Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by sarchertech 106 days ago
No it was actually released hours before her term ended not after. And the reason she held off releasing until the last minute is because of pressure from China to refrain from releasing it.

In addition to releasing the report she released a 131 page Chinese rebuttal simultaneously. Not the actions one would expect of a shadowy group at the UN out to get China.
1 comments
xanthor 106 days ago
No it was released Sept 1 Geneva time, and her term ended Aug 31.
link
sarchertech 106 days ago
“Bachelet’s damning report was published with only 11 minutes to go before her term came to an end at midnight Geneva time. Publication was delayed by the eleventh-hour delivery of an official Chinese response that contained names and pictures of individuals that had to be blacked out by the UN commissioner’s office for privacy and safety reasons.”

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/aug/31/china-uyghur-m...

The organization’s human rights office delivered its much-delayed report minutes before Michelle Bachelet, the U.N. high commissioner for human rights, was to leave office.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/31/world/asia/un-china-xinji...

link
xanthor 106 days ago
I agree it was reported this way, but do we have evidence it was actually prepared and published by her at that time? The report conspicuously does not mention the viewpoint and concerns of the High Commissioner as other OHCHR reports do nor does it reference Bachelet's findings from her May 2021 visit to Xinjiang.
link
sarchertech 106 days ago
So you don't have any evidence it was published the next day? You just made that up out of whole cloth?

The internet archive lists the first time they archived the document as August 31 22:23 GMT, which was August 31 23:23 in Geneva. That matches the reporting from NYT and Guardian from the next morning. Both of those reports are also available on the internet archive.

https://web.archive.org/web/20220701000000*/https://www.ohch...

link
xanthor 105 days ago
Geneva was in UTC+2 (CEST) on August 31. So will you admit I am correct and you got sanctimonious for no reason?
link
sarchertech 105 days ago
Yep missed that. The internet archive did indeed fist scrape that document 23 minutes after midnight Geneva time.

However it is unlikely that the internet archive web scraper would have picked up a relatively obscure document within 23 minutes of its release.

The NYT and Gaurdian articles published that morning (verified by the internet archive) said that the article was published 11 minutes before midnight Geneva time. That lines up with the internet archive scraping it about 30 minutes later.

So unless they were both wrong or in on it, it was released before midnight Geneva time.

What evidence do you have to support that the UN was lying, and that the NYT and the Guardian were wrong about the time?

link
glenstein 105 days ago
I also would like to know where the confusion came from the publication date. What is that based on?
link
xanthor 105 days ago
The fact that Geneva was in UTC+2 (CEST) at the time the report was published. So what I said was correct.
link
sarchertech 105 days ago
So your evidence is that the internet archive didn’t scrape the document until 23 minutes after midnight? And the most likely explanation isn’t that it took the IA scraper a few minutes to pick it up? The most likely explanation is that the NYT and the Guardian were wrong or lying and that the UN was lying?

Did you even know about the time on the internet archive before I brought it up? You said “within hours” so I assume you didn’t? Where did you hear that it as published on September 1st?

link