7th February 2014, 08:44 AM
apartheid (ə-pärt′hīt′, -hāt′
n. (in South Africa) the official government policy of racial segregation or discrimination; officially renounced in 1991
Hosty, I agree to your sentiment. However the question is about apartheid. A practice widely accepted as bad.
In 1973, the UN adopted the Apartheid Convention which defines apartheid and even qualifies it as a crime against humanity which might lead to international criminal prosecution of the individuals responsible for perpetrating it.[SUP][90][/SUP] This convention has however only been ratified by 107 of the 193 member states as of August 2008. The convention was initially drafted by the former USSR and Guinea, before being presented to the UN General Assembly. The convention was adopted with a vote of 91 for, and 4 (Portugal, South Africa, the United Kingdom and the United States) against the convention.
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."
On November 30, 1973, the United Nations General Assembly opened for signature and ratification the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid.[SUP][1][/SUP] It defined the crime of apartheid as "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."
[h=3]Israel[/h] Main article: Israel and the apartheid analogy
Critics have accused Israel of committing the crime of apartheid; In a 2007 report, United Nations Special Rapporteur for Palestine John Dugard stated that "elements of the [state of Israel's] occupation constitute forms of colonialism and of apartheid, which are contrary to international law." and suggested that the "legal consequences of a prolonged occupation with features of colonialism and apartheid" be put to the International Court of Justice.[SUP][16][/SUP]
The UN Special Rapporteur concludes that this "general structure of apartheid that exists in the Occupied Palestinian Territories ... makes the allegation increasingly credible despite the differences between the specific characteristics of South African apartheid and that of the Occupied Palestinian Territories regime".[SUP][17][/SUP]
South African Judge Richard Goldstone, head of the Report of the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict, also known as the Goldstone Report, writing in The New York Times in October 2011, said that "in Israel, there is no apartheid. Nothing there comes close to the definition of apartheid under the 1998 Rome Statute." Goldstone noted that Arab citizens of Israel are allowed to vote, have political parties, and hold seats in the Knesset and other positions, including one on the Israeli Supreme Court. Goldstone wrote that the situation in the West Bank was more complex, but that there is no attempt to maintain "an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group", and claimed that the seemingly oppressive measures taken by Israel were taken to protect its own citizens from attacks by Palestinian militants.[SUP][18][/SUP] However the Goldstone Report does not contain any reference to charges of apartheid, whether supported or not.[SUP][19][/SUP] With regard to associated issue of positive findings of Israeli war crimes in the report, Goldstone has argued for a redaction. However the other three authors of the Goldstone Report have publicly rejected this arguing Goldstone has "misrepresented facts in an attempt to delegitimise the [Goldstone Report's] findings and to cast doubts on its credibility".[SUP][20][/SUP]
Israeli journalist Yonatan Silverman wrote in Ynetnews that while inequality and injustice existed in the West Bank, Israel was not an apartheid state. Silverman wrote that while South Africa was a legally segretated society, Israel's actions in the West Bank are not rooted in legislation and stem from security concerns rather than racial bias.[SUP][21][/SUP]
Contrary to these, the Russell Tribunal on Palestine tends to judge in favor of the apartheid allegations. Amongst a large list of violations of international law, by both the US and Israel, the Tribunal judges "Violation of the prohibition of discrimination based on national origin through Israeli policies and practices akin to Apartheid (2011 Capetown findings of this Tribunal). Final conclusions of this Tribunal are expected in February 2013.[SUP][22][/SUP] The Russell Tribunal on Palestine has been criticised as biased against Israel by judge Richard Goldstone,[SUP][18][/SUP] and South African journalist and human rights activist Benjamin Pogrund, described the Cape Town Session of the Russell Tribunal on Palestine "theatre".[SUP][23][/SUP] The Tribunal has on the other hand been endorsed by the Center for Constitutional Rights, Jewish Voice for Peace, Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions and other organizations.[SUP][24][/SUP]
- Wikipedia
I'd say Russia and china bad but not apartheid. Don't know about Brazil. Does Canadian law discriminate on basis of race? Britain's law are not apartheid.
n. (in South Africa) the official government policy of racial segregation or discrimination; officially renounced in 1991Hosty, I agree to your sentiment. However the question is about apartheid. A practice widely accepted as bad.
In 1973, the UN adopted the Apartheid Convention which defines apartheid and even qualifies it as a crime against humanity which might lead to international criminal prosecution of the individuals responsible for perpetrating it.[SUP][90][/SUP] This convention has however only been ratified by 107 of the 193 member states as of August 2008. The convention was initially drafted by the former USSR and Guinea, before being presented to the UN General Assembly. The convention was adopted with a vote of 91 for, and 4 (Portugal, South Africa, the United Kingdom and the United States) against the convention.
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."
On November 30, 1973, the United Nations General Assembly opened for signature and ratification the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid.[SUP][1][/SUP] It defined the crime of apartheid as "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."
[h=3]Israel[/h] Main article: Israel and the apartheid analogy
Critics have accused Israel of committing the crime of apartheid; In a 2007 report, United Nations Special Rapporteur for Palestine John Dugard stated that "elements of the [state of Israel's] occupation constitute forms of colonialism and of apartheid, which are contrary to international law." and suggested that the "legal consequences of a prolonged occupation with features of colonialism and apartheid" be put to the International Court of Justice.[SUP][16][/SUP]
The UN Special Rapporteur concludes that this "general structure of apartheid that exists in the Occupied Palestinian Territories ... makes the allegation increasingly credible despite the differences between the specific characteristics of South African apartheid and that of the Occupied Palestinian Territories regime".[SUP][17][/SUP]
South African Judge Richard Goldstone, head of the Report of the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict, also known as the Goldstone Report, writing in The New York Times in October 2011, said that "in Israel, there is no apartheid. Nothing there comes close to the definition of apartheid under the 1998 Rome Statute." Goldstone noted that Arab citizens of Israel are allowed to vote, have political parties, and hold seats in the Knesset and other positions, including one on the Israeli Supreme Court. Goldstone wrote that the situation in the West Bank was more complex, but that there is no attempt to maintain "an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group", and claimed that the seemingly oppressive measures taken by Israel were taken to protect its own citizens from attacks by Palestinian militants.[SUP][18][/SUP] However the Goldstone Report does not contain any reference to charges of apartheid, whether supported or not.[SUP][19][/SUP] With regard to associated issue of positive findings of Israeli war crimes in the report, Goldstone has argued for a redaction. However the other three authors of the Goldstone Report have publicly rejected this arguing Goldstone has "misrepresented facts in an attempt to delegitimise the [Goldstone Report's] findings and to cast doubts on its credibility".[SUP][20][/SUP]
Israeli journalist Yonatan Silverman wrote in Ynetnews that while inequality and injustice existed in the West Bank, Israel was not an apartheid state. Silverman wrote that while South Africa was a legally segretated society, Israel's actions in the West Bank are not rooted in legislation and stem from security concerns rather than racial bias.[SUP][21][/SUP]
Contrary to these, the Russell Tribunal on Palestine tends to judge in favor of the apartheid allegations. Amongst a large list of violations of international law, by both the US and Israel, the Tribunal judges "Violation of the prohibition of discrimination based on national origin through Israeli policies and practices akin to Apartheid (2011 Capetown findings of this Tribunal). Final conclusions of this Tribunal are expected in February 2013.[SUP][22][/SUP] The Russell Tribunal on Palestine has been criticised as biased against Israel by judge Richard Goldstone,[SUP][18][/SUP] and South African journalist and human rights activist Benjamin Pogrund, described the Cape Town Session of the Russell Tribunal on Palestine "theatre".[SUP][23][/SUP] The Tribunal has on the other hand been endorsed by the Center for Constitutional Rights, Jewish Voice for Peace, Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions and other organizations.[SUP][24][/SUP]
- Wikipedia
I'd say Russia and china bad but not apartheid. Don't know about Brazil. Does Canadian law discriminate on basis of race? Britain's law are not apartheid.