Editing Stolen Generations (section)

==Historical debate==
{{main|Australian history wars}}
 {{Far-right politics in Australia}}
===Use of the word "stolen"===
The word "stolen" is used here to refer to the Aboriginal children having been taken away from their families. It has been in use for this since the early 20th century. For instance, [[Patrick McGarry]], a member of the [[Parliament of New South Wales]], objected to the ''Aborigines Protection Amending Act 1915'' which authorised the Aborigines' Protection Board to remove Aboriginal children from their parents without having to establish cause. McGarry described the policy as "steal[ing] the child away from its parents".<ref name=humanrights1>{{cite web |url=http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/IndigLRes/stolen/stolen09.html |title=Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission: Bringing them Home: Part 2: 3 New South Wales and the ACT |via=AustLII |date=1997 |access-date=25 November 2016}}</ref>

In 1924,<ref>The Haebich interview gives the year as 1923, but see Foster, Robert. "'endless trouble and agitation': Aboriginal agitation in the protectionist era," ''Journal of the Historical Society of South Australia,'' 2000;28:15–27.</ref> the ''Adelaide'' ''Sun'' wrote: "The word 'stole' may sound a bit far-fetched but by the time we have told the story of the heart-broken Aboriginal mother we are sure the word will not be considered out of place."<ref>[http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/ockhamsrazor/the-stolen-generation/3503616 Interview with Dr Anna Haebich, "The Stolen Generation," ''Ockham's Razor'', ABC Radio National, broadcast Sunday 6 January 2002. Retrieved 10 August 2012]. Haebich is author of ''Broken Circles, Fragmenting Indigenous Families 1800–2000'', Fremantle: Fremantle Arts Centre Press {{ISBN|1-86368-305-4}}.</ref><ref name="Foster">{{cite web |last=Foster |first=Robert |url=http://www.kooriweb.org/foley/resources/pdfs/34.pdf |title='endless trouble and agitation': Aboriginal activism in the protectionist era |work=Journal of the Historical Society of South Australia |volume=28 |pages=15–27 |year=2000 |access-date=25 November 2016}} refers to the clipping on this case as Endnote 81: ''The Sun'', 16 April 1924; ''Register'' 9 April 1924; ''Sport's Newsclipping Books'' GRG 52/90 SRSA (State Records of South Australia)</ref>

In most jurisdictions, Indigenous Australians were put under the authority of a Protector, effectively being made wards of the State.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.aboriginaleducation.sa.edu.au/files/links/Timeline_of_legislation_af.pdf |title=Timeline of Legislation Affecting Aboriginal People |publisher=Government of South Australia, Aboriginal Education and Employment Services |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20040225034132/http://www.aboriginaleducation.sa.edu.au/files/links/Timeline_of_legislation_af.pdf |archive-date=25 February 2004}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.foundingdocs.gov.au/item.asp?dID=86 |title=Documenting a Democracy: Aboriginal Protection Act 1869 (Vic) |publisher=National Archives of Australia |access-date=25 April 2010 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090704201937/http://www.foundingdocs.gov.au/item.asp?dID=86 |archive-date=4 July 2009 |quote= In Victoria, for example, "The (Aboriginal Protection) Act gave powers to the Board for the Protection of Aborigines which subsequently developed into an extraordinary level of control of people's lives including regulation of residence, employment, marriage, social life and other aspects of daily life."}}</ref> The protection was done through each jurisdiction's Aboriginal Protection Board; in Victoria and Western Australia these boards were also responsible for applying what were known as ''[[Half-Caste Act]]s''.

More recent usage has developed since Peter Read's publication of ''The Stolen Generations: The Removal of Aboriginal Children in New South Wales 1883 to 1969'' (1981), which examined the history of these government actions.<ref name="read" /> The 1997 publication of the government's ''Bringing Them Home&nbsp;– Report of the National Inquiry into the Separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children from Their Families''<ref name="bth1">{{cite web |url=http://www.hreoc.gov.au/social_justice/bth_report/index.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070905075305/http://www.hreoc.gov.au//social_justice/bth_report/index.html |url-status=dead |archive-date=5 September 2007 |title=Bringing them home: The 'Stolen Children' report |access-date=8 October 2006 |publisher=Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission |year=2005}}</ref> heightened awareness of the Stolen Generations. The acceptance of the term in Australia is illustrated by the 2008 formal apology to the Stolen Generations,<ref>Welch, Dylan (13 February 2008), [http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/rudd-says-sorry/2008/02/13/1202760342960.html "Kevin Rudd says sorry"], ''The Sydney Morning Herald''.</ref> led by Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and passed by both houses of the Parliament of Australia. Previous apologies had been offered by State and Territory governments in the period 1997–2001.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.humanrights.gov.au/publications/bringing-them-home-apologies-state-and-territory-parliaments-2008 |title=Content of apologies by State and Territory Parliaments |publisher=[[Australian Human Rights Commission]] |access-date=25 November 2016 |date=14 December 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240205012740/https://humanrights.gov.au/our-work/bringing-them-home-apologies-state-and-territory-parliaments-2008 |archive-date=5 February 2024}}</ref>

Some have objected to the use of the term "Stolen Generations". Former Prime Minister [[John Howard]] did not believe the government should apologise to the Australian Aboriginal peoples. Then Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs [[John Herron (Australian politician)|John Herron]] disputed usage of the term in April 2000.<ref name=herron>{{cite web |format=DOC |url=http://www.australianpolitics.com/issues/aborigines/2000-govt-submission-on-stolen-generations-summary.doc |title=Senator the Hon John Herron, Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs to the Senate Legal And Constitutional References Committee, 'Inquiry Into The Stolen Generation', Federal Government Submission |publisher=australianpolitics.com/ |date=March 2000 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20050522055358/http://australianpolitics.com/issues/aborigines/2000-govt-submission-on-stolen-generations-summary.doc |archive-date=22 May 2005}}</ref> Others who disputed the use of the term include [[Peter Howson (politician)|Peter Howson]], Minister for Aboriginal Affairs from 1971 to 1972, and [[Keith Windschuttle]], an historian who argues that some of the abuses towards Australian Aboriginal peoples have been exaggerated and in some cases invented.<ref name="Windschuttle2002">{{cite book |last=Windschuttle |first=Keith |author-link=Keith Windschuttle |title=The Fabrication of Aboriginal History: The stolen generations, 1881–2008 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=VAd8QgAACAAJ |year=2002 |publisher=Macleay Press |isbn=978-1-876492-19-9 |page=17}}</ref><ref>Disputing the appropriateness of the term: {{cite news |last=Windschuttle |first=Keith |author-link=Keith Windschuttle |title=Don't let facts spoil the day |work=The Australian |date=9 February 2008 |url=http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23182149-28737,00.html |access-date=13 February 2008 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080211172339/http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23182149-28737,00.html |archive-date=11 February 2008 |url-status=dead |df=dmy-all}} argues that the removals were done for the children's good and that Peter Read in{{cite book |last=Read |first=Peter |title=The Stolen Generations: The Removal of Aboriginal children in New South Wales 1883 to 1969 |publisher=Department of Aboriginal Affairs (New South Wales government) |year=1981 |isbn=978-0-646-46221-9}} misrepresented the evidence.</ref> Many historians argue against these denials, including to Windschuttle in particular.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20080216013814/http://www.crikey.com.au/Politics/20080212-Windschuttle.html Dr Naomi Parry, Debunking Windschuttle's benign interpretation of history, ''Crikey'', 12 February 2008], also Peter Read addresses Windschuttle's article of 9 February 2008 in {{cite web |last=Read |first=Peter |title=Don't let facts spoil this historian's campaign |work=The Australian |date=18 February 2008 |url=http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23229208-7583,00.html |access-date=18 February 2008 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080218052203/http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0%2C25197%2C23229208-7583%2C00.html |archive-date=18 February 2008 |url-status=dead |df=dmy-all}}, and {{cite news |last=Manne |first=Robert |author-link=Robert Manne |title=The cruelty of denial |work=[[The Age]] |date=18 February 2008 |url=http://www.theage.com.au/news/robert-manne/the-cruelty-of-denial/2006/09/08/1157222325367.html |access-date=18 February 2008}}</ref> Anthropologist [[Ron Brunton]] also criticised the proceedings on the basis that there was no cross-examination of those giving their testimonies or critical examination of the factual basis of the testimony.<ref name="ABC Radio National">{{cite web |url=http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/bbing/stories/s148775.htm |title=Stolen Generations, Background Briefing |work=[[ABC Radio National]] |date=2 July 2000 |access-date=19 February 2008 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110224081345/http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/bbing/stories/s148775.htm |archive-date=24 February 2011}}</ref>

The ''Bringing Them Home'' report provided extensive details about the removal programs and their effects. [[Ronald Wilson|Sir Ronald Wilson]], former President of the [[Australian Human Rights Commission#Commission presidents|Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission]] and a Commissioner on the Inquiry, stated that "when it comes to the credibility of those stories, there is ample credibility, not from the cross-examination of the children themselves, but from the governments whose laws, practices and policies enabled these forced removals to take place. We had the support of every State government; they came to the Inquiry, came with [[Lever Arch|lever-arch files]] setting out the laws from the earliest days right up to the end of the assimilation policy, that is up to the 1970s and more importantly, senior government officers attended. In every case, these senior officers acknowledged that there was a lot of cruelty in the application of those laws and policies."<ref name="ABC Radio National"/>

In April 2000, Aboriginal Affairs Minister John Herron tabled a report in the Australian Parliament in response to the Human Rights Commission report which stated that, as "only 10% of Aboriginal children" had been removed, they did not constitute an entire "generation".<ref name=herron/> The report attracted media attention and protests.<ref name="730Report">[http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/stories/s115691.htm "No stolen generation: Australian Govt"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20011119071452/http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/stories/s115691.htm |date=19 November 2001 }}, ''The 7.30 Report'', ABC TV, 3 April 2000. Retrieved 19 February 2008.</ref> Herron apologised for the "understandable offence taken by some people" as a result of his comments, although he refused to alter the report as it had been tabled.{{citation needed|date=August 2021}}

Historian Peter Read referred to the children affected as the "Stolen Generations". Another historian, [[Robert Manne]], defended that terminology, making the analogy that other people refer to the "generation that lost their lives in the First World War" without meaning over 50 per cent of the young people at the time; rather, people use that phrasing as a metaphor for a collective experience. Similarly, he believes, some of the Aboriginal community use the term to describe their collective suffering.<ref>[http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/stories/s268644.htm "Academics debate contents of Stolen Generations report"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170622031509/http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/stories/s268644.htm |date=22 June 2017 }}, ''The 7.30 Report'', 29 March 2001. Retrieved 29 November 2011.</ref>

===Genocide debate===
There is ongoing contention among politicians, commentators, and historical, political, and legal experts as to whether the forced removals of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children that occurred during the Stolen Generations can be accurately described as [[genocidal]] acts, and particularly whether they meet the definition of genocide in article II (e) of the [[UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide]].<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Barta |first1=Tony |title=Sorry, and not sorry, in Australia: how the apology to the stolen generations buried a history of genocide |journal=[[Journal of Genocide Research]] |date=2008 |volume=10 |issue=2 |pages=201–214 |doi=10.1080/14623520802065438 |s2cid=73078524}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Cassidy |first1=Julie |title=Unhelpful and inappropriate?: The question of genocide and the stolen generations |url=http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/AUIndigLawRw/2009/7.pdf |date=2009 |volume=13 |issue=1 |journal=[[Australian Indigenous Law Review]] |page=114 |access-date=22 January 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240705065325/https://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/AUIndigLawRw/2009/7.pdf |archive-date=5 July 2024}}</ref> While it is generally not disputed that these forced removals occurred, the contention surrounds whether they were enacted with the intention of destroying the Indigenous people of Australia. There is further contention as to whether those responsible for the Stolen Generations should be [[Legal liability|criminally liable]] for genocide. In response to a submission by the National Aboriginal and Islander Legal Services Secretariat to the [[Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody]], [[Elliott Johnston|Commissioner Johnston]] considered whether the policies and practices of the Australian Governments pertinent to the Stolen Generations constituted a breach of the Convention but concluded that "[i]t is not my function to interpret the Convention or to decide whether it has been breached, particularly since the policies involved were modified in 1962 somewhat and abandoned by 1970".<ref>{{cite report |author=Elliott Frank Johnston |date=1991 |title=Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody National Report |url=http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/IndigLRes/rciadic/national/vol5/2.html#Heading5 |via=AustLII |volume=5 |section=36.3 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide |access-date=22 January 2018}}</ref> The [[Bringing Them Home Report|''Bringing Them Home'']] report concluded that:
{{blockquote|The Australian practice of Indigenous child removal involved both systematic racial discrimination and genocide as defined by international law. Yet it continued to be practised as official policy long after being clearly prohibited by treaties to which Australia had voluntarily subscribed.{{sfn|Manne|2012|p=217|ps=: "Bringing Them Home, the findings of the federal government inquiry into the removal of thousands of Aboriginal children from their mothers, families, and communities in the first two-thirds of the twentieth century, was published in 1997. It argued that the Commonwealth government and the governments of several Australian states were guilty of the crime of genocide."}}}}

However, in the subsequent case of ''[[Kruger v Commonwealth]]'', the [[High Court of Australia|High Court]] judges rejected the claim of the plaintiffs that the ''Aboriginals Ordinance 1918''<ref>{{cite act |title=Aboriginals Ordinance 1918 |number=9 |date=1918 |url=https://www.foundingdocs.gov.au/item-sdid-62.html |access-date=22 January 2018}}</ref> authorised genocide as defined by the Convention and ruled that there was no legislation to implement the Convention under [[Australian law|Australian municipal law]] at the time. One of the recommendations of the ''Bringing Them Home'' report was that 'the [[Commonwealth of Australia|Commonwealth]] legislate to implement the Genocide Convention with full domestic effect'. While genocide has been a crime under [[international law]] since the [[Coming into force|commencement]] of the Convention in 1951, in accordance with Section [[Section 51(xxix) of the Constitution of Australia|51(xxix) of the Australian Constitution]], it has only been a crime under Australian law since the commencement of the ''International Criminal Court (Consequential Amendments) Act 2002'',<ref>{{cite act |title=International Criminal Court (Consequential Amendments) Act 2002 |number=42 |date=27 June 2002 |url=https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2004A00993 |access-date=22 January 2018}}</ref> and so the Stolen Generations cannot be considered genocide under Australian law because the Act is not [[Ex post facto law|retrospective]].<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Scott |first1=Shirley |title=Why wasn't genocide a crime in Australia? Accounting for the half century delay in Australia implementing the Genocide Convention |journal=[[Australian Journal of Human Rights]] |date=2004 |volume=10 |issue=1 |pages=159–178 |doi=10.1080/1323238X.2004.11910775 |s2cid=158184384}}</ref> In its twelfth report to the [[UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination]], the [[Australian Government]] argued that the removal policies and programs did not constitute a breach of the Convention.<ref>{{cite report |author=Australian Government |date=14 December 1999 |title=Twelfth periodic reports of States parties due in 1998 |url=http://docstore.ohchr.org/SelfServices/FilesHandler.ashx?enc=6QkG1d%2fPPRiCAqhKb7yhslDxHBUl0uBvhyqswtfNhgBCNLvPuxSi4wYKG5rQ5%2fbp5XBEn14wk6Ek45lLRM5vawXXsxnHOI9vezqfemmd7LP94bB1HbuaxfDyjuIXa0%2bp |publisher=[[United Nations]] |pages=24–25 |access-date=22 January 2018}}</ref>

In 1997, [[Ronald Wilson|Sir Ronald Wilson]], then President of the [[Australian Human Rights Commission|Australian Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission]], commissioner of the ''National Inquiry into the Separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children from Their Families'', and co-author of the ''Bringing Them Home'' report, argued that the policies resulting in the Stolen Generations constitute attempted [[genocide]]: he stated, "It clearly was attempted genocide. It was believed that the Aboriginal people would die out."<ref>{{cite news |first=Michael |last=Perry |url=http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/24/088.html |title=A Stolen Generation Cries Out |agency=[[Reuters]] |publisher=Hartford Web Publishing |date=20 May 1997 |access-date=24 November 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231210023605/http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/24/088.html |archive-date=10 December 2023}}</ref>

Manne argues that the expressed views of government bureaucrats, such as A. O. Neville, to assimilate the mixed-race children into the white population by means of "breeding out the colour", and therefore eventually resulting in the full-bloods being "forgotten", bore strong similarities to the racial views of the [[Nazism|Nazis]] in 1930s [[Nazi Germany]]. Manne points out that, though the term "genocide" had not yet entered the English language, the policies of Neville and others were termed by some contemporaries as the "die out" or "breed out" policy, giving an indication of their proposed intent. He also states that academics "generally acknowledge" that the authors of the ''Bringing Them Home'' report were wrong to argue that Australian authorities had committed genocide by removing indigenous children from their families. Social assimilation has never been regarded in law as equivalent to genocide.<ref name="ManneTheMonthly">{{cite magazine |first=Robert |last=Manne |author-link=Robert Manne |url=https://www.themonthly.com.au/monthly-essays-robert-manne-sorry-business-road-apology-823 |title=Sorry Business: The Road to the Apology |magazine=[[The Monthly]] |date=March 2008 |access-date=24 November 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230408115948/https://www.themonthly.com.au/monthly-essays-robert-manne-sorry-business-road-apology-823 |archive-date=8 April 2023}}</ref>

Though genocide historian [[Paul R. Bartrop|Paul Bartrop]] rejects the use of the word genocide to describe Australian colonial history in general, he does believe that it applies to describing the Stolen Generations. Bartrop and US genocide scholar [[Samuel Totten]] together wrote the ''Dictionary of Genocide'', for which Bartrop wrote the entry on Australia. He said he used as the benchmark for usage of the term genocide the 1948 UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, which is also cited in the ''Bringing Them Home'' report.<ref name="SorensenWilson2008">{{cite news |first1=Rosemary |last1=Sorensen |author1-link=Rosemary Sorensen |first2=Ashleigh |last2=Wilson |url=http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23421344-2702,00.html |title=Stolen Generations listed as genocide |newspaper=[[The Australian]] |date=24 March 2008 |access-date=24 March 2008 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080326183546/http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0%2C25197%2C23421344-2702%2C00.html |archive-date=26 March 2008}}</ref>

In 2006, Australian historian Patrick Wolfe wrote:<blockquote>To take an example from genocide's definitional core, Article II (d) of the [[Genocide Convention|UN Convention on Genocide]],<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/documents/atrocity-crimes/Doc.1_Convention%20on%20the%20Prevention%20and%20Punishment%20of%20the%20Crime%20of%20Genocide.pdf |title=Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide |publisher=[[United Nations]] |access-date=24 June 2022}}</ref> which seems to have been relatively overlooked in Australian discussions, includes among the acts that constitute genocide (assuming they are committed with intent to destroy a target group in whole or in part) the imposition of "measures intended to prevent births within the group." Given that the Australian practice of abducting Aboriginal children, assuming its "success", would bring about a situation in which second-generation offspring were born into a group that was different from the one from which the child/parent had originally been abducted, there is abundant evidence of genocide being practised in post-war Australia on the basis of Article II (d) alone.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Wolfe |first=Patrick |date=2006-12-01 |title=Settler colonialism and the elimination of the native |journal=Journal of Genocide Research |volume=8 |issue=4 |pages=387–409 |doi=10.1080/14623520601056240 |s2cid=143873621 |issn=1462-3528|doi-access=free }}</ref></blockquote>In 2008, Australian historian [[Inga Clendinnen]] suggested that the term genocide rests on the "question of intentionality", saying: "There's not much doubt, with great murderous performances that were typically called genocide, that they were deliberate and intentional. Beyond that, it always gets very murky."<ref name="SorensenWilson2008"/>