- cross-posted to:
- world@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- world@lemmy.world
You must log in or # to comment.
The proposal was adopted with 123 votes in favour and three against - the United States, Israel and Argentina.
Fifty-two countries abstained, including the United Kingdom and European Union member states.
*Sigh*
the United States,
Wonder why… Other than they vote against literally everything that a normal person would recognize as good.
Oh, right:
13th amendment
“Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”
Abstaining also means no
Well yes, but no.
Yes but yes
It’s probably mostly because it says “the gravest crime against humanity” and not “a grave crime against humanity”. Except for the US, which always seems to vote against anything that might bind it.
There are 11 types of crimes against humanity in the Rome charter (must be widespread/systemic and targeted against civilian population):
- Murder;
- Extermination (including “the intentional infliction of conditions of life, inter alia the deprivation of access to food and medicine, calculated to bring about the destruction of part of a population”);
- Enslavement;
- Deportation or forcible transfer of population;
- Imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law;
- Torture;
- Rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity;
- Persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender as defined in paragraph 3, or other grounds that are universally recognized as impermissible under international law, in connection with any act referred to in this paragraph or any crime within the jurisdiction of the Court;
- Enforced disappearance of persons;
- The crime of apartheid;
- Other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health.
… no mention of environmental crimes that impact humanity/human groups?
Toxic pollutants & climate change I mean.
The water wars & subsequent great migrations are gonna fuel the above list directly (+ the additional loss of habitat, biodiversity, and possibly the ability to raise children).
But all that would hint at megacorps of today being at fault. Which we apparently can’t have.
(Saying megacorps of the past benefiting from slavery is “victimless” … and ofc isn’t counting forced prison labour some countries like the USA practice today.)Not sure if they would come under #11?
Oh, yeah, possibly.
I read 11 as directly intentional and toward a specific individual or groups - like building a damn to starve ppl, not to feed your own … and with climate change I meant that a “weapon of mass destruction” version of that indirect, non-targeted destruction (that inevitably leads to an environment where more of the 11 points happen - more killing, more slavery, more rapes, etc).Yeah fair enough, no doubt getting countries to agree that corporations should be accountable for “accidental” damage to the enviroment would be even more difficult than getting them to sign up to this!
Finally! We’ve all been waiting for this! Now, we can… um…
America will vote ‘present’
I mean, genocide is probably worse. Not to imply that slavery is good in any way. (Although slavery likely does fit the definition of genocide.)
I was thinking of this - Yes, slavery is bad. But is there truly nothing worse that can be done?
I’m guessing it might be because slavery was institutionalized over such a long period, that the generational exploitation makes it worse.
Once several generations of people are treated like property, I guess one could argue that it’s worse than a single murder. Now, extrapolate this past a single individual/lineage, and I would reason that along the same logic, slavery is worse than genocide.
I could see arguments either way. But slavery has numbers and sheer length of time.
yeah there is a lot of variables. Im kinda more pissed off if you keep me in horrid conditions and for me to work by force of pain than kill me painlessly but if I had a lot of rights and was taken pretty good care of vs being killed slowly and painfully. When it comes down to it I don’t want any of those scenarios. I mean maybe the quick and painless death in some scenarios of life.
- What does this do for anyone
- What does Ja Rule think about this?
Trump and Republicans are going to take this personally.
