This centuries biggest genocide which has not been exposed widely, yet all our Governments know about it -is the UN called Genocide of Falun Gong inside China. Here are some more recent articles .

Ethan Gutmans China's Gruesome Organ Harvest
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000%5C000%5C015%5C824qbcjr.asp

David Matas International Human rights lawyer and former Nazi hunter
wrote -Commemorating the Falun Gong persecution in China
http://atruechineserenaissance.blogspot.com/2009/07/commemorating-persecution-in-china-by.html

Guardian UK reports before the 10 year anniversary of the persecution

China's Falun Gong crackdown: 'The persecution is almost underground'
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jul/18/china-falun-gong-crackdown

The author of this article seems to have forgotten
to mention Stalin.

As stated in 'The New KGB,' by William R. Corson
and Robert T. Crowley:

"There is no dispute about the enormity of Hitler's
Holocaust. But it is equally important to be made
aware of the accomplishments of Stalin and the
Soviet secret police, which brought death to at least
four times as many Russians, Poles, Jews, Latvians,
Lithuanians, Estonians, Japanese, Koreans, Chinese,
Gypsies, and Romanians as Hitler did in his eleven
years as a leader of the '1,000-year Reich."

Concentration camps -- on both sides of the front---
operated at a high pitch prior to and during the war years.
The USSR policy of mass murder (genocide) preceded that of
Nazi Germany, most notably with the artificial Ukrainian
Famine of 1932-33, the wholesale destruction of the
Russian peasantry, and later of the peasantry and
intelligentsia in the occupied territories as well.

As Joseph Sobran stated in,"The Holocausts (plural)"
The Washington Times,
April 23, 1985:

"Hitler, it is well to remember, was only one of the
practitioners of the century's most ghastly innovations...
and he was not even the worst. Lenin preceded him in numbers:
Stalin and Mao killed far more people...Communism has
proved a far more potent and persistent evil than
Naziism, which was a brief flare-up by comparison...But
this generation, my generation, the generation that was
spared the experience of Hitler, has no right to denounce
'the Holocaust,' as long as we shut our eyes to the
Holocaust in progress..."

While the Nazis, have been pursued all over the world for
their crimes, the other half, the communist criminals, were
allowed to go free. They were in effect, given tacit permission
to continue the operation of their concentration camps,
to expand their draconian systems to include psychiatric
wards, thereby raising torture, suppression, and murder to
a sscience. The fact that the process persisted was vividly
disclosed to the free world by Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn,
in his book, 'The Gulag Archipelago.'

“The new Queensland program is part of a worldwide attempt to stop genocides by recognising early warning signs and acting to prevent them. In addition to tracking proximate causes of genocides, scholars and activists can draw on historical cases to identify possible perpetrators and propose timely preventive action.”

The rest of the article is about historical events except the final words
“Especially now that we have the knowledge to identify a cluster of factors that point toward possible genocide, the international community has a responsibility to protect such people.”

So a lot of talk and no solution except the feeble statement “the international community has a responsibility to protect. . . . “

Maybe we could qualify “the international community….”

Perhaps even go so far as to suggest “through the auspice of the United Nations”

To be honest the entire article is a farce. A very black farce.

Genocides occur because the UN and other bodies representing the “International Community”, like most politically motivated and hamstrung organizations, spend more time attending to the betterment of the bureaucrats and the politicians who work for them than existence of any “victims of genocide” who need “preventive action”.

The article makes not one “preventive” proposal or suggestion.

This article would suggest, therefore that “The new Queensland program” is likely to be as effective at reducing the real incidence of genocide as the UN has been at preventing it in the past.

In short, just another bunch of tossers snuggling their snouts deeper into the public purse.

And of course abortion is the biggest genocide of all time but their is no voice for the unborn.

Runner >"And of course abortion is the biggest genocide of all time but their is no voice for the unborn."
I beg to differ Runner! You are always there to have your say against choice for pregnant women, no matter what the current topic.

Oh Col,

'In short, just another bunch of tossers snuggling their snouts deeper into the public purse.'

I so agree!

re Genocide in Palestine.

"Leaders start to draw on their historical right to the land." Why do Jews think they have a right to push Palestinians off the lands they have lived on for 2000 years?

All the comments confuse mass murder , political repression, abortion,etc,etc with genocide,and thus render the concept meaningless.
In an otherwise impressive discussion of genuine genocide, in the form of the Holocaust, Kiernan, surprisingly, shares a common blind spot-more Russians than Jews were extermined as "untermensch" ( though, of course,many were Russian Jews.
Leslie

Good point Leslie. I'm surprised no mention was made of Tasmania, or indeed of many Australian mainland nations.

what about the genocide of us victims who were raped and abused and made slaves , for by the goverments and churches of australia in their state and territories , institutions , orphanages , girls homes, boys homes, remand centres, church homes run by the goverment , foster homes , out of home care , and many more and it is still happening till this day ,

and its about time the australian goverment apologized to us victims the forgotten australians

and stop the cover up of what we had suffered as children in these institutions , run by the goverment of australia ,

for refrence read the senate reports, Forgotten Australians dated August 2004 And The Second report Protecting Vulnerable children dated March 2005, And The recent report Lost Innocents Ad Forgotten Austrlians revisted

we are real victims of the goverment of Australias GENOCIDE

Foxy,

Well said. Once again Stalin's atrocities get airbrushed out of history.

The problem is that Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot destroy the University of Queensland's over-simplified thesis. These were not people who fantasised after a mythical past. They envisioned an equally mythical future.

The VACUITY of Queensland University's analysis may be seen from the way some of the worst current genocides, such as those occurring, in Sudan, fall outside the pattern. Any analysis which fails to account for something occurring under the analyst's nose is, to put it politely, male bovine excrement.

Kiernan's article is an example of academic equine fertiliser at its smelliest. The reality is that ANY totalitarian ideology contains the seeds of genocide. That applies equally to Nazism, Communism, extreme Nationalism and fundamentalist Islam.

"The reality is that ANY totalitarian ideology contains the seeds of genocide. That applies equally to Nazism, Communism, extreme Nationalism and fundamentalist Islam."

Actually Nationalism is not typical of a totalitarian regime where allegiance is demanded rather than expected. It's more a form of extreme patriotism within democracies.

No mention then of the 800,000 more recently killed within a 3 month period in Rwanda, a mostly Catholic democratic republic - or the mass killing of Muslims in Kosovo?

I think that all people are capable of all sorts of atrocities given the right circumstances. The greater the level of (extreme) patriotism, the greater the tendency toward "ethnic cleansing".

It's OK for Runner to bemoan the incidence of abortion but once the babies are born they are "fair game" for whatever predudices come their way or is dropping a bomb on a pregnant woman not a form of abortion too?

I note with interest your use of Mirabeau Lamar as an example of one perpetrating genocide. Lamar did indeed forcibly expel the Cherokee from Texas and urge wars of extermination against the Comanche and other Indian nations. Interestingly, as a schoolboy, the future Texas president wrote an essay addressing the question, "Were the Europeans justified in their conquest of North America?" The teenage Lamar believed strongly that they were not. As an adult, however, Lamar viewed Indians as less than human. He offered only expulsion or death to his nation's native inhabitants. Those interested can read more at this link:
http://blog.jeffreyskerr.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=6:deja-vu-all-over-again&catid=1:jeff&Itemid=3

wobbles I would not completely disagree with you but would offer that Genocide is a Special Case within Mass Murder.

"The reality is that ANY totalitarian ideology contains the seeds of MASS MURDER. That applies equally to Nazism, Communism, extreme Nationalism and fundamentalist Islam." - With that modification, I would agree with the statement.

Some of the posters and the author seem to use one term for the other and mostly denote some mass muder as Genocide when it is not - genocide is the deliberate wiping out of a "specific group or sub-group of people" is it not? Just murdering a lot of people is not necessarliy Genocide.

I think genocide is used when you want Mass Murder to seem even worse than it is. The term has become cheapened by the media applying it to all mass murder, or supposed mass murder - e.g. the giving of blankets infested with small pox to South American Indians, was not so much deliberate as accidental. The Europeans were used to and somewhat immune to a lot of the diseases they passed on to the new world's people.

Genocide when used by a people who are clearly alive and well, seems redundant - or have I misunderstood what it means, or its new common usage?

Odo

Up to a point I agree with you. Not every mass murder should be labelled a "genocide".

However the meaning of words changes through usage. For better or worse the word "genocide" has come to mean a mass murder of exceptional scale.

In fact in some cases there need not even be a "mass murder" before the word "genocide" is used. Israel has been accused of committing "genocide" against the Palestinians. See for example:

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3359209,00.html

and

http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article6374.shtml

It is also not exactly clear where to draw the line. Few mass murderers are honest about their intentions. The Sudanese government would never admit that it wants to kill all Darfuris or Christian / Animist South Sudanese; but, to most observers, that appears to be exactly what Abdullah Omar's regime is / was attempting.

On a more practical level I doubt it makes much difference to the victims whether they are slaughtered in a "genocide" or a "mere" mass murder.

The article raises another interesting point.

AT WHAT POINT SHOULD WE TAKE EXPRESSIONS OF HATRED BASED ON RACE, ETHNICITY OR RELIGION SERIOUSLY?

At least some of the five men Melbourne men arrested for allegedly plotting an attack on Holsworthy army barracks appear to have a hatred towards non-Muslims. See:

http://www.theage.com.au/national/melbourne-terror-suspect-hates-australians-20090825-exe9.html

Quote:

"One of five men charged over an alleged suicide terror plot to kill soldiers at a Sydney army barracks hates Australians and anyone who does not follow Islam, a court has been told."

Should we fear a future attempt at genocide from at least some strains of Islam?

It is sad that in this article on genocide there was no mention of the colonisation of Australia.

Genocide, by all the definitions, was enacted in Australia against the Indigenous peoples.

Aka it's sad that some try to be deliberately inflamatory in this forum.

The Brits did not come to this country to wipe out the inhabitants, indeed they considered it "terra nullus". Do you believe the Brits had a plan to do that, of course they didn't they tried very hard to get along, it is well recorded in the first fleet's records.

Typical of the bleeding heart industry and its supporters ot try to hijack a debate like this.

Notice most folks instantly left the forum, tired of the same old same old whine and emotive cry.

Australians don't believe there was "genocide" of the aboriginals, that's an emotive tool that gained favour in the Howard years, before the "apology".

There are still aboriginal Australians? Then there was not a genocide, by several definitions. There may have been mass murder on occassions, or even lots of singular murders, but that does not mean there was a policy or plan to rid the country of people.

Do you know what a "troll" is Aka, in the internet forum sense, it's someone who deliberatley tries to be controversial and offensive so as to provoke emotional responses.

Although there are efforts to dilute the meaning of 'genocide' by inappropriate use or by equating it with mass murder, I think that the discussion would benefit from some definitional precision. The UN definition of genocide is found in the 1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG):

<< Article 2 of this convention defines genocide as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group." >>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide

Under this definition, the Holocaust and the Rwandan genocide would be included, as would be deliberate efforts to exterminate the Cherokees and other Native American nations, and indeed Australian Aborigines.

Despite the enormity of Stalin's crimes, I think that most of his victims wouldn't fit the UN definition - while the historical situation in Australia would.

So odo, you're talking through your hat - aka has identified as an Indigenous academic and her comment about Aborigines was spot on, whether you agree or not.

It is hardly trolling to point out that Ben Kiernan's analysis doesn't mention (nor account for) the Australian example - which is undoubtedly the main reason he doesn't mention the deliberate efforts by Australian settlers and their governments to exterminate and expropriate Aboriginal people in Australia.

Incidentally stevenlmeyer, Kiernan hails from Yale University, not the University of Queensland.

Odo, I suggest you research Tasmanian Aboriginals more thoroughly. There was a deliberate, and ultimately successful campaign to exterminate them.
Likewise, out of the estimated 500+ nations that existed around 1788, I think about 240 still exist.
Please understand, there was and is no 'aboriginal nation'. There were over 500 nations, as distinct from each other in language and culture as the French are to the Spanish, or the Jews are to the Palestinians.
By any definition, that's genocide.
CJ, you're undoubtedly correct about the author, however, the opening sentence to this article is:
"The University of Queensland’s Asia-Pacific Centre..."
I wonder if the lack of any mention about Australian genocide is possibly due to the sensibilities of those like Odo.

Billie, palestinians have not been living in the area that the Romans called Palestine, for 2000 years.
Just after the Arab-Muslim induced war of independence (for Israel), the UN made a decision to regard all those who fled the war and ended up in refugee camps on the perimetre of the new state of Israel as refugees of the war. The UN also decided to regard any of these refugees as a resident of the area if they had lived there for 2 years, which has no precedent in international law - a much more common criteria is 2 or 3 generations.
When the Muslim armies invaded palestiune in 634AD, they found a mostly Christian and Jewish population, which they proceeded to murder, enslave, deport and, when the economy began to collapse for lack of a population, discriminate against in their own (former) country. Throughout this time (ie 1400 years) Jews and Christians have remained in the area, and remained true to their faiths and communities under desperate circumstances. As did the Samaritans, and a few other groups not usually heard from.
When a significant number of Jews decided to begin moving into the area, from around the 1820s, they began a process that resulted in the attempt to re-establish a Jewish state in the area that Jews have been associated with for 4000 years.
What the Queensland study seems to miss, for all its focus on the genocides of Jews by both Hitler and Stalin, is that one of the genocides waiting to happen is of the Jews currently living in Israel by the Arab-Muslims who surround them.
Perhaps the evidence - persistent statements by both the political elites and the populace of these countries to eliminate Israel as a state and kill all the Jewish occupants - is so obvious that the Queenslanders can't see it.
When the 'palestinians' and the overwhelming majority of Muslims - Arab and not - call off their war against Israel and Jews in general, there will be peace in the Middle-East, but not before.

CJ Morgan,
“Under this definition, the Holocaust and the Rwandan genocide would be included, as would be deliberate efforts to exterminate the Cherokees and other Native American nations, and indeed Australian Aborigines.”

Assuming that we accept the UN definition as appropriate(!)

And assuming we accept the “stolen Generations” saga as wholly bad/ of absolutely no merit (and, I’m sure you will quickly conclude that it was) it still leaves the question, if the children removed during this process where half white and half black, how do you determine which side was the most sinned against?

Sorry, I'll rephrase that, as I'm sure -- you --would have absolutely no trouble at all making a one-eyed determination regarding that: how would an objective observer determine which side was most sinned again?

There was no official policy of genocide against the Australian aborigines in the sense that they were to be exterminated.

However, there was a period when it was assumed that most would simply die out and the policy was that the remainder should be "bred out" of existence. After a few generations of interbreeding with the white population, they would cease to exist as a distinct racial group.

The definition of the word genocide specifies that the intention is "deliberate and systematic" - just as the words "attack and reprisal" or "terrorist and freedom fighter" can be interpreted through the filter of one's own personal opinion.

Horus: << if the children removed during this process where half white and half black, how do you determine which side was the most sinned against? >>

Given that all the "half-caste" children who were removed were taken from "black" families and installed in "white" households or institutions, it's a bit of no-brainer, really.

Rache, the reason that the "stolen generations" are argued to constitute genocide is that the removals were often done with the express eugenic intention of 'breeding out' Aboriginality over subsequent generations. "Full-bloods" were assumed to be dying out anyway, so the removals were designed to ensure that the process was complete.

CJ Morgan,

Ah, gotya! so the determining factor is the family of origin.

But…hold on a cotton-picking minute…I seem to recall that the policy of removing children was also applied to non-Aboriginal families ( and, by the way, such non-Aboriginal families are still awaiting the essential “closure” of an apology!)

So lets see now …it was applied to both Aboriginals & non-Aboriginals , and if as you & others imply the intention was to diminish the family & culture they were “stolen” from – perhaps “genocide” is the wrong word –perhaps we should be using the word ( national) suicide?

Yep! I can see why you might describe your take on the issue as a “no-brainer”!

OK, let me rush in where angels fear to tread.

Was there a stolen generation?

I know a number of people claim there was a stolen generation. I know Rudd apologised for the stolen generation. But claims and politicians speeches don’t make it so.

My understanding is that Andrew Bolt challenged Robert Manne to produce the names of 10 children who had been stolen. Apparently Manne produced 10 names and Bolt demonstrated, at least to his own satisfaction, that the named children had been removed for their own safety.

I know that in 1996 Lorna Cubillo and Peter Gunner sued the Commonwealth claiming that they had been stolen. They lost their case. In 2000 the Judge ruled that they had been lawfully removed for their own safety. I read the judgement and it did appear there were ample grounds for removing the two children.

If children were still being stolen in the 1940s and 1950s there would be some still alive today. Certainly some would have been alive in the 1990s. There would be no paucity of lawyers willing to take their cases on a no win no fee basis or, perhaps, even on a no fee basis. I would therefore have expected a large number of lawsuits. They have not materialised.

I realise this is a sensitive area in which people have strong views. Though I lean towards scepticism I have no strong opinions. However I would like to know what is the evidence.

As I expected, Aka has successfully "trolled" this forum to the devisive and very emotional, for many, subject of aboriginal woe.

This is not what the author was on about - CJ the UN definition is one of many, and it changes over time, as many definitions do. The definition most common I would have thought, is the one around the end of WWII when the German government had a written policy to exterminate a race and indeed set about it. Since then it has been diluted to mean many things, e.g. the UN definition, so as to bring immense emotion, when needed, to bear.

I understand the "politically correct" view of many posters, I do not agree with them, but respect your right to your opinion, this being an opinion forum. I do not like it when people deliberately use emotional political correctness to subvert a forum to their own personal agenda.

Grim, on Tasmania, the aboriginals were not wiped out, Michael Mansell would agree with me I'm sure - but you are correct that there was an effort and intent to exterminate the aboriginals, and that was in my opinion, attempted Genocide. Thanks you for bringing that unfortunate episode to my attention.

Since Aka's post, there has only been one comment not on aboriginals, my point to Aka is thus substantiated, everyone left the forum bar those who then sprayed polical correctness and bile (talking through hats) at any who disagree. Now other aboriginal agenda are appearing, good luck, have fun folks, I'll not bother with this one again.

Odo,

Not that it matters but I don't believe that the Nazis had any "written policy" to exterminate Jews.
That's what keeps professional denialists like David Irving in business.

They also systematically murdered Gypsies, homosexuals and the mentally ill in great numbers too.

Also, Jews are not a "race" any more than Christians are.

As a result of what happened , the term "genocide" was actually redefined in 1944.
http://www.deathreference.com/En-Gh/Genocide.html