Did you even read the rest of the paragraph you responded to, which explains how this would not be permitted?
I assume you are referring to this paragraph, in which case, yes, I did:
It does not do this. It says that Section 2 "does not prohibit" them, not that they are absolutely unrestricted under Section 2 in all forms. If some company is hiring only, say, white people who speak English for a position where only the latter is an actual necessity, the discrimination against white people does not suddenly become legal because the discrimination based on language is, in that particular case, not illegal either.
For the record, s. 3 reads as follows:
Exceptions: Section 2 shall not prohibit a service, right, policy, or privilege clearly related to a racial characteristic, and which is essential to mitigate discrimination or the effects thereof against a particular racial characteristic, from being conditional on a racial characteristic of the recipient. Nor shall Section 2 prohibit an employer from considering a racial characteristic as part of deciding who to employ in a role, where that employer can conclusively show that both (a) the role is clearly related to the said racial characteristic, and (b) that racial characteristic is essential to carry out the relevant tasks if employed.
I will continue with the hypothetical scenario in this case. You have not contested that, in a society in which deeply held racism exists, it is possible that intelligence could be perceived to be caused, to some extent, by race, even though this is obviously false. As such, intelligence, in this society, would be a "racial characteristic" under the terms of this resolution. This means that, under the terms of s. 3, s. 2 does not "prohibit an employer from considering [race] as part of deciding who to employ in a role," because your resolution allows for intelligence to be considered to be caused by race. Even though the employer in this hypothetical is clearly just unjustly discriminating on the basis of race, your resolution allows that employer to claim that this discrimination is because race has some causal relationship to intelligence.
The example we are discussing is not the same as "hiring only ... white people who speak English for a position where only the latter is an actual necessity." Instead, it is more akin to hiring only white people because, in this hypothetical society, it is (of course, wrongly) perceived that white people are more intelligent than others. In that case, the "racial characteristic" under the terms of this resolution, is intelligence, which I am sure is not your intention. It is not race as you suggest. Now, if your resolution functioned as it should, and as you clearly intend it to, then race would be the characteristic in question, but because of the inclusion of perception, it is not.
If you're arguing that it's too broad, as your original argument seemed to imply, you should be able to give one example of when those acts wouldn't be genocide. If you're arguing that it's too narrow, the list is not exclusive, it merely adds particular acts to the existing list of acts of genocide. In particular see
GA #38.
This is not what a definition is. You cannot cite examples of things which are commonly associated with something as a definition of that thing. Instead, a definition encapsulates the whole meaning of a word - if examples are present, they are merely aids to understanding, further illustrating the definition the reader. To expound on my point about the flawed definition, the
Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court defines genocide as follows:
For the purpose of this Statute, “genocide” means 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.
By contrast, the definition of genocide which is in this resolution is as follows:
Segregation: Systematic or otherwise intentional and statistically disproportionate violence perpetrated against a group, forceful isolation or internment of a group in designated areas, removal of a group from designated areas, or the forceful institution of population controls on a group are recognised as acts of genocide. The segregation of a population based on any racial characteristic, regardless of whether such segregation is enforced by a state, is universally prohibited under World Assembly jurisdiction.
What your definition lacks, and what is included in the definition quoted above it, is intent. Except for "intentional and statistically disproportionate violence perpetrated against a group," your definition merely lists several acts - which are certainly reprehensible, I obviously do not contest that - with no reference to intent, in this case "to destroy, in whole or in, part a national, ethnical, racial or religious group." Also, your definition includes several items which are
not acts which constitute genocide. "Forceful isolation or internment of a group in designated areas" and "removal of a group from designated areas" are more properly recognized as apartheid rather than genocide. "The forceful institution of population controls on a group" includes the one-child policy in China. I have never seen anyone argue that the one-child policy was a genocide.
