|
|
Post by happyhornet on Dec 10, 2023 10:21:58 GMT
The intent to reduce the numbers or relative preponderance of a group in their homeland is imho genocidal. The logical end point of that intent (if persistently pressed) is extermination of that group. So, sending immigrants to Rwanda is a genocidal act? After all, it will reduce the 'relative preponderance' of Rwandans in their homeland. The Windrush scandal would also be a genocidal act as well under that definition. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Dec 10, 2023 10:23:23 GMT
If the intent is to r ub the Rwandan's noses in diversity and reduce their influence, sure. And how will we determine what the intent is? More or less a clincher would be celebrations of the consequently reduced status of Rwandans in their own country. For example - celebrations of their majority status being removed or reduced or, to pick a colourful example at random,- (say) how their noses have been, or will be, rubbed in to this newly engineered situation. The combination of doing, engineering (or supporting) something and celebrating, or anticipating a consequence, is a reasonable slam dunk for intent. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Dec 10, 2023 10:24:48 GMT
If the intent is to r ub the Rwandan's noses in diversity and reduce their influence, sure. If we start to see politicians crowing about how they have made Rwandans a minority in parts of their own country, the alarm bells should go off IMO intended or not, the result would be the same. Right. However, genocidal intent is all about intent. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 10, 2023 10:43:58 GMT
And how will we determine what the intent is? More or less a clincher would be celebrations of the consequently reduced status of Rwandans in their own country. For example - celebrations of their majority status being removed or reduced or, to pick a colourful example at random,- (say) how their noses have been, or will be, rubbed in to this newly engineered situation. The combination of doing, engineering (or supporting) something and celebrating, or anticipating a consequence, is a reasonable slam dunk for intent. And who, in a position of power in the UK, has celebrated 'genocide'? |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 10, 2023 10:46:09 GMT
IMO intended or not, the result would be the same. Right. However, genocidal intent is all about intent. Demonstrate intent, then. Show that there is intent to eradicate the 'ethnic English'. The more serious the charge, the higher will be the burden of proof. Let's see something substantial. Far-right conspiracy theories won't cut it. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Dec 10, 2023 12:27:50 GMT
Ah some effort at last. The question that should be asked is what is the outcome of all the actions underway and who does it negatively affect the most and have they initiated and supported those actions. LOL! You feel justified in floating a far-right conspiracy theory about genocide here just because some people are negatively impacted by a government policy? Is the government trying to kill everyone who is negatively impacted by their policies? You keep going back to a no it isn't type answer and then going back down the 'you think they are trying to kill everyone' accusation that has been refuted at least a dozen times or so and explained, with some patience, that genocide is not just an act of killing as defined by the UN. Is there another definition we should consider? You are also back on a 'conspiracy theory' type accusation where that has been explained with equal patience that a theory has no evidence whereas a conspiracy accusation has evidence. By all means refute the presented evidence but you agree now some people are impacted negatively by government policy and I contend that those people are primarily English. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Dec 10, 2023 12:31:55 GMT
If the intent is to r ub the Rwandan's noses in diversity and reduce their influence, sure. And how will we determine what the intent is? Will we use the far-right method of simply projecting our prejudices? Or will we seek solid evidence? Of all the crimes, genocide must surely be the worst. Naturally, then, a high standard of proof will need to be set. So, what will count as evidence of this 'intention'? Official government documents? Tape recorded conversations? What? I'm sure we agree that mere speculation or self-serving inference won't be adequate. Perhaps we could use our current race laws where intent is not necessary. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Dec 10, 2023 12:34:00 GMT
More or less a clincher would be celebrations of the consequently reduced status of Rwandans in their own country. For example - celebrations of their majority status being removed or reduced or, to pick a colourful example at random,- (say) how their noses have been, or will be, rubbed in to this newly engineered situation. The combination of doing, engineering (or supporting) something and celebrating, or anticipating a consequence, is a reasonable slam dunk for intent. And who, in a position of power in the UK, has celebrated 'genocide'? He did not say that, it was quite clear what he said. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Dec 10, 2023 12:48:31 GMT
So, sending immigrants to Rwanda is a genocidal act? After all, it will reduce the 'relative preponderance' of Rwandans in their homeland. The Windrush scandal would also be a genocidal act as well under that definition. The Windrush people were not in their homeland which was specifically why it became a scandal. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 10, 2023 12:51:42 GMT
LOL! You feel justified in floating a far-right conspiracy theory about genocide here just because some people are negatively impacted by a government policy? Is the government trying to kill everyone who is negatively impacted by their policies? You keep going back to a no it isn't type answer and then going back down the 'you think they are trying to kill everyone' accusation that has been refuted at least a dozen times or so and explained, with some patience, that genocide is not just an act of killing as defined by the UN. Is there another definition we should consider? Y ou are also back on a 'conspiracy theory' type accusation where that has been explained with equal patience that a theory has no evidence whereas a conspiracy accusation has evidence. By all means refute the presented evidence but you agree now some people are impacted negatively by government policy and I contend that those people are primarily English. None of this makes any sense. Particularly the sentence in bold. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 10, 2023 12:53:42 GMT
LOL! You feel justified in floating a far-right conspiracy theory about genocide here just because some people are negatively impacted by a government policy? Is the government trying to kill everyone who is negatively impacted by their policies? . By all means refute the presented evidence but you agree now some people are impacted negatively by government policy and I contend that those people are primarily English. The country has a well-developed road network. People are killed on the roads every day. Believe it or not, there is no government conspiracy to kill those people. Are they negatively impacted? Yes. Is there a plan to kill them? No. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 10, 2023 12:54:43 GMT
And who, in a position of power in the UK, has celebrated 'genocide'? He did not say that, it was quite clear what he said. Well, if the people in power are not plotting to eradicate the 'ethnic English', who is? The Illuminati? |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 10, 2023 12:56:06 GMT
And how will we determine what the intent is? Will we use the far-right method of simply projecting our prejudices? Or will we seek solid evidence? Of all the crimes, genocide must surely be the worst. Naturally, then, a high standard of proof will need to be set. So, what will count as evidence of this 'intention'? Official government documents? Tape recorded conversations? What? I'm sure we agree that mere speculation or self-serving inference won't be adequate. Perhaps we could use our current race laws where intent is not necessary. So, there can be genocide even if there is no intention to eradicate a race? Is that what you're saying? |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Dec 10, 2023 12:57:41 GMT
. By all means refute the presented evidence but you agree now some people are impacted negatively by government policy and I contend that those people are primarily English. The country has a well-developed road network. People are killed on the roads every day. Believe it or not, there is no government conspiracy to kill those people. Are they negatively impacted? Yes. Is there a plan to kill them? No. Those people are random, any person can be affected. The race laws affect one group significantly more than any other. That is the difference. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 10, 2023 12:59:03 GMT
The country has a well-developed road network. People are killed on the roads every day. Believe it or not, there is no government conspiracy to kill those people. Are they negatively impacted? Yes. Is there a plan to kill them? No. Those people are random, any person can be affected. The race laws affect one group significantly more than any other. That is the difference. Quote a 'race law' that eradicates the 'ethnic English'. |
|
