NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm starting this today, so I can get some input. The current attempt at a repeal will not go through unless something rather unprecedented happens overnight.

However, I have rewritten my attempt at a repeal, and hopefully it will get more people understanding the point. Likewise I have also done a redraft that doesn't seem to have any holes in it. I will post both here, plus the original, so that way you know what my intentions are.

The UN does hereby state that :-
The genocide is a heinous crime, and should be treated as a crime against all people.
It is a crime that exceeds the jurisdiction of any one nation.
Those who commit genocide should be brought to justice by the international community.

Article 1: Definition And Limits

§1. Genocide is defined as the systematic and deliberate extermination of a society, or part of a society, based on arbitrary criteria (such as skin colour, genetic conditions or religion). Those covered by this resolution are those protected by The UBR.
§2. Extermination includes, but is not limited to:- murder, torture, enslavement, rape, forced pregnancy and familial separation.
§3. Genocide is committed or instigated by the state, or by groups acting on behalf of the state. Should there be a claim for a private group being responsible for genocide, this can also be brought before TPP (to be described later) to confirm the validity of the claim.
§4. Genocide has no statute of limitations.
§5. If Genocide is used in self-defence, it is still considered genocide, and will be brought to TPP to confirm the validity of the action.

Article 2: The Pretenama Panel (TPP)

§1. TPP is a body that can be instituted by the UN when it requires it. It is not a standing panel, but one that is created when the UN requires its services. More than one TPP can be operational at the same time.
§2. TPP is made up of representatives from fifteen UN member nations. These representatives must be diplomats, or lawyers. Each nation can supply only two members to TPP. No nation can serve on more than one TPP at the same time. The members of TPP can be challenged by those accused as well as the accusers, as the independence of TPP is paramount.
§3. TPP is granted all the powers it requires to investigate Genocide and try people for the crime. It will have the powers to demand the extradition of suspects, witnesses and other people connected with the crime they are investigating. If the extradition is challenged TPP must show proof of the requirement. This power can only extend to the extradition from UN member nations.
§4. TPP will meet in a location decided by its members. The nation hosting TPP will be required to provide adequate security.

Article 3: Investigation and Intervention

§1. Member Nations are required to submit to an investigation ordered by TPP instituted by an accusation of Genocide. If no evidence is found, TPP is disbanded. If evidence is found, TPP can take in to custody those suspected to be responsible.
§2. Nations may not invade other nations based on this convention.

Article 4: Legal Proceedings

§1. TPP will be the legal authority that brings those accused of genocide to justice. It will act in accordance with UN Resolutions.
§2. TPP will sentence those convicted, within current UN resolutions. TPP can not sentence people to death.
§3. Those acquitted are free to go, and may not be tried for the crime by national states. However a person acquitted of Genocide can be retried by TPP should new evidence come to light.
§4. TPP will choose where the sentence should be served, on the condition that the prisoner(s) will be held in accordance with The Wolfish Convention.
§5. Once a prisoner has discharged their sentence, they will be free to go. However, in the interests of international security, the said prisoner will be forbidden from holding public office in any UN Member Nation from then on.


The Eon Convention defines genocide as ‘the systematic and deliberate extermination of a society, or part of a society, based on arbitrary criteria (such as skin colour, genetic conditions or religion).’

While we acknowledge that genocide is an atrocity that must be remedied, we find this definition extends to all forms of killing, legal or otherwise, and interferes with both citizen’s rights to such procedures as abortions and euthanasia, as well as a government’s right to actively defend its nation should it so desire.

Firstly, the phrase ‘extermination of a society, or part of a society’ is so entirely broad (a single person being part of a society), that we find it, in fact, without limit.

Secondly, we find the phrase ‘arbitrary criteria’, to be of an alarmingly dangerous usage in this act, because all categories of people, whether based on acts, appearance, beliefs or morals (or indeed, any other way of categorising people), are arbitrary - that is, defined within an individual’s or group’s mind(s) as a way of separating people into different groups, and having no objective basis (since all people are unique). Therefore, any person, killing another individual for being in one ‘category’ or ‘group’ - whether they be an unwanted fetus, the suffering, of a specific skin colour, or nationality, or a criminal of any sort - will automatically fall under the purview of this act.

Therefore, what this act does, in effect, is make all forms of artificially orchestrated deaths illegal, and ‘answerable’ to the international community - whether or not that form of killing has previously been rendered legal. This, we would like to add, includes the deaths of soldiers (both friendly and hostile - because ‘friendly’ and ‘hostile’ are both arbitrary and subjective), thus rendering war itself illegal, and denying a ‘pro-active’ approach to national defense.

We find that this act, therefore, is in contradiction to such previous acts as UN Resolution #43 (Legalise Euthanasia), Resolution #61 (Abortion Rights), Resolution #49 (Rights and Duties of UN States).

We also find that much of the benefit intended to be created by this act is already theoretically covered by UN Resolution #26 (The Universal Bill of Rights), as well as numerous other acts relating to the treatment of human beings under different circumstances, and the rights of cloned and genetically modified humans as well. We do, however, acknowledge that it creates a commendable system for dealing with crimes on an international level.

We recommend, therefore, that this act be repealed, because in the case of an amendment, the original would still exist to be exploited, thus becoming a potential source of harm both to the rights of citizens and the furtherment of democracy. Once repealed a redrafting can occur to rectify the problems inherent in this act.

The UN does hereby state that :-
Genocide is an atrocity that exceeds the bounds and scope of any one nation, and therefore, those who commit this heinous crime should be brought to justice by the international community.

Article 1: Definition And Limits

§1. Genocide is defined as the planned and systematic extermination of a society or group, based on their racial, geographic, political or religious affiliations. Those covered by this resolution are those protected by The Universal Bill of Rights.
§2. Extermination includes, but is not limited to:- murder, torture, enslavement, rape, forced pregnancy, familial separation and breaches of the victims' rights.
§3. Genocide is committed or instigated by ideological groups, or nationstates, but not by individuals. Any individuals acting in such a manner are not under the purview of the UN. Otherwise, any of these organisations will fall under the jurisdiction of the TPP.
§4. Genocide has no statute of limitations.
§5. If Genocide is used in self-defence, it is still considered genocide, and will be brought to TPP to confirm the validity of the action.

Article 2: The Pretenama Panel (TPP)

§1. TPP is a body that can be instituted by the UN when it requires it. It is not a standing panel, but one that is created when the UN requires its services. More than one TPP can be operational at the same time.
§2. TPP is made up of representatives from fifteen UN member nations. These representatives must be diplomats, or lawyers. Each nation can supply only two members to TPP. No nation can serve on more than one TPP at the same time. The members of TPP can be challenged by those accused as well as the accusers, as the independence of TPP is paramount.
§3. TPP is granted all the powers it requires to investigate Genocide and try people for the crime. It will have the powers to demand the extradition of suspects, witnesses and other people connected with the crime they are investigating. If the extradition is challenged TPP must show proof of the requirement. This power can only extend to the extradition from UN member nations.
§4. TPP will meet in a location decided by its members. The nation hosting TPP will be required to provide adequate security.

Article 3: Investigation and Intervention

§1. Member Nations are required to submit to an investigation ordered by TPP instituted by an accusation of Genocide. If no evidence is found, TPP is disbanded. If evidence is found, TPP can take in to custody those suspected to be responsible.
§2. Nations may not invade other nations based on this convention.

Article 4: Legal Proceedings

§1. TPP will be the legal authority that brings those accused of genocide to justice. It will act in accordance with UN Resolutions.
§2. TPP will sentence those convicted, within current UN resolutions. TPP can not sentence people to death.
§3. Those acquitted are free to go, and may not be tried for the crime by national states. However a person acquitted of Genocide can be retried by TPP should new evidence come to light.
§4. TPP will choose where the sentence should be served, on the condition that the prisoner(s) will be held in accordance with The Wolfish Convention.
§5. Once a prisoner has discharged their sentence, they will be free to go. However, in the interests of international security, the said prisoner will be forbidden from holding public office in any UN Member Nation from then on.


As you can see I'd keep most of the act as it stands - it's just article 1 with which I have any problems.
Questions, comments and general responses are welcome.

As I said in the other thread this new draft would prevent a government from trying to wipe out a terrorist group (because they have a political affiliation).

Also it would prevent governments from using force to stop genocide. If TilEnca decides that it's government is going to wipe out all the magic users (which I would consider genocide) as part of it's political operations, then under your new draft you would be guilty of genocide if you used force (and killed any of us) to stop us.

So once someone starts committing genocide this new proposal would stop anyone using force to prevent it, because they would be equally guilty.

So either no one gets convicted, or even tried, or everyone would end up guilty.

Good plan :}

Also : http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=388468 just in case the other topic goes off the page, along with all the arguements contained within it as I really can't be bothered posting them again.

(OOC)
I am not a moderator, and not anyone of any importance, but as a rule it is considered impolite to take other peoples resolutions and rewrite them as your own. Especially without the permission of the person you are stealing it from.

Also it would prevent governments from using force to stop genocide. If TilEnca decides that it's government is going to wipe out all the magic users (which I would consider genocide) as part of it's political operations, then under your new draft you would be guilty of genocide if you used force (and killed any of us) to stop us.
Depends on how you'd go about it - killing people isn't the only way of stopping them remember. I seem to recall police carry around handcuffs for a reason.

I'm also unsure as to how you'd get dead people sentenced in front of the TPP - but I 'spose you'd have figured that one out too.

Oh, and as a side issue, if you killed all the people committing genocide, without bringing them before the TPP and without the consent of the international community, you should be up for genocide yourself. The rules apply to everyone - no special treatment just because you think you're a 'goody'.

Depends on how you'd go about it - killing people isn't the only way of stopping them remember. I seem to recall police carry around handcuffs for a reason.

I'm also unsure as to how you'd get dead people sentenced in front of the TPP - but I 'spose you'd have figured that one out too.

Oh, and as a side issue, if you killed all the people committing genocide, without bringing them before the TPP and without the consent of the international community, you should be up for genocide yourself. The rules apply to everyone - no special treatment just because you think you're a 'goody'.

You put them in jail because of their political beliefs (their belief being they have the right to kill all magic users) and you are guilty of genocide if any one of them has a family back home, because you are commiting familial seperation. So now you can't kill them, and you can't put them in jail. So how else are you going to punish them? Put their families in jail as well?

Mr Smith is a terrorist. He has a lot of friends (two hundred of them). Their religious beliefs tell him he has to blow up every judical building in TilEnca because they dislike my government. They all have wives and children.

How do I stop them if your resolution passes? By every definition of your proposal I would be guilty if I killed them, I would be guilty if I put them in jail. It would be unethical if I deported them, and it might not even work cause they could sneak back in and carry on blowing things up.

So how do I deal with terrorists under your proposal? How do I deal with the KKK? From what I know if it their whole reason to exist is to rid the world of blacks, jews and anyone else they deem inferior. If you proceed to wipe out that group (and forcing it to disband can be considered a destruction of that group and it would be systematic and planned) then you will quite obviously be guilty of genocide and brought before the panel.

I just thought I would mention that.

You do realise that the original has the exact same problem?

Families can visit people in jail. Likewise, you can possibly talk them through the problems they have with your government.

And you really don't like Mr Smith do you?

You do realise that the original has the exact same problem?

And families can visit people in jail.

Actually it doesn't. And the fact you don't see that is the reason we are going through all this in the first place.

Actually it does:

Genocide is defined as the systematic and deliberate extermination of a society, or part of a society, based on arbitrary criteria (such as skin colour, genetic conditions or religion).
Now assuming they're a religious group, that falls under this, and assuming they're a political group that can fall under this too - you only gave examples, not definitions. ;)

Extermination includes, but is not limited to:- murder, torture, enslavement, rape, forced pregnancy and familial separation.
Again - I took that directly from yours. We can remove the part of 'familial separation' if you want - but it isn't necessary, since, as I said, families are allowed to visit people in most jails.

And there's also the fact that you were playing word games - we'd be putting them in jail for killing people, not for what they believe. They're allowed to believe what they want under the UBR remember?

Now assuming they're a religious group, that falls under this, and assuming they're a political group that can fall under this too - you only gave examples, not definitions. ;)


That isr what the arbitrary part was about. The KKK can believe what they believe, as long as they don't start acting on it. Because that would be a crime, and once they commit a crime, punishing them is not arbitrary - it is in line with the laws of the nation.


Again - I took that directly from yours. We can remove the part of 'familial separation' if you want - but it isn't necessary, since, as I said, families are allowed to visit people in most jails.


I didn't have a problem with this part. Just how this part applies to the way you have butchered the first line of the first article of the resolution.


And there's also the fact that you were playing word games - we'd be putting them in jail for killing people, not for what they believe. They're allowed to believe what they want under the UBR remember?

Erm - no. If a government decides that the KKK is a hate group and must be outlawed, regardless of whether they have acted illegally or not, the government would be commiting genocide because they are systematicaly destroying a group. Which - according to the first article of your new (if not improved) resolution is the definition of genocide.

That isr what the arbitrary part was about. The KKK can believe what they believe, as long as they don't start acting on it. Because that would be a crime, and once they commit a crime, punishing them is not arbitrary - it is in line with the laws of the nation.
I removed the word arbitrary because it just makes things more hazy. This way's simple - as soon as they act, and it can be proved to be a planned, systematic attempt to remove another group, then you can arrest them and bring them before a TPP.

I didn't have a problem with this part. Just how this part applies to the way you have butchered the first line of the first article of the resolution.
Hardly butchered - I gave it detail, straight from a dictionary. What it was previously was completely up in the air for anyone to decide what it could mean.

Erm - no. If a government decides that the KKK is a hate group and must be outlawed, regardless of whether they have acted illegally or not, the government would be commiting genocide because they are systematicaly destroying a group. Which - according to the first article of your new (if not improved) resolution is the definition of genocide.
False - you're word-playing again:

Extermination includes, but is not limited to:- murder, torture, enslavement, rape, forced pregnancy and familial separation.

There's nothing to do with destroying a group by disbanding it - that is up to each country's individual laws, not this document, nor is any comment made on the breaking up of such groups. Nor would it infringe on their rights - since their rights are to believe what they want and gather peacefully. So long as they had broken that second one, the government would be fine. Otherwise, yes, the government has broken their rights. Sorry if it's not authoritarian enough for you. ;)

I removed the word arbitrary because it just makes things more hazy. This way's simple - as soon as they act, and it can be proved to be a planned, systematic attempt to remove another group, then you can arrest them and bring them before a TPP.


Yeah - as soon as the KKK act they can be arrested. But what if the government takes it upon themselves to try to disband the group before it acts? Disbanding it will destroy the group. And as detailed in your interesting first line it will be in contravention of this convention.

And - by the by - I would like to also request you not call it the Eon Convention, since it clearly isn't. But that is a whole other matter.


Hardly butchered - I gave it detail, straight from a dictionary. What it was previously was completely up in the air for anyone to decide what it could mean.


Semantics. You say modified, I say changed beyond recognition.


False - you're word-playing again:
Originally Posted by new version
Extermination includes, but is not limited to:- murder, torture, enslavement, rape, forced pregnancy and familial separation.


There's nothing to do with destroying a group by disbanding it - that is up to each country's individual laws, not this document, nor is any comment made on the breaking up of such groups. Nor would it infringe on their rights - since their rights are to believe what they want and gather peacefully. So long as they had broken that second one, the government would be fine. Otherwise, yes, the government has broken their rights. Sorry if it's not authoritarian enough for you. ;)

Erm - you did read the part you quoted? The bit that says "but is not limited to". So if I chose to define genocide as the "disbanding of a lawful group so that it can no longer function" then there is nothing in the proposal to stop me doing this. So if GeminiLand disbands ANY group in their nation I can have them up for genocide under your new proposal, and there is nothing that can be done to stop me.

Yeah - as soon as the KKK act they can be arrested. But what if the government takes it upon themselves to try to disband the group before it acts? Disbanding it will destroy the group. And as detailed in your interesting first line it will be in contravention of this convention.
You'd have a hard time pushing that line - the word 'destroy' does not feature in my version. ;) Exterminate, yes, but not destroy.

And - by the by - I would like to also request you not call it the Eon Convention, since it clearly isn't. But that is a whole other matter.
I don't think I have. I have called it a redraft or new version of the Eon Convention... is that alright?

Semantics. You say modified, I say changed beyond recognition.
It performs what you intended it to. In fact, it does everything yours did except criminalise doctors performing abortions and euthanasia, as well as executioners. ;)

Erm - you did read the part you quoted? The bit that says "but is not limited to". So if I chose to define genocide as the "disbanding of a lawful group so that it can no longer function" then there is nothing in the proposal to stop me doing this. So if GeminiLand disbands ANY group in their nation I can have them up for genocide under your new proposal, and there is nothing that can be done to stop me.
You could, yes, but you could do that under yours too. In both cases, if the group was actively violent, then they're within their right to do so, and if they weren't, then you could technically do that - although it's not within the letter of the law, and would probably get passed on as a violation of the UBR more than anything else. Technically the accused could invoke the 'genocide for self-defense' clause in defense of their actions.

Are you asking me to change it however?

The real-world conventions have always annoyed me by including "torture, enslavement, rape, forced pregnancy and familial separation" in the definition of genocide.

Yes, these are all bad things - in certain circumstances they are War Crimes - but they are not extermination. They are not genocide.

It cheapens the debate to include them.

Interesting point Asshelmetta, and I was considering it myself - although they tend to be an attached crime. It's a pity the END BARBARIC PUNISHMENTS act wouldn't cover it.

You'd have a hard time pushing that line - the word 'destroy' does not feature in my version. ;) Exterminate, yes, but not destroy.


It says extermination includes, but is not limited to. So by extention a national government can add to that list if it can be viewed as extermination. And by a strict defintion you destroy something, you exterminate it.


I don't think I have. I have called it a redraft or new version of the Eon Convention... is that alright?


No. I want the word EON removed, as using it on this proposal would be an insult to those whom it commemorates.


It performs what you intended it to. In fact, it does everything yours did except criminalise doctors performing abortions and euthanasia, as well as executioners. ;)


It really doesn't, and the original resolution does not criminalize abortion, except when it is carried out as an attempt to destory a society. Nor does it criminalize the death penalty or euthanasia.


You could, yes, but you could do that under yours too. In both cases, if the group was actively violent, then they're within their right to do so, and if they weren't, then you could technically do that - although it's not within the letter of the law, and would probably get passed on as a violation of the UBR more than anything else. Technically the accused could invoke the 'genocide for self-defense' clause in defense of their actions.

Are you asking me to change that however?

If you agree that it could "technically" be done then it's a loophole that needs closing. Because otherwise no nation would be able to outlaw hate groups. And it can't be self-defence if the hate-group has taken no action that is threatening (the Convention is not a mandate for pre-emptive strikes)

And

I am saying that your entire repeal is based on a completely nonsensical arguement, and that should that pass (which is unlikely) that this resolution is a travesty of the original and however much you change it it is not going to do what it claims without leaving GAPING loopholes.

It says extermination includes, but is not limited to. So by extention a national government can add to that list if it can be viewed as extermination. And by a strict defintion you destroy something, you exterminate it.
Yes, I 'spose if a government were that self-destructive, they might choose that.

No. I want the word EON removed, as using it on this proposal would be an insult to those whom it commemorates.
It's not in there to need removing.

It really doesn't, and the original resolution does not criminalize abortion, except when it is carried out as an attempt to destory a society. Nor does it criminalize the death penalty or euthanasia.
Or part of a society - don't forget. Don't worry, I was making fun more than anything else.

If you agree that it could "technically" be done then it's a loophole that needs closing. Because otherwise no nation would be able to outlaw hate groups. And it can't be self-defence if the hate-group has taken no action that is threatening (the Convention is not a mandate for pre-emptive strikes)
Ok, I'll think about how to do it.

Edit: How's this?
[§2. Extermination includes, but is not limited to:- murder, torture, enslavement, rape, forced pregnancy, familial separation and breaches of the victims' rights.]

If it doesn't breach the victim's rights, then obviously it's not going to breach this (nor will it get taken up by anyone) - so breaking up a violent gathering isn't extermination.

I am saying that your entire repeal is based on a completely nonsensical arguement, and that should that pass (which is unlikely) that this resolution is a travesty of the original and however much you change it it is not going to do what it claims without leaving GAPING loopholes.
Like what? You haven't shown many so far. Just ways governments can try and kill themselves.

The real-world conventions have always annoyed me by including "torture, enslavement, rape, forced pregnancy and familial separation" in the definition of genocide.

Yes, these are all bad things - in certain circumstances they are War Crimes - but they are not extermination. They are not genocide.

It cheapens the debate to include them.

Why? If you set about removing all the children of TilEnca and raising them as Geminians (people from GeminiLand) then you are going to destroy the society of TilEnca, because if we can not have children to raise as our own, how will our Society continue?

If you torture every Christian in TilEnca until they agree to renounce their religion, you are destroying that society without killing anyone.

You enslave and kidnap all the black people, then you are destroying part of the society in TilEnca.

You rape all the women in TilEnca and force them to have Geminian babies, you are doing the same as taking the TilEncan children away.

And there are some cultures that find rape and torture crimes that are too dishonourable to live with the shame of. (Wow was that a bad sentence. I'll try again) There are some societies in which the shame of rape and torture are too much to bare, and people kill themselves. And if you rape every person in the nation, it is possible they could all kill themselves. Which would destroy the society itself.

All of these are examples of ways to destroy a society without actually killing anybody. And thus should be included under the crime of genocide.

(But please note - this is not support for this new "convention". I am merely commenting as someone who thinks that genocide is more than killing a lot of people)

Why? If you set about removing all the children of TilEnca and raising them as Geminians (people from GeminiLand) then you are going to destroy the society of TilEnca, because if we can not have children to raise as our own, how will our Society continue?

If you torture every Christian in TilEnca until they agree to renounce their religion, you are destroying that society without killing anyone.

You enslave and kidnap all the black people, then you are destroying part of the society in TilEnca.

You rape all the women in TilEnca and force them to have Geminian babies, you are doing the same as taking the TilEncan children away.
Hate to burst your bubble TilEnca, but all of those are crimes according to either national or international law.

Forcibly removing children is illegal under the Child Protection Act (Article 2, section 1).

Torture is illegal under the UBR - inhumane treatment.

Slavery is illegal under the End Slavery Act.

Rape is illegal under most nation's laws - and those it isn't won't care.

Hate to burst your bubble TilEnca, but all of those are crimes according to either national or international law.

Forcibly removing children is illegal under the Child Protection Act (Article 2, section 1).

Torture is illegal under the UBR - inhumane treatment.

Slavery is illegal under the End slavery Act.

Rape is illegal under most nation's laws - and those it isn't won't care.

And? As I have commented previously (to no avail, it appears) genocide is a matter of scale.

If you rape one woman it is not a nice thing to do, but it is not on the same scale as raping every white woman in the nation.

Kidnapping one child is also a bad thing, but kidnapping every Christian child is not on the same level.

Genocide is the act of destorying a society - and all of these things can be used to do that and should be considered acts of genocide. And thus you should be brought before The Panel if you commit them.

(But please note - this is not support for this new "convention". I am merely commenting as someone who thinks that genocide is more than killing a lot of people)

We get that genocide is a matter of scale - but the thing is, if their actions are already illegal, then it's just as illegal to do it bigger.

And you don't need the 'please note' at the end - we all get that from your overtly negative comments so far.

Anywho, if you check the bottom of the previous page, I've answered your comments, and possibly fixed that problem.

(OOC)

I am done. Seriously. I am going to ignore this thread, and any other thread. Not because I think you have a case - you don't. And not because I am accepting the repeal or the new resolution - I am not.

But because I have better things to do than argue with someone who doesn't apparently understand the basic idea that breaking a law and being born black are not the same thing.

And the more I argue, the more annoyed I am going to become, and the possiblity will exist that I will lose my temper and quite possibly get banned for being rude and insulting to you.

So - go nuts. I am not going to interfere any more.

But because I have better things to do than argue with someone who doesn't apparently understand the basic idea that breaking a law and being born black are not the same thing.
If you seriously thought that was my belief, then you haven't been listening.

Really simple concept. Both 'criminal' and 'black' are categories. One is defined by action, the other by appearance. Although different categories, various people find both worthy of death. There is no inherent or objective reason why either should be killed - hence why it their death would be for arbitrary reasons.

It has nothing to do with whether I can distinguish a criminal from a black person, but on the fact that both are categories of people who would be killed for arbitrary reasons.

And? As I have commented previously (to no avail, it appears) genocide is a matter of scale.


I disagree.

Scale is one facet, but it is also a matter of extermination of people. Systemic killing.

Adding rape and forced separation of families to the definition is an insult.

It is an insult to the millions of jews and gypsies who died in concentration camps is the holocaust.

It is an insult to the millions of Cambodians killed by the Khmer Rouge.

It is an insult to the millions of Rwandan Tutsi killed by Hutu interhwame.

I don't endorse the systematic rape of Bosnian women by the Serbs. I am not trying to justify the forced starvation of millions in the Sudan, or in Ethiopia during that country's civil war. I don't want to lessen the crimes of Stalin's purges. But none of these are genocide. They may all be of the same scale of magnitude as genocide, but they are not in the same qualitative order.

I disagree.

Scale is one facet, but it is also a matter of extermination of people. Systemic killing.

Adding rape and forced separation of families to the definition is an insult.
It is an insult to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples to even consider removing the forced seperation of families from the official definition of genocide. Or what would you call the forced removal of children from native society with the specific intent to 're-educate' them into Anglo-Saxon society? The Stolen Generations was genocide - it was an attempt to destroy Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander society and culture.

If you really have no idea what I am talking about, go and watch 'Rabbit Proof Fence', a film of the experiences of three part-Aboriginal girls in the 1930s.

*cue violin music*

I certainly wouldn't call it genocide.

Nope. Not at all comparable to gas chambers or bodies clogging victoria falls.


I mean, look: the slave trade was bad too, but it wasn't genocide. Banning of religion under communism was bad too, but it wasn't genocide.

*cue violin music*

I certainly wouldn't call it genocide.

Nope. Not at all comparable to gas chambers or bodies clogging victoria falls.


I mean, look: the slave trade was bad too, but it wasn't genocide. Banning of religion under communism was bad too, but it wasn't genocide.
Let me just check that I've got your view correctly.
The deliberate, systematic destruction of a society, a culture and an ethnic group does not count as genocide in your books.

Let me just check that I've got your view correctly.
The deliberate, systematic destruction of a society, a culture and an ethnic group does not count as genocide in your books.
Unless it includes mass murder to the point of extirmination, no.

I thought I had made that clear in my first post.




Actually, I'm kinda curious. How could you think it includes anything else? Where did this idea get started?

Genocide comes from the Greek word genos meaing race, and the popular suffix meaning 'to kill' -cide.

If you look on dictionary.com, they actually have three definitions there:

- The systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group.

- The deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group.

- Systematic killing of a racial or cultural group.

I somewhat disagree with Enn - the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander's stolen generation doesn't come across as genocide to me, however much it was an extreme act of injustice.

I'm going to go with the flow however, and maximise the potential crimes this act can cover.

There's nothing to do with destroying a group by disbanding it - that is up to each country's individual laws, not this document, nor is any comment made on the breaking up of such groups. Nor would it infringe on their rights - since their rights are to believe what they want and gather peacefully. So long as they had broken that second one, the government would be fine. Otherwise, yes, the government has broken their rights. Sorry if it's not authoritarian enough for you. ;)

Not for nothin' but if you can use an esoteric meaning for the word arbitrary to show how it might be misconstrued or misused, then I don't see why someone else shouldn't do it. I appreciate the time it took to post an alternative, but it has loopholes as well. <shrug> As do all laws to some extent.

You went on and on about how arbitrary could be twisted and how "part of a society" could be twisted, based on esoteric meanings of the words arbitrary and society - completely ignoring the fact that the dictionary supported TilEnca's position on the word arbitrary and that by definition, genocide canot be committed against only one person.

You're now talking about dictionary meanings of words when this isn't what we were discussing in the previous thread. If we are using the dictionary, "arbitrary," as used in the passed resolution, would stand just fine and so would "part of a society" - and had that been the position you took during the original thread, we'd never have gotten this far with this debate.

That being the case, what exactly is your point?

This whole proposal, repeal or whatever it is is so ludicrous its not worth the debate. The Eon Convention on Genocide is a great piece of legislation. If Jesus Christ came down and lead a movement of repeal and Satan was the Conventions only advocate then the wise members of the U.N would still not repeal it.
Try not to be bated by the honorable members refusal to accept common definations of common words.

Genocide comes from the Greek word genos meaing race, and the popular suffix meaning 'to kill' -cide.

If you look on dictionary.com, they actually have three definitions there:

- The systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group.

- The deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group.

- Systematic killing of a racial or cultural group.

I somewhat disagree with Enn - the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander's stolen generation doesn't come across as genocide to me, however much it was an extreme act of injustice.

I'm going to go with the flow however, and maximise the potential crimes this act can cover.

Actually, under the first one, they are genocide. When exterminating a society, you don't have to kill people. If you disagree, let me demonstrate on your nation how it works. I've already got a few genocides in my past anyway, so one more won't make a difference.

This whole proposal, repeal or whatever it is is so ludicrous its not worth the debate. The Eon Convention on Genocide is a great piece of legislation. If Jesus Christ came down and lead a movement of repeal and Satan was the Conventions only advocate then the wise members of the U.N would still not repeal it.
Try not to be bated by the honorable members refusal to accept common definations of common words.

(OOC)
Thank you for comparing me to Satan - it is far nicer than the things people at work compare me to :}


(smirk)

This whole proposal, repeal or whatever it is is so ludicrous its not worth the debate. The Eon Convention on Genocide is a great piece of legislation. If Jesus Christ came down and lead a movement of repeal and Satan was the Conventions only advocate then the wise members of the U.N would still not repeal it.
Try not to be bated by the honorable members refusal to accept common definations of common words.


Oh all right... I'll try :)

Not for nothin' but if you can use an esoteric meaning for the word arbitrary to show how it might be misconstrued or misused, then I don't see why someone else shouldn't do it. I appreciate the time it took to post an alternative, but it has loopholes as well. <shrug> As do all laws to some extent.
True, but in this case, that usage would be down to national law - effectively a nation committing seppuku, so it doesn't matter anyway. ;)

Prachya, can I ask you why rapists can be killed but blacks cannot?

Anywho, I've posted the new repeal if anyone's interested.

(OOC)
Thank you for comparing me to Satan - it is far nicer than the things people at work compare me to :}


(smirk)

Hehe, must appologize for that :-)

So, any comments anyone?

Still waiting on a reply to my last post.

Sorry DemonLord, I must have missed it.

Actually, under the first one, they are genocide. When exterminating a society, you don't have to kill people. If you disagree, let me demonstrate on your nation how it works. I've already got a few genocides in my past anyway, so one more won't make a difference.
I understand the principle of the argument, it's just that genocide, in the common usage of the word refers to mass killing rather than the other criminal activities that normally go hand-in-hand with it. I'm not moving to remove that clause in any case - I think it's a good idea to keep it in, since it leaves us with a method of dealing with those crimes as well.