DRANOEL:
DEFINING A CRIME

The term “genocide” had been coined in 1944 by Raphael Lemkin, a Polish-Jewish lawyer who had fled to the United States. After the war, Lemkin and others lobbied at early sessions of the United Nations for the crime of genocide to become part of the emerging field of international law. On December 9, 1948, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the “Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide” (commonly referred to as the Genocide Convention). Building on the intellectual and legal foundation laid by the IMT in the Streicher decision, Article III (c) of the Genocide Convention declares that “direct and public incitement to commit genocide” is a crime.

Generally speaking, “incitement” means encouraging or persuading another to commit an offense by way of communication, for example by employing broadcasts, publications, drawings, images, or speeches. It is “public” under international law if it is communicated to a number of individuals in a public place or to members of a population at large by such means as the mass media. Among other things, its "public" nature distinguishes it from an act of private incitement (which could be punishable under the Genocide Convention as “complicity in genocide” or possibly not punishable at all). Incitement to genocide must also be proven to be “direct,” meaning that both the speaker and the listener understand the speech to be a call to action. Prosecutors have found it challenging to prove what “direct” may mean in different cultures, as well as its meaning to a given speaker. Moreover, public incitement to genocide can be prosecuted even if genocide is never perpetrated. Lawyers therefore classify the infraction an “inchoate crime”: a proof of result is not necessary for the crime to have been committed, only that it had the potential to spur genocidal violence. It is intent of the speaker that matters, not the effectiveness of the speech in causing criminal action. This distinction helps to make the law preventative, rather than reactive.
http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007839

[size=5pt]cc: lalasticlala, seun, ngwakwe, Ikenna351, afam4eva, OAM4J, maclatunji, ishilove - Nigerians need to know the implications of the first lady's comments[/size]

Inflammatory speech often precedes mass atrocities, especially genocide. As such, it is part of the social process that makes genocide possible, as demonstrated by Radio RTLM in the Rwanda genocide. Since then, courts have acknowledged the link between speech and genocide by trying the world’s first incitement to genocide cases.

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/4093416?sid=21105599628431&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3738720&uid=70&uid=2129
http://www.un.org/en/preventgenocide/adviser/projects.shtml

"PEJ requested supporters to stone opponents in Calabar"


Also, Genocide watch has listed the 8 stages of genocide, they state as follows;

Genocide is a process that develops in eight stages that are predictable but not inexorable. At each stage, preventive measures can stop it. The process is not linear. Logically, later stages must be preceded by earlier stages. But all stages continue to operate throughout the process.

the eight stages are: Classification, Symbolization, Dehumanization, Organization, Polarization, Preparation, Extermination & Denial

CLASSIFICATION: All cultures have categories to distinguish people into “us and them” by ethnicity, race, religion, or nationality: German and Jew, Hutu and Tutsi
http://www.genocidewatch.org/aboutgenocide/8stagesofgenocide.html

Patience Jonathan made this statement;

“Our people no dey born shildren wey dem no dey fit count. Our men no dey born shildren throway for street. We no dey like the people for that side"


2015 or no 2015, this woman must be made to face justice.

Nonsense plus Ingredients.

'Dogs and baboons will be soaked with blood"
~Buhari

does that fall under the category of like speeches?

Patiencesss grammar

The same fate the befell the wife of the ex-president of Ivory Coast is about to happen to the illiterate PGEJ.

chukwudi44:
'Dogs and baboons will be soaked with blood"
~Buhari

does that fall under the category of like speeches?

no sir, it doesn't. who is being hated on? the dogs or the baboons?



cc: lalasticlala, seun, ngwakwe, Ikenna351, afam4eva, OAM4J, maclatunji, ishilove - Nigerians need to know the implications of the first lady's comments

Nawao, in the land of the blind a blind plus deaf and dumb person has become the leader. Irony

Madam SHEPOPOTEMUS is at it again.

Abeg SAI Buhari !!

DEFINING A CRIME

The term “genocide” had been coined in 1944 by Raphael Lemkin, a Polish-Jewish lawyer who had fled to the United States. After the war, Lemkin and others lobbied at early sessions of the United Nations for the crime of genocide to become part of the emerging field of international law. On December 9, 1948, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the “Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide” (commonly referred to as the Genocide Convention). Building on the intellectual and legal foundation laid by the IMT in the Streicher decision, Article III (c) of the Genocide Convention declares that “direct and public incitement to commit genocide” is a crime.

Generally speaking, “incitement” means encouraging or persuading another to commit an offense by way of communication, for example by employing broadcasts, publications, drawings, images, or speeches. It is “public” under international law if it is communicated to a number of individuals in a public place or to members of a population at large by such means as the mass media. Among other things, its "public" nature distinguishes it from an act of private incitement (which could be punishable under the Genocide Convention as “complicity in genocide” or possibly not punishable at all). Incitement to genocide must also be proven to be “direct,” meaning that both the speaker and the listener understand the speech to be a call to action. Prosecutors have found it challenging to prove what “direct” may mean in different cultures, as well as its meaning to a given speaker. Moreover, public incitement to genocide can be prosecuted even if genocide is never perpetrated. Lawyers therefore classify the infraction an “inchoate crime”: a proof of result is not necessary for the crime to have been committed, only that it had the potential to spur genocidal violence. It is intent of the speaker that matters, not the effectiveness of the speech in causing criminal action. This distinction helps to make the law preventative, rather than reactive.
http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007839

[size=5pt]cc: lalasticlala, seun, ngwakwe, Ikenna351, afam4eva, OAM4J, maclatunji, ishilove - Nigerians need to know the implications of the first lady's comments[/size]

Have you noticed that Patience Jonathan has become well-behaved ever since the APC threatened to take her to the ICC and the wife of Gbagbo sentenced? No sooner did these happened than she said she hated violence.

OrlandoOwoh:
Have you noticed that Patience Jonathan has become well-behaved ever since the APC threatened to take her to the ICC and the wife of Gbagbo sentenced?

They now know the implications of her statements, notice also the statement released by her press office was careful not to talk about the issues. They are silently wishing that the whole episode is quietly forgotten and swept under the carpet. Nigerians should remember that the first lady made the below statement;

“Our people no dey born shildren wey dem no dey fit count. Our men no dey born shildren throway for street. We no dey like the people for that side"

which Genocide Watch regards as 'CLASSIFICATION' which is one of the the steps that lead to genocide.

PEJ went ahead and asked supporters in public (which was carried on youtube, Nigerian newspapers etc) to stone the opposition shouting change which is classified as hate speech/incitement to genocide

OrlandoOwoh:
Have you noticed that Patience Jonathan has become well-behaved ever since the APC threatened to take her to the ICC and the wife of Gbagbo sentenced? No sooner did these happened than she said she hated violence.

Lmao mamma no wan Rotten for jail... it all boils down to the fact that she's not educated and not well guarded hence her reasons for making such utterances.

She wants d best for her husband, and that's how best She can go about it

here is a link to an opinion by Odimegwu Onwumere on why hate speech should scare us. published by daily trust 29/1/2015

http://dailytrust.com.ng/daily/opinion/45589-why-hate-speech-should-scare-us

Simone Gbagbo who never sought to deny exercising political influence after her husband rose to power in 2000 elections in which former prime minister Ouattara was barred from standing on the grounds he was a foreigner was sentenced earlier in the week for charges similar to what PEJ is doing, She had also exhibited similar character with that of Mrs Jonathan, below is what she said in 2001;

"All the ministers respect me, and they often consider me above them. I've got what it takes to be a minister," she told the French newsweekly l'Express in 2001, justifying her stance after a life she said had been dedicated to activism.

"I engaged in political struggle against the former regime alongside men. I spent six months in prison, I was beaten, molested, left for dead. After all those trials, it's logical that people don't mess with me."


I only hope mama peace is taking notes

Iyalasisi:
Lmao mamma no wan Rotten for jail... it all boils down to the fact that she's not educated and not well guarded hence her reasons for making such utterances.

She wants d best for her husband, and that's how best She can go about it

Are you saying if she was educated her speech would be much guarded or that she would not incite mob action?

OP, the most inciting and implicating of her speeches is not here:

if anybody tell you change, stone them.


Fayose's advert, in my opinion also qualifies for act of provoking genocide.

PassingShot:
OP, the most inciting and implicating of her speeches is not here:

if anybody tell you change, stone them.


Fayose's advert, in my opinion also qualifies for act of provoking genocide.

read the OP again, it is there