all the
| things you need to secure and defend one's country (e.g. PPE,
| pharmaceuticals, rare-earth minerals, manufacturing supply
| chains, patriotism, jobs, economic growth, geopolitical
| soft/hard power), you realize that China has all these things
| and America has none and is stuck battling itself over nonsense
| domestic issues.
| 99_00 wrote:
| What's Biden's position on this issue?
| reedjosh wrote:
| "I point out to him no American president can be sustained as a
| president if he doesn't reflect the values of the United
| States, and so the idea I'm not going to speak out against what
| he's doing in Hong Kong, what he's doing with the Uighurs in
| western mountains of China, and Taiwan, trying to end the One
| China policy by making it forceful ... I said, and, by the, he
| said, he - he gets it. Culturally there are different norms
| that each country and their leaders are expected to follow."
|
| My original thought: Wow... Biden's stance is essentially it's
| a cultural difference.
|
| I think I may have misinterpreted.
|
| I didn't originally catch "and so the idea I'm not going"
|
| Edited for correctness. Thanks for others who posted the full
| quote. I couldn't pull it well from quickly listening to the
| vid.
| thereare5lights wrote:
| > Wow... Biden's stance is essentially it's a cultural
| difference.
|
| This is a prime example of how taking specific cuts of quotes
| can lead to wildly misleading conclusions.
|
| This is what he actually said:
|
| "I point out to him no American president can be sustained as
| a president if he doesn't reflect the values of the United
| States, and so the idea I'm not going to speak out against
| what he's doing in Hong Kong, what he's doing with the
| Uighurs in western mountains of China, and Taiwan, trying to
| end the One China policy by making it forceful ... I said,
| and, by the, he said, he - he gets it. Culturally there are
| different norms that each country and their leaders are
| expected to follow."
|
| And as you can see, he's saying that as POTUS, he must speak
| out against it because he is POTUS; that the US has different
| cultural norms than China and that we don't condone these
| things.
| reedjosh wrote:
| Thanks for posting the whole thing. Kinda hard to follow in
| the video.
| 99_00 wrote:
| >And as you can see, he's saying that as POTUS, he must
| speak out against it because he is POTUS; that the US has
| different cultural norms than China and that we don't
| condone these things.
|
| But what is he saying about China's cultural norms? Your
| statement doesn't contradict this statement:
|
| > Wow... Biden's stance is essentially it's a cultural
| difference.
|
| They are focusing on what Biden thinks are Chinese cultural
| norms, and you are focusing on what Biden thinks are
| American cultural norms. The two statements aren't
| contradictory but also aren't complete.
|
| Ultimately the press should ask for clarification and Biden
| should clarify. We shouldn't have to interpret like this.
| To my knowledge that hasn't happened.
| syshum wrote:
| >>that the US has different cultural norms than China and
| that we don't condone these things.
|
| No, what is he is doing is reassuring Xi that while he may
| have to speak out publicly about how many US Citizens will
| disagree culturally with china, rest assured that while He
| is president there will be no action.
| bigpumpkin wrote:
| "I point out to him no American president can be sustained as a
| president if he doesn't reflect the values of the United
| States, and so the idea I'm not going to speak out against what
| he's doing in Hong Kong, what he's doing with the Uighurs in
| western mountains of China, and Taiwan, trying to end the One
| China policy by making it forceful ... I said, and, by the, he
| said, he - he gets it. Culturally there are different norms
| that each country and their leaders are expected to follow."
|
| Biden talking about conversation with Xi
| 99_00 wrote:
| "Culturally there are different norms that each country and
| their leaders are expected to follow."
|
| On the face of it, this is shocking, disturbing, and
| disgusting. But I'm not prepared to pass judgment. Did he
| simply misspeak? Was there any clarification after the fact?
| Has the press followed up on this?
| eschulz wrote:
| It's a little hard to say, although he specifically addressed
| the matter last week at a town hall meeting
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JptyShvF2E8
| 99_00 wrote:
| This needs followup from the press and clarification.
| topspin wrote:
| > What's Biden's position on this issue?
|
| "Different cultural norms." Nothing to see here, please move
| along.
| thesimon wrote:
| I am not sure what term is apporopiate for the horrific
| treatment, but I found the Economist's point quite valid.
|
| > By the common understanding of the word, it is not. Just as
| "homicide" means killing a person and "suicide" means killing
| yourself, "genocide" means killing a people. China's persecution
| of the Uyghurs is horrific: it has locked up perhaps 1m of them
| in prison camps, which it naturally mislabels "vocational
| training centres". It has forcibly sterilised some Uyghur women.
| But it is not slaughtering them.
|
| [...]
|
| > By accusing it of genocide instead, in the absence of mass
| murder, America is diminishing the unique stigma of the term.
| Genocide should put a government beyond the pale; yet American
| officials will keep doing business with the regime they have
| branded genocidal. Future genocidaires will take comfort
| capableweb wrote:
| I don't think there is any strict consensus that genocide is
| only about slaughtering people as in murder/killing.
| Sterilisation and making their living conditions worse than
| others in order to kill their culture and ethnicity can also be
| considered genocide, as the ultimate goal is to erase them. In
| this case it just happens slowly in training centers, work
| camps and prisons.
|
| In the larger picture I agree with you however. If you give
| someone that label there is only one stance that would be
| acceptable and it would have to be a strong one, otherwise you
| are diminishing the importance of the word.
| dade_ wrote:
| I think there is substantial evidence that organs are being
| removed from Uighurs while they are alive or are being killed
| for organ harvest. Depending on how much business the media
| organization does in China, it gets reported or not. I don't
| think China should get a pass because they only kill of the
| very annoying people or those with blood type matches.
|
| https://www.ibanet.org/Article/NewDetail.aspx?ArticleUid=0D8...
|
| https://www.businessinsider.com/china-harvesting-organs-of-u...
| omginternets wrote:
| That still doesn't make it genocide. To be clear, it makes it
| sickeningly evil, but insofar as distinctions matter, it
| isn't genocide.
|
| Genocide implies the intent of erasing a people from
| existence. Simply detaining them and subjecting them to
| torture -- however horrible that may be -- is insufficient to
| meet the definition. A better argument would be that of
| forced sterilization, but then you'd have to show that this
| is both systematic _and_ done with the intent of erasing an
| ethnic group.
|
| To be clear: we must take a stand against China's behavior,
| but we should also label it correctly.
| ygjb wrote:
| You are incorrect. The legal definition of genocide under
| the UN, and recognized as international law by ratified
| signatories is discussed here.
| https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/genocide.shtml
|
| The reality is that child separation, sterilization, and
| the acts taken by the Chinese government to destroy Uigher
| connections to their cultural history meet the definition.
| Genocide isn't just about killing people, it's about
| obliterating a people and their culture, and you can't stop
| the definition at mass murder.
| omginternets wrote:
| You are mistaken. In fact, your link quite clearly
| supports my position (namely: that intent is key):
|
| >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: [...]
|
| (Emphasis mine)
| ygjb wrote:
| I don't know what point you are trying to make; the
| intent is key, but the intent is clear. The Chinese
| government is targetting the Uigher people and their
| supporters with the intention of destroying the Uigher
| cultural identity.
|
| The Chinese government is doing _all_ of these things to
| the Uigher people, and I am not going to replicate the
| exhaustively cited information that is summarized in the
| article[1] below to support each individual claim. I
| recognize that Wikipedia articles may have bias, but the
| bulk of the citations in that article are from recognized
| news sources.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uyghur_genocide
| omginternets wrote:
| >The Chinese government is targetting the Uigher people
| and their supporters with the intention of destroying the
| Uigher cultural identity.
|
| This is begging the question -- what are those things
| that reveal the intent to eradicate?
|
| We both agree that Uighur's are being specifically
| targeted, of course, but the Wikipedia article is
| weaseling in the "cultural" qualifier, i.e. "cultural
| genocidie". That's a _comparison_ to genocide. I still
| don 't see clear and compelling evidence of intent to
| eradicate.
|
| Evidence of intent to torture? Yes.
|
| Evidence of intent to marginalize? Yes.
|
| Evidence of intent to harvest organs for the benefit of
| others? Yes.
|
| Evidence that Chinese policy wishes to remove the people
| from existence? I could be convinced, and it wouldn't
| surprise me very much, but the evidence is unclear.
|
| What am I overlooking?
| ygjb wrote:
| You are overlooking the policies of child separation and
| forced sterilization. Read the sources in the article I
| linked to.
| dleslie wrote:
| That's not valid; genocide is not simply death camps, it can be
| the purposeful and systematic erasure of a culture.
| meowing wrote:
| I took a course on this, and part of it was just arriving at
| a definition. One way to think about it is literally the name
| - genocide is anything that prevents future generations of
| that culture or population
| AlexandrB wrote:
| > It has forcibly sterilised some Uyghur women.
|
| I think the Economist is being pedantic. The above, applied
| broadly, would "kill a people" within one generation.
| dleslie wrote:
| It's not being pedantic; it's moving the goalposts. The UN's
| definition of genocide does not require death camps.
|
| https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/genocide.shtml
| CivBase wrote:
| Here's the article:
| https://www.economist.com/leaders/2021/02/13/genocide-is-the...
| mcrae wrote:
| > It has forcibly sterilised some Uyghur women
|
| Forced sterilisation is a form of genocide [0]
|
| [0] https://asp.icc-
| cpi.int/iccdocs/asp_docs/Publications/Compen...
| omginternets wrote:
| It is neither necessary nor sufficient to meet the definition
| of genocide.
|
| Forced sterilization _with the intent of destroying a people,
| in whole or in part_ is a form of genocide, but that second
| part is required.
| throwaway894345 wrote:
| I agree. Not only does it exaggerate the offense and water down
| a specific term, it also allows for the predictable digression:
| "it's not genocide, look at the US/Canada/etc trying to lie and
| vilify China!". That said, I'm not sure what alternative
| appropriately weighty term exists. Moreover, the US also does
| this internally all the time, with various political groups
| claiming genocide against various minority groups or else
| "concentration camps".
| reedjosh wrote:
| > ..."genocide" means killing a people
|
| Killing a people doesn't necessarily mean killing individual
| people. Sterilization is killing a people.
| rhodozelia wrote:
| The prime minister of canada declared that canada had conducted
| a genocide against the pre-european inhabitants of the
| continent. It looks like Louis Riel's Metis revolt in 1885 was
| the last [0] real battle or war. The genocide Canada has
| declared they conducted was also not a violent slaughtering of
| people. So I guess they are in good company with the Chinese as
| soft-genocidaires?
|
| [0]:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conflicts_in_North_Ame...
| ygjb wrote:
| Yes, we are. It is generally acknowledged by our various
| Governments at every level that Canada has a history of
| committing and supporting genocidal acts against indigenous
| peoples. It's not about the wars either; our residential
| school systems, ongoing issues with child separation policies
| across the country contribute to our ongoing complicity with
| this.
|
| It turns out that when a country is built on genocide and
| disenfranchisement it's kind of hard to stop.
| 908B64B197 wrote:
| What about the Acadian peoples?
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expulsion_of_the_Acadians
|
| EDIT: You can downvote all you want, it won't change what
| happened.
| dleslie wrote:
| Yup, what China is doing isn't so different to what Canada
| has admitted it has done to its indigenous population, and is
| attempting to make amends for.
|
| Part of making amends must be ensuring that vigilance is
| taken to prevent it from happening again.
| ygjb wrote:
| The problem with that article is that it focuses on parsing
| language in the context of similar words; genocide as a word
| was coined in 1944 with a focus on framing the Holocaust in the
| context of other historical attempts to wipe out a people.
|
| It's explicitly important that genocide can't only be focused
| on murdering living people, because for the most part, you
| don't wipe out a race or group of people just by killing them.
|
| Trying to scope genocide down to the simple act of murdering
| people is a bloody-minded case of exceptionalism that overlooks
| the ongoing attempts to commit genocide around the world by
| actively destroying cultures, their history, and severing the
| ties that future generations have to both of those.
|
| It's also very easy to understand why folks have a hard time
| closing the gap; virtually every country in the world has some
| history of tribalism and violence that falls into the broad
| strokes of genocide, and several countries are still actively
| engaged in it; it's worth noting that taken in the context of
| Central and South American immigrants to the United States, a
| case could be made that the child separation policy is a
| genocidal act.
|
| There is a reason why the definition of genocide in legal terms
| steps away from the dictionary definition of the word, and it's
| documented here ->
| https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/genocide.shtml
|
| I would suggest that anyone that doesn't find each of the items
| of the formal definition of genocide from the U.N. listed below
| as horrifying as the first line, it's probably worthwhile to
| spend some time evaluating and learning about the impact
| policies and governments that have done this in recent history
| (post World War II) to understand _why_ the scope of genocide
| can 't be limited to murder.
|
| 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.
| lixtra wrote:
| The labeling is not arbitrary but based in the UN definition:
|
| _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; ...
| -Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
| ...
|
| _
|
| https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/genocide.shtml
| thesimon wrote:
| For which the Economist argues
|
| > But if conventions are worded with unusual broadness, they
| must also be used with special care. Until now, America's
| State Department had applied the "genocide" label only to
| mass slaughter, and even then it often hesitated, for fear
| that uttering the term would create an expectation that it
| would intervene. It did not call Rwanda's genocide a genocide
| until it was practically over.
| yorwba wrote:
| All three definitely apply to Han Chinese:
|
| - The number of executions is treated as a state secret, but
| most likely a lot of people are killed every year, including
| for political "crimes".
|
| - Chinese prisons used to be labor camps by default and many
| continue to operate as such, including torture and rape by
| prison guards.
|
| - The one-child policy was all about preventing births and
| involved sterilizing more than half of all women.
|
| Which makes me wonder why the Canadian declaration is limited
| to Uighurs instead of also applying to persecuted Han Chinese
| or members of the fifty-odd other recognized ethnic groups in
| China. Is it just because Uighurs have gotten comparatively
| more attention recently?
| Panino wrote:
| > The final tally was 266 in favour and zero opposed.
|
| Great news and I hope more countries follow the lead.
| gruez wrote:
| Considering there are 338 seats in total, that's still 72
| people who abstained.
| tus89 wrote:
| So a resolution on Turkey's treatment of the Kurds will happen in
| 3...2...?
| throw373782 wrote:
| Some alternative viewpoints from independent journalists:
|
| https://twitter.com/MsAmyMacPherson/status/13640042279835443...
|
| https://thegrayzone.com/2021/02/18/us-media-reports-chinese-...
|
| https://thegrayzone.com/2019/12/21/china-detaining-millions-...
|
| https://thegrayzone.com/2020/03/26/forced-labor-china-us-nat...
|
| (Before dismissing the Greyzone, please note that they have many
| primary sources in their research that you can verify yourself).
|
| Recently this month, there has been a campaign by Uyghurs (mostly
| on Chinese social media) pushing back against the charge of
| "genocide" by US politicians and Western media. Some of them are
| even laughing at the absurdity of it.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kiuj9FiI0tc
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V7kgmeacL-0
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjV4UgnG_v8
|
| Americans were sold a great big lie about WMDs in Iraq and babies
| being thrown out of incubators in Kuwait before that [0]. These
| are just two examples out of many. The US is not, and has never
| been, above using these kinds of propaganda tactics [1] to
| achieve its goals.
|
| HN readers need to understand that it's naive to take things at
| face value when geopolitics are involved. Don't let them
| manipulate your compassion for their own sordid ends.
|
| [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nayirah_testimony
|
| [1] https://foreignpolicy.com/2013/07/14/u-s-repeals-
| propaganda-...
| duxup wrote:
| >Uyghurs (mostly on Chinese social media) pushing back against
| the charge of "genocide" by US politicians and Western media.
| Some of them are even laughing at the absurdity of it.
|
| I see these kind of strange examples posted. Like you posted,
| and others usually involve travel stories where the person was
| supposedly in the region and "didn't see anything".
|
| The general idea here is that the oppression has reached the
| level of genocide... with that in mind:
|
| Are people supposed to find an oppressed people showing up on
| video convincing of anything? Is the opposite even possible
| from inside China?
|
| Does anyone find hostage videos convincing?
|
| Is "laughing at the absurdity of it" supposed to convince
| people of something?
| throw373782 wrote:
| > Is "laughing at the absurdity of it" supposed to convince
| people of something?
|
| Look, no one can convince someone of something when they are
| hellbent on seeing things in a certain light. I'm sure if you
| look hard enough, you can find some Uyghur somewhere in those
| videos blinking out "HELP ME" in morse.
|
| But if Westerners are hyperventilating over Uyghur genocide
| while thousands of actual Uyghurs living in Xinjiang are
| making videos laughing at the allegations, don't you think
| there's something wrong with that picture? Rhetorical
| question.
|
| Here's another great channel from an Uyghur Vlogger showing
| everyday life in Xinjiang (she posts on Bilibili but her fans
| have been reposting to Youtube). Nothing about that screams
| genocide to me, sorry.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7KvC89nKCHo
| duxup wrote:
| >But if Westerners are hyperventilating over Uyghur
| genocide while thousands of actual Uyghurs living in
| Xinjiang are making videos laughing at the allegations,
| don't you think there's something wrong with that picture?
|
| This is what I don't get. Such reliance on one off social
| media examples.
|
| If I found a video that said otherwise ... would that
| convince you? Why would you think it works the other way?
|
| Such reliance on such heavily anecdotal things (on some
| social media posts) seems very ... simple / a strange way
| to choose what to believe or even convince people.
| throw373782 wrote:
| It's no different than how the entire Western media
| establishment has been relying on one-off style
| testimonies pushing atrocity propaganda and basing almost
| their entire genocide thesis off of anecdotal evidence.
|
| You're acting like it's my goal or duty to convince you,
| which is not the case. You can choose to believe what you
| want to believe.
|
| My simple goal here today is to make the point that the
| US has a long track record of manufacturing consent to
| achieve its geopolitical goals and that we all should be
| aware and on guard for it. This Uyghur genocide story
| throws up too many red flags for me.
|
| Here's Lawrence Wilkerson (retired United States Army
| Colonel and former chief of staff to United States
| Secretary of State Colin Powell) being very candid about
| America's interest in Xinjiang. Hint: it's not because
| they care about Uyghurs.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xKBTT827b84
| duxup wrote:
| I don't think you're required to provide me anything at
| all.
|
| >It's no different than how the entire Western media
| establishment has been relying on one-off style
| testimonies pushing atrocity propaganda and basing almost
| their entire genocide thesis off of anecdotal evidence.
|
| I think you greatly misunderstand how western media
| operates.
|
| But that's not really surprising. I find folks who
| sympathize with non free states often misunderstand that
| their government's propaganda is not equal to how western
| media operates. It's just not a 1:1.
| throw373782 wrote:
| You are conflating my skepticism of the official US State
| Department narrative on China with "sympathizing with non
| free states", which is quite telling.
|
| > I think you greatly misunderstand how western media
| operates.
|
| I definitely used to greatly misunderstand how Western
| media operates. I was naive to the extent that I believed
| the invasion of Iraq was necessary. Now I'm under no such
| illusions.
|
| https://swprs.org/the-propaganda-multiplier/
|
| https://swprs.org/the-american-empire-and-its-media/
| berdario wrote:
| It's not only one-off social media samples...
|
| When an actual genocide happens, you see massive flows of
| refugees trying to escape. Where are the news of massive
| flows of Chinese refugees in Kazakhstan, Russia,
| Kyrgyzstan?
| fakeslimshady5 wrote:
| Isn't the flip side big claims require proof. Where the
| proof? Not even activists admitted getting NED paychecks
| claimed actual genocide. Do you know genocide means dead
| bodys like US did to Iraq, Aghanistan, Libya, Syria, Iran,
| etc.
|
| Most governments (all five eyes) point to a study by Adrian
| Zenz (who admitted being commssion to dig dirt on uighurs by
| the BBC). It all falls apart if you dig even just a little
| hungryhobo wrote:
| not sure why you're getting downvoted, i guess the need for
| moral superiority outweighs the need for accurate evidences.
| aaomidi wrote:
| Then cut business ties with them and sanction any country that
| continues doing business with China.
|
| Just calling it genocide and not doing anything about it really
| weakens what the term means.
| [deleted]
| nickff wrote:
| Interesting that the parliament went ahead with a vote, from
| which the 'leadership' (cabinet) abstained; I wonder what's going
| on behind the scenes.
|
| >"Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and almost all of his cabinet
| colleagues were absent for the vote. Foreign Affairs Minister
| Marc Garneau was the only cabinet minister present. When it was
| his turn, he said he abstained "on behalf of the Government of
| Canada." "
| abhinav22 wrote:
| Very strange - does it mean they are not serious about it?
| ipnon wrote:
| The government is officially reprimanding the act but they
| personally shield themselves from backlash. Win-win, cake and
| eat it too, etc. Every politician does this (because the ones
| that don't fail to remain politicians for long).
| vkou wrote:
| Nothing interesting is going on behind the scenes.
|
| 1. The Liberals hold a minority government, and whipping the
| entire party rank and file into voting against the motion would
| not prevent it from passing.
|
| 2. The cabinet doesn't want to piss China off, and doesn't want
| to give their opponents ammunition (by voting against the
| motion), so it didn't show up to the vote.
|
| 3. This provides the cabinet with freedom of action, to quietly
| apologize to China in private, while not looking bad
| domestically. Or, alternatively, if world sentiment supports
| this position, and other parliaments and governments follow
| suit, this gives them the option to come out in support of this
| condemnation.
|
| 4. This will make a few rounds in the news cycle, maybe result
| in a small adjustment in foreign policy, but will not result in
| a major political shift in Canada.
|
| tl;dr - the opposition is hammering the Liberal Cabinet on the
| morality of this issue, the rank-and-file Liberals go along
| with it, because they either have a conscience, or don't want
| to lose elections, while the Cabinet is playing Realpolitik.
|
| For Americans, you can think of the Cabinet as the executive
| branch of government - closer in powers to the President, and
| their subordinate agencies. But unlike a President, the
| Cabinet, and the Prime Minister [1] can be removed by a 50/50
| vote in Parliament.
|
| [1] The Prime Minister in particular can also be removed by a
| 50/50 vote of their own party.
| ygjb wrote:
| It's also worth noting that China doesn't even need to pursue
| tariffs; they can simply leverage the China-Canada FIPA to
| sue the Canadian government for damaging Chinese business
| interests in Canada based on legislation passed by the
| opposition while they were in power.
| OwlsParlay wrote:
| These types of moves are usually not looked upon favourably by
| China, and might risk the fate of the two Michaels (who were
| locked up in retailation for Meng Wanzhou's arrest).
| saeranv wrote:
| I'm a huge Liberal supporter, but am disappointed by Trudeau's
| decision on this. I never thought I'd say this, but good for
| the Tories. The most generous interpretation I've heard is that
| Trudeau's government is currently engaged in highly sensitive
| talks with China regarding captured Canadians and couldn't
| afford to take a stance on this.
|
| Canada is part of the core UN group about to present a
| resolution in the UNHCR on human rights violations in Sri Lanka
| soon and I hope the government shows more spine.
| reducesuffering wrote:
| See the other comment
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26254381
|
| It's obvious realpolitik, the actual hard decisions that have
| to be made in politics.
| saeranv wrote:
| Fair, but I don't think their decision ended up on the
| right side of history.
| triceratops wrote:
| See: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26254997
| bryanlarsen wrote:
| If they didn't abstain, China would likely respond with
| tariffs, costing Canada billions. They're also worried about
| the two Michaels, a couple of Canadians imprisoned in China
| that have been used as political pawns for the past few years.
| dgudkov wrote:
| >costing Canada billions
|
| Sometimes you can't have both principles and profit at the
| same time.
| loceng wrote:
| Indeed, the response to the CCP must be multi-lateral to
| soften the blow for all involved nations.
| ygjb wrote:
| It's pretty straightforward; from 2012-2015 the previous
| government, led by Stephen Harper (Prime Minister), and in
| partnership with Erin O'Toole (at the time Parliamentary
| Secretary with oversight over International Trade) negotiated a
| trade agreement with China [1].
|
| Under this treaty, if the Canadian government takes actions
| that damage or undermine Chinese investment in Canada, then
| Chinese companies can sue Canada in a tribunal that is separate
| from both Canadian and Chinese court systems; these tribunals
| have broad authority to mark the findings as confidential,
| keeping the rulings and outcomes, including financial penalties
| secret. The duration of the trade agreement is 31 years.
|
| If Trudeau and his Cabinet had endorsed this motion, it would
| have been a tacit attack on China, and grounds for Canada to be
| sued under this treaty, with virtually no defense.
|
| Naturally, Erin O'Toole (the current leader of the opposition
| party in Canada) is aware of this, and the easy political
| points he can score by attacking Trudeau for failing to support
| this policy, since he had a direct hand in promoting and
| passing the legislation.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada-
| China_Promotion_and_Rec...
| dleslie wrote:
| I wish more Canadians were aware of this.
|
| It's easily the worst trade agreement we've signed in
| generations. Harper _really_ screwed us over.
| 1MachineElf wrote:
| Sounds like somewhat the TPP. I wonder what in the trade
| agreement made this a worthwhile compromise.
| dleslie wrote:
| It basically ensured that Canada could do little to stymie
| resource exploitation projects that receive Chinese
| investment funds; this is a boon to Albertan/Saskatchewan
| oil companies, and BC coal companies.
| abledon wrote:
| Wow, that is nasty, and the article makes no mention of this?
|
| Is there a page on the canadian government website that
| details this agreement with china?
| dleslie wrote:
| https://www.international.gc.ca/trade-commerce/trade-
| agreeme...
| CogitoCogito wrote:
| After reading that wiki article (i.e. not the actual treaty),
| it seems like any argument that Canada's vote harms
| profitability of Chinese companies could be flipped around
| just as effectively. China's restrictions harm Canadian media
| companies. So I don't see why Canada should be all that
| worried about passing this law.
|
| I think it's more likely just straight politics as usual.
| Trudeau might very well have done the same thing without the
| restrictions of the treaty.
| fiona_kingfluff wrote:
| Also from the wiki article:
|
| "Corporations from either country can sue if the country in
| which they have their operations has public policies even
| those intended on protecting the environment, health, or
| safety that the corporation says "interferes with the
| corporation's profitability".[10]:23[5] Canada's risk of
| such lawsuits is much greater than China's, since "China's
| foreign direct investment in Canada is much higher than
| Canada's in China."[5] By 2015, Chinese foreign direct
| investment in Canada in 2015 was roughly three times the
| amount of Canadian investment in China."
| ygjb wrote:
| Here[1] is an article that illustrates how much China has
| invested in Canada. In contrast, Canada has invested very
| little. Canada has a great deal to lose by provoking China,
| and due to foreign policy implications in the United States
| under their previous administration, Canada was basically
| pushed into apprehending the CFO of Huawei. That went over
| well in China.
|
| There is no doubt that there is a political motivation for
| doing this, but in particular this treaty presents a
| specific extra-judicial legal jeopardy for any government
| at any level in Canada for taking action against China.
|
| [1] https://nationalpost.com/news/as-geopolitical-tensions-
| rise-...
| macspoofing wrote:
| That still doesn't explain why Liberal MPs voted for the
| resolution. Presumably Trudeau could have prevented them from
| voting, or forced abstention.
| vkou wrote:
| Because it would have still passed, and they'd look bad in
| the press.
| chrisseaton wrote:
| How would be prevent them from voting or force them to
| abstain? He doesn't have the power to do that.
|
| Also, back-bench MPs speak on behalf of their
| constituencies more than on behalf of the government.
| jcranmer wrote:
| Quickly reading the treaty itself (you can too at
| https://www.international.gc.ca/trade-commerce/trade-
| agreeme...), I see this bit in 33(5)(c):
|
| > Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed [...] to
| prevent a Contracting Party from taking action in pursuance
| of its obligations under the United Nations Charter for the
| maintenance of international peace and security.
|
| Labeling an act as genocide and taking measures against China
| as a result of it would fall under that clause, so any
| Chinese investors who would sue would be out of luck.
| dleslie wrote:
| The tribunals are outside of the scope of the normal
| Canadian justice system and can act entirely in secret;
| there's no guarantee, really, that they can be counted on
| to agree that such a declaration is within the scope of
| that clause. We Canadians might not ever know how they
| ruled, if they ruled at all, and how much it cost us in
| total.
| jcranmer wrote:
| Again, reading the treaty quickly, I don't see any
| mention that the tribunals "can act entirely in secret."
| Actually, to the contrary, Article 28 does lay out:
|
| > Where, after consulting with a disputing investor, a
| disputing Contracting Party determines that it is in the
| public interest to do so and notifies the Tribunal of
| that determination, hearings held under this Part shall
| be open to the public.
|
| In other words, the tribunals are really no less secret
| than any other regular court case.
| dleslie wrote:
| Article 28 also states:
|
| > Any Tribunal award under this Part shall be publicly
| available, subject to the redaction of confidential
| information.
|
| > To the extent necessary to ensure the protection of
| confidential information, including business confidential
| information, the Tribunal may hold portions of hearings
| in camera.
|
| > To the extent that a Tribunal's confidentiality order
| designates information as confidential and a Contracting
| Party's law on access to information requires public
| access to that information, the Contracting Party's law
| on access to information shall prevail. However, a
| Contracting Party should endeavour to apply its law on
| access to information so as to protect information
| designated confidential by the Tribunal.
|
| Article 33 states:
|
| > Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to require
| a Contracting Party to furnish or allow access to
| information the disclosure of which would impede law
| enforcement or would be contrary to the Contracting
| Party's law protecting Cabinet confidences, personal
| privacy or the confidentiality of the financial affairs
| and accounts of individual customers of financial
| institutions.
|
| That's more than enough rope to hang public access.
| jcranmer wrote:
| Have you never seen regular court documents that are
| redacted or even sealed to protect confidential
| information? That clause is basically saying the tribunal
| has the power to do that.
| dleslie wrote:
| Yes, I have; often the document is redacted to the point
| of being worthless for public consideration.
|
| IE:
|
| https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/commons-law-clerk-we-
| charit...
| monkeybutton wrote:
| To me, an average citizen, this sounds absolutely insane.
| Why is there a need for such secrecy? How does that
| benefit us?
| ygjb wrote:
| It generally doesn't. As an example of what kind of
| things might be kept secret, take a look at the history
| of softwood lumber disputes and aluminum disputes between
| Canada and the United States.
| wk_end wrote:
| China would argue - reasonably if debatably IMO - that the
| situation in Xinjiang is "internal" and thus not an issue
| of international peace or security.
| 908B64B197 wrote:
| Not surprising.
|
| The Trudeau family has always supported dictatorships, such as
| the Castro regime in Cuba. The son even went as far as calling
| Fidel "larger than life leader who served his people" [0]
|
| [0] https://www.cnn.com/2016/11/27/world/justin-trudeau-
| castro-e...
| pletsch wrote:
| Not going on either side here but for what it's worth, Cuba
| is viewed differently in Canada vs the US
| 99_00 wrote:
| Pierre Trudeau, Justin Trudeau (18), and Alexandre Trudeau
| (16) had a vacation in China 1 year after the Tiananmen
| Square Massacre
|
| https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2016/09/16/trudeaus-in-
| ti...
| breitling wrote:
| Don't forget, Justin said he admires China
| bigpumpkin wrote:
| So are they going to boycott the 2022 Beijing Olympics?
|
| Are they also going to stop exporting agricultural products to
| China?
|
| Talk is cheap.
| TT3351 wrote:
| Where's the line between the Chinese population and the Party's
| indefensible acts? Will more expensive food in China help to
| resolve this [or are Canadian ag exports re-exported]? I say
| this because I'm not convinced sanctions have been effective in
| cases like Cuba, Iran, etc
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-02-24 23:02 UTC)