> To overuse the word "concentration camp" is to disrespect the tragic dead of World War II.
What? No. Not at all.
The exploitation and killing of prisoners in concentration camps predates WW2, and the use of "concentration camps" to describe those camps is fully appropriate. From the killing of the Boers by the British, to the genocide of Armenians by the Turks, to the killing of undesired by the Germans, to the forced internment, "re-education" and sterilization of Uyghurs by the Chinese.
you are right. But what I mean is that there is no need to make exaggerated reports, but it should be discussed from the perspective of the Chinese government's serious violations of laws and human rights, even if the Chinese government will argue that "this is my internal affairs." Exaggerated reporting is a barbaric and dishonest act that does nothing to solve the problem and prevents the public from understanding the true context of the matter.
There are no real receivable counter-arguments to the fact that forced-sterilization of a population group fully qualifies as "genocide", and, as such, warrants to be widely and thoroughly reported, with all the gravity an alarm necessary for such a serious matter.
We can go even further by adding that in such blatant violations of human rights, requiring a "balanced" reporting considering "the other side's" views is not much more than an attempt at diluting the seriousness of the situation to distract away from the facts. But then again, in the light of current conflicts in some parts of the world, it seems to be a favored approach.
What? No. Not at all.
The exploitation and killing of prisoners in concentration camps predates WW2, and the use of "concentration camps" to describe those camps is fully appropriate. From the killing of the Boers by the British, to the genocide of Armenians by the Turks, to the killing of undesired by the Germans, to the forced internment, "re-education" and sterilization of Uyghurs by the Chinese.