A Political Thread pt. 2

[Saintjay]

You think Hamas would act the same as Isreal if the roles were reversed? Really?

In the sense of would Hamas bomb the living day lights out of them, restrict reporting, block aid and occupie territory as a minimum. Then yes I do.

Would they be worse, more than likely. There aims for the Jews to leave Israel and for it to be an Islamic country after all

 

[Welsh Exile]

Because the definition of genocide includes actually being able to act upon it. you can certainly claim Hamas would want to carry out genocide, but the fact is they haven't because they aren't capable of it.

Let's take it to it's logical conclusion, if you had an individual who wanted to commit genocide and they got as far as killing one person, would you call it genocide simply because they wanted to go further? No. An ability to actually act upon it matters.

By your definition, a single person being killed by a side who want to commit genocide is more of a genocide than another side killing millions but who didn't specifically intend genocide. The actual result matters, just the same as it does in law. You don't see people prosecuted for things they didn't do, even if they wanted to.

Hamas know they can't commit genocide because they don't have the ability to, so they do what they can which is acts of terrorism.

Do you think the KKK were responsible for genocide for example?

I would call it an attempted genocide. Or a genocidal act.

 

[Welsh Exile]

In the sense of would Hamas bomb the living day lights out of them, restrict reporting, block aid and occupie territory as a minimum. Then yes I do.

Would they be worse, more than likely. There aims for the Jews to leave Israel and for it to be an Islamic country after all

Mate, the “war” would’ve been over in 1948 as they would’ve wiped them all out.

 

[Welsh Exile]

Oh absolutely, Hamas would love to be genocidal against Israel - and probably all of judaism. But they can't be, and haven't been.
Israel probably isn't too bothered either way if it's genocidal against Gaza. But they can, and have been.

Sorry, I must have missed - and didn't find it on a quick look back - any chance you could repeat yourself please?
What is your definition of genocide? If it's easier, just a link to your dictionary of choice would suffice.

If it helps, I can provide another, this one from the UN: https://www.un.org/en/genocide-prevention/definition

You are right that the UN bring intent into the equation. I'd argue that an accidental genocide is still a genocide, not a justifiable "oopsie".


A] Absolutely, we do agree.
B] Absolutely, we disagree.
Neither of the above have anything much to do with the definition of genocide.

Yes, Dolis Specialis is the legal term I've heard. Intent is the only thing that matters really.

if the Jews hate the Palestinians as much as Hamas hate the Jews, and you agree Hamas kill Jews BECAUSE they're Jews, then why are there 2 million Arabs in Israel? It's almost like they don't actually hate Arabs but take issue with Arabs that TRY to genocide them.

 

[Welsh Exile]

Because the definition of genocide includes actually being able to act upon it. you can certainly claim Hamas would want to carry out genocide, but the fact is they haven't because they aren't capable of it.

Let's take it to it's logical conclusion, if you had an individual who wanted to commit genocide and they got as far as killing one person, would you call it genocide simply because they wanted to go further? No. An ability to actually act upon it matters.

By your definition, a single person being killed by a side who want to commit genocide is more of a genocide than another side killing millions but who didn't specifically intend genocide. The actual result matters, just the same as it does in law. You don't see people prosecuted for things they didn't do, even if they wanted to.

Hamas know they can't commit genocide because they don't have the ability to, so they do what they can which is acts of terrorism.

Do you think the KKK were responsible for genocide for example?

I would also add that this is where the "in whole or in part" bit of the definition comes into play. In part being the operative word. Ultimately it comes down to intent. What is the intent of the group doing the killing and the reason behind it (in this case people would say they want to kill Palestinians because they’re racist towards Palestinians)

 

[Saintjay]

I would also add that this is where the "in whole or in part" bit of the definition comes into play. In part being the operative word. Ultimately it comes down to intent. What is the intent of the group doing the killing and the reason behind it (in this case people would say they want to kill Palestinians because they're racist towards Palestinians)

Pretty much, intent and "in whole or in part" is the key three bits. Which makes the debate very different. People will have to prove intent. You can have the intent but not necessarily the ability. The same as you can have the ability to commit a crime but not the intent to do it.

That's why legal people and judges get to argue over this and why people argue over the term "genocide". It also makes a difference on what definition is used. The UN's and ICC are probably best placed.

I'm off to do so work before Yulia kicks my ass

 

[Welsh Exile]

Pretty much, intent and "in whole or in part" is the key three bits. Which makes the debate very different. People will have to prove intent. You can have the intent but not necessarily the ability. The same as you can have the ability to commit a crime but not the intent to do it.

That's why legal people and judges get to argue over this and why people argue over the term "genocide". It also makes a difference on what definition is used. The UN's and ICC are probably best placed.

I'm off to do so work before Yulia kicks my ass

Yeah, it’s pretty nebulous really even though on the face of it it seems clear.

 

[ncurd]

We're not racist but...

Reform MP's burka ban call was dumb, says party chair

Reform UK's newest MP called for restrictions on the wearing of the full-scale veil during PMQs.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[dirty harry]

We're not racist but...

Reform MP's burka ban call was dumb, says party chair

Reform UK's newest MP called for restrictions on the wearing of the full-scale veil during PMQs.

www.bbc.co.uk

Are the countries who have banned this racist countries then?

 

[ncurd]

Are the countries who have banned this racist countries then?

Yes

 

[dirty harry]

Yes

That is definately an answer, I commend your conviction. So what 6 plus change European countries are racist.

Where would you draw the line between racist hatred, security, and misogynistic suppression?

 

[Which Tyler]

I'm off to do so work before Yulia kicks my ass

Get back on that street corner you - and fix the lipstick!

 

[Welsh Exile]

That is definately an answer, I commend your conviction. So what 6 plus change European countries are racist.

Where would you draw the line between racist hatred, security, and misogynistic suppression?

What countries have banned it? I wouldn't necessarily say racist (though I also don't think it's that far off to say so) but I probably would say authoritarian so just curious as to which ones have banned it

 

[Welsh Exile]

Oh actually, I remember France being one but thought that was mainly in school and they also have banned all religious symbols which I'm a massive fan of tbh. lol.

But they've taken the ban beyond schools to be fair.

 

[ncurd]

That is definately an answer, I commend your conviction. So what 6 plus change European countries are racist.

Where would you draw the line between racist hatred, security, and misogynistic suppression?

Religious freedoms.

If it were non racist they'd ban all face coverings they do not. Misogynistic suppression doesnt hold up as an argument because we have plenty of that without face coverings and many women who wear it stand for their right to do so. It's not my place to tell them what to do.

 

[dirty harry]

What countries have banned it? I wouldn't necessarily say racist (though I also don't think it's that far off to say so) but I probably would say authoritarian so just curious as to which ones have banned it

"Several countries have introduced restrictions on where the burka or niqab can be worn.

France banned the wearing of veils intended to conceal the face in public in 2010, with similar bans in place in Denmark, Belgium, and Austria"

There are another 5 or 6 countries who have restrictions and municipalities who have implemented them independently

 

[dirty harry]

Religious freedoms.

If it were non racist they'd ban all face coverings they do not. Misogynistic suppression doesnt hold up as an argument because we have plenty of that without face coverings and many women who wear it stand for their right to do so. It's not my place to tell them what to do.

For the record, I 100% agree with your stance to not ban Burkas, certainly not from public places, but there are also places Burkas are not acceptable for security and safety reasons no? I'm very much a freedom of... kind of guy, until that freedom infringes others freedoms.

I disagree that the UK has misogyny, so why bother addressing it, it should all be addressed no?

But to be clear, my question was to understand your thoughts on security concerns, misogyny within Islam, and racist hatred. How you weight each as an issue?

I don't think you're saying that women are not oppressed and forced to wear a Burka worldwide, or in the west?

Why would your instinct be to lambast those who don't want Burkas in public, I know Muslim women who absolute detest Burkas, and don't link them to Islam at all, but bad Islamic interpretation by controlling men. Would they be racist in your view?

 

[McTallshort]

I have no time for religion myself but respect everyone being able to follow theirs. The Bukka isn't actually religious though is it?

 

[Saintjay]

If we are doing the definition arguement Muslims aren't a race. It's a freedom of choice and religious expression issue. Is it racist for counties to insist women wear head coverings. I'd say no, is it coercive and controlling and taking away freedom of choice possibly.

Just listening to an Iranian muslim woman, a teacher who thinks they are coercive and controlling. That she speaks with a number of younger women who are forced into it by family members

Women should be able to wear what they want within the law. If it is coercive and controlling to make them wear it, then that's a bad thing.

It's also a key indicator in domestic violence. Men insisting who women see, what they wear and where they go. Any of this behaviours against women are concerning.

 

[ncurd]

Should say the coercive and controlling is an absolutely fair argument.

I also know a racist dog whistle when I see it. And people running round saying ban the burka are absolutely not doing the former.

I have no time for religion myself but respect everyone being able to follow theirs. The Bukka isn't actually religious though is it?

Depends on your interpretation of Islam.