Why is it so difficult to discuss genocide?

Irish Examiner

a day ago

Genocide. It's a difficult word. It's a triggering word. Even a dangerous word. One that is used frivolously and vexaciously in equal measure. It is a loaded word. Sometimes loaded with moral indignation and sanctimonious tartuffery.
But it is a word that should be handled with great care and respect. Because it is a legal word. It carries legal weight and meaning with precise terms and conditions attached. To use it otherwise, is to do a great disservice to those who have suffered or are suffering from the hands of genocide and also to those who have fought to have it accepted into modern international legal practice.
The International Criminal Court (ICC) as we know it today, first established by international agreement under the Rome Statute of 1998, holds the legal jurisdiction over genocide, amongst other international crimes.
The statute mirrors many other international agreements and codes of practice which have established binding principles between countries, such as the Geneva Convention 1949, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948 and the European Convention on Human Rights 1950. There are others.
They address the most serious crimes of international concern that affects the human race, complementing national laws. However, they are founded on the same single principle of what it means to be human.
Workers collect human remains after an Israeli strike on a home in Khan Younis killed nine of a doctor's 10 children while she was at work in Khan Younis, Gaza Strip, last month. Photo: Gaza Civil Defense via AP
As fellow citizens of our planet, we, the homo sapiens have decided collectively what we will not allow or should not allow to happen to our fellows. For one reason only — that we are human.
Unfortunately, these laws and code are only 'agreements' between parties, often tenuous and delicate depending on the government of the day in each country. They lack any real or meaningful power to uphold a decision by the ICC or equivalent, outside of the national laws. Compliance is key.
Additionally, countries signed to such agreements, though not under investigation, must also comply with the directions of the ICC within the appropriate jurisdiction. However, countries do not have to agree to be governed by this or any other statute and, may depart from it ad hoc, as seen recently by Hungary.
Proof of intention
Articles 6, 7 and 8 of the Rome Statute govern the crimes of genocide, crimes against Humanity and the Laws of War respectively. Like many serious crimes, there is a separation between the act itself (actus reus) and the intention or guilty mind behind the act (mens rea).
The Actus Reus is usually self-evident with much overlap between the individual Articles. Reasonable doubt about what happened is not often at issue. For criminal acts governed by Articles 7 and 8, the proof that they occurred is enough, subject to certain conditions.
However, acts within the meaning of genocide require further proof of intent. Article 6 states: 'acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group'. Motivation is irrelevant, as there is no justification for such intent.
Once the act is proved, there follows the onus to prove intention or the purpose behind the atrocity. This is the most challenging part. Aggressors will attempt to justify the act, but as stated, there is no acceptable justification for such intent.
Propaganda
Instead, we typically see a greying or obfuscation of the facts and a blurring of the lines around truth. This is propaganda. Propaganda drives war and conflict, because it falsely justifies its continuation.
So important is propaganda for the survival of a war effort, that any attempt to counter it, is typically met with aggression and labelling often with threatening overtures. This in turn silences people. Silenced out of fear. Fear and silence in turn sustain the propaganda, perpetuating it, akin to a self-fulfilling prophecy. Thus, a 'new truth' evolves.
Well-intentioned people are too often afraid to use the word 'genocide' with all its implications, out of fear of an aggressive backlash. They are likely to be labelled as 'against' the higher moral cause as professed by the propaganda machine.
The war supporters will attempt to justify their acts, supported by institutions of power. Because it serves a cause, separate to, but requiring the genocide for completion. People and countries are fearful of being labelled as 'against' the aggressor's cause which in turn automatically associates them 'with' or at least 'sympathetic' towards an 'enemy'.
It is simplified as a binary, albeit delinquent philosophy of 'either with us or against us'.
Silence
Reasonable people want to speak out in support of the truth. In support of humanity. Remaining silent, or silenced, is often easier, less risky and a path of lowest resistance, than to be labelled as something which they are not. Derogatory 'labels' often carry associations of enormous historical proportions.
Governments too, often remain silent than to risk international condemnation. Thus, our collective conscience is silenced. Silenced by defamatory name-calling.
But, this is of no concern to the perpetrators of the genocidal acts. Silence is the goal. Silence comes from fear, and fear is powerful. The same weaponisation of fear is seen throughout all crimes and taboos. Domestic violence, child abuse, institutional abuse, gang violence.
Morgan McMonagle: 'As fellow citizens of our planet, we, the homo sapiens have decided collectively what we will not allow or should not allow to happen to our fellows. For one reason only — that we are human.'. Picture: Denis Minihane
Silence is the weapon. If propaganda drives it, then fear and silence sustains it. Nourishes it. And truth is suppressed. Silence prevents advocacy. Advocacy for the facts and the truth. It stops us from upholding the values of what being human really means. Its values. Its morals.
This in turn dehumanises a group of people and, subconsciously, our own moral compass too. Both the victims and the perpetrators are dehumanised, while we, the onlookers turn a blind eye and remain silent.
As humanitarians, we carry the responsibility to advocate. We advocate for nothing but the truth. Real and meaningful advocacy is not about blame. It is about utilising our responsibility to speak out for the truth, regardless of the purpose or motivation of any other party in an armed conflict.
Truth advocacy is the antidote to the fear and the silence. To deny truth is to deny justice. And to deny justice is to deny what it really means to be human.
Morgan McMonagle is a trauma, vascular and humanitarian surgeon at University Hospital Waterford, Ireland and St Mary's Hospital & Imperial Healthcare London. He is fellowship trained in trauma surgery from the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA and recently gave the prestigious George H. Clowes, Jr Trauma Lecture and Visiting Professorship at Boston University and Boston Medical Centre in May 2025, where he lectured on the ongoing issues surrounding current world conflicts.
He has been on several humanitarian missions to conflict zones, including Ukraine, Lebanon and most recently Gaza, when the recent ceasefire was breached and Nasser Hospital targeted by a missile strike.
He continues to advocate for the truth during war and conflict. He is also a law graduate from the Honourable Society of King's Inns, Dublin.
Read More
Famine in Gaza is hardening rhetoric in Israel