China's Xinjiang region legalizes Muslim concentration camps to educate and transform extremists

[bushman505]

Well then you are ignorant to the reality of the situation.

Nope

 

[MicroBrew]

You're using the word genocide very loosely here to describe forced assimilation. The term "cultural genocide" is an emotional expansion of actual genocide, which involves mass killings through purges. For an actual genocide against Muslim population, see Roghinya in Burma or Tutsi in Rwanda. The moment we start lumping all kinds of oppressive policies into the umbrella of genocide, the world loses sense of the urgency to act on actual genocides.

It's not a loose application of the term because the ultimate aim of the Chinese policy is to render the Uighur persona-non-grata. Whether you kill a person with a bullet to their head or afflict them with a virus or ailment that will cause certain death ,but in a long drawn out process, the end result is the same. The Chinese are forcefully restricting the Uighurs from practicing their culture and maintaining their identity. Cultural genocide is the process of erasing a people's identity , so as to render the people extinct as a distinct people.

 

[Orgasmo]

I'd say that you are using the most extreme form of genocide to define it. Most definitions do not require a mass killing event. Just the deliberate destruction of a people group.

So if you set a plan in motion with the intent on eliminating some group, and within this plan it does not include mass killing, it would still typically be genocidal. There is some grey area though for sure.

Except that's what actual genocides are, before we started throwing that term on every oppressive practice from governments. You cannot have genocide without killing, since the term itself is a mix of Latin and Greek, geno (people) and cide (act of killing). Both UN and European Court of Human Rights consider that physical/biological destruction of the protected group is required for the prosecution of genocide.

 

[Orgasmo]

It's not a loose application of the term because the ultimate aim of the Chinese policy is to render the Uighur persona-non-grata. Whether you kill a person with a bullet to their head or afflict them with a virus or ailment that will cause certain death ,but in a long drawn out process, the end result is the same. The Chinese are forcefully restricting the Uighurs from practicing their culture and maintaining their identity. Cultural genocide is the process of erasing a people's identity , so as to render the people extinct as a distinct people.

Yes it is, both literally and legally

The applicant is the first person to be convicted of genocide by German courts under Article 220a since the incorporation of that Article into the Criminal Code. At the time the applicant committed his acts in 1992, a majority of scholars took the view that genocidal “intent to destroy a group” under Article 220a of the Criminal Code had to be aimed at the physical-biological destruction of the protected group

https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/812753/pdf

 

[IDL]

Except that's what actual genocides are, before we started throwing that term on every oppressive practice from governments. You cannot have genocide without killing, since the term itself is a mix of Latin and Greek, geno (people) and cide (act of killing). Both UN and European Court of Human Rights consider that physical/biological destruction of the protected group is required for the prosecution of genocide.

Not sure about prosecution specifically, but that isn't the definition according to the UN definition

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_Convention#Definition_of_genocide

I get the point you are making, in that in politics terms become stretched passed their point of meaning, but if your intent is to destroy a people group, and you achieve it, whether or not you did it via mass slaughter or not seems beside the point of the outcome.

 

[franklinstower]

If they worship a blood thirsty pedophile and believe in implementation of Sharia law, then they do not belong in the West. Absolute thoughts are enshrined in the Quran itself, which openly calls for war against non-believers. "Moderate Muslim" is an oxymoron. You cannot be a Muslim without accepting Muhammed as the perfect human being.

You did not answer my questions. I am considering that ducking them.

The point I am getting at is that the majority do not support extremism of any kind, do not want sharia law and do not believe Mohamed was a pedophile.

Does that change your stance on them? I think the % is something like 60% or muslims are not extremists in any way. 25% or more do not believe in carrying out any kind of extreme acts and the rest do in some form.

 

[franklinstower]

Nope

What % of Muslims favor the use of terrorism and sharia law? Do you know? What % are actively fighting against sharia law? Do you know?

Of those who do not support sharia law and do not support terrorist acts can you see any allies in those people?

 

[MicroBrew]

Yes it is, both literally and legally

https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/812753/pdf

You are interpreting too narrow a definition. Why isn't the destruction of their culture, leading to slow-motion destruction of them as a people, a "physical" destruction of them?

To reiterate: does it matter if someone shoots you in the head or poisons you with some radioactive or toxic substance that takes a few years to kill you?

From @IDL's link
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

The Han Chinese regime is pursuing a calculated plan to wipe out the Uighurs, via cultural genocide.

 

[Orgasmo]

You did not answer my questions. I am considering that ducking them.

The point I am getting at is that the majority do not support extremism of any kind, do not want sharia law and do not believe Mohamed was a pedophile.

Does that change your stance on them? I think the % is something like 60% or muslims are not extremists in any way. 25% or more do not believe in carrying out any kind of extreme acts and the rest do in some form.

I answered you question fully, and it is you that is sidestepping. Believing in Islam itself is an act of extremism and blind devotion. To be a Muslim is to accept Muhammed as the prophet, which is said to be the perfect human being to be emulated.

 

[franklinstower]

I answered you question fully, and it is you that is sidestepping. Believing in Islam itself is an act of extremism and blind devotion. To be a Muslim is to accept Muhammed as the prophet, which is said to be the perfect human being to be emulated.

So what? What actions are you saying are appropriate to take against moderate muslims?

 

[Orgasmo]

You are interpreting too narrow a definition. Why isn't the destruction of their culture, leading to slow-motion destruction of them as a people, a "physical" destruction of them?

To reiterate: does it matter if someone shoots you in the head or poisons you with some radioactive or toxic substance that takes a few years to kill you?

From @IDL's link
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

The Han Chinese regime is pursuing a calculated plan to wipe out the Uighurs, via cultural genocide.

No, it is you that's using the term loosely. I am basing my argument on European Court of Human Rights' majority opinion. Physical-biological destruction is required in a legal and linguistic context for genocide to exist.

Not sure about prosecution specifically, but that isn't the definition according to the UN definition

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_Convention#Definition_of_genocide

I get the point you are making, in that in politics terms become stretched passed their point of meaning, but if your intent is to destroy a people group, and you achieve it, whether or not you did it via mass slaughter or not seems beside the point of the outcome.

Did you not read your own link? Every single condition involves physical-biological destruction with the exception of (e). Nothing says forced assimilation through indoctrination. As a supporter of legal textualism, I heavily dislike twisting laws to suit one's political opinion.

... any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
— Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Article 2

 

[Orgasmo]

So what? What actions are you saying are appropriate to take against moderate muslims?

1. "Moderate Muslims" do not exist if they worship a genocidal pedophile.
2. Heavily restrict immigration from Islamic countries to the West and accept no further refugees.

 

[Sano]

Holy shit people ITT are actually supporting concentration camps based on religious ideology. Holy shit you guys have gone insane.

 

[IDL]

No, it is you that's using the term loosely. I am basing my argument on European Court of Human Rights' majority opinion. Physical-biological destruction is required in a legal and linguistic context for genocide to exist.


Did you not read your own link? Every single condition involves physical-biological destruction with the exception of (e). Nothing says forced assimilation through indoctrination. As a supporter of legal textualism, I heavily dislike twisting laws to suit one's political opinion.

... any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
— Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Article 2

I wasn't arguing that forced conversions (as the Chinese example) count as genocide, rather that genocide does not require mass killing.

Whether forced conversion would count, is pretty murky I'd agree. Native Canadians will often use the term 'genocide' when it comes to historical programs to assimilate some of them and it is a stretch I'd say.

I've also seen the argument made by some Canadian native representatives that if Canada were to get rid of the reservation system that would be committing genocide against them because then they would mix with other peoples and they would lose their distinctive race. That is probably closer to the biological destruction argument but still would be in a grey area.

I have seen Chinese accused of using genocidal tactic in Tibet through use of facilitating migrations of hans into those regions and trying to 'breed out' the existing ethnic people there. Not sure how accurate that is, but it's a viable tactic and one that could count as a form genocide I think based on the biological aspect.

 

[Orgasmo]

I wasn't arguing that forced conversions (as the Chinese example) count as genocide, rather that genocide does not require mass killing.

Whether forced conversion would count, is pretty murky I'd agree. Native Canadians will often use the term 'genocide' when it comes to historical programs to assimilate some of them and it is a stretch I'd say.

I have seen Chinese accused of using genocidal tactic in Tibet through use of facilitating migrations of hans into those regions and trying to 'breed out' the existing ethnic people there. Not sure how accurate that is, but it's a viable tactic and one that could count as a form genocide I think.

Forced indoctrination doesn't fall under genocide banner. Flooding a region with another ethnic group is another method of forced assimilation by out-breeding the natives. I still don't think that qualifies as genocide if intermarriages and births aren't forced. Like I said, it lacks the necessary component of mass physical destruction.

 

[bushman505]

What % of Muslims favor the use of terrorism and sharia law? Do you know? What % are actively fighting against sharia law? Do you know?

Of those who do not support sharia law and do not support terrorist acts can you see any allies in those people?

I’m guessing that you think you know the answer but really don’t.

 

[m25105]

Holy shit people ITT are actually supporting concentration camps based on religious ideology. Holy shit you guys have gone insane.

It's fucking scary man.

 

[The ScorpioN]

‘Ends justify the means’ logic is the gateway to all manner of horrible things in the world.

Western liberal value "means" get abused and twisted, hence we have the hilarious term "islamophobia" emerge. Maybe other "means" will yield better results.

I'd prefer the Danish or Austrian model of assimilation, but I don't think it goes far enough. You need to fully declaw that ideology like it was done with Christianity. Once the "ends" include safely ridiculing and lampooning Muhammad and their beliefs, drastic reduction in Muslim crime, misogyny and terror, then I'd call those "means" a success.

 

[Sano]

It's fucking scary man.

It's like people are completely consumed with propaganda and hate to the point that they can't take a step back and think. It would be sad was it not terrifying.

 

[m25105]

It's like people are completely consumed with propaganda and hate to the point that they can't take a step back and think. It would be sad was it not terrifying.

I guess it should not come as a surprise, this board is full of people that foam at their mouth at anything that goes against on what they perceive what the world should be. Where solidarity with their fellow citizens is completely alien to them (evident in threads about healthcare), the constant obsession with a tiny minority that think there's 52 genders, yet instead of ignoring it as just young people being confused it's instead seen as a legitimate threat to contemporary western society. The large fear of immigration (which is a bit confusing since they're both seen as lazy, while at the same time taking jobs away (how does that work?)) ignoring the declining birthrate and that the average age in some western countries are 40+ years of age. The emergence of the alt-right. The anti intellectualism, where knowledge is now gained from hateful websites, trash/tabloid news websites, and agenda driven youtubers, all that appeal to their hysterical view that white civilization is under dire threat. Instead of looking at what can be done to work with this in a reasonable and constructive manner, the usual suspects here immediately cry for arms.

I would not at all be surprised if the usual suspects also believed every lie that lead to the Iraq war, and will be the first to march along to the war drums when the U.S pushes for war against Iran. Given how Muslims are seen as subhuman by these posters, while they ignore every atrocity that the west has perpetrated in the middle-east (and let's not forget Latin-America, and south east Asia), I guess the next step is cultural genocide, then after that we're just a single step away from actual genocide, through either tacit support, or simply by not taking a stance.
We laugh at clowns like Paludan, and Wilders, but they are appealing to fear and fear is showing to be a very powerful tool.