William Schabas

[Bistabuster]

A little snippet of why he thinks about genocide from this source.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Schabas 


Schabas argues that the legal term "genocide" is a loaded one that should not be used to describe every atrocity involving mass killings. In the strict legal sense, the only true "genocides" in recent history, he argues, were the Armenian Genocide, the Jewish and Gypsy Holocaust, and the Rwandan Genocide. Thus his book, Genocide in International Law: The Crimes of Crimes (Cambridge University Press, 2d ed., 2009), supports the view that Stalin’s atrocities in the Ukraine, the killings of Slav and Soviet citizens under the Nazi occupation, and the Holodomor were not, legally, genocide. The same book treats the Bosnian atrocities as ethnic cleansing and not as genocide, in contrast to the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and the International Court of Justice (ICJ) which ruled the crimes committed in Srebrenica to constitute genocide. However, it criticises the United Nations General Assembly for recognising ethnic cleansing as genocide.

His later book, War Crimes and Human Rights (Cambridge University Press, 2008), states that the killings by the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia during the late 1970s lacked "the ethnic dimension that is part of the essence of the crime [of genocide]." Schabas took the same position in 2001 in Cambodia: Was it Really Genocide?. Further, while strongly condemning the atrocities in Darfur, Schabas says that they should not be labelled genocide because, he argues in War Crimes and Human Rights, "the summary execution" of non-Arabs in Darfur "does not establish genocidal intent." The book War Crimes and Human Rights also criticises the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia for finding a joint criminal enterprise to commit genocide in Srebrenica. The relatively restrictive interpretation of the crime of genocide that Schabas has advocated has been largely confirmed in the case law of such institutions as the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia.

No wonder this Bible reference is so relevant today.

2 Thes 2:3   Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

[ExMilitary]

I guess this wouldn't count, either, then:

Is the Islamic State Exterminating the Language of Jesus?

Qaqosh, Tel Kepe, and Karamlesh are just three of the Iraqi towns on the Nineveh plains captured in early August by the Islamic State (IS), but they represent the last major concentration of Aramaic speakers in the world. Pushing northeast of Mosul towards Kurdistan, the jihadist army now occupies the ancient heart of Christian Iraq. According to U.N. officials, roughly 200,000 Christians fled their homes on the Nineveh plains on the night of Aug. 6, justifiably fearful that IS fighters would expel them, kill them, or force them to convert. A local archbishop, Joseph Thomas, described the situation as "catastrophic, a crisis beyond imagination."

Read the complete article at

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2014/08/14/islamic_state_aramaic_language_jesus_bible_destruction_yazidi_iraq

[PeteWaldo]

My 1965 Webster dictionary doesn't even contain the term.
Here's the entire definition of genocide from a 1983 Random House dictionary:
"the deliberate and sustematic extermination of a national or racial group."

Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide
"Etymology

Raphael Lemkin, in his work Axis Rule in Occupied Europe (1944), coined the term "genocide" by combining Greek genos (γένος), "race, people" and Latin cīdere "to kill".[15]

Lemkin defined genocide as follows:

    Generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killings of all members of a nation. It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves. The objectives of such a plan would be the disintegration of the political and social institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups, and the destruction of the personal security, liberty, health, dignity, and even the lives of the individuals belonging to such groups.

The preamble to the CPPCG states that instances of genocide have taken place throughout history,[4] but it was not until Raphael Lemkin coined the term and the prosecution of perpetrators of the Holocaust at the Nuremberg trials that the United Nations agreed to the CPPCG which defined the crime of genocide under international law.

During a video interview with Raphael Lemkin, the interviewer asked him about how he came to be interested in this genocide. He replied; "I became interested in genocide because it happened so many times. It happened to the Armenians, then after the Armenians, Hitler took action."[16][17]

Lemkin was also a close relative of genocide victims; he lost 49 of his relatives to the Holocaust. However, his work on defining genocide as a crime dates back to 1933, and it was prompted by the Simele massacre in Iraq.[18]"

So it would seem according to Wikipedia, according to the guy who coined the term, a group doesn't even have to be killed in order to be a victim of genocide. And according to that definition the internal non-racial genocide in Cambodia would even qualify since a generation of people was exterminated based on their age, specifically to further "the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves. The objectives of such a plan would be the disintegration of the political and social institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups....."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_the_Prevention_and_Punishment_of_the_Crime_of_Genocide
Genocide Convention

Definition of genocide

Article 2 of the convention defines genocide as

    ...any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

        (a) Killing members of the group;
        (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
        (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
        (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
        (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

    — Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Article 2[2]

Article 3 defines the crimes that can be punished under the convention:

        (a) Genocide;
        (b) Conspiracy to commit genocide;
        (c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide;
        (d) Attempt to commit genocide;
        (e) Complicity in genocide.

    — Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Article 3[2]

So it seems the Islamic State conquest taking place in Iraq right now is genocide, even without considering any of the outright murder.
It also seems the 1400 years of Islamic slavery and "dhimmitude" would qualify as genocide as well.
http://www.falseprophetmuhammad.com/islamic_slavery_dhimmitude.htm

Perhaps Mr. Schabas wants to redefine the term "genocide" to fit his own purposes, rather than simply recognizing how it is defined under international law.