This is straightforwardly repeating the official line.What makes it obvious? The Uyghurs were exempt from the policy and now aren't. What are the base rates?
Firstly, the AP link contains testimony from someone who had 3 children (which is explicitly allowed under the law for her area), and was subject to forced sterilisation. There's testimony here from a survivor who only had one child, which is perfectly legal, and was nonetheless instructed to undergo two unnecessary surgeries.
The Guardian said:Messages she got from local authorities said women aged 19 to 59 were expected to have intrauterine devices (IUDs) fitted or undergo sterilisation.
Then we have the fact that the birthrate in Xinjiang is now significantly below the national average. In connection with multiple testimonies attesting these procedures are being directed en-masse at people who aren't in contravention of the law, but are merely of childbearing age. None of this is explicable by assuming the law is being equally applied. That's the party line, repeated ad-nauseum in the face of all accusation.The Guardian said:On the day of her appointment there were no Han Chinese among crowds of women waiting for their compulsory birth control at the government compound, she said.
That's not plausible at all. We have people of childbearing age, who have broken no law, forced to undergo surgery. We have millions of people interned without charge, without a shred of evidence that they've actually watched propaganda or whatever. You would have to make an absurd set of assumptions to come to that conclusion; that millions of people were guilty (though nothing has been presented to show this, and they haven't even been charged or accused). It would be credulity beyond all reason.Does it actually, by itself? What if China's notorious censorship and control over the internet is related in the straightforward way that they repeatedly say it is in private, and it does actually matter whether individuals have watched an ISIS video or ETIM propaganda or whatever? Does that not seem plausible?
This is true. Though "genocide" tends to also involve an orchestrated and systematic effort on the part of the higher authority to destroy a population. It's not "my standard"; Dozens of independent experts in international law have attested that this breaches the 1948 genocide convention.Notably, by the standard you're operating from here, the United States is genociding its black population. One does not need to be charged with anything to be killed; one's skin color gets someone killed.
To what end... am I wanting people to stop downplaying and dismissing it? If I'm understanding that right, that's an utterly bizarre question.To what end, even assuming you're correct?
Last edited: