Warning: Some posts on this platform may contain adult material intended for mature audiences only. Viewer discretion is advised. By clicking ‘Continue’, you confirm that you are 18 years or older and consent to viewing explicit content.
the term “the crime of apartheid”, which shall include similar policies and practices of racial segregation and discrimination as practised in southern Africa, shall apply to the following inhuman acts committed for the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them:
Then it goes on to list some acts. Note that it says similar to not identical to. And it says over any other racial group. Absolutely nothing in there about majority/minority status.
So where did you see this? What makes you think this?
what would have been offensive to humanity about a political majority discriminating or disenfranchising itself? If they didn’t like the discrimination or disenfranchisment, they have the majority power to stop it.
Nobody is suggesting this.
What about if the majority discriminates against a minority , who doesn’t have the political power to stop it? That is offensive to humanity, so why would you exclude this from the definition of apartheid? That’s why they wrote the definition the way they did. South Africa isn’t the only way it can be.
"The crime of apartheid is defined by the 2002 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court as inhumane acts of a character similar to other crimes against humanity “committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime" .”
The other definitions are similar. Nothing about majority or minority. Nothing about having to be exactly like South Africa.
Then why is that explicitly not part of the definition?
“Similar” =/= identical. If all of the societal prejudice, injustice and disparity is still there but it’s 51% oppressing 49% instead of 49% oppressing 51% are you seriously saying that this is a totally different thing?
The convention says:
Then it goes on to list some acts. Note that it says similar to not identical to. And it says over any other racial group. Absolutely nothing in there about majority/minority status.
So where did you see this? What makes you think this?
Nobody is suggesting this.
What about if the majority discriminates against a minority , who doesn’t have the political power to stop it? That is offensive to humanity, so why would you exclude this from the definition of apartheid? That’s why they wrote the definition the way they did. South Africa isn’t the only way it can be.
Right, it’s not similar, by any defintion, if it not the minority oppressing the majority.
@[email protected] here is the legal definition of the crime of Apartheid
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_of_apartheid
The other definitions are similar. Nothing about majority or minority. Nothing about having to be exactly like South Africa.
Then why is that explicitly not part of the definition?
“Similar” =/= identical. If all of the societal prejudice, injustice and disparity is still there but it’s 51% oppressing 49% instead of 49% oppressing 51% are you seriously saying that this is a totally different thing?