Hacker News Reader

Comment by zackees | Hacker News Reader

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_Convention

From the Wiki article, the UN definition of Genocide is met if...

...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. — Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Article 2[5]

I'm not a fan of China, but the UN bar for genocide is so low that it's essentially meaningless.

The word itself means gene-killing.

Whether china is actually trying to wipe out or is being oppressive isn't clear when the UN definition is used.

View on HN

Which part of this is a low bar, exactly? Like, I don't see any country doing any of that to a well-defined group by accident.

Hm hm. Israel. With the generous protection and help of the US of A.

> The word itself means gene-killing.

No, it means (in the etymological sense rather than the denotative sense, since the UN definition is the primary denotative use in the modern world) race-killing. The “geno” is from the Greek “genos” meaning “race”, not from the English “gene” (the English “gene" ultimately is descended from “genos” also, through the German “pangen" a hypothesized ultimate unit of heredity, which etymologically is “all-race”.)

> Whether china is actually trying to wipe out or is being oppressive isn't clear when the UN definition is used.

The convention for the prevention and punishment of genocide includes certain forms of group oppression as well as direct killing because historically those kinds of group oppression usually precedes and paves the way for direct killing, and are also themselves an indirect means of killing (by reducing ability to survive and thrive.).

It seems to meet the definition of genocide if sterilisation methods are used, as it is claimed in the article.

On the other hand, it's a bit of a tricky point because China has nation-wide policoes about fertility (the one child policy and its regional variations) so it's not clear if the Uighurs are especially singled out or simply punished for not respecting a national law.

Likely singled out

> Even while the use of IUDs and sterilization has fallen nationwide, it is rising sharply in Xinjiang.

> But while equal on paper, in practice Han Chinese are largely spared the abortions, sterilizations, IUD insertions and detentions for having too many children that are forced on Xinjiang’s other ethnicities, interviews and data show. Some rural Muslims, like Omirzakh, are punished even for having the three children allowed by the law

> Leaked data obtained and corroborated by the AP showed that of 484 camp detainees listed in Karakax county in Xinjiang, 149 were there for having too many children - the most common reason for holding them.

> Seven former detainees told the AP that they were force-fed birth control pills or injected with fluids, often with no explanation. Many felt dizzy, tired or ill, and women stopped getting their periods. After being released and leaving China, some went to get medical check-ups and found they were sterile

https://apnews.com/269b3de1af34e17c1941a514f78d764c

You also have to take in account the rate of compliance to the law by Uighurs. If they're strongly religious and fiercely determined to keep their traditions, I guess they might also be much less compliant than the rest of the population, and therefore subject to more widespread repression.

Again:

> in practice Han Chinese are largely spared...

Yes, so are the Han actually complying more with the law (which seems very probable, since they're culturally aligned with the state)? Or is this "largely spared" already taking in account relative percentages of non-compliance? It's not clear.

> Some rural Muslims, like Omirzakh, are punished even...

This is very vague ("some" followed by the name of a single person is not really a strong statement).

>China has nation-wide policoes about fertility (the one child policy and its regional variations) so it's not clear if the Uighurs are especially singled out or simply punished for not respecting a national law.

The interesting fact is, the one child policy, in all its year of existence, never applied to Uighars and non-Han muslims.

Makes me think these camps are precisely what they say they are, "to nonviolently deal with extremists and separatists".

The alternative would be an Afghanistan-like war to rid certain areas of extremist groups which would probably result in major collateral damage and more innocent casualties.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com