>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).
Talk about jumping to (the worst possible) conclusions!
It might be genocide if the killer of the Vietnamese gangmember did so motivated by the desire to destroy that particular national, ethnical, racial or religious group. But, and its a BIG but, you'd require some further evidence to come to the conclusion you have about intent, based on the killing of a single person of a particular ethnic group though.
Without any evidence, I think a rational person would regard the attribution of "genocide" as a classic case of paranoid delusion?
> 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.
I don't thinks so and neither does anyone who has any grasp of the legal meaning of words. But I do recognise that some people lack the capacity to understand complex sentences like that of this UN resolution.
Let me explain why your interpretation is wrong. In the case of the German soldiers, the killing of soldiers of an opposing army is usually motivated by not by a desire to destroy any particular nation or group, as a group, but merely to defeat the particular nation or group. As to the birth control measures, they are motivated not by a desire to destroy any group, but by the desire to limit its population.
It is necessary to exercise some common sense in determining intent. I think if you actually understood the convention on torture you would realise that your objections are fanciful.
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas