--- Bill Bartlett <billbartlett at dodo.com.au> wrote:
>
> You may not like the official definition, but if you
> believe that it
> has no real meaning, you would be wrong. Its there
> in black and
> white. Frankly, you shouldn't be so dismissive of
> the concept.
>
I really think the definition is far too wide. Caps mine:
"Article 2 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:
* (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."
This strikes me as way too wide to be meaningful. According to this, if a Puerto-Rican gang and a Vietnamese gang have a ruble and a Vietnamese gangmember gets killed, then the Puerto-Ricans have committed geocide (bacause one Vietnamese is a PART of the group of Vietnamese). German soldiers were committing really vicious genocide against French soldiers (a PART of the French nation) in WWI, and vice versa The Chinese government, which forcibly limits births of Chinese, is committing genocide of its own people.
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com