"By 'genocide' we mean the destruction of an ethnic group . . . . Generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killings of all members of a nation. It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves. The objectives of such a plan would be disintegration of the political and social institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups, and the destruction of the personal security, liberty, health, dignity, and even the lives of the individuals belonging to such groups . . ."
Sort of like "murder by neglect" if you pass on the chance to save someone from death because you'd rather they died.
I think that calling it genocide does not have the effect you hope for. You rally people who are already on your side, sure, but many others hear genocide and immediately think of examples like Rwanda and Yugoslavia. Whether genocide includes neglect is debatable, and by accusing the government of Canada (and, by extension, all Canadians) of genocide you shift the focus into a fight about the definition rather than the issue at hand.
Is it really more generous to prop up the current, impossibly broken, system than it would be to encourage them to move into existing, sustainable communities?
...it requires a “coordinated plan ... with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves.” If the whole campaign from the 15th century until today was all one big operation, I would call it genocide. It wasn't, it's history, and the people operating today aim for no such thing.
« Older Jonah Mowry, Bullied Gay Teen: "IM NOT GOING TO KI... | "Urban bicyclist have an image... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Buy a Shirt