3 ms·
Yes. ... 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) Killin
by macintux 4y ago
Yes.
... 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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide
- edanm 4y agoI had never read that definition, and it seems way too broad to be what most people mean - according to this definition, killing 20 Christians on purpose is considered a genocide? Indeed, from later in the article: > While mass killing is not necessary for genocide to have been committed, it has been present in almost all recognized genocides.
- macintux 4y agoGiven the large civilian graves, the bombing of shelters, the forced deportation of Ukrainians to Russia, the theft of children…there doesn’t seem to be a reasonable argument that this isn’t genocide.
- edanm 4y agoI wasn't commenting on Ukraine specifically, just on my surprise at the definition of genocide.
- pintxo 4y agoIf you "intent to destroy" Christianity, "in whole or in part" then killing just 2 should be enough to formally be considered genocide. I guess, citation needed, mass graves simplify arguing in favor of "intend to destroy". Otherwise its often not easy to prove intend.