Amnesty International has never provided evidence that there’s a genocide in Xinjiang, because they have never claimed there is a genocide in Xinjiang.
In fact the only times the word “genocide” even appears in their report is in one footnote, #688, where the word appears twice in the citations themselves and once in a clarifying citation about why the word ‘genocide’ may be inappropriate, included as a reference to the titles of the two cited works.
What they do provide exhaustive evidence for (including as you describe it material evidence - photographs, data and internal reporting) is that china has engaged in a program of human rights violations that they believe may qualify as crimes against humanity. This is extremely evident in any reporting done on this topic by AI - this isn’t a gotcha, it’s the subject of the most prominent western criticism of amnesty international and has been a central point of debate within the UN and most AI-aligned groups (including HRW, another extremely reputable organization that agrees with AI on this topic). Even the most prominent source of the pro-genocide arguments, The Uyghur Tribunal, agrees and provided independent verification justifying AI’s reservations with calling it a genocide - their claims of genocide are based on reports of forced sterilization and organ harvesting, topics AI has not engaged with.
You used the lack of evidence provided for claims made by an organization you regard as the most reputable source for this topic as supporting your position, but you used that to dismiss claims which that organization has never even made. An organization which actually agrees with you that (on the basis of their own investigation) there is no genocide of Muslims in Xinjiang.
I’m sorry, I just dont think I can believe you when you say you’ve personally engaged with this topic to the extent you claim. If that were true, you should have known this. It is at the very heart of this discussion.
Amnesty International has never provided evidence that there’s a genocide in Xinjiang, because they have never claimed there is a genocide in Xinjiang.
In fact the only times the word “genocide” even appears in their report is in one footnote, #688, where the word appears twice in the citations themselves and once in a clarifying citation about why the word ‘genocide’ may be inappropriate, included as a reference to the titles of the two cited works.
What they do provide exhaustive evidence for (including as you describe it material evidence - photographs, data and internal reporting) is that china has engaged in a program of human rights violations that they believe may qualify as crimes against humanity. This is extremely evident in any reporting done on this topic by AI - this isn’t a gotcha, it’s the subject of the most prominent western criticism of amnesty international and has been a central point of debate within the UN and most AI-aligned groups (including HRW, another extremely reputable organization that agrees with AI on this topic). Even the most prominent source of the pro-genocide arguments, The Uyghur Tribunal, agrees and provided independent verification justifying AI’s reservations with calling it a genocide - their claims of genocide are based on reports of forced sterilization and organ harvesting, topics AI has not engaged with.
You used the lack of evidence provided for claims made by an organization you regard as the most reputable source for this topic as supporting your position, but you used that to dismiss claims which that organization has never even made. An organization which actually agrees with you that (on the basis of their own investigation) there is no genocide of Muslims in Xinjiang.
I’m sorry, I just dont think I can believe you when you say you’ve personally engaged with this topic to the extent you claim. If that were true, you should have known this. It is at the very heart of this discussion.