Comments are moderated on this blog. While I have a strong inclination against suppressing discussion or deleting contributions, I want to be certain that discussion is relevant and substantive (or at least amusing).
Just like in the non-electronic world, people are welcome to agree or disagree with me as they wish. That is not a standard for approving or rejecting a comment. But whichever one of these a commenter is doing, I will be especially happy to see:
- Comments that contribute something to the discussion and move it forward.
- Pointers to new and additional information on the topic being discussed (but please no cut and paste of large blocks of text, links will do the job).
- Wonderful displays of rhetorical style, brilliance or humour.
There are also some types of comments that will simply be deleted if they are submitted. These will be comments that include:
- Attacks against any person or group.
- Vulgarity or obscenity beyond the level found in an ordinary drinking establishment.
- Repetitive, redundant or off-topic arguments, especially if they give inaccurate information or detract from discussion.
- Comments that state a political position without argument, humour or style.
- Posting of material to which a commenter does not have author’s rights.
- Advertising, spam, or irrelevant comments.
I will not enter into debates with commenters about why comments were or were not approved. In the final instance this is my private site, which I operate as a hobby — I spend no money on it, make no money from it, and do it because it amuses me. If anybody finds that their comments are rejected consistently, they might draw a reasonable conclusion and comment somewhere else instead or start up their own site.
8 replies on “Comments policy”
Ha, I can make a comment here although I’ve never been able to make a comment on any of the posts!
Courtroom 1 link gives me “Error loading player: No playable sources found” at the same time as Al-Jazeera Eng News shows the live feed. Any ideas?
All the best
Haha, good trick Owen, don’t tell anybody! I think the thing with the ICTY feed is just to keep reloading.
Thanks – we’ll get there!
“!Speaking about the count accusing Mladic of genocide in six Bosnian municipalities in 1992, Orie said that according to the judges, some perpetrators in the six municipalities had a plan to destroy Bosniaks, but the chamber found that the targeted group represented a relatively small number of the group of the total number of Bosniaks” (from BI live blog). “Relatively small”? Sabotages the basic principle underlying the Convention, to stop the process of genocide before it proceeds to completion. Vile.
This was the finding that surprised me most. I think it is a new point from the judges.
I look forward to your comments when the judgment is published and you’ve had time to read it. Meanwhile it’s hard to get to grips with the idea that the ICTY was unable to see Srebrenica as the visible tip of a wider genocide in at least the area of Republika Srpska. We may be “still in early days of jurisprudence on genocide” but the next genocide, Rakhine isn’t waiting on the jurisprudence. This and the Karadzic municipalities verdict should force a review conference on the Convention and its implementation as a minimum to establish some form of guideline. Perhaps a starting point.would be something along the lines of a monitoring agency, threat identification, protective/preventive measures including declaration of UN safe areas, followed by triggering of UN responsibility as soon as the safe area demarcation line is violated (per Hasan Nuhanovic suggestion).
[No comments even on new posts so please excuse me if I carry on here.]
“I am not fond of the concept [of having genocide as a legal category] as it recapitulates the bigots’ habit of reducing people to their ascribed ethnic identities”
I was under the impression that the concept was a way of preventing and punishing the bigots’ habit of reducing people to their ascribed ethnic corpses.
It’s a question worth discussing. But maybe it is more interesting to take a look at Philippe Sands, East West Street. He gives parallel biographies of Hersch Lauterpacht and Raphael Lemkin and uses it to trace the (indirect) debate between them over whether to use genocide or CaH at the end of WW2. I am not sure that I agree with all of the conclusions he offers, but it is interesting reading all the same.