A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
Yesterday, a Declaration of the trafficking of enslaved Africans and Racialized Chattel Enslavement of Africans as the Gravest Crime against Humanity was voted at UNO. As usual, Israel and the USA voted against. How did your country vote? Any thoughts about it?
wtf ireland, sweden, ukraine, united kingdom, canada, japan, iceland, hungary?
Abstaining feels like it is just as bad as voting no.
I was surprised to see all the nordics abstaining from voting (really, almost all of Europe). I would say that abstaining is a long-shot from voting "no", especially if you see it as overwhelmingly likely that this will go through without your vote. Voting no is explicitly stating that you're against the formulation, while voting yes is saying that you're explicitly for it. Abstaining can indicate that you are (for example) for the intent, but have reservations about the specific wording. In that case, you may not want to stop the declaration from going through, but still want to signal that you have reservations and don't want to unequivocally support it.
Yeah in a parliamentarian position I guess abstention is different from saying no, especially when the legislation has the votes.
But I guess what I was trying to articulate is that it feels like they are respecting? the no votes by abstaining, IE not contradicting.
This feels like a serious cop out on an issue as absurdly black and white as actual Chattel slavery.
Edit: Good point though about reservations on the text, we don't know what it said, although that defense can also apply to the No's as well, which is why I shied away from it.
What we do know is that the full title includes "as the Gravest Crime against Humanity" and I can fully respect countries having reservations against that when there are other similarly horrible crimes. I don't know why Germany abstained but I figure that some people might be pretty angry at them if they declared the slave trade was worst than the holocaust.
Europe in general just abstaining. Mostly.
Here's the map of the vote to really drive the point home.
It's always the same map
You only posted half of the title.
Declaration of the Trafficking of Enslaved Africans and Racialized Chattel Enslavement of Africans as the Gravest Crime against Humanity
The "Gravest Crime against Humanity" part honestly explains why so many countries abstained.
The slave trade was an absolute atrocity and certainly one of the gravest crimes against humanity but should we label it as the gravest crime? Do we really need to introduce a ranking between slavery, the holocaust and dozens of other genocides instead of agreeing that they are/were all bad without picking one as the worst?
Why am I even surprised by the US being the US anymore.
"Hey you know this thing thats super bad?"
"Of course we've known it's bad for many years now"
"Well we should officially condemn it."
"Whoa whoa let's hold up and think about that for a second."
Fuck Argentina.
I'm from there, all I can say is... President Xi, my country yearns for freedom
I'm from Buenos Aires and I say kill us all
As someone who isn't from Buenos Aires that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make /hj
We've always been a colony of 
and 
Now the government doesn't care to hide it at all, quite the contrary the president is very explicit about his love affair with yankizionists.
And let's not pretend that the opposition is any different. Except for some small trotskyist parties with no real political weight.
Liberal idealism plagues us, we need more political education yesterday
It's the Same Map As Always, USA + vassals Vs Rest of the World.
Is it? It's not really subtle.
The yearly vote about blockade on Cuba is kind of an exception, even EU and the Oceanian Plankton usually vote "for".
My favourite is the voting about combating the glorification of nazism, really says all
Cries quietly in Indigenous slaughter
I hope your time will come too, it's crazy how overshadowed this topic is
So the US voted against so it didn't pass, yet again, I presume?
Fuck veto voting
Part of the EU explanation:
We were prepared to support a text that emphasises the scale of the atrocity of the transatlantic slave trade, the importance of remembrance, and the need to continue combating slavery in its contemporary forms. Instead, the text before us raises a number of legal and factual concerns that we cannot overlook.
3 arguments
First, the use of superlatives in the context of crimes against humanity is not legally accurate, such as the use of "gravest" in the title and throughout the text, which implies a hierarchy among atrocity crimes, when no legal hierarchy between crimes against humanity exists. It risks undermining the harm suffered by all victims of these crimes and lacks legal clarity crucial for ensuring accountability. We firmly reject introducing ambiguity in this respect.
Second, the selective inclusion of lengthy, historical, and contentious references to regional jurisprudence and selective and unbalanced interpretation of historical events - such as in Preambular Paragraphs 21 and 23 - is at odds with accepted UN practice, as well as the stated universal and forward looking objective of this initiative. It risks creating divisions when unity is both necessary and achievable. The role of the General Assembly is not to substitute itself to the academic debate amongst historians.
Third, we are also concerned by certain legal references and assertions that are either inaccurate or inconsistent with international law. This includes suggestions of a retroactive application of international rules which was non-existent at the time and claims for reparations, which is incompatible with established principles of international law. The principle of non-retroactivity, a fundamental cornerstone of the international legal order, must be strictly upheld. References to claims for reparations also lack a sound legal basis. Any framework for reparatory justice must be grounded in existing multilateral instruments.
For! And would you look at that... Practically all of europe abstaining, color me shocked (ยฌ_ยฌ)
Also... Argentina? YUCK! Sadly not a surprise either.
"against :3" they're using that emote in UN votes now?
What does this vote achieve?
the UK:
USA I made a little poem
Our president is child Making our reputation be defiled Seen as a big whiny bully While hiding his crimes obscurely
Trump is just confirming the reputation US already had
Abstention might as well be an against vote