Haven’t you heard? It was silently downgraded to a cultural genocide, because there was no actual proof of genocide. Cultural genocide is not recognized by the UN, because Western colonial powers started sweating profusely when Lemkin proposed it.
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
Killing members of the group;
Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
3. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
4. Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;5. Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
Elements of the crime
The Genocide Convention establishes in Article I that the crime of genocide may take place in the context of an armed conflict, international or non-international, but also in the context of a peaceful situation. (…) The same article establishes the obligation of the contracting parties to prevent and to punish the crime of genocide.
You need to improve your reading skill, because nowhere in the link or your quoted text does it talk about cultural genocide, because it has been rejected from the start
Among many other potential reasons, cultural genocide may be committed for religious motives (e.g., iconoclasm which is based on aniconism); as part of a campaign of ethnic cleansing
This is covered by “intent to destroy (…) ethnical (…) group”.
From your second link:
The final prohibited act is the only prohibited act that does not lead to physical or biological destruction, but rather to the destruction of the group as a cultural and social unit
There will always be political legalese in play, when imperialist powers want to commit genocide, and so they’ll cling to the fact that “cultural genocide” is not specifically mentioned. But, in the case of Uyghurs, it’s a very clear-cut case of both ethnic cleansing and physical genocide (through forced sterilisation and displacement of children).
Here is the human rights report from the United Nations on Xinjiang. It talks of human rights abuses (which there are), but it doesn’t use the word genocide, because it doesn’t meet any definition of genocide, especially not the ones recognized by the UN.
The Western move to label it genocide before any actual proof is just atrocity propaganda to divert people’s attention towards China, rather than the West’s own crimes against humanity.
Funny that you say it’s to distract from the west’s crimes against humanity, since the report literally uses those exact words to describe what China is doing to the uyghurs, but yes you are correct it doesn’t say it’s a genocide.
I’m sure the West is very good at recognizing crimes against humanity, given their vast experience at committing them. If only they used the same due diligence when dealing with their own past (and in some cases present).
Haven’t you heard? It was silently downgraded to a cultural genocide, because there was no actual proof of genocide. Cultural genocide is not recognized by the UN, because Western colonial powers started sweating profusely when Lemkin proposed it.
This is false.
Bold by me.
You need to improve your reading skill, because nowhere in the link or your quoted text does it talk about cultural genocide, because it has been rejected from the start
From your first link:
This is covered by “intent to destroy (…) ethnical (…) group”.
From your second link:
There will always be political legalese in play, when imperialist powers want to commit genocide, and so they’ll cling to the fact that “cultural genocide” is not specifically mentioned. But, in the case of Uyghurs, it’s a very clear-cut case of both ethnic cleansing and physical genocide (through forced sterilisation and displacement of children).
Here is the human rights report from the United Nations on Xinjiang. It talks of human rights abuses (which there are), but it doesn’t use the word genocide, because it doesn’t meet any definition of genocide, especially not the ones recognized by the UN.
The Western move to label it genocide before any actual proof is just atrocity propaganda to divert people’s attention towards China, rather than the West’s own crimes against humanity.
Funny that you say it’s to distract from the west’s crimes against humanity, since the report literally uses those exact words to describe what China is doing to the uyghurs, but yes you are correct it doesn’t say it’s a genocide.
I’m sure the West is very good at recognizing crimes against humanity, given their vast experience at committing them. If only they used the same due diligence when dealing with their own past (and in some cases present).