Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    25 Jan '19 00:24
    https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/world/christian-missionary-from-maine-could-be-tried-for-genocide-by-brazil-after-entering-land-occupied-by-an-isolated-tribe-and-exposing-them-to-deadly-disease/ar-BBSHE5c

    "Christian missionary from Maine could be tried for GENOCIDE by Brazil after
    entering land occupied by an isolated tribe and exposing them to deadly disease"

    "An American missionary has been accused of exposing an isolated
    indigenous tribe in Brazil to potentially fatal diseases.
    Steve Campbell, from Maine, is being investigated by officials from
    FUNAI, the Brazilian government’s Indigenous Affairs Department,
    amid reports that he could be tried for genocide."

    "Little is known about the Hi-Merimã, who live in the state of Amazonas.
    They became known for rejecting contact with the outside world
    and maintaining hostile relations even with other indigenous communities."

    "Responding to reports of Campbell's arrest, Stephen Corry, the director
    of Survival International, said: 'Fundamentalist Christian Americans must
    be stopped from this primitive urge to contact previously uncontacted tribes.
    It may lead to the martyrdom they seek, but always ends up killing tribespeople,' he said."
  2. Seongnam, S. Korea
    Joined
    03 Jun '17
    Moves
    19253
    25 Jan '19 01:29
    ... TECHNICALLY, it doesn't always end up killing tribesmen. The recent episode in the Sentinels could be a good example of that.

    There are also degrees of contact, right -- to be truly uncontacted, I have heard, one has to have no contact with modernized tribes, so this means that the uncontacted peoples in the purest sense tend to be either locked in by other non-modernized tribes in the Amazon or wherever, or they are just explicitly hostile to absolutely everyone, including nearby modernized tribes.

    Brazil is a really interesting place for this because they have shown some foresight and have trained sociologists and anthropologists managing the transition of tribal peoples into modernized peoples, and the process extensively involves former tribesmen. You can see interesting pictures of guys with facial tattoos and piercings in modern Brazilian ranger uniforms here and there.

    ....

    Something interesting to consider: the fellow in the North Sentinel island debacle was an EMS that presumably would have known quite well whether or not he was posing a risk to the Sentinelese. I wonder what is the deal with this guy.

    I also wonder to what extent uncontacted people are at a threat for these diseases in places like Brazil...

    We often hear that the small pox and measles killed many natives who never even saw a white man. The diseases traveled faster than Lewis & Clark and than the settlers could.

    If a similar model took place in latin America and Papua New Guinea or wherever, we are in a situation where these people are all basically already immune. But I imagine that is hard to know, and it is a situation where presumably experts are talking with the media (though the quality of media is always questionable) on the topic...

    ---

    I think "intent" is an important part of any interaction, right.

    Let's say a child thinks his dog is sick, and so he feeds them his parents medicine which causes the dog to become violently ill and die.

    Or, let's say a child feeds a dog antifreeze that it sees in the garage thinking it's giving a thirsty dog "juice."

    This would be animal cruelty and just outright slaughtering a dog in other circumstances where intent is different, right.

    If this guy is thick enough to not know about the risk that he poses by his mere presence, can we say that he is "genocidal?"

    There are three options here:

    - He is a fool.
    - He is reckless.
    - He is genocidal.

    Chances are, it isn't number three -- he wants to convert these people, after all, and I doubt his scheme is to convert them just before he genocides them with disease.
  3. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    25 Jan '19 03:31
    @philokalia said
    ... TECHNICALLY, it doesn't always end up killing tribesmen. The recent episode in the Sentinels could be a good example of that.

    There are also degrees of contact, right -- to be truly uncontacted, I have heard, one has to have no contact with modernized tribes, so this means that the uncontacted peoples in the purest sense tend to be either locked in by other non-mod ...[text shortened]... le, after all, and I doubt his scheme is to convert them just before he genocides them with disease.
    Even if one has no intent to kill, one may be convicted of a crime.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negligent_homicide

    "Negligent homicide is a criminal charge brought against a person who,
    through criminal negligence, allows another person to die."
  4. Seongnam, S. Korea
    Joined
    03 Jun '17
    Moves
    19253
    25 Jan '19 10:27
    Right, Duchess: it can still be a crime to be negligent & reckless!

    However, that isn't genocide. it's a different sort of crime.

    ^^
  5. SubscriberGhost of a Dukeonline
    A Spirited Misfit
    in London
    Joined
    14 Mar '15
    Moves
    10944
    25 Jan '19 11:54
    @duchess64 said
    Even if one has no intent to kill, one may be convicted of a crime.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negligent_homicide

    "Negligent homicide is a criminal charge brought against a person who,
    through criminal negligence, allows another person to die."
    "Genocide," writes Alexander K. A. Greenawalt, “is a crime of specific or special intent, involving a perpetrator who specifically targets victims on the basis of their group identity with a deliberate desire to inflict destruction upon the group itself. It is not enough that a perpetrator acted with knowledge that his actions contributed to the genocide in question, i.e. that he had general intent. The perpetrator must have had special or specific intent, he must have desired and specifically intended the result of genocide.

    As stated by Nehemiah Robinson, “acts of destruction would not be classified as Genocide unless the intent to destroy the group existed or could be proven regardless of the results achieved.” The destruction of a group without such intent “would not fall under the definition.”

    Indeed, pretty much all legal scholars accept the centrality of the intent clause in the Genocide Convention.
  6. Seongnam, S. Korea
    Joined
    03 Jun '17
    Moves
    19253
    25 Jan '19 15:03
    @ghost-of-a-duke said
    "Genocide," writes Alexander K. A. Greenawalt, “is a crime of specific or special intent, involving a perpetrator who specifically targets victims on the basis of their group identity with a deliberate desire to inflict destruction upon the group itself. It is not enough that a perpetrator acted with knowledge that his actions contributed to the genocide in question, ...[text shortened]... retty much all legal scholars accept the centrality of the intent clause in the Genocide Convention.
    Pretty cool of you to dig that up.

    I seem to recollect that there are two lawyers in these forums -- one being Marauder. Are you the other?
  7. SubscriberGhost of a Dukeonline
    A Spirited Misfit
    in London
    Joined
    14 Mar '15
    Moves
    10944
    25 Jan '19 18:23
    @philokalia said
    Pretty cool of you to dig that up.

    I seem to recollect that there are two lawyers in these forums -- one being Marauder. Are you the other?
    Not I sir.
  8. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    25 Jan '19 18:29
    @ghost-of-a-duke said
    Not I sir.
    Well it's never too late to become a lawyer.........unless you have a conscience, that is

    If so, you may want to forget the whole ordeal.
  9. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    25 Jan '19 18:312 edits
    @duchess64 said
    https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/world/christian-missionary-from-maine-could-be-tried-for-genocide-by-brazil-after-entering-land-occupied-by-an-isolated-tribe-and-exposing-them-to-deadly-disease/ar-BBSHE5c

    "Christian missionary from Maine could be tried for GENOCIDE by Brazil after
    entering land occupied by an isolated tribe and exposing them to deadly disease"

    "An Ame ...[text shortened]... tribes.
    It may lead to the martyrdom they seek, but always ends up killing tribespeople,' he said."
    I find it interesting that certain groups in the world deserve to left alone while others do not.

    For example, I would do just about anything to get rid of the nut jobs in Washington DC that wish to destroy my culture and heritage as I watch my fellow countrymen systematically secularized via the media an the education system and activist judicial system as the populace all turn to drugs as a substitute for God while about 300 a day die via heroin.

    But I digress.

    Would you call the death of 300 people a day a genocide Duchy?

    Just curious.
  10. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    25 Jan '19 22:36
    @ghost-of-a-duke said
    "Genocide," writes Alexander K. A. Greenawalt, “is a crime of specific or special intent, involving a perpetrator who specifically targets victims on the basis of their group identity with a deliberate desire to inflict destruction upon the group itself. It is not enough that a perpetrator acted with knowledge that his actions contributed to the genocide in question, ...[text shortened]... retty much all legal scholars accept the centrality of the intent clause in the Genocide Convention.
    1) I did not write the MSN headline including the term 'genocide'.
    2) To be tried for genocide does not necessarily mean to be convicted of genocide.

    Ghost of a Duke seems unaware (or unconcerned) of fears for the survival of
    indigenous peoples in Brazil before this incident with an American missionary.

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/dec/31/tribes-brazil-genocide-jair-bolsonaro

    "The uncontacted tribes of Brazil face genocide under Jair Bolsonaro"
    --Fiona Watson

    "On 1 January, Jair Bolsonaro will be sworn in as Brazil’s 38th president.
    He has expressed open disdain for the indigenous peoples of Brazil, and it is no exaggeration
    to say that some of the world’s most unique and diverse tribes are facing annihilation.
    Genocide is defined by the UN as “the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national,
    ethnical, racial or religious group”. Large-scale mass genocides rightly receive
    global attention, yet countless others go unreported and unpunished because
    the victims number only a few hundred, or even a few dozen.

    Right now, deep in the Amazon rainforest, a small tribe of survivors is on the run.
    They are the Kawahiva, an uncontacted tribe of just a few dozen people, the victims
    of waves of horrific attacks which have pushed them to the brink of extinction."

    "Preventing a genocide of uncontacted people is not a priority for Bolsonaro.
    He once said: “There is no indigenous territory where there aren’t minerals.
    Gold, tin and magnesium are in these lands, especially in the Amazon, the richest
    area in the world. I’m not getting into this nonsense of defending land for Indians.”

    Indigenous peoples are frequently regarded as obstacles to the advance of agribusiness,
    extractive industries, roads and dams. As more rainforest is invaded and destroyed
    in the name of economic “progress” and personal profit, uncontacted tribes become
    targets – massacred over resources because greedy outsiders know they can literally
    get away with murder. These are silent, invisible genocides, with few if any witnesses."

    "The UN convention on genocide came into force 70 years ago, yet entire tribes
    continue to be exterminated by the dominant society in order to steal their land and resources.
    Symbolic of this is the “last of his tribe”, a lone man living in a patch of forest in
    Brazil’s western Amazon region. We know nothing about him except that he rejects
    all contact, and survived waves of attacks carried out in the 1970s and 80s against
    his people and his neighbours, the Akuntsu tribe – of whom just four survive.
    No one has ever been prosecuted for these genocides. This impervious mentality
    harks back to the wild west of the 18th and 19th centuries, when Native Americans
    in the US were slaughtered by the colonists. Indeed, Bolsonaro himself has declared:
    “It’s a shame that the Brazilian cavalry wasn’t as efficient as the Americans, who
    exterminated the Indians.""
  11. SubscriberGhost of a Dukeonline
    A Spirited Misfit
    in London
    Joined
    14 Mar '15
    Moves
    10944
    26 Jan '19 09:28
    @Duchess64

    You attempted to erroneously extend 'negligent homicide' to encompass genocide despite it having no basis within the Genocide Convention. (Which requires intent).
  12. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    26 Jan '19 19:42
    @ghost-of-a-duke said
    Not I sir.
    "Not I sir."
    --Ghost of a Duke

    A blatant grammatical error by Ghost of a Duke, presumably a native speaker of British English.
  13. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    26 Jan '19 19:46
    @ghost-of-a-duke said
    @Duchess64

    You attempted to erroneously extend 'negligent homicide' to encompass genocide despite it having no basis within the Genocide Convention. (Which requires intent).
    The lying troll Ghost of a Duke again attempts to put words into my mouth.

    "Even if one has no intent to kill, one may be convicted of a crime."
    --Duchess64

    I did NOT write "Even if one has no intent to kill, one may be convicted of GENOCIDE'.

    Does Ghost of a Duke contend that it's impossible to be convicted of a lesser crime than genocide?
  14. SubscriberGhost of a Dukeonline
    A Spirited Misfit
    in London
    Joined
    14 Mar '15
    Moves
    10944
    26 Jan '19 20:381 edit
    @duchess64 said
    The lying troll Ghost of a Duke again attempts to put words into my mouth.

    "Even if one has no intent to kill, one may be convicted of a crime."
    --Duchess64

    I did NOT write "Even if one has no intent to kill, one may be convicted of GENOCIDE'.

    Does Ghost of a Duke contend that it's impossible to be convicted of a lesser crime than genocide?
    The unhinged troll Duchess64 needs to revisit what she wrote and also needs to be careful about flagging up grammatical errors in the posts of others when such errors are easily located in her own posts.

    (And actually, I stand by 'not I sir.' )
  15. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    26 Jan '19 21:011 edit
    @duchess64 said
    "Not I sir."
    --Ghost of a Duke

    A blatant grammatical error by Ghost of a Duke, presumably a native speaker of British English.
    ""Not I sir."
    --Ghost of a Duke (his complete post)

    First of all, I note that Ghost of a Duke's blatant grammatical error (of which he
    seems completely ignorant and, of course, too arrogant to concede with any grace)
    comes from the ENTIRETY of his post.

    Desperately attempting to excuse his abysmal ignorance of his native language,
    Ghost of a Duke attempts a disingenuous 'apples and oranges' comparison.

    If one quickly writes a long post, then it's more likely that one may make an
    inadvertent grammatical error out of (human) carelessness rather than ignorance.
    And it's more likely in the case of a writer (like me) who prefers to use more
    complex sentence structures than almost all native speakers of English.

    In this case, it seems clear enough that Ghost of a Duke's ignorant of a basic
    grammatical rule about which case to use in his very simple English sentence.
    Will the racist troll Ghost of a Duke now claim to be non-white as his excuse?
Back to Top