• blargerer@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    I feel like people in these comments didn’t read the article or listen to the direct statements. Its a super political non-committal statement. If you wanted him to make a commitment about it being genocide, sure, I’d have been happy with what Singh was pushing for, a strong stance of siding with whatever the ICJ decided. But lets be clear, this isn’t a statement that whats going on isn’t genocide. And, frankly, whether it is genocide or not is murky. I lean towards yes, but I’m not any sort of domain expert. The ethnic cleansing and apartheid arguments are much stronger.

    • taanegl@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      When discussing or qualifying genocide, we no longer require mass graves. What that means is that we take into account cultural and historic destruction as well.

      Considering all the cultural and historical sites being destroyed as we speak, there is little in the way of meeting the acedemic requirement for the definition.

      But certain politicians think cultural genocide isn’t really a thing, because they don’t really care about culture. Not saying the Canadian MP thinks like that, I’m just saying.