4 ms·

UN High Commissioner on Human Rights Michelle Bachelet actually visited Xinjiang and made no such assertions. Whoever did release the report you're referencing,

by xanthor 7mo ago

UN High Commissioner on Human Rights Michelle Bachelet actually visited Xinjiang and made no such assertions. Whoever did release the report you're referencing, they waited until immediately after her term ended to release it (within hours). Pretty conspicuous.

sarchertech 7mo ago
No it was actually released hours before her term ended not after. And the reason she held off releasing until the last minute is because of pressure from China to refrain from releasing it. In addition to releasing the report she released a 131 page Chinese rebuttal simultaneously. Not the actions one would expect of a shadowy group at the UN out to get China.
- xanthor 7mo ago
  No it was released Sept 1 Geneva time, and her term ended Aug 31.
  - sarchertech 7mo ago
    “Bachelet’s damning report was published with only 11 minutes to go before her term came to an end at midnight Geneva time. Publication was delayed by the eleventh-hour delivery of an official Chinese response that contained names and pictures of individuals that had to be blacked out by the UN commissioner’s office for privacy and safety reasons.” https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/aug/31/china-uyghur-muslims-xinjiang-michelle-bachelet-un https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/aug/31/china-uyghur-m... The organization’s human rights office delivered its much-delayed report minutes before Michelle Bachelet, the U.N. high commissioner for human rights, was to leave office. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/31/world/asia/un-china-xinjiang-uyghurs.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/31/world/asia/un-china-xinji...
    - xanthor 7mo ago
      I agree it was reported this way, but do we have evidence it was actually prepared and published by her at that time? The report conspicuously does not mention the viewpoint and concerns of the High Commissioner as other OHCHR reports do nor does it reference Bachelet's findings from her May 2021 visit to Xinjiang.
      - sarchertech 7mo ago
        So you don't have any evidence it was published the next day? You just made that up out of whole cloth? The internet archive lists the first time they archived the document as August 31 22:23 GMT, which was August 31 23:23 in Geneva. That matches the reporting from NYT and Guardian from the next morning. Both of those reports are also available on the internet archive. https://web.archive.org/web/20220701000000*/https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/countries/2022-08-31/22-08-31-final-assesment.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20220701000000*/https://www.ohch...
        xanthor 7mo ago
        Geneva was in UTC+2 (CEST) on August 31. So will you admit I am correct and you got sanctimonious for no reason?
        sarchertech 7mo ago
        Yep missed that. The internet archive did indeed fist scrape that document 23 minutes after midnight Geneva time. However it is unlikely that the internet archive web scraper would have picked up a relatively obscure document within 23 minutes of its release. The NYT and Gaurdian articles published that morning (verified by the internet archive) said that the article was published 11 minutes before midnight Geneva time. That lines up with the internet archive scraping it about 30 minutes later. So unless they were both wrong or in on it, it was released before midnight Geneva time. What evidence do you have to support that the UN was lying, and that the NYT and the Guardian were wrong about the time?
        7mo ago

by xanthor 7mo ago

sarchertech 7mo ago

No it was actually released hours before her term ended not after. And the reason she held off releasing until the last minute is because of pressure from China to refrain from releasing it. In addition to releasing the report she released a 131 page Chinese rebuttal simultaneously. Not the actions one would expect of a shadowy group at the UN out to get China.

xanthor 7mo ago
No it was released Sept 1 Geneva time, and her term ended Aug 31.
- sarchertech 7mo ago
  “Bachelet’s damning report was published with only 11 minutes to go before her term came to an end at midnight Geneva time. Publication was delayed by the eleventh-hour delivery of an official Chinese response that contained names and pictures of individuals that had to be blacked out by the UN commissioner’s office for privacy and safety reasons.” https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/aug/31/china-uyghur-muslims-xinjiang-michelle-bachelet-un https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/aug/31/china-uyghur-m... The organization’s human rights office delivered its much-delayed report minutes before Michelle Bachelet, the U.N. high commissioner for human rights, was to leave office. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/31/world/asia/un-china-xinjiang-uyghurs.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/31/world/asia/un-china-xinji...
  - xanthor 7mo ago
    I agree it was reported this way, but do we have evidence it was actually prepared and published by her at that time? The report conspicuously does not mention the viewpoint and concerns of the High Commissioner as other OHCHR reports do nor does it reference Bachelet's findings from her May 2021 visit to Xinjiang.
    - sarchertech 7mo ago
      So you don't have any evidence it was published the next day? You just made that up out of whole cloth? The internet archive lists the first time they archived the document as August 31 22:23 GMT, which was August 31 23:23 in Geneva. That matches the reporting from NYT and Guardian from the next morning. Both of those reports are also available on the internet archive. https://web.archive.org/web/20220701000000*/https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/countries/2022-08-31/22-08-31-final-assesment.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20220701000000*/https://www.ohch...
      - xanthor 7mo ago
        Geneva was in UTC+2 (CEST) on August 31. So will you admit I am correct and you got sanctimonious for no reason?
        sarchertech 7mo ago
        Yep missed that. The internet archive did indeed fist scrape that document 23 minutes after midnight Geneva time. However it is unlikely that the internet archive web scraper would have picked up a relatively obscure document within 23 minutes of its release. The NYT and Gaurdian articles published that morning (verified by the internet archive) said that the article was published 11 minutes before midnight Geneva time. That lines up with the internet archive scraping it about 30 minutes later. So unless they were both wrong or in on it, it was released before midnight Geneva time. What evidence do you have to support that the UN was lying, and that the NYT and the Guardian were wrong about the time?
        7mo ago