Dear Herman Yutic,

Some further clarification for you
taken from the Holocaust Encyclopedia.
"What is Genocide?"

http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/article.php?lang=en&Moduleld

http://www.comlaw.gov.au/ComLaw/Legislation/ActCompilation1.nsf/current%5Cbytitle/37BA4B1F187B70ABCA256F71004F4FA9?OpenDocument&mostrecent=1

Here you are Herman,as it applies under Australian Law, with a quick excerpt:

Genocide Convention Act 1949
Act No. 27 of 1949 as amended
This compilation was prepared on 27 November 2000
Prepared by the Office of Legislative Drafting,
Attorney-General’s Department, Canberra

..

The Schedule Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide

Section 3
THE CONTRACTING PARTIES,
HAVING CONSIDERED the declaration made by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its resolution 96 (1) dated 11 December 1946 that genocide is a crime under international law, contrary to the spirit and aims of the United Nations and condemned by the civilized world;
RECOGNIZING that at all periods of history genocide has inflicted great losses on humanity; and
BEING CONVINCED that, in order to liberate mankind from such an odious scourge, international co operation is required;
HEREBY AGREE AS HEREINAFTER PROVIDED:

Article I
The Contracting Parties confirm that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and to punish.

Article II
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Article III
The following acts shall be punishable:
(a) Genocide;
(b) Conspiracy to commit genocide;
(c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide;
(d) Attempt to commit genocide;
(e) Complicity in genocide.

...

So, in *Foxy's* defense, she is correct in my view - in that totality of numbers is not the sole determining fact when deliberating the question of whether genocide or attempted genocide has been committed, but rather " ... in whole or in part ... "

DreamOn,

A good lawyer, if that isn’t an oxymoron, could make just about anything from the information you’ve posted, and I’m sure an activist judge one day probably will, if they haven’t already.

Genocide is…“Causing serious … mental harm to members of the group”.
This could be applied to just about any statement that any victim group finds offensive.
Under this definition, an Islamophobe could be charged with genocide for criticising Mohammed or the Koran.
I’d better watch out.

Genocide is… “Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group”.
Under this definition, opposition to homosexual IVF or surrogacy could constitute genocide, except that groups defined by their sexual orientation don’t yet appear to have achieved the status of national, ethnical, racial or religious groups, under this Act.
Still, who could have foreseen in 1949 how far we would progress.
For now we have the knowledge that sexual orientation is as immutable as race.
That’ll have to be amended.

A problem I can see though, in relation to the stolen generation holocaust (of which I am a denier), is the requirement of intent.
It is all too easy to attribute evil intent half a century after the fact, but where is the evidence?

Foxy,

You are one of the very few people I've encountered in Australia who understands that a totalitarian ideology is a totalitarian ideology, that Stalin, Hitler and Mao were moral equivalents and that communism was every bit as evil as Nazism. It is a pity more people – especially those on the left – fail to understand this.

No I don’t think I'm going to continue researching the stolen generation. As I indicated in my previous post, I suspect it's a myth but it's a harmless one

Dear Steven,

I respect your opinion and have enjoyed
your threads in the past. This however was one
you could have left alone. There's been enough
pain caused.

Australia's Prime Minister has
accepted on behalf of our Nation the fact of
the Stolen Generation - and has issued an
apology. The previous PM refused
to do that - he issued a "regret." However,
as someone remarked - you don't bash someone
in the head and say you "regret" doing it.
You apologise!

It's a pity that you still consider the
Stolen Generation a "myth," and won't be
doing any further research - especially
when there's so much material available
that can be verified through so many resources.

Still it's your choice.

Talk to you on another thread Steven -
All The Best.

Herman, it appears that you neither have tertiary qualification nor an understanding of the law as it is practiced in "Common Law" jurisdictions.

The reason I say that of your own omission you have not appraised the evidence, and I quote:

"But where is the evidence?"

and yet you strongly express a clearly unqualified and uninformed view.

And as to your assertions re the law, I assure you, the meanings of specific words and the manner of their collective interpretation is far stricter then your "loose, ignorant, associations" indicate.

As for evidence regarding "intent" how about we examine things one point at a time:

1. The refusal to include the Original Australians in the census until the late 60's.

Con:

25 Provisions as to races disqualified from voting

For the purposes of the last section, if by the law of any State all persons of any race are disqualified from voting at elections for the more numerous House of the Parliament of the State, then, in reckoning the number of the people of the State or of the Commonwealth, persons of that race resident in that State shall not be counted.

..

I don't know why you bother to speak nicely to the likes of steven *Foxy* as he is clearly a bigoted, prejudiced, ignoramus, who maintains an untenable position whilst freely admitting that he has neither appraised the evidence himself and also that neither does he wish to do so. Apparently, he is quite content in his racist ignorance.

I wouldn't be surprised to learn that he is a willing supporter of the liberal/national party?