When we heard the news of Kofi Annan\u2019s statement we cringed. This was not the music to our ears that one might imagine. Oh, make no mistake, this was genocide we were witnessing. So who was smiling at the use of this word? The orchestrators of the genocide were. Yes, you read that right. We were there because international pressure had been growing to allow humanitarians into the region. We were still being blocked or delayed at every turn and our movements were closely monitored and controlled but we were there. Even in those circumstances, the limited evidence we could report on was causing that international pressure to grow. Now, the orchestrators at the highest level of government would have a reprieve from that pressure and be able to restrict our access even more. Why you ask? Because Sudan could now redirect world focus from the atrocities on the ground to arguments over the definition of a word: genocide.<\/p>\n
Don\u2019t take me wrong, we greatly admired Kofi Annan for stating the difficult truth. But we also knew that history was bound to repeat itself. Sudan and other totalitarian states would succeed in drawing the world into arguments over the use of the word genocide and those arguments would shift much of the focus and allow for the continuation and even escalation of the atrocities in the Darfurs.<\/p>\n
How could this possibly compare to \u201cThe Holocaust\u201d or the \u201cRwandan Genocide\u201d? The world had said never again so surely it couldn\u2019t be happening again. But wait, no one believed what was happening during The Holocaust or when General Romeo Dallaire desperately tried to get the world to pay attention to the Rwandan Genocide either.<\/p>\n
I can remember saying that the only one\u2019s who seem to learn from previous genocides are the perpetrators. The perpetrators in Sudan had learned plenty from watching others. We often called the Darfur crisis a genocide in slow motion. They did not kill everyone. Rather, they \u201csaved\u201d (enslaved) many of the women. Women who became work slaves, sex slaves; women who were raped and impregnated as the perpetrators gradually changed the face of and slowly erased the tribes of these women.<\/p>\n
Today, years later, there are very few who would disagree with Kofi Annan\u2019s use of the word genocide in those early days.<\/p>\n
So, do all genocides look alike? No. Do I believe the use of the term genocide in the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls (MMIWG) Final Report is the proper use of the word? Yes.<\/p>\n
Historical events should never be compared in order to validate whether or not something falls under the definition of genocide. The use of the word genocide by the Commission does not in any way diminish other historical events that have been deemed genocides.<\/p>\n
The term genocide was first coined in 1944 and was categorized as an independent crime in the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in 1948. Canada became a signatory in 1949. The definition is broad and includes terms like \u201cin whole or in part\u201d and the convention explains that \u201cGenocide can also be committed against only a part of the group, as long as that part is identifiable and \u201csubstantial\u201d\u201d. In 2000, Canada passed its Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act which broadened the definition of genocide beyond acts of commission to include acts of omission.<\/p>\n
Genocide can be slow moving; it can happen over centuries and need not be led by a single \u201ctotalitarian mastermind\u201d (term used in the MMIWG report). Arguing over the use of the word genocide will always detract from the imperative of focus on the real issues.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
There have been times when I have read the word \u201cgenocide\u201d in an article and wondered if the author had used it to catch our attention and\/or sensationalize a situation. Had they taken the time to research the use of the word and ensure its applicability? Sadly, that type of use can serve to undermine our empathy for what might actually be a serious situation.<\/p>\n
The Commissioners who conducted the Inquiry into MMIWG are highly qualified individuals who took the time to gather and review stories and evidence related to their inquiry. I do not doubt that the esteemed members of the commission debated long and hard over the use of the word genocide. They did not just toss it into the report to catch attention. They used it with full understanding of the definition, the applicability and the risk of using it in the report.<\/p>\n
I am a proud Canadian. In part because the Commission and our government have not shied away from using the appropriate language to describe what has happened and is happening in our country.<\/p>\n
On June 9, 2019, I read Hugh Mackenzie\u2019s article Listen Up! If there is such a thing as a dirty word, genocide tops the list<\/a><\/span><\/em>. In referring to our Prime Minister accepting the use of the word genocide in the Commission\u2019s report on the Inquiry into the MMIWG, Hugh Mackenzie stated, \u201c\u2026 it congers [sic] up visions of the Holocaust in Nazi Germany, the ethnic cleansing that is currently taking place in Rwanda and the mass killings of Muslims in Bosnia.\u201d He goes on to say that the Prime Minister is not speaking for him or, as he believes, the vast majority of Canadians.<\/p>\n
In his article, Mackenzie seems to fixate on the consequences of the \u201cadmission\u201d of genocide and focuses on those consequences over the consequences of the actual acts that led an educated body to research, debate and ultimately use the word genocide.<\/p>\n
Mackenzie wrote, \u201cOur reputation world-wide will be sullied…\u201d Seriously? Our global reputation was far less than stellar only a few years ago. The current global reputation of our country is now second only to that of New Zealand.<\/p>\n
Let me respond to a few of statements in Mackenzie\u2019s column:<\/p>\n
\n
- The Rwandan genocide or genocide against the Tutsi took place between 7 April and 15 July 1994. Through acknowledging the genocide and taking action to move forward, 25 years later, Rwanda is emerging as a model for truth and reconciliation.<\/li>\n
- Perhaps we all like to think that our views represent the \u201cvast majority of Canadians\u201d but whether we agree or not, our Prime Minister speaks on behalf of Canada. It just so happens, that on this occasion, I think he is spot on.<\/li>\n
- As for the reputation of our country being sullied by the use of the word genocide; bollocks. There are many countries that have denied what has happened within their borders. Their reputations are and deserve to be sullied on the international stage. Countries who acknowledge what has or is taking place within their borders and move forward with respect and informed actions to change the situation, ultimately shine brighter.<\/li>\n
- Genocide is a complicated concept and is not defined by The Holocaust, the genocide in Rwanda or any other historical event previously described as a genocide. Rather these events fall under the much broader definition of genocide.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
I implore all of us to stop focusing on a single descriptor and begin to recognize and accept the reasons that the Commission found it appropriate and even necessary to use the word genocide to define the gravity of what has and is happening in our country. Now is the time to focus on the Commission\u2019s findings, recommendations and our own path to truth and reconciliation.<\/p>\n
Don\u2019t miss out on Doppler! Sign up for our free newsletter <\/strong>here<\/strong><\/a>.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n
<\/broadstreet-zone><\/strong><\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/media-doppleronline-ca.s3-accelerate.amazonaws.com\/2017\/07\/Nancy-Osborne.jpg\")
Nancy Osborne has seen some terrible things throughout her military career and during her time with the United Nations as a security specialist. Serving in the Security Branch of the Canadian military, Osborne enlisted as a Private and retired as a Major 21 years later. She was honoured with a CD (the post-nominal letters for the Canadian Forces Decoration) and is recipient of the Commemorative Medal for the 125th Anniversary of Canadian Confederation in recognition of a significant contribution to Canada as well as a Commander\u2019s Commendation. Following retirement, Nancy was recruited in 2002 by the United Nations as one of the first women ever deployed as a security risk adviser in the support of UN humanitarian operations in high threat environments. In 2010, Nancy was appointed as a security manager at UNICEF Headquarters in New York. From there she managed global emergencies affecting UNICEF staff and provided extended surge support in places like Afghanistan, Pakistan, Haiti and South Sudan. When Nancy retired she thought that it would be a shame not to use all of that training so she launched a not-for-profit called