It's really one thing for people in pre-modern times, especially pre WW2, to have engaged in what are now widely recognized as crimes against humanity.

It's even worse when genocide is allowed today with the benefit of historical study.

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 15 points 10 months ago

There are people in pre-modern times that saw the horror of what was happening and did their best to fight against it. There were ex-settlers that chose to join the Native side of the struggle because they knew settlement and genocide was wrong, even if they didn't really have the language for it yet. Hitler was inspired by the pre-WW2 actions in the Americas against the Native population.

Though I won't argue that people today have even more benefit of hindsight - especially because we can see it happen live on the internet!

[–] naturalgasbad@lemmy.ca 27 points 10 months ago (2 children)

I have never felt more ashamed to be Canadian. In 2016, Canada had 220 thousand Lebanese-Canadians and 50 thousand Palestinian-Canadians. It feels like the complete alienation of the Arab community.

[–] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 8 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

And 282 thousand Jews as of 2021. 🤔

He's gotta dance on that tight rope. And if he loses balance, pipsqueak takes over and I'm sure you know how he feels about this issue.

[–] m13@lemmy.world 11 points 10 months ago

There are plenty of anti-Zionist Jews who are opposed to the genocide and Israel.

[–] ClopClopMcFuckwad@lemmy.world -5 points 10 months ago (4 children)

How many Jews does Canada have, because if its more than 50,220, then I guess we know why Canada doesn't want to agree with the genocide claim.

[–] zephyreks@lemmy.ml 21 points 10 months ago

Please don't conflate Jews with Zionism.

[–] Tangentism@lemmy.ml 14 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Are you implying that all Jews homogeneously support Netanyahu and the rabid zionists backing him?

That sounds quite anti-Semitic.

[–] ClopClopMcFuckwad@lemmy.world 10 points 10 months ago

Nope, not at all. I'm implying that which ever base has more potential votes for current politicians is how the government will react to world events.

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@kbin.social 2 points 10 months ago

It's not the case, but it's very much how world governments are seeing it.

[–] nekandro@lemmy.ml 3 points 10 months ago

Canada has been trying to expand Arab and Iranian immigration. There are currently also 200 thousand Iranian Canadians in the country.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 17 points 10 months ago

An apartheid state that's repressing indigenous population doesn't want to set a precedent against genocide. News at 11.

[–] ComradeChairmanKGB@lemmygrad.ml 9 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Remember that time when the Canadian parliament gave a standing ovation to a nazi war criminal?

[–] FriendBesto@lemmy.ml 1 points 9 months ago

What is more, Trudeau never took responsibility, none, at all, despite the PM's Office being directly responsible for vetting Political figures and Guests to Parliament. Which falls under his responsibility. Guess they just really, really wanted those virtue PR points, thus such example of sheer incompetence.

He literally and I am NOT joking, blamed Russia for it -- Why? How? -- then he blamed the Canadian people, by implying that we all shared fault, somehow, and that we should all feel bad for it... --How? Why? For their incompetence? Apparently.

In the end, the Speaker of the House was thrown under the bus by the upper echelon of the Liberal Party and he was forced to quit his Post soon thereafter. Utterly unfair to him. Despite all he did was read the Intro on the Nazi that was likely just handed over to him.

[–] blargerer@kbin.social 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I feel like people in these comments didn't read the article or listen to the direct statements. Its a super political non-committal statement. If you wanted him to make a commitment about it being genocide, sure, I'd have been happy with what Singh was pushing for, a strong stance of siding with whatever the ICJ decided. But lets be clear, this isn't a statement that whats going on isn't genocide. And, frankly, whether it is genocide or not is murky. I lean towards yes, but I'm not any sort of domain expert. The ethnic cleansing and apartheid arguments are much stronger.

[–] taanegl@beehaw.org 1 points 10 months ago

When discussing or qualifying genocide, we no longer require mass graves. What that means is that we take into account cultural and historic destruction as well.

Considering all the cultural and historical sites being destroyed as we speak, there is little in the way of meeting the acedemic requirement for the definition.

But certain politicians think cultural genocide isn't really a thing, because they don't really care about culture. Not saying the Canadian MP thinks like that, I'm just saying.