Quebec, the French Language, and Quebecois Identity

[dreambrother808]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

Might does make right. It always has, and it always will. That's just how the world works. The "rules based international order" that the liberals salivate over is really just extended victor's justice from WWII.

Yes, that is often the ugly truth of how the world works. I don’t centre those ugly truths, however, or weakly fall in line with how they degrade the human experience. According to your logic, we might as well all just give up and become Russia, FFS.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I greatly value the importance of international law but at this point I question whether the ICC and other international institutions still have credibility.

They don't. This is the problem with Western liberals. They constantly make two assumptions that are fatally incorrect:

1) that the international institutions are infallible;
2) that if they handicap themselves by adhering to the "rules based international order", everyone else will follow along.

The reality is that this Kumbaya-Starfleet view of the world needs to be put out of its misery once and for all.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by dreambrother808

Yes, that is often the ugly truth of how the world works. I don’t centre those ugly truths, however, or weakly fall in line with how they degrade the human experience. According to your logic, we might as well all just give up and become Russia, FFS.

There's no point trying to cling to a system that more than half the world doesn't care about. Idealism about "international law" is suicidal at this point.

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

The reality is that this Kumbaya-Starfleet view of the world needs to be put out of its misery once and for all.

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

There's no point trying to cling to a system that more than half the world doesn't care about. Idealism about "international law" is suicidal at this point.

In such a dog-eat-dog world where international institutions and international law don't matter anymore, Canada would soon cease to exist. What would prevent the US far-right from invading and annexing Canada? There isn't the British Empire anymore to protect Canada from the US.

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

If the situation were reversed, where Hamas/Gaza was far more powerful than Israel, and was highly successful in inflicting damage to Israel, would the ICC be as engaged? I don’t have the answers to that, but I have suspicions.

The ICC has indicted Vladimir Putin. There is your answer.

Ironically, Lindsey Graham cheered when the ICC indicted Putin, but now he threatens to "crush" Western democratic countries who dare to enforce the decisions of the ICC...

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

In such a dog-eat-dog world where international institutions and international law don't matter anymore, Canada would soon cease to exist. What would prevent the US far-right from invading and annexing Canada?

Nothing. That's just the reality. The US will play along with the Starfleet system so long as it meets their interests. Same with China, Russia, etc. Only the EU seems obsessed with obeying it at all costs.

Perhaps instead of clinging to a dying vision of a global technocracy, the EU should instead build up a military and an industrial system capable of taking care of itself. Y'all have 450 million people and an $18 trillion GDP. You can do it.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

The ICC has indicted Vladimir Putin. There is your answer.

Ironically, Lindsey Graham cheered when the ICC indicted Putin, but now he threatens to "crush" Western democratic countries who dare to enforce the decisions of the ICC...

Simple. Russia is a US enemy. Israel is a US ally. Countries support their allies and oppose their enemies. What else is new?

[mousquet]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

In such a dog-eat-dog world where international institutions and international law don't matter anymore, Canada would soon cease to exist. What would prevent the US far-right from invading and annexing Canada?

Far-fetched, don't you think?
Why not France to invade and annex Germany while we're at it?

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

Ironically, Lindsey Graham cheered when the ICC indicted Putin, but now he threatens to "crush" Western democratic countries who dare to enforce the decisions of the ICC...

The freak said the US would crush the economy of any country that would put Netanyahu under arrest, which might be overestimating the ability of their country to cause harm.
It's not like the US can afford to do whatever they want. They're not that powerful.

Suppose the French government takes Netanyahu to custody, what would they do about it? Enforcing tariffs on French wine?
I don't think they're in a position to literally crush our economy. The US is not so big as a trade partner for us.
They could cause some greater harm to Germany, though.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I am not a fan of Bibi at all, but international order cannot be maintained if country leaders cannot carry out wars of containment, neutralization, rescue operations for citizens or even retaliation against those who attacked them..

Especially not when the other side doesn't give a shit about the ICC and their warrants.

Would the ICC have issued a warrant for Churchill, Roosevelt, Truman, etc., as war criminals?

On this one, Liojack couldn’t be more in agreement with Liojack! Perfectly said!

I was going to offer as an analogy, imagine the ICC charging Zelenskyy in 2024 for war crimes committed by Ukrainian soldiers against Russians. Fuck that.

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by mousquet

Far-fetched, don't you think?

A US president subverts the rule of law, calls on his extremist supporters to storm the Capitol, and is nonetheless reelected for a 2nd term. It seem(ed) far-fetch, doesn't it?

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by lio45

I was going to offer as an analogy, imagine the ICC charging Zelenskyy in 2024 for war crimes committed by Ukrainian soldiers against Russians. Fuck that.

a- What war crimes have Ukrainian soldiers committed?

b- Has Zelensky actually planned or supported those war crimes? Courts judge people for what they are responsible of. Zelensky couldn't be convicted for war crimes committed by individual soldiers that he has neither planned nor supported nor covered.

[Acajack]

I went through a pretty extensive list of commonly acknowledged global baddies this afternoon. These are not Zalenskyy types.

The vast majority are not on the ICC wanted list.

[New Brisavoine]

The ICC is not a an international court of everything that could judge all the "baddies" of this planet. Its jurisdiction is strictly limited both ratione personae and ratione materiae. Ratione personae, it can only indict people who are citizens of countries who are parties to the Rome Statute, or the citizens of countries not parties but who commit a crime on the territory of one of the states parties to the Rome Statute, or who commit a crime on the territory of a state not party to the Rome Statute but which grants jurisdiction to the ICC to try crimes committed over its territory (such as Ukraine has done), or finally a person from a state not party to the Rome Statute who commits a crime on the territory of a state not party to the Rome Statute but whom the UN Security Council refers to the ICC (e.g. Omar al-Bashir of Sudan, back when the UN Security Council wasn't deadlocked as it is now).

So Putin couldn't be indicted for things he does in Russia, because Russia is not a state party to the Rome Statute, but he could be indicted for things he does in Ukraine, because Ukraine granted jurisdiction to the ICC. For the same reason, the Chinese leaders cannot be indicted for things they do in China, but could be indicted for things they'd do in, say, Mongolia, a state party to the Rome Statute. And Bashar al-Assad alas cannot be indicted for things he does in Syria, not party to the Rome Statute. But he could be indicted for things he'd do in, say, Jordan, which is party to the Rome Statute. Ironically, if Bashar al-Assad committed war crimes in Israel, he couldn't be indicted by the ICC, because Israel is not party to the Rome Statute.

Ratione materia, the ICC cannot judge all crimes. Its jurisdiction is strictly limited to 4 crimes: genocides, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression. So the president of Tunisia (a country party to the Rome Statute) imprisoning political opponents cannot be indicted by the ICC, because suppressing political dissent and imprisoning political opponents is not one of the crimes covered by the ICC.

In the case of Israel's actions in Gaza: ratione personae Israel is not a party to the Rome Statue, but the State of Palestine (to which Gaza formally belongs) is, so any national doing things in Gaza falls within the jurisdiction of the ICC ratione personae. And ratione materiae, the Israeli leadership is suspected of having committed both war crimes and crimes against humanity (such as not feeding displaced people), which are two crimes covered by the ICC.

The court sent a questionnaire to the government of Israel several months ago, asking very specific questions and demanding answers to explain Israel's actions. The Israeli authorities simply chose to ignore the court and not respond, in total contempt of the court. They cannot be surprised if at long length the court finally decides to indict them.

One last point: an indictment is not a conviction. Netanyahu is still presumed innocent, like any person indicted. He has the right to a lawyer and to defend himself. Simply ignoring the court won't work though. It may take time, but he will have to answer for what he has condoned sooner or later.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

One last point: an indictment is not a conviction. Netanyahu is still presumed innocent, like any person indicted. He has the right to a lawyer and to defend himself. Simply ignoring the court won't work though. It may take time, but he will have to answer for what he has condoned sooner or later.

How so? The United States has made it clear it will not allow the ICC to try any US-allied leaders. That makes Netanyahu pretty safe.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

The Israeli authorities simply chose to ignore the court and not respond, in total contempt of the court. They cannot be surprised if at long length the court finally decides to indict them.

That's not true. The ICC was actively working with the Attorney General of Israel for months (despite Israel's non-membership in the ICC) before Khan abruptly ordered his staff to cease contact with her and then moved to seek warrants. The whole thing stinks of political interference. Remember Khan is a Pakistani Muslim. It would not be surprising at all for someone like him to abuse the ICC's power to unfairly attack Israel.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I went through a pretty extensive list of commonly acknowledged global baddies this afternoon. These are not Zalenskyy types.

The vast majority are not on the ICC wanted list.

There are two global power blocs that have an unhealthy obsession with constantly hating Israel - the Muslim world, and the Western leftists. Combined, these two groups have enough power in the civil society/NGO world that they can pursue all kinds of unfair lawfare against Israel. Thankfully, the US is a bulwark against this in the other direction, so it all balances out.

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

How so? The United States has made it clear it will not allow the ICC to try any US-allied leaders. That makes Netanyahu pretty safe.

"Le futur c'est long", as we say in French. Trump and his henchmen won't be in power forever. And US + Israeli public opinion will change eventually. Besides, being blocked from access to the most interesting countries on the planet is not exactly a fun spot to be in.

[Acajack]

I would like nothing more than for us to have an international order of law that is respected by all or at least most countries but alas that is not the case and things are not moving in the right direction.

The UN of which the ICC is increasingly seen as having leanings as evidenced by the UNWRA allegations. Not to mention the angle taken by senior UN official Franceska... ? I forget her last name.

[Acajack]

I would like nothing more than for us to have an international order of law that is respected by all or at least most countries but alas that is not the case and things are not moving in the right direction.

The UN of which the ICC is a part is increasingly seen as having leanings as evidenced by the UNWRA allegations. Not to mention the angle taken by senior UN official Francesca Albanese.

[Acajack]

And of course there have been controversies about the UN Human Rights Council and the countries allowed on there or even presiding it.

BTW I am not happy at all about the UN's decline in credibility.

But one has to be blind not to see it.