What constitutes genocide? Officially?

[tigerbob]

At the risk it provoking another infantile tit for tat debate about freedom of speech, I noticed this story from France

French President Hollande vows new Armenia 'genocide law'

French President Francois Hollande has said he plans a new law to punish denial that the 1915-16 killing of Armenians was genocide.

A previous law approved by the French parliament was struck down in February by the Constitutional Council, which said it infringed freedom of speech.

Turkey rejects the term "genocide" for the deaths of Armenians during their deportation by the Ottoman Empire.

The issue has strained Franco-Turkish relations in recent years.

Mr Hollande's predecessor Nicolas Sarkozy had also ordered his government to draft a new law after the old one was struck down.

BBC News - French President Hollande vows new Armenia 'genocide law'

What interested me most were a series of bullet point further down the page that read...

• Both the Holocaust and killing of the Armenians are recognised as acts of genocide in France
• Denial of the Holocaust is punishable under the 1990 Gayssot law, which is based on the findings of the Nuremberg Tribunal
• Some legal experts argue that unless the Armenian killings are formally recognised as an act of genocide by an international commission their denial cannot be made punishable
• In the absence of international certification, some legal experts argue the term "Armenian genocide" may be challenged on grounds of freedom of speech

Now, clearly citizens of the USA (which along with other countries like Bahrain, Malaysia, Vietnam and Yemen negotiated immunity from prosecution from genocide unless they agree to be prosecuted for it) may have a different view on this than most other countries that have ratified the Genocide Convention, but I wondered exactly what form of 'International Commission' has the right to rule on what acts are considered acts of genocide.

I assume that in the US, the view is that nobody has the right to rule anything about the US except the US itself. But what about in general? The UN? The European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg?

Let's take a domestic example, and ignore for a second the immunity that the USA has negotiated.

If the Court of Human Rights ruled that the persecution of Native Americans was an act of genocide, what would be people's views of the competence of the court to so rule? Or if that's too close to home, how about the story I quoted t the beginning - let's say for example the UN ruled about the Armenian 'Genocide'?

If a government or group are to be prosecuted for genocide, someone must first have the authority to confirm that genocide has taken place. Who has that authority?

I realize this is a broad and complex issue, and that I may have potentially framed it incorrectly, but I'd like to hear views.

N.B. This may be in the wrong forum, but 'History' seemed appropriate.

 

[Two Thumbs]

genocide is the killing or the attempt to kill a group that is not like you for any reason.

the Turks, Nazia, Mongoles, chins, Japs, committed genocide.

the russians, viet cong, commited something else, but along the same lines

politicide?

 

[mememe]

genocide is the killing or the attempt to kill a group that is not like you for any reason.

the Turks, Nazia, Mongoles, chins, Japs, committed genocide.

the russians, viet cong, commited something else, but along the same lines

politicide?

While there are various definitions of the term, almost all international bodies of law officially adjudicate the crime of genocide pursuant to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG).[3] (Wiki)


In my opinion, this definition sums it up: "Genocide is the mass murder of as many people as possible on the basis of born national, ethnic, racial or religious identity as such; with intent to eliminate the targeted group entirely and internationally; without allowing the victims any option to change views, beliefs or allegiances to save themselves; and with large-scale accomplished fulfilment of the goal. Genocide leaves in its wake an extinct or nearly extinct group within the territory under the control of the perpetrators." (Dovid Katz. 2009)

I don't think Mongols committed genocide... (???)

As for "politicide", -- then any and every civil war can be classed as such; "With Hunt" against Communists in USA of 50 - 60-s and Nurnberg can be classed as "politicide"...

 

[editec]

Genocidal attempts are a rather commonly seen historical event. I can probably nhame at least five cases of it in Western history of the last 2000 years.

And its so common in Africa, that I doubt anybody could name all the examples of that event that occurred even in just this century.

So from my POV Debating which is or isn't attempts at genocide is sort of a waste of time.

Why is it a waste of time?

Because in most cases MOTIVE isn't clearly stated EXCEPT by the act itself.

NAZI's were the exception to that rule in the 20th century.

They openly admitted that they were seeking to kill all Jews, Romas, Slavs and so forth.


Now here's a question though that I DO think is relevant.

Does geneocide ALWAYS ONLY involve nationality, race, tribal or religious issues?

What about CLASS issues?

For instance, when STALIN decided to kill all the Kulaks, was that genocide?

I think it was, and I think that genocidal event was based on CLASS.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

We have Terror lovers claiming Israel is committing Genocide. Care to provide evidence of that based on the legal term and its definition?

 

[konradv]

genocide is the killing or the attempt to kill a group that is not like you for any reason.

the Turks, Nazia, Mongoles, chins, Japs, committed genocide.

Forgot the Murkins!

 

[mememe]

What about CLASS issues?

For instance, when STALIN decided to kill all the Kulaks, was that genocide?

I think it was, and I think that genocidal event was based on CLASS.

A "class" is a concept. You can't commit genocide against a concept.

For example, the kulaks (wealthy peasants) once dealt with were becoming either peasants of middle wealth if they chose to remain in the village, or if they chose to leave the village, they were becoming part of a proletariat/working class, or got educated and moved to be part of intellectual classes, etc.

 

[daveman]

"With Hunt" against Communists in USA of 50 - 60-s and Nurnberg can be classed as "politicide"...

Really? How many Commies did Joe McCarthy execute?

 

[daveman]

We have Terror lovers claiming Israel is committing Genocide. Care to provide evidence of that based on the legal term and its definition?

Make sure they mention the Palestinian population is rising.

If that's genocide, it's a very poor one. But then, leftists can't make an argument without redefining words.

 

[Liability]

genocide is the killing or the attempt to kill a group that is not like you for any reason.

the Turks, Nazia, Mongoles, chins, Japs, committed genocide.

Forgot the Murkins!

Wrong. Chose not to include a group that clearly doesn't merit inclusion.

 

[mememe]

"With Hunt" against Communists in USA of 50 - 60-s and Nurnberg can be classed as "politicide"...

Really? How many Commies did Joe McCarthy execute?

Learn to read the WHOLE post, and not the assorted words.

 

[Artevelde]

At the risk it provoking another infantile tit for tat debate about freedom of speech, I noticed this story from France

French President Hollande vows new Armenia 'genocide law'

French President Francois Hollande has said he plans a new law to punish denial that the 1915-16 killing of Armenians was genocide.

A previous law approved by the French parliament was struck down in February by the Constitutional Council, which said it infringed freedom of speech.

Turkey rejects the term "genocide" for the deaths of Armenians during their deportation by the Ottoman Empire.

The issue has strained Franco-Turkish relations in recent years.

Mr Hollande's predecessor Nicolas Sarkozy had also ordered his government to draft a new law after the old one was struck down.

BBC News - French President Hollande vows new Armenia 'genocide law'

What interested me most were a series of bullet point further down the page that read...

• Both the Holocaust and killing of the Armenians are recognised as acts of genocide in France
• Denial of the Holocaust is punishable under the 1990 Gayssot law, which is based on the findings of the Nuremberg Tribunal
• Some legal experts argue that unless the Armenian killings are formally recognised as an act of genocide by an international commission their denial cannot be made punishable
• In the absence of international certification, some legal experts argue the term "Armenian genocide" may be challenged on grounds of freedom of speech

Now, clearly citizens of the USA (which along with other countries like Bahrain, Malaysia, Vietnam and Yemen negotiated immunity from prosecution from genocide unless they agree to be prosecuted for it) may have a different view on this than most other countries that have ratified the Genocide Convention, but I wondered exactly what form of 'International Commission' has the right to rule on what acts are considered acts of genocide.

I assume that in the US, the view is that nobody has the right to rule anything about the US except the US itself. But what about in general? The UN? The European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg?

Let's take a domestic example, and ignore for a second the immunity that the USA has negotiated.

If the Court of Human Rights ruled that the persecution of Native Americans was an act of genocide, what would be people's views of the competence of the court to so rule? Or if that's too close to home, how about the story I quoted t the beginning - let's say for example the UN ruled about the Armenian 'Genocide'?

If a government or group are to be prosecuted for genocide, someone must first have the authority to confirm that genocide has taken place. Who has that authority?

I realize this is a broad and complex issue, and that I may have potentially framed it incorrectly, but I'd like to hear views.

N.B. This may be in the wrong forum, but 'History' seemed appropriate.

I'm not sure one can give a really "official" definition for genocide. Over the last few decades the term has been groosly devalued by applying it to just about every sort of mass killing. This is unfortunate and stupid. Words should mean something.

In my view genocide is the attempt by a state or government authority to deliberately and systematically exterminate a whole ethnic group by physically destroying them wherever it can. This is a relatively rare phenomenon. The Nazi holocaust against the Jews in World War II and the Turkish attempt to exterminate the Armenians during World War I are clear examples. The German extermination of the Herero after their uprising in South-West-Africa was another clear example, even though the numbers were much smaller there.
Arguably there was also an attempted Nazi genocide against the Gypsy during World War II, although it was far less systematic and all-encompassing than the holocaust against the Jews.
One can also argue that the mass killing of Tutsi's in Rwanda amounted to a genocide, although it is not clear whether there was really an attempt to exterminate the whole Tutsi population.
Most other cases in which the term genocide has been used are pure propaganda. The accusation of genocide against Serbs and others during the Balkan wars is - for example - a travesty of the term. At no point did the Serbs try to exterminate the whole Muslim population of Bosnia for example.

Personally I am also strongly opposed to legislation punishing the denial of this or that genocide. Denying the Jewish holocaust, for example, is stupid, ignorant and reprehensible; But shouldn't be a crime. One does not legislate historical truth.

 

[daveman]

"With Hunt" against Communists in USA of 50 - 60-s and Nurnberg can be classed as "politicide"...

Really? How many Commies did Joe McCarthy execute?

Learn to read the WHOLE post, and not the assorted words.

Uh huh. So you're just redefining words, as I said.

 

[mememe]

Really? How many Commies did Joe McCarthy execute?

Learn to read the WHOLE post, and not the assorted words.

Uh huh. So you're just redefining words, as I said.

I don't know in how many ways shall I put it for you to register: LEARN TO READ! And when you will master that, you can proceed to the next step -- LEARN TO UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU READ!

 

[tigerbob]

At the risk it provoking another infantile tit for tat debate about freedom of speech, I noticed this story from France

French President Hollande vows new Armenia 'genocide law'

French President Francois Hollande has said he plans a new law to punish denial that the 1915-16 killing of Armenians was genocide.

A previous law approved by the French parliament was struck down in February by the Constitutional Council, which said it infringed freedom of speech.

Turkey rejects the term "genocide" for the deaths of Armenians during their deportation by the Ottoman Empire.

The issue has strained Franco-Turkish relations in recent years.

Mr Hollande's predecessor Nicolas Sarkozy had also ordered his government to draft a new law after the old one was struck down.

BBC News - French President Hollande vows new Armenia 'genocide law'

What interested me most were a series of bullet point further down the page that read...

• Both the Holocaust and killing of the Armenians are recognised as acts of genocide in France
• Denial of the Holocaust is punishable under the 1990 Gayssot law, which is based on the findings of the Nuremberg Tribunal
• Some legal experts argue that unless the Armenian killings are formally recognised as an act of genocide by an international commission their denial cannot be made punishable
• In the absence of international certification, some legal experts argue the term "Armenian genocide" may be challenged on grounds of freedom of speech

Now, clearly citizens of the USA (which along with other countries like Bahrain, Malaysia, Vietnam and Yemen negotiated immunity from prosecution from genocide unless they agree to be prosecuted for it) may have a different view on this than most other countries that have ratified the Genocide Convention, but I wondered exactly what form of 'International Commission' has the right to rule on what acts are considered acts of genocide.

I assume that in the US, the view is that nobody has the right to rule anything about the US except the US itself. But what about in general? The UN? The European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg?

Let's take a domestic example, and ignore for a second the immunity that the USA has negotiated.

If the Court of Human Rights ruled that the persecution of Native Americans was an act of genocide, what would be people's views of the competence of the court to so rule? Or if that's too close to home, how about the story I quoted t the beginning - let's say for example the UN ruled about the Armenian 'Genocide'?

If a government or group are to be prosecuted for genocide, someone must first have the authority to confirm that genocide has taken place. Who has that authority?

I realize this is a broad and complex issue, and that I may have potentially framed it incorrectly, but I'd like to hear views.

N.B. This may be in the wrong forum, but 'History' seemed appropriate.

Ok, well that's several opinions and a few "learn to reads", but very little so fear really gets at what I was wondering. To recap the particular bullet from the OP that interested me...

• Some legal experts argue that unless the Armenian killings are formally recognised as an act of genocide by an international commission their denial cannot be made punishable

...and my original question....

If a government or group are to be prosecuted for genocide, someone must first have the authority to confirm that genocide has taken place. Who has that authority?

Taking that recent case in TX where the father of a girl who was being molested beat the perp to death. He killed someone, we all know that. But before he could be charged, a determination had to be made on whether the killing was lawful or unlawful. As I recall the DA made the decision, though a Grand Jury could have done so if needed.

So, who gets to decide whether killing lots of the same people is genocide, or whether it's just mass murder?

I've read all the definitions, but who makes the determination about which definition is used as the basis for whether an act or series of acts is genocide? This goes back to the bullet above: ...unless the Armenian killings are formally recognised as an act of genocide by an international commission

What "International Commission" would you recognize, if any, as being competent to so rule, and indeed having the jurisdiction to so rule?

 

[daveman]

Learn to read the WHOLE post, and not the assorted words.

Uh huh. So you're just redefining words, as I said.

I don't know in how many ways shall I put it for you to register: LEARN TO READ! And when you will master that, you can proceed to the next step -- LEARN TO UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU READ!

Uh huh. Say, are you ever going to do anything to justify that level of arrogance? NOTE: "Being a liberal" really isn't an accomplishment. Just sayin'.

 

[mememe]

Uh huh. Say, are you ever going to do anything to justify that level of arrogance? NOTE: "Being a liberal" really isn't an accomplishment. Just sayin'.

What are you on about?.. Eat something when you are boozing.

 

[PeterL321]

Thank you for your sharing....My dear friend.....

 

[Sallow]

Depends on where you sit..really.

And who's telling the tale.

 

[gipper]

"With Hunt" against Communists in USA of 50 - 60-s and Nurnberg can be classed as "politicide"...

Really? How many Commies did Joe McCarthy execute?

Not only that, but Tailgunner Joe was right in his initial naming of commies in FDR and Truman's administrations.

Its all in the Venona Papers, but today citing McCarthy has become an acceptable MYTH.