Ro, my definition was a sort of conglomeration of what various dictionaries say.

See http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rls=GGLJ%2CGGLJ%3A2006-07%2CGGLJ%3Aen&q=define%3Agenocide

The point is that none of them limit the victims of genocide to racial groups. All define the term more widely, to include other sorts of groups, such as ethnic group; nation; religious group; cultural group; etc. Of course none of these terms can be defined with any sort of scientific exactness (perhaps least of all “race”), and there is significant overlap between them.

Perhaps the Greek “genos” means something like “race”, but the origin of a word is not the same as its definition.

Ro: “If you then ask this dictionary to define ‘nation’...”

Look up “ethnicity”. While the Compact Oxford only lists “common national or cultural tradition”, most dictionaries include common religion as another possible basis for ethnicity.

See http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rls=GGLJ%2CGGLJ%3A2006-07%2CGGLJ%3Aen&q=define%3Aethnicity

Consider that Raphael Lemkin coined the term “genocide” around 1944, in light of the Jewish Holocaust. Did he have in mind that Jews are a race? Nation? Religious group? Cultural group? Tribe? There is no easy answer because Jewish identity does not neatly fit into any of these terms, but it makes no difference – in any case, it was clearly a case of genocide.

Ro: “the confusing conflation doesn't seem to be upheld in our state law as I mentioned.”

If by “state” you mean Australia, I’m not Australian and not an expert on Australian law. But the World Court is bound by international, not Australian, law. Furthermore, Australia is a signatory to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, and thus bound by that law, which refers to genocide as targeting a “national, ethnical, racial or religious group”.