Pants-of-dog wrote:Since the report clearly distinguishes between the particular type of genocide that Canada is perpetrating and other genocides, we need not worry about “a new word for what happened in the Holocaust” nor does this make “a mockery of the genocide charge if this conclusion stands”. Nor should we worry that “this will invariably lead to a lack of legitimacy and credibility with respect to the law and the decisions based on it in large parts of western countries as well”.
I'm aware that they have invented a type that isn't really genocide but they wish to use the word because it still carries a punch. Everything I said still holds.
Pants-of-dog wrote:In many ways yes, but they are identical in that in both cases, people of a specific ethnic minority will or would be killed as a result of a deliberate government policy if the situation does not change.
That doesn't make a genocide. Again, they are worlds apart and no reasonable person would put them into the same category or regard them as equivalent.
B0ycey wrote:I don't see this affecting Canada and I don't see it affecting Trudeau either. As I said, Trudeau doesn't decide punishment or who receives it.
You said it "puts Canada a step behind everyone else when condemning human rights violations". That's an effect.
It's unclear how this will affect Trudeau politically, but the consequences or lack thereof will show how serious the Canadian PM takes this genocide charge. If nobody in this or previous governments suffers any consequences, it will be obvious that "genocide" has become just another meaningless label to throw around.
As for consequences in terms of international law, I agree that nothing will happen, mainly because with few exceptions the courts have so far refused to expand the interpretation of genocide in the way the commission would like them to. Trudeau is of course aware of this, hence why I called this posturing and virtue signalling.
B0ycey wrote:Although some minor research into this and I can see why some would describe it as genocide. From my understanding, your problem is you only consider genocide to mean deliberate attempt of mass extermination and that in Canada we don't have the death figures to your liking.
We probably have dozens of recent and current genocides on our hands worldwide, if we follow the arguments the commission is making in their legal case. For instance, the treatment of travellers and Roma people by several European countries might well be construed as genocide in a similar way. If we tweak the argument a little more, disparate outcomes where minorities have lower life expectancy, higher crime victimisation rates, etc. can fall under it if the government has been aware of this but hasn't changed its policies, e.g. I've certainly already heard the term "black holocaust" by activists.
If this happens, at one point so many different events will fall under it and its occurrence will be so widespread that we'll need a new category that is reserved for the holocaust and similar atrocities which are qualitatively and quantitatively different than the others in terms of scale, motive and actions. This doesn't look like a slippery slope but a slippery cliff.
B0ycey wrote:On a political platform, the choice of words is perhaps a bad one. On a moral platform correct. Trudeau decided to use it, perhaps to highlight the scale of the problem, and now he has said it he will suffer the consequences if there are any.
It's the commission who used it and also made the legal argument. Trudeau accepted it.
B0ycey wrote:So rather get upset over this perhaps embrace it. We may now get some insight and justice on historic evils for indigenous people. Is that a bad thing?
We don't need the frivolous use of legal concepts and language to deliver justice. What is needed is the political will to do it. Is that so hard to understand?