BrikoX

The strategy should be to say until the last second you won't vote for her and put maximum pressure to stop a US-backed genocide, but in the end you should close your eyes and extremely reluctantly vote for her. Yes, she will continue supporting a genocide, but she will at least let in the aid that might allow some people to survive. Alternative is more deaths.

You can ask for the judge to recuse, but they can just say no. And then you have to appeal which can take years.

United States of America.

https://www.stimson.org/2022/semiconductors-and-taiwans-silicon-shield/

60% of all China's chips are made by TSMC. It's very well known...

EDIT: To clarify, by well known I meant in Taiwan/China, not that it should be well known to regular people.

I love how you quoted all the parts expect the one that mentions where for this to even apply the person have to misuse corporate assets in the first place. Follow the law, and you are good in the EU, no matter which size business you are.

If Elon Musk’s rights as a company owner can be violated, who says yours can’t?

Here you go again. If they decide to go through with it, no Musk rights will be violated, there is extensive legal precedent in the EU that covers this.

To clarify, in 2016 they adapted definition, but it was still non-binding.

This year, they are trying to make it official and binding. So far it passed the House, but still needs to pass the Senate and be signed by the president.

US House passes controversial bill that expands definition of anti-Semitism

I based my wording on Human Rights Watch report and in context of the article.

The specific crimes against humanity might not constitute genocide if brought to ICJ as UN report stopped short of calling it genocide.

It can't be irrelevant as it's the primary factor in deciding if the fine will even be brought. But ignoring that, there are clear limits. This would only apply to cases where corporate assets were used as personal ones. Hence, the limitation to private companies that have sole owners.

And you talk like this is some novel never heard of approach. Personal liability applies to many actions under the law, just corporations managed to lobby it down for themselves. And your scaremongering of small family business becoming some governments targets are unfounded.

This is why it makes sense for specifically private companies that are solo owned. It's not uncommon that resources get shifted from one to the other as they are often treated as personal not corporate assets.

USA has been stepping up their enforcement the last few years, but they got their hands tied after Supreme Court overturned Chevron. So you're probably right.

Of course they backtracked. Imagine the hypocrisy of condemning China when they happily finance Israel doing genocide on even bigger scale.