(no subject)

[xiphias]

So the real question in the Zackie Achmat case is whether the Hague is allowed to take action against people who file frivolous genocide accusations.

If they're NOT allowed to do anything against people who bring random, pointless accusations of genocide, can we start just randomly accusing people of genocide? That might be fun! If the Hague does anything other than laugh at this, then it opens the door for all SORTS of things.

Let's make a list of the NEXT people we can accuse of genocide! Note that Anthony Brink and Matthias Rath don't count, because they are ACTUALLY trying to commit genocide, by preventing effective treatment of AIDS. So charging them wouldn't be frivolous. It has to be someone who absolutely ISN'T doing anything remotely genocidal, but who we still wouldn't mind sitting in the criminal court of the Hague.

Comments

[redbird]

Charging them wouldn't be frivolous, but it has a certain artistic and practical justice to it, in terms of "you reminded the relevant court that you exist, and this is the result." Much better than people being arrested for possession after calling to report their drugs stolen.

My suggestion for your original question: Karl Rove. Completely evil, but in ways separate from that court's purpose.

[ailbhe]

I'll sit in the Hague. It's not far, and I honestly can't see how I could be convicted of anything.