Editing Stolen Generations (section)

===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"/>