A UN committee has urged Peru to compensate women who were forcibly sterilised in the 1990s, ruling that the state policy could constitute a “crime against humanity”.
Forced sterilisation was part of a programme implemented by Peru’s then president Alberto Fujimori during the final four years before he left office in 2000 after a decade in power.
The United Nations committee on the elimination of discrimination against women said hundreds of thousands of people had been affected. The 23-member committee issued its finding after reviewing a joint complaint filed by five victims who were forcibly sterilised between 1996 and 1997. “The victims claimed that the forced sterilisations they underwent had severe and permanent consequences for their physical and mental health,” it said in a statement.
The experts denounced Peru’s failure to properly investigate the violations and compensate the victims, urging the country to put in place a “comprehensive reparation programme for victims”.
No wonder conservatives hate the UN so much. They keep calling out conservative atrocities.
Just a reminder that the US Supreme Court case Buck v. Bell, where it was determined that forcibly sterilizing women is not unconstitutional, has never been overturned.
Force sterilise everyone and there won’t be more humans to experience pain.
Solve all of humanity’s problems with this one simple trick
I support incentivized temporary sterilization for men and women, and forcible permanent sterilization of men and women in certain circumstances (e.g. a man rapes and impregnates a child).
I support [crimes against humanity]
How very fascist of you. I’m sure it’s just a happy little coincidence to you that forced sterilization in the West has overwhelmingly been targeted at queer and PoC communities.
We have forced sterilization? Why do you assume I want to sterilize queer and PoC communities? Nothing in my comment said that. That’s a huge leap.
No it’s not. That’s where it always leads, and you know it. You just want some shred of what you think is plausible deniability
I can understand having trauma related to the topic, but this is not a productive way to communicate with people. You don’t know anything about me.
I can understand having trauma related to the topic
What are you even talking about? Was this meant to be some kind of clever retort suggesting that I’d been forcibly sterilized, and that’s why I’m commenting on it?
Such a self-report, and you don’t even realize it. You cannot even comprehend someone giving a shit in the way that I did, unless the thing specifically happened to me.
Great way to tell everyone that you don’t understand empathy without actually saying it.
I know that you’re in favor of forced sterilizations. I know enough.
You’re too conservative. Sound like a boomer.
Forcibly sterilising a person with sexual urges for children does not remove the urges. Just the means to fulfill those urges. And could lead to worse actions.
Yeah, I was about to say, are we trying to create child killers or something? Like, is that the goal?
That’s a huge leap. Because they can’t impregnate a child they’d be more likely to kill them?
Fulfill the urges to impregnate a child? What about the baby? If we’re concerned about repeat offending then just kill them. Rehabilitation of pedophilic rapists is mostly unsuccessful.
That sounds like a bad idea. Who gets to decide the “special circumstances”? It’s a slippery slope towards eugenics.
Everybody always says eugenics and can’t fathom an in between. That’s like saying socialism is a slippery slope to communism.
Media Bias/Fact Check - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for Media Bias/Fact Check:
Wiki: unreliable - There is consensus that Media Bias/Fact Check is generally unreliable, as it is self-published. Editors have questioned the methodology of the site’s ratings.
MBFC: Least Biased - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: Very High - United States of America
The Guardian - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for The Guardian:
Wiki: reliable - There is consensus that The Guardian is generally reliable. The Guardian’s op-eds should be handled with WP:RSOPINION. Some editors believe The Guardian is biased or opinionated for politics. See also: The Guardian blogs.
Wiki: mixed - Most editors say that The Guardian blogs should be treated as newspaper blogs or opinion pieces due to reduced editorial oversight. Check the bottom of the article for a “blogposts” tag to determine whether the page is a blog post or a non-blog article. See also: The Guardian.
MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: Medium - Factual Reporting: Mixed - United Kingdom
