The “guilty until proven innocent” part highlights a tactic to push back on manufactured claims of genocide paired with smears of genocide denial: genocide is a formally defined crime, just like murder. Just like murder, you start with a presumption of innocence – that is, you start by denying the accusation, and it is on the accuser to prove what happened.
In cases like the Holocaust (or Palestine today) you have a mountain of evidence. You have countless eyewitnesses backed by film, sometimes video, and almost always official statements or internal documents showing intent.
In China you have significant motivation and credibility questions about the much smaller number of witnesses, you don’t have anything like the photographic documentation of the Holocaust, you have some blurry satellite photos of… something despite the U.S. having spy satellites that can read a license plate, and your official statements (that are themselves backed by significant evidence) are about combating radicalization through development.
In short, there is actually a live question about the credibility and weight of the evidence. You do have to engage with the evidence and not simply take the accusation at face value, just like you would at a murder trial.
They need to learn from sodastream how to market unfair and unequal employment conditions.
Maybe don’t use slaves in your factories if you do not want to be black listed it’s that simple 💅
Then why does US law explicitly allow slave labour? Do they blacklist themselves as well?
Yes everyone on the list is black.
Removed by mod
How is it whataboutism if the US bans importing goods made with slave labour if they themselves make use of it? That is just hypocriticism on the US’ side.
Removed by mod
The discussion is about US sanctions
The comment was about Chinese factories
It doesn’t take attention away in this case. If the US is like, “hey, don’t use slavery in your factories”, it’s a massive hypocritical statement. Especially considering the 13th amendment allows slavery for criminal convictions.
It’s a clear point of stating, “bro, WTF you gettin’ on my ass about slavery when you’re using it right fucking now!”
You said the secret word!
The whole issue is that they don’t use slaves in the their factories (as far as anyone can tell), but they’re being black listed anyway, so no, it’s not that simple.
Do you have a good source for this? I lean towards that opinion as well, but i don’t have any direct sources.
Well, it’s not that easy though, is it. You cannot prove a negative. So if I accused you of some sickening murder rape robbing spree where you harmed 20 people and by law it was on you to prove that you didn’t do it, you’d be fucked because you couldn’t prove that something isn’t true.
I mean, screw this og so poor multi billion company and their
worthless pieces f shitlaser printers, yet I am wary of the increasing tendency internationally to flip “in dubio pro reo” on it’s head.deleted by creator
But… you know that a chinese factory does not need approval by US regulators to run, right? Like… the US doesn’t run the whole world and it’s not a normal thing that US regulators check out foreign factories, nor should it be.
Now if you get accused of using slave labour… how can you prove that you do not do that? You’d need to prove that the slave-labour-factories don’t produce anything that then gets sold to you, right? Because absence of slave workers in your factories is not proof that you don’t subcontract a slave labour factory. So you’d need to demonstrate that you’ve got nothing to do with them. But if you don’t work with those factories, you have no stake in the factories that exploit slave labour, so you can’t let (foreign) regulators into those factories. Now, even if you manage to do that, one could just turn around and say “Well, then you must use another factory we don’t know of, prove that this isn’t the case”. You cannot prove innocence, you can only prove guilt.
deleted by creator
well, technically they don’t. Nor does any other nation technically speaking need any justification to deny US businesses from operating there (see sanctions against Russia or the US ban of Huawei). Yet that is so oversimplified that I won’t even entertain the argument and it is way besides the point I was making originally.
Yet that is so oversimplified that I won’t even entertain the argument and it is way besides the point I was making originally.
I think that went perfectly to the heart of the argument.
Have you considered not watching child pornography? It’s really easy, just stop watching it. Simple.
What are you even trying to say?
Just because someone makes a bad faith accusation doesn’t mean you have to respect it.
Didn’t Volkswagen hire an independent inspector who found no evidence of slavery labour in their supply chain?
