Select a claim to open a listing of publications making this claim and an elaboration of this claim
alleged inhumane actsThis claim alleges inhumane acts that intentionally causing great suffering or serious injury to mental or physical health. For such a claim to be verified, medical records from before and after the alleged act are required, as well as some witness to the act.Those reporting and testifying to these acts rarely have the medical expertise necessary to give a valid determination.
arbitrary arrestThis claim alleges an arrest or detention of an individual in a case in which there is no likelihood or evidence that they committed a crime against legal statute, or in which there has been no proper due process of law or order. Thus, to determine whether this has taken place, sufficient knowledge, understanding and insight into these processes, as well as the context in which they occurred is required. Those making such claims rarely have the expertise to make such a claim.
confiscation of passportsThis claim alleges that passports are confiscated for specious reasons and are used to prevent travel or movement by the victim. This claim requires extensive contextualisation, including knowledge of any breaches of local or national regulation in regard to movement.
cultural erasureThis claim alleges that vital elements of cultural practice are prevented or significant cultural artifacts, such as dress, buildings, or monuments, are removed, desecrated, or destroyed. For this claim to be properly understood, the motive for the `erasure` must be understood. This may be attention to safety, or the possibility that the practice breaches legal regulations.
cultural indoctrinationThis claim alleges that measures are taken by a dominant culture to overwhelm a minority culture with education, ritual, or processes that might render the minority culture ineffectual or insignificant. This claim requires an understanding of the acceptance of the dominant culture by the minority.
debt trap diplomacyThis claim suggests that extending credit to another country that is unlikely to be able to repay, thus creating an obligation for the recipient country to favor the country giving credit in geopolitical issues. China is often accused of “debt-trap diplomacy” – strategically ensnaring recipient countries with loans they can`t repay. This is said to increase Chinese leverage, and when recipients default, China can seize strategic assets. Although China`s “debt-trap diplomacy” is a myth that has been thoroughly debunked, world figures continue to use the phrase as a pejorative.
enforced disappearanceThis claim alleges the enforced disappearance of people, possibly imprisoned, detained or deported, or compelled to remain out of the public eye. This claim suffers from a logical contradiction - namely, that if someone disappears, to then know where they are, how they are being treated or whether their disappearance is voluntary is necessarily conjecture and thus already discredited. Those who claim that someone has been `disappeared` almost certainly cannot possibly or practically know that.
engaging in militarismThis claim refers to the build-up of military power or a military arsenal beyond what might be recognized as necessary for defense. It also refers to taking a military posture, rather than a diplomatic posture, in geopolitical issues. Most people making this claim do not have the necessary knowledge or expertise to ascertain military threat or properly analyse the power of military assets.
expansionist intentions in TaiwanThis claim asserts that China has made a territorial claim over a country that has a separate identity, constitution, or governmental system. This claim is complicated by the fact that Taiwan does not assert such a claim and that the nationalist government is a "foreign" government that has been forced on indigenous peoples. It also suffers from the complication of Taiwan as subject to extensive foreign interference from the USA.
family separationThis claim asserts that children and parents have been forcibly separated for political reasons. In any situation where the state removes children from families, details of reasons for the removal are paramount but often subject to privacy conditions. Thus, most claimants rely simply on the testimony of one party, who may be actively involved in abuse or subjugation of the child or elder. Most claimants also lack expertise in the management of family situations and are poorly equipped to give an objective assessment.