Rethinking cultural genocide: Aboriginal child removal and settler-colonial state formation.

Rethinking cultural genocide: Aboriginal child removal and settler-colonial state formation. INTRODUCTION The Spaniards, with the help of unexampled un��ex��am��pled?adj.Without precedent; unparalleled: "Witchcraft blazed forth with unexampled virulence"Montague Summers. monstrous deeds,covering themselves with an indelible shame, could not succeed inexterminating the Indian race, nor even prevent it from sharing theirrights; the Americans of the United States United States,officially United States of America, republic (2005 est. pop. 295,734,000), 3,539,227 sq mi (9,166,598 sq km), North America. The United States is the world's third largest country in population and the fourth largest country in area. have attained this doubleresult with marvelous facility--tranquilly; legally, philanthropically,without spilling blood, without violating a single one of the greatprinciples of morality in the eyes of the world. One cannot destroy menwhile being more respectful of the laws of humanity (de Tocqueville2000:325). The word 'genocide' was introduced by the Polish jurist A judge or legal scholar; an individual who is versed or skilled in law.The term jurist is ordinarily applied to individuals who have gained respect and recognition by their writings on legal topics. juristn. Raphael Lemkin Raphael Lemkin (June 24, 1900 – August 28, 1959) was a lawyer of Polish-Jewish descent. Before World War II, Lemkin was interested in the Armenian Genocide and campaigned in the League of Nations to ban what he called "barbarity" and "vandalism". in 1944 to capture an essential dimension of NaziGermany's legal and administrative practices in its occupiedterritories, well before Auschwitz. The foundations of his conception ofgenocide were laid as the National Socialists came to power in 1933,when Lemkin used the concept of the crime of 'barbarity' tocapture 'oppressive and destructive actions directed againstindividuals as members of a national, religious, or racial group',and that of 'vandalism' to refer to 'maliciousdestruction of works of art and culture' (Lemkin 1944:91), and hisformulation of the crime of 'genocide' combined these two intoone. (1) Ever since, however, there have been tensions between broaderand narrower understandings of what constitutes genocide. A narrowconception essentially restricts the definition of genocide to thevarious forms of killing and physical annihilation annihilationIn physics, a reaction in which a particle and its antiparticle (see antimatter) collide and disappear. The annihilation releases energy equal to the original mass m multiplied by the square of the speed of light c, or E = m , whereas the broaderconception allows for a wider variety of ways in which human groups canbe 'eliminated', including the destruction or undermining oftheir culture and physical environment. Some of these tensions arecertainly generated by the occasional excessive political enthusiasm forcalling something seen as destructive in some way or another'genocidal'. Michael Ignatieff This page is currently protected from editing until (UTC) or until disputes have been resolved. has characterized suchenthusiasm as a tendency towards banalization and therefore a weakeningof the concept's practical effectivity: rather than operating as a'validation of every kind of victimhood,' it should, hesuggests, be reserved for 'genuine' horrors and barbarisms(Ignatieff 2001:27). Among the supporters of an understanding which goes beyond outrightkilling, however, there remains such a heartfelt and persistent sense oforganized inflicted violence, pain and suffering, that it is perhapsill-advised to stand too stubbornly on the conceptual purity of a'correct' definition of genocide. It is significant, forexample, that the argument for a broader conception of genocide has beenstrongest among Indigenous people subjected to settler-colonialism(Bischoping & Fingerhut 1996; Churchill 1986; 1997). An importantexample of the argument for applying the United Nations Convention onthe Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in December 1948 and came into effect in January 1951. (UNGC UNGC United Nations Global Compact ) toactivities other than killing is the Australian debate around the'stolen generations', those Aboriginal people who were removedfrom their families in the course of the twentieth century. Two keyfocal points of this debate are the Australian Human Rights and EqualOpportunity Commissions (HREOC HREOC Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (Australia)) 1997 report on the history of theremoval of indigenous children from their families, Bringing them Home Bringing Them Home is the title of the Australian "Report of the National Inquiry into the Separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children from Their Families". (BTH), and the High Court Kruger case. (2) The argument put in bothcontexts was that the removal of Aboriginal children from their familiesconstituted acts defined as genocide by Article II of the Convention,'acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, anational, ethnical eth��ni��cal?adj.1. Ethnic.2. Of or relating to ethnology.ethni��cal��ly adv.Adj. 1. , racial or religious group', including '(e)Forcibly forc��i��ble?adj.1. Effected against resistance through the use of force: The police used forcible restraint in order to subdue the assailant.2. Characterized by force; powerful. transferring children of the group to another group'. In law, the pursuit of a broader understanding of genocide hasfallen on stony ground (Saul 2000), with the Australian High Courtrejecting the argument that the Ordinance could be considered ascharacterized by any intent to 'destroy' Aboriginal groups.Heavily influenced by this legal outcome, the argument has also had asimilarly rocky passage in broader political terms; the Australiandiscussion has tended simply to polarize po��lar��ize?v. po��lar��ized, po��lar��iz��ing, po��lar��iz��esv.tr.1. To induce polarization in; impart polarity to.2. To cause to concentrate about two conflicting or contrasting positions. between those who support theapplicability of the concept of genocide and those who do not, withlittle genuine or informed debate between the two positions (Gaita Gaita may mean: Raimond Gaita (1946– ), an Australian philosopher and writer. The Galician gaita, a kind of bagpipe used in Galicia and northwest Le��n (Spain). 1997). However, the mere insistence on the virtues of the narrowerconception of genocide does not in itself solve the problem of how torespond to claims based on the broader approach. Acknowledging that'cultural genocide' does not fall within the scope of theUNGC, and that it provides no effective foundation of an action in law,does not mean that we cannot remain alive to the concerns which thatconcept is invoked to address, as well as recognizing that there maystill be a problem requiring some other sort of engagement, bothconceptually and practically. For example, one approach has been toinvoke, instead of 'cultural genocide', the term'ethnocide', described by Pierre Clastres Pierre Clastres, (1934-1977), was a French anthropologist and ethnographer. He is best known for his fieldwork among the Guayaki in Paraguay and his theory on stateless societies. Some people regard him as giving scientific validity to certain anarchist perspectives. as 'thesystematic destruction of the modes of life and thought of a people whoare different from those who carry out this destructive enterprise ...genocide kills their bodies, while ethnocide Ethnocide is a concept related to genocide. Primarily, the term, close to cultural genocide, is used to describe the destruction of a culture of a people, as opposed to the people themselves. It may involve a linguicide, phenomenons of acculturation, etc. kills their spirit'(1988:52). Rather than simply dismissing the claims regarding culturalgenocide Cultural genocide is a political and rhetorical term used to describe the deliberate destruction of the cultural heritage of a people or nation for political, military, religious, ideological, ethnical, or racial reasons. and ethnocide because they are ineffective in law, this paperworks towards returning from an engagement with those claims with adeeper and broader understanding of the various forms of state-sponsoredforce. The aim is to recognize the many types of coercion characterizingstate formation up to the present day, in order to contribute to theidentification of ways in which current social institutions andpractices might better avoid or at least address the more problematicoutcomes of such organized violence. ABORIGINAL CHILD REMOVAL, THE BRINGING THEM HOME REPORT AND THEKRUGER CASE By the last quarter of the nineteenth-century, it had become widelyaccepted among European Australians that the Aborigines aborigines:see Australian aborigines. were a'dying race,' and this was based on the notion of theessential 'fragility' of Aboriginal culture in contact withEuropeans (Brantlinger 1995; McGregor 1997). Extinction was thus simplya matter of time, so that the most Europeans could do was to'smooth the dying man's pillow' (Bates Bates? , Katherine Lee 1859-1929.American educator and writer best known for her poem "America the Beautiful," written in 1893 and revised in 1904 and 1911. 1944), Around theturn of the century, however, it turned out that 'traditional'Aborigines were not dying as quickly as anticipated, and as Europeansettlement spread across the continent, so did contact between Europeansand Aborigines, including sexual contact, which of course had itsinevitable consequence--children. The resultant mixed-blood populationwas itself very fertile, so that by around the 1890s EuropeanAustralians were becoming increasingly concerned about what came to bedefined as the 'half-caste problem'. 'There was a growingrealisation,' writes Russell McGregor, 'that the descendantsof a dying race might continue to haunt a White Australia forgenerations' (1997:134). One key element to the resultant 'civilizing offensive'on the part of both State and Church, which aimed to protect as well asadvance civilization by completely eliminating Aboriginality in thishybrid form from a 'White Australia', was to turn to anexisting social technology designed to deal with problems of socialdiscipline, revolving around the concept of 'rescuing the risinggeneration' (van Krieken 1992). A policy of removing mixed-bloodAboriginal children was introduced in all the Australian states in orderto address the dangers of the hybridity of mixed-bloods, their threat tothe boundaries between the civilized and the savage. The state was madethe legal guardian of all children of Aboriginal descent, overridingAboriginal parents common-law rights over their children, who were to beremoved at official will and sent to a mission or a child welfareinstitution, or to be fostered with a white family if sufficientlylight-skinned. The legislation enabling this was introduced inrelatively weak form between 1886 and 1909 in all Australian states,strengthened around 1915, and further reinforced in the 1930s, by whichtime, in legal terms, the state had become the custodial parents ofvirtually all Aboriginal children (Haebich 1988:350). The actual number of Aboriginal children removed from theirfamilies is unclear, partly because the records kept were patchy PATCHY - A Fortran code management program written at CERN. , withno accounting for Aboriginal children sent to homes not specificallydesignated for Aborigines; some were removed 'unofficially'and placed in the care of church agencies or individuals. Also difficultto quantify, as Peter Read reminds us, were 'those who went away towhite people for a 'holiday' and did not return'(1983:8). Rowena MacDonald suggests that in the period 1912-1962,'probably two out of every three part-descent children spent someof their lives away from their parents as a result of the policy ofremoval'. The HREOC report sums up its estimation as lying betweenone in three and one in ten in the period between 1910 and 1970, andpoints out both that 'not one indigenous family has escaped theeffects of forcible forc��i��ble?adj.1. Effected against resistance through the use of force: The police used forcible restraint in order to subdue the assailant.2. Characterized by force; powerful. removal' and that 'most families have beenaffected, in one or more generations, by the forcible removal of one ormore children' (HREOC 1997:37). This assertion of legal guardianship by the state over allindigenous children only ceased in the 1960s. The primary andoverarching o��ver��arch��ing?adj.1. Forming an arch overhead or above: overarching branches.2. Extending over or throughout: "I am not sure whether the missing ingredient . . . concern was to 'solve' the 'half-casteproblem' by breeding out the colour of both body and mind throughthis program of social engineering, and in this sense the removal ofAboriginal children meshed with the first strategy of controlling sexualrelations sexual relationspl.n.1. Sexual intercourse.2. Sexual activity between individuals. and reproduction among adult Aborigines. This was certainlythe most strongly articulated argument in the writings of thepoliticians, administrators and anthropologists central to thedevelopment of the various forms of legislative and administrativeaction. 'Merging', 'absorption' and'assimilation' into the ways of 'civilization' werethe key concepts around which this discourse was organized. In 1936 aconference of the leading authorities in Aboriginal affairs declared itsbelief 'that the destiny of the natives of aboriginal origin, butnot of full blood, lies in their ultimate absorption by the people ofthe Commonwealth' (Commonwealth of Australia Commonwealth of Australia:see Australia. 1937:3). Although there had almost always been at least some EuropeanAustralians who were as disturbed as Aboriginal people themselves by theways in which Aboriginal children were removed from their families,critiques of the legitimacy of Aboriginal child removal policies andpractices only began to gather effective broader strength during the1980s. The work of CD Rowley (1962; 1972a; 1972b) laid the foundationsin the 1970s, and in the 1980s Peter Read (1983) and Richard Chisholm(1985b) mounted powerful arguments against the ways in which Aboriginalchildren had been perceived and treated by white Australians. Ofparticular concern was the assumption within the assimilationist view ofthe world, that Aboriginal culture and ways of life had no inherentvalue whatsoever, and that the welfare of the rising generation ofAboriginal children was best pursued by the complete elimination ofAboriginality as any part of a distinct social and cultural identity.Richard Chisholm, for example, wrote that the New South Wales New South Wales,state (1991 pop. 5,164,549), 309,443 sq mi (801,457 sq km), SE Australia. It is bounded on the E by the Pacific Ocean. Sydney is the capital. The other principal urban centers are Newcastle, Wagga Wagga, Lismore, Wollongong, and Broken Hill. AboriginesProtection Board 'administered a separate system of Aboriginalchild welfare based explicitly on policies involving the eventualdisappearance of Aboriginal people' (1985a:1). In 1989, the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody This article or section needs copy editing for grammar, style, cohesion, tone and/or spelling.You can assist by [ editing it] now. focused attention on how many Aboriginal prisoners had a long history ofinstitutionalisation This article or section needs sourcesorreferences that appear in reliable, third-party publications. Alone, primary sources and sources affiliated with the subject of this article are not sufficient for an accurate encyclopedia article. , beginning with their removal from their families.Commissioner J.H. Wootten, in his report on the death('suicide') of one particular Aboriginal prisoner, MalcolmSmith Malcolm Smith may refer to: Malcolm Smith (artist) (1912–1966), American retro-futurist artist Malcolm Smith (footballer born 1953) (born 1953), English former footballer Malcolm Smith (footballer born 1970) (born 1970), English former footballer , spoke of 'a life destroyed, not by the misconduct of policeand prison officers, but in large measure by the regular operation ofthe system of self-righteous and racist destruction of Aboriginalfamilies that went on under the name of protection or welfare well intothe second half of this century' (Royal Commission into AboriginalDeaths in Custody 1989:1). Commissioner Wootten went on to drawattention to the fact that 'the attempt to "solve theAboriginal problem" by the deliberate destruction of families andcommunities ... is seen by many Aborigines as falling squarely withinthe modern definition of genocide' (p.5). By 1995 it was possiblefor the Full Court of the Family Court of Australia The Family Court of Australia is a federal Australian court, created by the Family Law Act 1975 as a specialist court dealing with family law matters, established in 1975 as an initiative of the Whitlam government. to say that, just asDeane and Gaudron JJ had spoken in the Australian High Courts Mabonative title decision of the dispossession The wrongful, nonconsensual ouster or removal of a person from his or her property by trick, compulsion, or misuse of the law, whereby the violator obtains actual occupation of the land. Dispossession encompasses intrusion, disseisin, or deforcement. of Aboriginals from theirland as leaving 'a national legacy of unutterable shame', (3)there can be 'little doubt that at a more directly personal levelthe policy of colonial, and later State, administrations in Australia tosystematically remove aboriginal children from their parents and placethem in institutions or other care and the consequences of that can bedescribed in equally strong terms'. (4) By the time the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC) is a national independent statutory body of the Australian Government. It has the responsibility for investigating alleged infringements under Australia’s anti-discrimination legislation. (HREOC) was requested by the Attorney-General, Michael Lavarch The Hon Michael Lavarch was the federal Attorney-General of Australia between 1993 and 1996.[1]Michael is married to Linda Lavarch and the couple have two children.He commenced his legal career in Brisbane as a Solicitor. , inAugust 1995, inter alia [Latin, Among other things.] A phrase used in Pleading to designate that a particular statute set out therein is only a part of the statute that is relevant to the facts of the lawsuit and not the entire statute. , to 'trace the past laws, practices andpolicies which resulted in the separation of Aboriginal and TorresStrait Torres Strait(tŏr`ĭz, –rĭs), channel, c.95 mi (153 km) wide, between New Guinea and Cape York Peninsula of Australia. It connects the Arafura and Coral seas. Islander children from their families by compulsion, duress duress(dy`rĭs, d`–, d orundue influence, and the effects of those laws, practices andpolicies', the concept of genocide had already become part of thevocabulary used to understand Aboriginal child removal, and the HREOCCommissioners, Sir Ronald Wilson Sir Ronald Wilson AC KBE CMG QC ( 23 August, 1922- 15 July, 2005) was a distinguished Australian lawyer, judge and social activist serving on the High Court of Australia between 1979 and 1989 and as the President of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission between 1990 and Michael Dodson, developed itsutilisation still further in the report released on 27 May 1997,Bringing them Home (BTH). The fact that the legislation allowed for the removal of Aboriginalchildren without parental consent (5) meant that such removals could beseen as constituting acts identified as one of the possible acts ofgenocide--the second leg of the Conventions definition--that is, clause(e) of Article II of the UNGC, 'forcibly transferring children ofthe group to another group'. The first leg of the definition, thatof the relevant acts being committed 'with intent to destroy, inwhole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, assuch' was also satisfied, argued the BTH report, by the overallobjective of assimilationist Aboriginal policy among all State andCommonwealth Governments up until the 1970s: the effective disappearanceof Aboriginal culture as a distinct basis of individual and collectiveidentity, its 'swallowing up' by a European way of life. Thisobjective had been clearly articulated in 1937, when AO Neville, ChiefProtector in WA, posed the rhetorical question rhetorical questionn.A question to which no answer is expected, often used for rhetorical effect.rhetorical questionNoun , 'Are we going tohave a population of 1,000,000 blacks in the Commonwealth, or are wegoing to merge them into our white community and eventually forget thatthere ever were any aborigines in Australia?' (Commonwealth ofAustralia 1937:11) It continued, in language of liberal citizenship, inthe thinking of Paul Hasluck Sir Paul Meernaa Caedwalla Hasluck, KG, GCMG, GCVO (1 April 1905–9 January 1993), Australian historian, public servant and politician, and 17th Governor-General of Australia, was born in Fremantle, Western Australia, into a family of Salvationists, whose values he retained , Minister for Territories (1951-1963), whotold the House of Representatives in 1950 that '[t]heir future liesin association with us, and they must either associate with us onstandards that will give them full opportunity to live worthily andhappily or be reduced to the social status of pariahs and outcastsliving without a firm place in the community' (1953:6). It was the absence of recognition of Aboriginal culture underlyingassimilationist policies that led the Inquiry to conclude that 'thepredominant aim of Indigenous child removals was the absorption orassimilation of the children into the wider, non-Indigenous, communityso that their unique cultural values and ethnic identities woulddisappear. This corresponded to what Lemkin had referred to in relationto the German National Socialists as the pursuit of 'thedisintegration of the political and social institutions of culture,language, national feelings, religion, and the economical existence ofnational groups' (1944:79), with Lemkin's phrase'national groups' replaced in the BTH report by'Indigenous peoples'. The 'principal aim', said theInquiry, was 'to eliminate Indigenous cultures as distinctentities', and the removal of Aboriginal children with thisobjective was genocidal 'because it aims to destroy the"cultural unit" which the Convention is concerned topreserve'. The BTH report quoted the argument put by the Venezuelan delegateto the United Nations during the debate on the drafting of theConvention, that: ...the forced transfer of children to a group where they would be given an education different from that of their own group, and would have new customs, a new religion and probably a new language, was in practice tantamount to the destruction of their group, whose future depended on that generation of children. Such transfer might be made from a group with a low standard of civilization and living in conditions both unhealthy and primitive, to a highly civilized group as members of which the children would suffer no physical harm, and would indeed enjoy an existence which was materially much better; in such cases there would be no question of mass murder, mutilation, torture or malnutrition; yet if the intent of the transfer were the destruction of the group, a crime of genocide would undoubtedly have been committed. (UN General Assembly 1948-1949:195). (6) The Report concluded that the policy of removing Aboriginalchildren from Aboriginal groups 'for the purpose of raising themseparately from and ignorant of their culture and people could properlybe labelled "genocidal" in breach of binding international lawfrom at least 11 December 1946', when the UN General Assemblyadopted its resolution declaring genocide a crime under internationallaw. The point is reiterated on the HREOC web site: The Inquiry's examination of historical documents found that the clear intent of removal policies was to absorb, merge or assimilate children so that Aboriginal people, as a distinct racial group, would disappear. Policies and laws are genocidal even if they are not solely motivated by animosity or hatred. The Inquiry found that a principal aim of removing children was to eliminate Indigenous cultures as distinct entities. The fact that people may have believed they were removing Indigenous children for 'their own good' was immaterial. The removal remains genocidal. (7) The BTH report did not, however, seek the remedy for this breach inlitigation An action brought in court to enforce a particular right. The act or process of bringing a lawsuit in and of itself; a judicial contest; any dispute.When a person begins a civil lawsuit, the person enters into a process called litigation. : its 'finding' of genocide has instead operatedmore to structure the stolen generations debate and to lend support toarguments for various forms of reparation Compensation for an injury; redress for a wrong inflicted.The losing countries in a war often must pay damages to the victors for the economic harm that the losing countries inflicted during wartime. These damages are commonly called military reparations. and compensation (Cuneen2001), and the term 'genocide' has since remained a centralelement of the way in which many critics frame their understanding ofthe illegitimacy illegitimacy:see bastard. Illegitimacybend sinistersupposed stigma of illegitimate birth. [Heraldry: Misc.]Clinker, Humphryservant of Bramble family turns out to be illegitimate son of Mr. Bramble. [Br. Lit. of Aboriginal child removal. (8) Running virtually parallel to the BTH Inquiry was a High Court casein which 6 Aboriginal plaintiffs sought legal redress against theCommonwealth on the basis of a challenge to the validity of theAboriginals Ordinance 1918 (NT). Five had been removed themselves, andthe sixth was the mother of a child who had been removed. The removalstook place between 1925 and 1949, and the latest detention ended in1960. The most important sections of the Ordinance in the case weresections 6 and 16. Section 6 provided that: (1) The Chief Protector shall be entitled at any time to undertakethe care, custody, or control of any Aboriginal or half-caste, if, inhis opinion it is necessary or desirable in the interests of theAboriginal or half-caste for him to do so, and for that purpose mayenter any premises where the Aboriginal or half-caste is or is supposedto be, and may take him into his custody. Section 16 provided that: (1) The Chief Protector may cause any Aboriginal or half-caste tobe kept within the boundaries of any reserve or Aboriginal institutionor to be removed to and kept within the boundaries of any reserve orAboriginal institution, or to be removed from one reserve or Aboriginalinstitution to another reserve or Aboriginal institution, and to be kepttherein. (2) Any Aboriginal or half-caste who refuses to be removed or keptwithin the boundaries of any reserve or Aboriginal institution whenordered by the Chief Protector, or resists removal, or who refuses toremain within or attempts to depart from any reserve or Aboriginalinstitution to which he has been so removed, or within which he is beingkept, shall be guilty of an offence against this Ordinance. The Commonwealth was aided in its defence by the Solicitors-Generalfor the States of New South Wales, Western Australia Western Australia,state (1991 pop. 1,409,965), 975,920 sq mi (2,527,633 sq km), Australia, comprising the entire western part of the continent. It is bounded on the N, W, and S by the Indian Ocean. Perth is the capital. and SouthAustralia South Australia,state (1991 pop. 1,236,623), 380,070 sq mi (984,381 sq km), S central Australia. It is bounded on the S by the Indian Ocean. Kangaroo Island and many smaller islands off the south coast are included in the state. . The part of the plaintiffs arguments relying, like the BTHreport, on the UNGC, was that actions taken under the AboriginalsOrdinance (v) were contrary to an implied constitutional right to freedom orimmunity from laws or executive acts ... constituting or authorising thecrime against humanity In international law a crime against humanity is an act of persecution or any large scale atrocities against a body of people, and is the highest level of criminal offense. of genocide by, inter alia, providing for,constituting or authorising (a) the removal and transfer of children ofa racial or ethnic group in a manner calculated to bring about thegroup's physical destruction in whole or in part; (b) actions whichhad the purposes, the effect or likely effect of causing serious mentalharm to members of the group; and (c) the deliberate infliction in��flic��tion?n.1. The act or process of imposing or meting out something unpleasant.2. Something, such as punishment, that is inflicted.Noun 1. on aracial or ethnic group of conditions of life calculated to bring aboutits physical destruction in whole or in part ... (p.7) The Commonwealth pleaded in its defence that: (a) if the power conferred by s122 of the Constitution was at anymaterial time restricted by any of the constitutional freedoms pleadedby the plaintiffs, the Ordinance was not contrary to any such freedombecause it was enacted and amended for the purpose of the protection ofpersons of the Aboriginal race, and was capable of being reasonablyconsidered or alternatively was appropriate and adapted to theachievement of that purpose; (b) the constitutional validity of the Ordinance fell to beconsidered by reference to the standards and perceptions prevailing atthe time of its enactment or operation and not by reference tocontemporary standards and perceptions. (p. 12) There was, then, no real dispute about whether removals were forcedor consensual, largely because it was the Ordinance itself which was atissue, and it clearly granted the power to execute non-consensualremovals. The point of contention in relation to the question ofgenocide was 'intent', and whether the Ordinance conferredpowers which aimed at the destruction or harming of Aboriginal people,or at their protection and welfare. It is common knowledge that the rules governing the interpretationof statutes are contested, with the debates usually organized around thedistinction between a 'literal' and a 'purposive'approach. (9) A literal construction The determination by a court of the meaning of the language of a document by an examination of only the actual words used in it, without any consideration of the intent of the parties who signed the writing except for the fact that they chose the language now in dispute. rests on a claim to engage entirelyand solely with the words of the relevant statute, (10) whereas apurposive pur��po��sive?adj.1. Having or serving a purpose.2. Purposeful: purposive behavior.pur construction draws additionally on the identification of theunderlying or background purpose of the legislation, the intent ofParliament at the time the legislation was debated and passed. (11) Thepurposive approach was in one sense statutorily enshrined as a'rule' in the 1981 amendment of s15AA of the ActInterpretation Act (1901) (Cth), which provides that 'aconstruction that would promote the purpose or object underlying the Act... shall be preferred to a construction that would not promote thatpurpose or object'. However, there remains such considerablejudicial variability in actually determining 'purpose' or'intent', that Jeffrey Barnes (1994, 1995) characterisesstatutory interpretation as an exemplary case of what Charles Sampford(1989) has called 'the disorder of law'. At the very least Australian courts approach the purpose rule withcaution, particularly where legislation appears to be the outcome of acompromise between different purposes or where the identification ofpurpose fails to solve the problem, (12) and their position liessomewhere between the words of Kirby P: ... the only safe approach to the construction of the web of applicable legislation is an attention to the literal words of the legislation. A 'purposive' approach founders in the shallows of a multitude of obscure, uncertain and even apparently conflicting purposes. (13) and a diligent application of the purpose rule. (14) However, theunderlying principles remain, first, that the starting point Noun 1. starting point - earliest limiting pointterminus a quocommencement, get-go, offset, outset, showtime, starting time, beginning, start, kickoff, first - the time at which something is supposed to begin; "they got an early start"; "she knew from the is alwaysthat '[t]he Act means what it says, and, what is more important, itdoes not mean what it does not say' (15) unless there is someambiguity or problem in the statute's application which judicialinterpretation is needed to resolve. Second, 'clear and unambiguouswords' are required before a statute will be interpreted as'displaying a legislative intent to achieve a particularresult'. (16) This rule of construction applies especially to themodification or removal of fundamental rights, so that the Courtsoperate with the presumption that it is in the last degree improbable that the legislature would overthrow fundamental principles, infringe rights, or depart from the general system of law, without expressing its intention with irresistible clearness; and to give any such effect to general words, simply because they have that meaning in their widest, or usual, or natural sense, would be to give them a meaning in which they were not really used. (17) Australian courts will not find in the Australian Constitution anyrestriction of Parliament's power to abrogate abrogatev. to annul or repeal a law or pass legislation that contradicts the prior law. Abrogate also applies to revoking or withdrawing conditions of a contract. (See: repeal) fundamental rights,(18) and they generally regard it as essential to a healthy democracythat they decline to rise to the support of 'fundamental' or'deeply rooted' fights in the face of the plenitude plen��i��tude?n.1. An ample amount or quantity; an abundance: a region blessed with a plenitude of natural resources.2. The condition of being full, ample, or complete. ofParliament's powers to make laws for the 'peace order and goodgovernment' of the Australian people. (19) 'If it beconceivable,' declared the High Court in 1920, 'that therepresentatives of the people of Australia as a whole would ever proceedto use their national powers to injure the people of Australiaconsidered sectionally, it is certainly within the power of the peoplethemselves to resent and reverse what may be done'. (20) However,the Courts will also require that the exercise of such power be clearlyand unambiguously indicated, and that it be 'consistent with thewording otherwise adopted by the draftsman'. (21) This means that if the Aboriginal Ordinance were to be construed as manifesting an intention to destroy Aboriginals as a human group, this purpose would have to be explicitly and unequivocally indicated by its wording. As Toohey J. explained it, The notion of genocide embodied in the definition in Art II of the Genocide Convention is so fundamentally repugnant to basic human rights acknowledged by the common law that, by reason of well settled principles of statutory interpretation, an intention to authorise acts falling within that definition needs to be clear beyond doubt before a legislative provision can be construed as having that effect. (22) All of the High Court found that it was impossible to put such aconstruction on s6, which granted the Chief Protector the power to'undertake the care, custody, or control of any Aboriginal orhalf-caste', on the condition that he had formed the opinion that'it is necessary or desirable in the interests of the Aboriginal orhalf-caste for him to do so', as well as the power to takeAboriginal people into custody for that purpose, and that purpose only.If any public officials had been charged with seeking the destruction ofAboriginal people as a human group, and had sought protection behind theshield of Parliament on the grounds that the Ordinance had authorisedthem to pursue that purpose, this argument would have been unequivocallyrejected, and for the same reason the Court was unable to find that theOrdinance itself could be declared invalid for displaying such anintent, given, as Dawson J. stated, 'that they were required to beperformed in the best interests of the Aboriginals concerned or of theAboriginal population'. (23) As Gaudron J. put it: Although it may be taken that the Ordinance authorised the forcible transfer of Aboriginal children from their racial group, the settled principles of statutory construction ... compel the conclusion that it did not authorise persons to remove those children 'with intent to destroy, in whole or in part,.... [their] racial ... group, as such'. It follows that the Ordinance did not authorise acts of genocide as defined in the Genocide Convention ... (24) Indeed, Gaudron J found that the question of whether any acts werecommitted with genocidal intent was a different legal question, to whichthe issue of the validity of the Ordinance was irrelevant. (25) Evenbefore getting to the additional issue of the whole relationship betweeninternational and domestic law, explored in Nulyarimma, where themajority of the Federal Court decided in favour of the view thatdomestic law was necessary to give domestic legal effect tointernational law, in relation to criminal matters such as genocide, atleast, (26) the arguments questioning the validity of the Ordinance inrelation to international law norms regarding genocide had collapsed onthe need to demonstrate clear and unambiguous 'intent todestroy'. (27) The materials drawn upon by the BTH Report to arguethis intent--the 1937 Conference, assorted writings by Neville, Cook,Spencer, Bleakley and various other public officials andcommentators--simply have no legal effect. (28) The underlying problem is that the pursuit of an argument backed bythe authority of law, in this case the application of the UNGC to thequestion of the removal of Indigenous children, demands anindividualised and detailed (i.e, substantiated with evidence), case bycase, analysis, rather than the broad-brush account provided by the BTHReport. Since genocidal aims were not stated in the legislation, the'crime' of genocide could only be committed, as Hal Woottenhas pointed out, by individuals who appeared to be being judged withoutany opportunity to defend themselves against the charges (1998:6). Inreferring to the fact that there were a variety of ways in whichchildren were removed, (29) Wootten distinguishes between two differenttypes of purposes in analysing the history of the stolen generations;first, an understanding of the destructive effects of removal practices: If a small child is forced to grow up cut off from family and community, in an emotionally barren environment in which its racial background is despised, told that its parents are dead or uninterested in it, and treated as having no destiny except as unskilled or domestic labour for the superior white race, its childhood will be misery and it will be at risk of lasting psychic disturbance. This will be true whether the child is removed for genocidal motives, because its fair skin in a blacks camp is an embarrassment to white society, because it is considered neglected, or because it lives far from a hospital or school (1998:6). For this purpose, to which, Wootten suggests, the HREOC Inquiryshould have confined itself, the reasons for removal are onlyperipherally relevant. For the second purpose, however, that of the attribution ofcriminal responsibility, the finding of an intent to destroy Aboriginalsas a group, the reasons for removal are highly relevant, and Woottenfeels that 'the failure to investigate individual circumstancesmakes problematic any finding that the removals were all carded out withintent to destroy a group, as such' (1998:7). Wootten regards its'finding' of genocide a 'quite unnecessary legalruling' which has generated 'pointless controversy': The enormity of what was done speaks for itself through the lips of those to whom it was done, and the lips of self-righteous administrators of the past whose ideas would today be seen as genocidal. (1998:6) Interestingly, we still circle back to the concept of'genocide' which, despite its ineffectiveness in the legalarena, seems to retain conceptual force in addressing this aspect of thehistory of relations between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians. The question I would like to turn to, then, is whether it ispossible or useful to make distinctions between different conceptions ofgenocide, perhaps between gradations of genocide (Churchill 1986),approaching an understanding which can do justice both to the conceptslimited application in law, and to its continuing attraction toIndigenous peoples as a means of capturing an essential dimension oftheir experience of settler-colonialism. In order to engage with thisissue, it is useful to turn the analysis of purpose and intent to theUNGC itself, since this has tended to operate as the reference point formuch of the discussion of genocide in relation to Indigenous peoples.What was its underlying purpose? What 'mischief' was itdesigned to correct, and what was the precise role played by the clauseconcerning the forcible removal of children from one group to another?Is the UNGC a reliable guide for a useful understanding of genocide, ordo the attempted mobilisations of the UNGC actually constitute acritique of it, as well as an argument for a new and different approachto the whole question of genocide within modern state-formation? THE UN CONVENTION, THE 'FORCIBLE TRANSFER OF CHILDREN'CLAUSE AND CULTURAL GENOCIDE The roots of Lemkin's conception of genocide lay not inAuschwitz, but in earlier examples of mass killings, such as theArmenian genocide Editing of this page by unregistered or newly registered users is currently disabled due to vandalism. , as well as in an analysis of 'the rule imposedupon the occupied countries of Europe by the Axis powers',supported by a variety of domestic 'puppet' rrgimes andstates. It was addressed in large part to 'the Anglo-Saxon reader,who, with his innate respect for human rights and human personality, maybe inclined to believe that the Axis rrgime could not possibly be ascruel and ruthless as has been hitherto described' (1944:ix). Acore concern for Lemkin was thus not simply 'obvious' examplesof killing, but the whole colonizing regime of the Axis powers Axis PowersCoalition headed by Germany, Italy, and Japan that opposed the Allied Powers in World War II. The alliance originated in a series of agreements between Germany and Italy, followed in 1936 by the Rome-Berlin Axis declaration and the German-Japanese Anti-Comintern in theoccupied countries, a very particular kind of legal order based on avariety of 'techniques of occupation' constituting 'agigantic scheme to change, in favour of Germany, the balance ofbiological forces between it and the captive nations for many years tocome,' aiming 'to destroy or cripple the subjugated sub��ju��gate?tr.v. sub��ju��gat��ed, sub��ju��gat��ing, sub��ju��gates1. To bring under control; conquer. See Synonyms at defeat.2. To make subservient; enslave. peoples intheir development' so that Germany would be placed in a position of'numerical, physical and economic superiority' regardless ofthe military outcome of armed conflict. He referred to this 'newtechnique of occupation aimed at winning the peace even though the waritself is lost' (1944:81), as 'genocide', a'practice of extermination exterminationmass killing of animals or other pests. Implies complete destruction of the species or other group. of nations and ethnic groups' thatis 'effected through a synchronized attack on different aspects oflife of the captive peoples', in the realms of politics, society,culture, economics, biology, physical existence (starvation andkilling), religion, and morality (1944:xi-xii). Generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killings of all members of a nation. It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves. The objectives of such a plan would be disintegration of the political and social" institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups, and the destruction of the personal security, liberty, health, dignity, and even the lives of the individuals belonging to such groups. Genocide is directed against the national group as an entity, and the actions involved are directed against individuals, not in their individual capacity, but as members of the national group. (1944:79) It is clear, then, that Lemkin was prompted to speak of genocide byhis observations of a multi-faceted political rationality and amulti-dimensional set of legal and administrative forms and practices,of which outright killing was one, but not the only part, and he waskeen to point out the heterogeneity of ways in which the destruction ofhuman groups could take place (see also Miller 1995). This analysis was the starting point, then, for the UnitedNations' attempts to develop an instrument of international lawwhich might help prevent such conduct on the part of governingauthorities in the future. At Lemkin's urging, and with the strongsupport of the US delegation (Lemkin 1947:149), the United Nationspassed a resolution on 11 Dec 1946 that a convention aimed at theprevention of genocide should be drafted for discussion at the UN, andafter some to-ing and fro-ing, in April 1947 the Secretary-Generalrequested the Human Rights Division, together with three externalexperts, to draw up a draft convention. (30) This firstSecretariat's draft, issued on 26 June 1947, contained the seeds ofmost of the debates, disagreements and divergences which havecharacterized varying approaches to genocide ever since. First, the Secretariat's draft insisted that the literaldefinition of genocide as 'the deliberate destruction of a humangroup' 'must be rigidly adhered to; otherwise there is adanger of the idea of genocide being expanded indefinitely to includethe law of war, the right of peoples to self-determination, theprotection of minorities, the respect of human rights, etc'. (31)The two difficulties attending too broad a definition included that ofsimple logic, the acts identified had to be understandable as genocide'by any normal process of reasoning'. In addition, governments'might become suspicious and tend to abstain' if 'thenotion of genocide were excessively wide', and the convention wouldbe weighed down by too many reservations. The overall argument was thata convention on genocide should be seen as only one 'chapter'of international law, alongside 'The law of war, the law ofnationality, the protection of minorities, the general rights andobligations of States, the protection of human rights', and thatthe distinctions between these different arenas of international law hadmeaning and should not be ignored. (32) Second, the draft explicitly excluded 'the policy ofcompulsory assimilation of a national element' from its definition,even if such acts 'may result in the total or partial destructionof a group of human beings'. (33) A policy of forced assimilation'does not as a rule constitute genocide'. (34) It was'[t]he system of protection of minorities, if applicable'which was seen as relevant to 'the protection of minorities againsta policy of forced assimilation employing relatively moderatemethods'. (35) None the less, thirdly, the draft did retain Lemkin'sthree-fold typology typology/ty��pol��o��gy/ (ti-pol��ah-je) the study of types; the science of classifying, as bacteria according to type. typologythe study of types; the science of classifying, as bacteria according to type. of physical, biological and cultural genocide,albeit under protest from de Vabres and Pella, who felt that the idea ofcultural genocide 'represented an undue extension of the notion ofgenocide and amounted to reconstituting the former protection ofminorities (which was based on other conceptions) under the cover of theterm genocide'. (36) In the face of this opposition, Lemkinmaintained that 'a racial, national, or religious group cannotcontinue to exist unless it preserves its spirit and moral unity'and added that if actions identifiable as cultural genocide werecriminal acts under municipal law, we should have not difficultyincluding them within a definition of an international crime ofgenocide. (37) Lemkin insisted that his conception of cultural genocideconstituted something more than 'forcible assimilation', itwas 'a policy which by drastic methods, aimed at the rapid andcomplete disappearance of the cultural, moral and religious life of agroup of human beings'. The boundary between the two remainedunclear. (38) Fourth, the committee included the act of the forcible transfer ofchildren within its definition of cultural genocide: The separation of children from their parents results in forcing upon the former at an impressionable and receptive age a culture and a mentality different from their parents. This process tends to bring about the disappearance of the group as a cultural unit in a relatively short time. Lemkin, Pella and de Vabres 'agreed that this point should becovered by the Convention on Genocide' but we are also told,tellingly, that 'their agreement did not go further than that'(p.27). The two essential instabilities in the Secretariat's draftwere the inclusion of 'cultural' genocide, against theresistance of Pella and de Vabres, and the inclusion of the'forcible transfer of children' clause within culturalgenocide. Both of these points became points of contention in laterdebates, both within the UN and beyond. The Secretariat's draft wascommented on by member states, then sent to an Ad Hoc Committee ad hoc committeeA committee formed with the purpose of addressing a specific issue or issues, which theoretically is disbanded once its raison d'etre is finished of theEconomic and Social Council to re-draft the Convention; in this seconddraft, the tripartite TRIPARTITE. Consisting of three parts, as a deed tripartite, between A of the first part, B of the second part, and C of the third part. division into physical, biological and culturalgenocide was again retained, but the 'forcible transfer ofchildren' clause was omitted. This was then the draft submitted tothe 6th, Legal Committee of the General Assembly for discussion on 27August 1948, with cultural genocide included, but 'forcibletransfer of children' excluded. Among the themes of the subsequentdiscussions in the 6th Committee was the reversal of both these points. A number of member states had decided to work towards the exclusionof Article HI on cultural genocide, but first they wanted to achieve thereintroduction Noun 1. reintroduction - an act of renewed introductionintro, introduction, presentation - formally making a person known to another or to the public of the 'forcible transfer of children' clause.This was done by re-framing the idea of 'forcible transfer ofchildren' as not being about cultural genocide at all, contrary toLemkin's original construction, (39) but as being an example ofphysical genocide. The Greek delegate, Mr Vallindas, who moved that theclause be added as a fifth clause to Article II on physical andbiological genocide, pointed out that both the French and USdelegations, in opposing the idea of cultural genocide, had made a clearexception for 'the special case of the forced transfer ofchildren,' which they saw as 'an act far more serious andindeed more barbarous than the other acts enumerated This term is often used in law as equivalent to mentioned specifically, designated, or expressly named or granted; as in speaking of enumerated governmental powers, items of property, or articles in a tariff schedule. in the first draftconvention under the heading of cultural genocide,' and they hadincluded it in their own drafts of a convention. It has 'not onlycultural, but also physical and biological effects since it imposed onyoung persons conditions of life likely to cause them serious harm oreven death' (UN General Assembly 1948-1949:186). (40) 'Therecould be no doubt,' declared Vallinda, 'that a forced transferof children, committed with the intention of destroying a human group asa whole, or at least in part, constituted genocide'. It could be'as effective a means of destroying a human group as that ofimposing measures intended to prevent births, or inflicting conditionsof life likely to cause death' (pp. 186-7). In supporting theamendment, the US delegate, John Maktos, asked the Committeerhetorically 'to consider what difference there was from the pointof view of the destruction of a group between measures to prevent birthhalf an hour before the birth and abduction half an hour after thebirth' (p. 187; again on p.189). There is no need, then, to regard the eventual inclusion of the'forcible transfer' clause as 'enigmatic' (Schabas2000:175) just because it had started its life as part of the culturalgenocide provisions and the UN ultimately excluded the cultural genocideArticle. It is also incorrect to say that 'one aspect of"cultural" genocide, forcible transfer of children, isincluded in [the] list,' even though 'cultural genocidegenerally is not prohibited by the convention' (Starkman 1984:5).The delegate from Uruguay, Mr Martini y Rios, emphasized that'there was no reason why such acts of physical genocide should beassociated with cultural genocide', and Vallindas reiterated thatthe amendment 'was not connected with cultural genocide, but withthe destruction of a group--with physical genocide' (UN GeneralAssembly 1948-1949:189). (41) The Russian delegate, Mr Morozov, becausehe wanted to retain the whole cultural genocide Article, could see thatcase being weakened by the 'forced transfer of children'clause being airlifted out, and resisted the distinction being madebetween it and the other cultural genocide provisions, by complainingthat 'no one had been able to quote any historical case of thedestruction of a group through the transfer of children' (UNGeneral Assembly 1948-1949:190). (42) But, to no avail, theFrench/US/Greek position won out, the amendment was adopted 20/13, with13 abstentions. The next battle surrounded the push to remove cultural genocidefrom the convention. Johannes Morsink (1999) has pointed out that the UNdivided essentially into three blocs: the communist and Arab delegationsin favour of retaining a cultural genocide article, the North and SouthAmerican delegations opposing it, and the Western European delegationswavering between the two positions. The first bloc, in favour of retention, (43) were all countrieswhich either had experienced the worst of the National Socialist's'population' policies, being to Germany's East, or hadother reasons to be responsive to the protection of cultural diversityagainst social and political forces aimed at cultural homogeneity--atthis particular time, at least, even if they were later to take updifferent attitudes. One major argument was that there was an intimaterelationship An intimate relationship is a particularly close interpersonal relationship. It is a relationship in which the participants know or trust one another very well or are confidants of one another, or a relationship in which there is physical or emotional intimacy. between the destruction of culture, especially when linkedto biological arguments about racial inferiority or degeneracy, andphysical or biological annihilation. The Pakistani delegate, Mr BahadurKhan, argued that cultural genocide could not be divorced from physical and biological genocide, since the two crimes were complementary in so far as they had the same motive and the same object, namely, the destruction of a national, racial or religious group as such, either by exterminating its members or by destroying its special characteristics. (UN General Assembly 1948-1949:193). (44) While Khan appreciated that 'new countries' needed toassimilate immigrants 'in order to create a powerful nationalunit,' the genocide convention should still be used to preventthose forms of assimilation which were 'nothing but a euphemism eu��phe��mism?n.The act or an example of substituting a mild, indirect, or vague term for one considered harsh, blunt, or offensive: "Euphemisms such as 'slumber room' . . . concealing measures of coercion designed to eliminate certain forms ofculture' (UN General Assembly 1948-1948:194) . (45) The Venezuelan delegate, Mr Perez Perozo, made a valiant attempt to'ride on the back' of the earlier inclusion of the'forced transfer of children' clause, arguing that the 6thCommittee's recognition of that kind of action as genocide meantthat it 'implicitly recognized that a group could be destroyedalthough the individual members of it continued to live normally withouthaving suffered physical harm' (UN General Assembly 1948-1949:195).(46) If 'forced transfer of children' was recognised,'less spectacular crimes should not be overlooked and the conceptof genocide should extend to the inclusion of acts less terrible inthemselves but resulting in "great losses to humanity in the formof cultural and other contributions", for which it was indebted tothe destroyed human group' (UN General Assembly 1948-1949:195).(47) The member states most strongly opposed to the cultural genocidearticle were those composed of a large proportion of immigrants, and/orsettler-colonies with a minority or majority indigenous population: theUSA and Canada, most of the Latin American states, Australia, NewZealand New Zealand(zē`lənd), island country (2005 est. pop. 4,035,000), 104,454 sq mi (270,534 sq km), in the S Pacific Ocean, over 1,000 mi (1,600 km) SE of Australia. The capital is Wellington; the largest city and leading port is Auckland. , South Africa South Africa,Afrikaans Suid-Afrika, officially Republic of South Africa, republic (2005 est. pop. 44,344,000), 471,442 sq mi (1,221,037 sq km), S Africa. . The US and French delegations had made theiropposition clear from the start, but now it was a range of other memberstates which took the lead in the discussion. Mr Amado (Brazil)suggested that 'given the historical evolution of civilizations,sometimes through differentiation, sometimes through the amalgamation oflocal cultures, a State might be justified in its endeavour to achieveby legal means a certain degree of homogeneity and culture within itsboundaries' (UN General Assembly 1948-1949:197). (48) The SouthAfrican delegate (Mr Egeland) referred to 'the danger latent in theprovisions of Article III where primitive or backward groups wereconcerned,' using the example of absurdity of protecting 'suchcustoms as cannibalism' (UN General Assembly 1948-1949:202). (49) Mr Reid (New Zealand) pointed out that the United Nations itself,in the Trusteeship Council, was busy attempting to 'advance'indigenous peoples beyond their tribal forms of social organization, sothat the Council was in fact 'opposed to the maintenance of adistinctive cultural trait of the local population', producing theembarrassing situation of the UN's own organs being subject to itsGenocide Convention (UN General Assembly 1948-1949:201). (50) Mr Petren(Sweden), wondered whether the conversion of the indigenous Lapps toChristianity would not then constitute cultural genocide, and Mr Abdoh(Iran) complained that 'it would have to be decided whether allcultures, even the most barbarous, deserved protection, and whether theassimilation resulting from the civilizing action of a State alsoconstituted genocide' (UN General Assembly 1948-1949:201). (51)Both the Belgian (Mr Kaeckenbeek) and French (Mr Chaumont) delegates sawsuch an article as unjustified intervention in 'the domesticaffairs of states' (UN General Assembly 1948-1949:8, 204). (52) Itwas clear that Lemkin's conception of the cultural dimensions Cultural dimensions are the mostly psychological dimensions, or value constructs, which can be used to describe a specific culture. These are often used in Intercultural communication-/Cross-cultural communication-based research.See also: Edward T. ofgenocide actually overlapped significantly with a type of pursuit ofcultural homogeneity characterizing 'the civilizing mission'that had become a normalised aspect of modern state-formation andnation-building, particularly in relation to immigrants and toindigenous populations attached to pre-industrial forms of socialcohesion and interaction. (53) These arguments converged with others concerning the imprecision orvagueness of the idea of cultural genocide, the 'correct'understanding of what constitutes genocide (surely it has to involvekilling), (54) and the appropriateness of this particular instrument indealing with whatever might be problematic about the cultural dimensionsof genocide. Mr de Beus of the Netherlands was one among many delegateswho complained of the 'vagueness' of the concept of culturalgenocide, and the US delegation insisted that the convention'should be confined to those barbarous acts directed againstindividuals which form the basic concept of public opinion on thissubject', (55) and they also identified the realm of human fights,rather than international criminal law, as the appropriate arena fordealing with problems of this sort. Mr Chaumont (France) agreed (UNGeneral Assembly 1948-1949:8), as did Mr Sundaram (India) (UN GeneralAssembly 1948-1949:15) and Sir Hartley Shawcross (UK) (UN GeneralAssembly 1948-1949:17). As Mr Manini y Rios (Uruguay), one of thevigorous supporters of the construction of forced transfer of childrenas being quite distinct from cultural genocide, put it, 'theconvention should restrict itself to the crime of physical genocide ...those parts dealing with cultural and political genocide should be dealtwith in the field of human rights' (UN General Assembly1948-1949:16). The removal of Article III dealing with cultural genocidewas supported by 25 votes to 16, with 4 abstentions. (56) There were two aspects of the genocide question, then, whichremained essentially disputed, even if a dominant position on both didultimately emerge: how and where we should place the boundaries, first,between 'biology' and 'culture' and, second, betweenlegitimate and illegitimate organized violence. The passage of the'forcible transfer of children' clause shows that thedistinctions between 'biology' and 'culture' were byno means clear. The practice of child removal was originally understoodby Lemkin as part of the cultural dimension of genocide, and this is howit first entered the convention, but it was subsequently re-defined as'really' an element of physical or biological genocide, and itwas on this basis that agreement was secured on its place in theconvention. However, this construction of child removal as biologicaland as having little to do with forcible assimilation and the pursuit ofcultural homogeneity remained disputed, with the Venezuelan delegateusing the inclusion of the clause as a 'lever' for theargument in favour of cultural genocide, re-framing it again in culturalrather than biological or racial terms. (57) Similarly the arguments surrounding cultural genocide indicate avarying sensitivity to the cultural dimensions of genocide and adisputed understanding of what it means to 'destroy' a humangroup: whether it is necessary to physically kill them, or whether theycan be 'killed' in more subtle and apparently civilized ways.It is useful here to recall Alexis de Tocqueville's observations onthe destruction of the North American North Americannamed after North America.North American blastomycosissee North American blastomycosis.North American cattle ticksee boophilusannulatus. Indians, and the differencebetween the approaches of the Spanish and the Americans: The Spanish unleash their dogs on the Indians as on ferocious beasts; they pillage the New World like a town taken by assault, without discrimination and without pity; but one cannot destroy everything, fury has a limit: the remnant of the Indian populations escaping the massacres in the end mixes with those who have defeated it and adopts their religion and mores. The conduct of the Americans of the United States towards the natives, on the contrary, breathes the purest love of forms and legality. Provided that the Indians stay in the savage state, the Americans do not mix at all in their affairs and treat them as independent peoples; they do not permit themselves to occupy their lands without having duly acquired them by means of a contract; and if by chance an Indian nation can no longer live on its territory, they take it like a brother by the hand and lead it to die outside the country of its fathers. (2000:325) This distinction between different modes of destruction remainedthe one splitting the debates in the UN, and continues to divide ourunderstanding of genocide between a 'narrow' and a'broad' view to this day. On the one side were the argumentsthat genocide should be narrowly conceived, restricted to the approachadopted by the Spanish in South America South America,fourth largest continent (1991 est. pop. 299,150,000), c.6,880,000 sq mi (17,819,000 sq km), the southern of the two continents of the Western Hemisphere. , and on the other were theproposals that we should understand genocide more broadly, and recognizewhat is problematic about the techniques adopted by the Americans inNorth America North America,third largest continent (1990 est. pop. 365,000,000), c.9,400,000 sq mi (24,346,000 sq km), the northern of the two continents of the Western Hemisphere. , what remains violent anddestructive about the apparently civilized management of the processof settler-colonization within the rule of law. Lying underneath this division is a related one concerning thecharacter of legitimate force and violence within processes ofstate-formation, particularly in a settler-colonial context in relationto Indigenous populations, as well as the relationship betweennation-building and cultural homogeneity or diversity. The argumentsagainst the workability of the inclusion of attempts to address culturalgenocide within the same convention dealing with killing and mass murderwere not trivial, and there is force to the point that it might makemore sense to engage with this kind of question in the sphere of humanrights. Perhaps we would have all ended up voting against the inclusionof Article III. None the less, along the way a very interestingbedfellow has been acquired, namely the proposition that states reallyhave the right to do more or less as they please regarding cultural andbehavioural uniformity as long as they do not actually murder anyone. AsPatrick Thornberry has put it: The Nazi experience impelled States to support the criminalization of genocide and give some promise of protection to groups as such, but this criminalization has its limits. These limits, characteristically, are reached when the law might be seen to function as a barrier to nation-building, to the 'civilizing mission' of States. (1991:14) Indeed, Leo Kuper Leo Kuper (1908 - 1994) was a writer and philosopher. He was born to a Lithuanian Jewish family in South Africa. He trained as a lawyer before becoming a sociologist specialising in the study of genocide. has his doubts about the restriction on murder,saying that the modern state has 'as an integral part of itssovereignty, the right to commit genocide ... against peoples under itsrule' and that 'the United Nations for all practical purposesdefends this right' (1981:171). (58) There was also a strongargument being put, both in these particular debates on the Convention,but also on the issues of 'minority' (as opposed to'individual') rights and throughout the UN in this period(Tennant 1994), that particular eggs simply had to be broken in makingthe omelette of modern progress, and that it is acceptable, desirableand entirely consistent with the lofty ideals of humanitarianliberalism, to construct some ways of life as not constituting'culture' at all, but merely misery, poverty, backwardness,savagery SavageryApache Indiansonce fierce fighting tribe of American West. [Am. Hist.: NCE, 123]bandersnatchimaginary wild animal of great ferocity. [Br. Lit. , illiteracy illiteracy,inability to meet a certain minimum criterion of reading and writing skill.Definition of IlliteracyThe exact nature of the criterion varies, so that illiteracy must be defined in each case before the term can be used in a meaningful , ill health, inequality, oppression, and socialdisorganization Social disorganization is a criminology theory that was developed by Henry McKay and Clifford R. Shaw of the Chicago School. Shaw and McKay were influenced by earlier urban ecology work by Ernest W. Burgess and Robert E. Park. . It is, of course, about precisely this world view thatIndigenous peoples have expressed most dismay. STATE FORMATION AND INDIGENOUS PEOPLES--BETWEEN GENOCIDE ANDETHNOCIDE In addition to the polarisation between narrow and broadconceptions of genocide, one of the significant features of theAustralian debates around Aboriginal child removal is the stand-offbetween those who argue that it should be seen in terms of'welfare' on the one hand, or 'culturalgenocide'--requiring an official apology and other forms ofreparation--on the other. The Commonwealth Government's response tothe Bringing them Home report (Commonwealth of Australia 2000), forexample, concentrated on contesting what proportion of the Aboriginalpopulation was in fact removed from their families, complaining aboutthe semantic accuracy of the word 'generation', protestingthat Aboriginal children were treated no more appallingly than whitechildren and, above all, insisting that the underlying intent, and oftenthe actual effect of child removal policies was always the'welfare' and 'interests' of Aboriginal people. Thecategories 'welfare' and 'genocide' are generallytreated as mutually exclusive Adj. 1. mutually exclusive - unable to be both true at the same timecontradictoryincompatible - not compatible; "incompatible personalities"; "incompatible colors" , so that one can only argue for one bycompletely denying the validity of the other. This is largely why theopposing sides on the question of official apology find it so difficultto understand each other: although the Australian Prime Minister, JohnHoward For other persons of the same name, see John Howard (disambiguation).John Winston Howard (born 26 July 1939) is an Australian politician and the 25th Prime Minister of Australia. , agreed to express his Governments 'regret', he did sowith enormous reluctance and in response to enormous political pressure,and his underlying position is more accurately represented as 'whyshould the pursuit of welfare be apologised for?' (59) One of the problems with attempting to pursue this debate withinthe context of a welfare/genocide distinction is, as we have seen, thatthe different sides have divergent understandings of'genocide' (narrow vs broad), so that these two categoriesoverlap rather than oppose each other, and in fact there is nothing toprevent the pursuit of 'welfare' to simultaneously becomprehensible as 'genocidal'. Another is that there iscertainly little correspondence between our current understandings ofthe distinction between welfare and genocide and the ones which wereoperative at the time of the relevant legislation being passed and therelevant policies being formulated and translated into administrativepractice. Looking back at the political forces which produced the laws,policies and practices of child removal around the turn of the century,they aligned themselves along different lines from the currentwelfare/genocide distinction. If the broader understanding of'genocide' effectively operates as a synonym synonym(sĭn`ənĭm)[Gr.,=having the same name], word having a meaning that is the same as or very similar to the meaning of another word of the same language. Some are alike in some meanings only, as live and dwell. for'colonization', it may be useful to recall that stateformation is also a process of social and cultural formation whichshould not be equated with 'government', so that we might needto distinguish between genocidal actions and policies on the one hand,and a genocidal structuring of social relations on the other. One of thereasons it is even possible to debate whether particular organisedinterventions (by Church as well as state agencies) were'genocidal' or pursuing Aboriginal 'welfare' is thatwe are observing an assembly of interactions between government action(via legislation, interventions, and support of Church agencyinterventions) and extra-governmental social, demographic and economicprocesses with their own logic and dynamic. Tony Barta has pointed out,for example, that it is true to say that Australian governments haveconsistently spoken not of eliminating the Aboriginal people, but ofsaving them, from an essentially genocidal society, a mode ofstructuring social relations and ordering the disposition of land whichcould have no effect other than destroy Aboriginal social life(1985:159). The Aboriginals Ordinance (NT) 1911, on which the 1918 Ordinancewas based, had been drafted in large part by Atlee Hunt (1864-1935),secretary and permanent head of the Department of External Affairs(1901-1915), and the anthropologist and public servant W. BaldwinSpencer For the anthropoligist, see W. Baldwin SpencerWinston Baldwin Spencer (born October 8, 1948) is the prime minister of Antigua and Barbuda. . Spencer's views were much respected by Hunt (Mulvaney& Calaby 1985:277), and he was relied upon by the government torebuild its Aboriginal legislation and policy (Mulvaney & Calaby1985:278). The very broad powers granted to the Chief Protector andconstituting the capacity for 'genocidal' intervention werethose which Spencer had sought to render what was, from anadministrator's point a view, a very unruly state of relationsbetween Indigenous and non-Indigenous people in the Northern Territorymore amenable to governance and regulation. The problem facing Spencer,as Mulvaney and Calaby point out, was how to reconcile paternalism with indigenous initiative, or compulsion in humanitarian interests with civil liberties ... how to implement government decisions relating to the black majority, when the white minority effectively controls administration and regards both the laws and the native population with contempt ... (1985:264-5) His solution fell very much on the side of paternalism paternalism (p·terˑ·n , giving theChief Protector enormous powers over the Aboriginal population, powerswhich could be deputed to any other official designated a Protector,which included all police officers, and from a contemporary perspectiveconstitutes an extraordinary governmental intrusion into the everydaylives of a particular section of the population. However, although Mulvaney and Calaby agree that 'there was anelement of racial arrogance, which enabled him to ignore the emotional,personal problems, resulting from his rational legal solutions'(1985:286), they also argue that this needs to be placed within theparticular ideological and material context from which this racialarrogance emerged. They point out that the racist overtones ofSpencer's writings and policy developments 'should be comparedwith the naked and aggressive racism of tropical Australiancontemporaries, rather than with the United Nations Charter'(1985:289). Equally important was the fact that the arguments againstsuch government paternalism, supposedly in support of the civilliberties of the Aboriginal population, came from precisely thoseindividuals and groups hoping to most ruthlessly exploit Aboriginallabour and to retain unlimited sexual access to Aboriginal girls andwomen (Mulvaney & Calaby 1985:289). The reasoning of the Commonwealth Member of Parliament who spoke upmost frequently 'on behalf of' Aboriginal interests, DrCharles Carty Salmon (1860-1917), (60) also tells us a little more aboutthe liberal political rationality underlying this concern better togovern Indigenous affairs. Salmon insisted that 'The aboriginals ofAustralia have, in the past been shamefully treated', and that this'is one of the greatest blots on the history of the States'.(61) He felt, the House of Representatives was told, a personal responsibility towards those people who were the original owners of the soil. We have dispossessed them, taking from them their birthright; and although there are those who believe that Australia was pre-ordained as a home of the white race, I feel sure that the extinction of the aboriginals in the fashion that prevails was not pre-ordained. (62) However, Salmon was also an active supporter of the White Australiapolicy Topics related to racism and immigration in Australia are still regularly connected by the media to the White Australia Policy. Some examples of issues and events where this connection has been made include: reconciliation with Aborigines; mandatory detention and the "Pacific Solution"; , and clearly supported Spencer's 'sternpaternalism' in order to improve the governance of the racialcomposition of the Northern Territory. The particular problem there, inSalmon's view, was that part-Aboriginal children were being born ofAsian rather than European fathers. I am sorry to notice ... the admixture of races that is going on. We have been accustomed to look upon the half-caste as being partly a European product, but a reference to the reports will show that it is with the Eastern aliens that the admixture is taking place. Chinese and Japanese have been using the native women against their will, and against the will of their natural protectors ... I do not know what the Minister of External Affairs has done in order to deal with this matter, but I hope he will use the enormous powers with which he is invested to issue Ordinances for the Northern Territory, and also for Papua, which will properly protect the chastity of the native women. The admixture of European with aboriginal blood is bad enough, but the admixture of the blood of Chinese, Japanese, and Malays of low caste with the blood of the aboriginal race is too awful to contemplate. If we are to have a piebald Australia, let it be by the admixture of European blood with the blood of another race, not by the mixture of alien blood with the blood of the aboriginal race, which would be more degrading and lowering to our status as a nation. (63) Salmon's declared sensitivity to his position as a colonizer col��o��nize?v. col��o��nized, col��o��niz��ing, col��o��niz��esv.tr.1. To form or establish a colony or colonies in.2. To migrate to and settle in; occupy as a colony.3. did not prevent him from continuing to see Aboriginal people, unlike themore war-like Papuans and Maoris, as 'more degraded', as'lower in the scale of intelligence', as 'moresusceptible to evil influences and most likely to be imposed upon',and thus in need of 'immediate and sympathetic attention',(64) such as precisely the 'stern paternalism' embodied by ss6 and 16 of the Aboriginals Ordinance. It is clear, then, that what the broader approach might wish toidentify as the genocidal element in the child removal policies lay lessin an unambiguous 'intent to destroy' a human group, than inthe presumption that there was not much to destroy. Aboriginal cultureand its way of life, especially once it had encountered Europeancivilization, was presented by Paul Hasluck and almost every otheradministrator in Aboriginal affairs as inherently flawed, fragile andbasically worthless, producing only illness, disease, drunkenness, filthand degeneracy in the 'thousands of degraded and depressed peoplewho crouch on rubbish heaps throughout the whole of this continent'(1953:9; see also Read 1983:20). Aboriginality was constructed simply asa 'primitive social order' composed of 'ritual murders,infanticide infanticide(ĭnfăn`təsīd)[Lat.,=child murder], the putting to death of the newborn with the consent of the parent, family, or community. Infanticide often occurs among peoples whose food supply is insecure (e.g. , ceremonial wife exchange, polygamy'(1956:2), so thatfor Hasluck and most white Australians, the permanent elimination ofAboriginality from the fabric of Australian social life wasself-evidently synonymous with synonymous withadjective equivalent to, the same as, identical to, similar to, identified with, equal to, tantamount to, interchangeable with, one and the same as civilization and progress itself, acrucial element of the truth that 'the blessings of civilizationare worth having'. 'We recognise now,' said Hasluck,'that the noble savage Noble SavageChactasthe “noble savage” of the Natchez Indians; beloved of Atala. [Fr. Lit.: Atala]Chingachgookidealized noble Indian. [Am. Lit. can benefit from measures taken to improvehis health and his nutrition, to teach him better cultivation, and tolead him in civilised ways of life ... We know that the idea ofprogress, once so easily derided, has the germ of truth in it'(1953:17). The concern was rather with some 'thing' which was notmeant to have a legitimate existence, namely racial and culturalhybridity, the combination of Aboriginal with European and Asianculture/blood/skin, so that there were no ethical problems raised by theconstruction of the destruction of that hybridity as being consistentwith promoting the welfare of Aboriginal people. Clastres prefers theconcept 'ethnocide' to 'cultural genocide', and heemphasizes that 'ethnocide, from the perspective of its agents,does not recognize itself as a destructive enterprise: on the contrary,it is a duty, demanded by the humanism inscribed in��scribe?tr.v. in��scribed, in��scrib��ing, in��scribes1. a. To write, print, carve, or engrave (words or letters) on or in a surface.b. To mark or engrave (a surface) with words or letters. at the heart of Westernculture' (1988:53). It was in this sense that the practices ofsettler-colonisation were able, in the minds of their executors, toescape from the concerns normally attached to an abhorrence of thenarrow conception of genocide, and for the destructive dimensions ofnation-building to take place 'tranquilly; legally,philanthropically, without spilling blood, without violating a singleone of the great principles of morality in the eyes of the world'(de Tocqueville 2000:325). Clastres has also identified the general place that ethnocide'as the more or less authoritarian suppression of socio-culturaldifference', or what Tully (1995) calls liberalism's'empire of uniformity', occupies within the egalitarianism ofthe modern states construction of its relationship with its individualcitizens. Christopher Lasch Christopher Lasch (born June 1, 1932, Omaha, Nebraska; died February 14, 1994, Pittsford, New York) was a well-known American historian, moralist, and social critic. LifeLasch's father had been a Rhodes Scholar before becoming a newspaperman in Omaha. had similar comments on this characteristicof egalitarianism as it operated in the early twentieth centurydevelopment of citizenship: The rise of egalitarianism in western Europe and the United States seems to have been associated with a heightened awareness of deviancy and of social differences of all kinds, and with a growing uneasiness in the face of those differences--a certain intolerance even, which expressed itself in a determination to compel or persuade all members of society to conform to a single standard of citizenship. On the one hand, egalitarian theory and practice insisted on the right of all men (and logically of all women as well) to citizenship and to full membership in the community; on the other hand, they insisted that all citizens live by the same rules of character and conduct. (1973:17) This means that a particular kind of organised violence--whether wecall it cultural genocide or ethnocide--central to the assimilatoryproject of the modern state, is also integral to nation-building andstate formation, so that 'every State organisation is ethnocidal,ethnocide is the States normal mode of existence' (Clastres1988:56). Lemkin's analysis of genocide in the European context engageswith the experience of Jewish peoples prior to as well as including theHolocaust, and this is important for the ways in which the Australianexperience of colonialism is to be compared with the Europeanexperience. Many usages of the concept of 'genocide' haverevolved around whether there are parallels between the Australianpractices of colonization colonization,extension of political and economic control over an area by a state whose nationals have occupied the area and usually possess organizational or technological superiority over the native population. and the annihilation of Jewish, Gypsy andotherwise 'marginal' peoples in the Holocaust. However, it ismore meaningful in a broader sense to compare the assimilation of theAboriginal people in Australia, not with the Holocaust, but with theprocesses, structures and political rationalities of assimilation of'outsiders' and 'strangers' in the modern stategenerally, both in the centuries prior to the Holocaust and continuingafter it. It has become a truism in Holocaust studies that the event canonly be understood in its context, as the result of a long history andthe outcome of long-term processes--this idea can also underlie anunderstanding of the attraction of the concept of cultural genocide inaddressing the comparison of settler-colonial (Australian) andmetropolitan (European) versions of assimilation and the flattening-outof cultural diversity. These considerations also add weight to the rejection of adistinction between eugenicist eu��gen��i��cist? also eu��gen��istn.An advocate of or a specialist in eugenics. forms of assimilation based onrace--possibly leading to 'real' genocide--and forms based onculture--leading not to genocide, but perhaps to violations of humanrights, with the subsequent arguments then being about whethercollective rights should be recognized alongside individual rights. Thedistinction has been problematic from the start, becauseculturally-based discourses of colonization preceded those organizedaround racial distinctions, rather than the other way around. As RobertWilliams For other persons of the same name, see Williams (surname).Robert Williams is the name ofUnited Kingdom Sir Robert Williams, 2nd Baronet (c. puts it in his analysis of medieval discourses of conquest andcolonization, in medieval Christian jurisprudence jurisprudence(jr'ĭsprd`əns), study of the nature and the origin and development of law. the central focus wason 'the deficient cultures and religious customs of normativelydivergent races of people, rather than with their racially distinctivebiological features'. When the Christian European legal tradition justifying cultural racism against normatively divergent peoples finally encountered the indigenous tribal cultures of the New World, Christian Europeans had already accepted the rights and responsibilities belonging to a superior race to exercise its lawful privileges of power and aggression over such inferiorly-regarded human beings. (1989:60; also 1990:149-50) The difference between the narrow and broad conceptions ofgenocide, or as Clastres puts it, between genocide and ethnocide, is notthat one is based on race and the other on culture, because we find areliance on both race and culture in each. (65) It is more that theformer is pessimistic, in the sense that all that can be done with the(racial and/or cultural) Other is to destroy them physically, whereasthe latter is optimistic op��ti��mist?n.1. One who usually expects a favorable outcome.2. A believer in philosophical optimism.op , in the sense that it is seen as possible tolead barbarians and savages to civilization (Clastres 1988:53), that itis indeed possible to 'kill the Indian and save the man'. CONCLUSION--CIVILIZING STATE FORMATION? One of the central concerns of this paper has been to show theinherent instability of the concept of 'genocide', but also ofall the concepts which surround, underlie and oppose it, such as'welfare', 'race' and 'culture', and theheterogeneity in the ways in which they can be assembled in relation toeach other. The question of the forced transfer of children, forexample, straddled biology/race and culture, and was capable of beingmoved to either side of the divide between them, depending on thepolitical purposes being addressed. This means that the utilization ofany of these concepts according to according toprep.1. As stated or indicated by; on the authority of: according to historians.2. In keeping with: according to instructions.3. their current meaning in relation tothe past--to 1911, when the Aboriginals Ordinance (NT) was introduced,or to 1948, when the UNGC appeared--has to take place in different waysfor differing purposes. Robert Gordon For other uses of "Robert Gordon", see Robert Gordon (disambiguation).Robert Gordon (1668-1731), a 17th century merchant and philanthropist, was born in Aberdeen. He was the only son of Arthur Gordon who married Isabella Menzies of Balgownie. (1996) has suggested that there are three differenttypes of stories that can be told to deal with historical injustice, toaccount for what 'went wrong' and to cognitively reframe Re`frame´v. t. 1. To frame again or anew. history so as to return to normative legitimacy. The first is based onwhat he calls a 'narrow-agency' approach, which looks only forindividual perpetrators and specific victims, more or less along thelines of criminal law's punitive sanctions or the compensations oftort and equity. The second, 'broad-agency' approachrecognizes both collective victims and collective perpetrators, and theyaim more at forms of corrective or compensatory justice addressing theseaggregate wrongs (1996:36). Both of these approaches are contained inwhat I have called the 'narrow' conception of genocide, andconstitute the focus of the UNGC's concerns. The strategies adoptedwithin either understanding of injustice may or may not involvepunishment or compensation, an apology, an official recognition of pastwrongs, or ceremony of remembrance. It is Gordon's third approach which corresponds roughly towhat I have called the 'broad' conception of genocide, namelya structural approach which aims to identify explanations of theoccurrence of historical injustice at the level of institutions andstructures rather than individuals, and the remedies sought focus onthose institutions rather than on particular individuals (1996:38).Within this orientation to the logic of organized violence built intostate formation, the concern with 'cultural genocide'constitutes an attempt to grasp the ways in which particularinstitutional and structural arrangements of social, economic andpolitical relations end up having particular violent effects on thecolonized ColonizedThis occurs when a microorganism is found on or in a person without causing a disease.Mentioned in: Isolation . The term 'genocide' is then applied not simply tothe actions of individuals guided by more or less good faith, but to awhole system of beliefs, practices and administrative structures, to theover-confident presumption that it is actually possible for state andchurch to re-fashion both individuals and social and cultural groups toparticular ends. To the extent that the UNGC emerges from the first two approaches,and an essentially narrow conception of genocide, the BTH Report'sreliance on it to address the question of genocide in the history ofAustralian settler-colonialism was probably a misjudgment mis��judge?v. mis��judged, mis��judg��ing, mis��judg��esv.tr.To judge wrongly.v.intr.To be wrong in judging. . The UnitedNations which produced the UNGC was, at that time, no real friend ofIndigenous peoples, and the New Zealand delegate pointed out during thedebates on the convention how central concepts of assimilation andintegration--if need be, forced--were to the UN's own understandingof the place of Indigenous peoples within processes of progress andsocial improvement (above; see also Tennant 1994:26-7). The BTH Reportturned to the 'forced transfer of children' clause in theConvention as an ally in its engagement with a central dimension (childremoval) of the experience of settler-colonialism, but the problem isthat this was not the way in which the UN itself approached that clauseand the acts it was intended to deal with, and it is a construction ofthe UNGC which is actually alien to its overall intent, particularly itsconcern to exclude the question of 'cultural' genocide. Inthis sense, then, it is clear that 'genocide' has onlyrestricted range of application of law. However, if we agree that cultural genocide should, for particularpurposes--especially that of identifying legally cognizable The adjective "cognizable" has two distinct (and unrelated) applications within the field of law. A cognizable claim or controversy is one that meets the basic criteria of viability for being tried or adjudicated before a particular tribunal. responsibility--be distinguished from physical genocide, and that thisdistinction is a central feature of the UNGC, this has still donenothing to deal with the question of what continuity there neverthelessremains, what they continue to have in common with each other, whatgeneral 'spirit' they share, and what might be done inresponse to that continuity (Gaita 1997:45). The Australian discussionsof the 'forced transfer of children' clause in the Conventionis precisely a telling illustration of how problematic the opposition ofbiology to culture remains, and how problematic and unsatisfactory thedistinction between 'destruction as killing' and destructionas cultural 'euthanasia' (Merivale 1967:511) actually is. The recognition that genocide has limited legal application alsodoes not change the fact that there remain significant problems oflegitimacy surrounding colonization and all its attendant practices,including child removal. This is why the stolen generations debategenerates so much heat, emerging from the collision of the two centralways of dealing with this issue--how to be a legitimate colonizer? Weshould be uneasy, then, about agreeing with the idea that any proportionof this heat, of the resistance to the moral and political questionsraised by the stolen generations debate is attributable to 'angerat that charge being leveled promiscuously pro��mis��cu��ous?adj.1. Having casual sexual relations frequently with different partners; indiscriminate in the choice of sexual partners.2. Lacking standards of selection; indiscriminate.3. Casual; random. against individuals whoperhaps were less informed or less imaginative than they might havebeen, but who in many cases acted in good faith' (Clendinnen2001:7). It may be more plausible to see the public resistance to themobilisation of the idea of genocide as being primarily a reaction tothe suggestion that white Australians' self-image might betarnished, that our 'civilization' has a dark side to it, andthat European Australians are indeed colonizers. Albert Memmi Albert Memmi (Arabic: ألبرت ميمي; born December 15, 1921) is a Tunisian-born French writer and essayist. , in hisbook The Colonizer and the Colonized, has pointed out that the problemwith being a colonizer is that one's identity is essentially thatof a usurper USURPER, government. One who assumes the right of government by force, contrary to and in violation of the constitution of the country. Toull. Dr. Civ. n. 32. Vide Tyranny, , and that colonizers are constantly concerned with tryingto legitimate their usurpation--of land, of space, of power, and ofbodies. In other words, to possess victory completely he needs to absolve himself of it and the conditions under which it was attained. This explains his strenuous insistence, strange for a victor, on apparently futile matters. He endeavours to falsify history, he rewrites laws, he would extinguish memories--anything to succeed in transforming his usurpation into legitimacy (Memmi 1965:52). The history of the stolen generations is a particularly close andproximate proximate/prox��i��mate/ (prok��si-mit) immediate or nearest. prox��i��mateadj.Closely related in space, time, or order; very near; proximal.proximateimmediate; nearest. manifestation of the destructive and violent dimensions of theEuropean presence in Australia, and the resistance to a recognition ofits problematic nature is perhaps a result of its being a little'too close for comfort'. Massacres are almost'easier' for colonizing populations to deal with, because theycan still be relatively easily placed in the past, and liberalnon-Aboriginals can see themselves as 'better' than thoseblood-thirsty settlers. But this is more difficult to achieve inrelation to the removal of Aboriginal children, partly because thepractices took place closer in time, but also because they were morecentral to ideologies we currently continue to hold to, such as welfare,civilization, and assimilation/integration. It is important to take account here of the different forms whichcan be taken by liberal political rationality institutions andpractices, depending on how the relationships between individuals,intermediate collectivities (culture, civil society) and the state areconceived. If they are understood in ways which seek simply to detach de��tachv.1. To separate or unfasten; disconnect.2. To remove from association or union with something. individuals from communal ties and reconstruct them as abstractuniversalized and infinitely interchangeable'citizen-isolates' in relation to the state and the nation(Rowse 1998:127), they generate the kinds of institutions and practiceswhich the human beings being acted upon, especially Indigenous peopleunder settler-colonialism, are highly likely to experience asessentially genocidal, no matter how well-intentioned the architects ofthose institutions and practices might be. Liberal models of individual rights can never really detachthemselves from an accompanying conception of 'society as awhole' to which individuals are to be 'assimilated'.Indeed, the rhetoric of liberal democracy tends to draw attention awayfrom the models of society and community which are in fact being drawnupon, making their problematic effects that much harder to perceive, letalone respond to. On the other hand, when combined with an organic,mono-cultural, and unitary conception of citizenship and community,individualistic liberalism has a strongly normalising edge to it whichcan, in situations where the boundaries between the 'normal'and the 'pathological' communities are drawn strongly enough(as with racial divisions), have effects very similar to moreauthoritarian regimes based on quite different political philosophies. One of the earliest applications of the concept of 'culturalgenocide' in the Australian context was in 1959, in a memo by aDepartment of External Affairs officer, Phillip Peters, onHasluck's address to the Anthropology section at the 1959 ANZAAS ANZAAS Australian and New Zealand Association for the Advancement of Science congress (Hasluck 1959). Peters observed that Hasluck's statementsuggested 'that cultural genocide is a prerequisite of fullassimilation of the Aborigines into the non-Aboriginal community',making 'no reference to the wishes of the Aborigines as regardstheir future' and failing to 'envisage any alternative whichmight allow Aborigines to preserve some of their customs andculture'. (66) The 1960s thus began a confrontation betweenHasluck's liberalism and an ethical orientation which conceivedassimilationist monoculturalism, given its construction of'welfare' as concerned to transcend/eliminate culturaldifference, as inherently 'despotic' (Valverde 1996), to thepoint of at least verging on the political, if not legal, conception of'genocide'. An important manifestation of this confrontation was the on-goingtension between Hasluck and his main competitor as the leading'theorist' of assimilation, A.P. Elkin, Professor ofAnthropology at the University of Sydney The University of Sydney, established in Sydney in 1850, is the oldest university in Australia. It is a member of Australia's "Group of Eight" Australian universities that are highly ranked in terms of their research performance. between 1934 and 1951.'Assimilation, however,' wrote Elkin in the 1950s, 'doesnot mean, or necessarily involve, the extinction of the Aboriginal race,that is, swallowing it by social processes and intermarriage', (67)nor that 'to be citizens, Aborigines must give up all their kinshipcustoms and their beliefs and rites, or that local groups must no longerthink of themselves as closely knit Adj. 1. closely knit - held together as by social or cultural ties; "a close-knit family"; "close-knit little villages"; "the group was closely knit"close-knitclose - close in relevance or relationship; "a close family"; "we are all... communities'. (68) Elkin feltthat 'although scattered in groups across Australia, and increasingin numbers in numbered parts; as, a book published in numbers.See also: Number , the Aborigines will have their own sense and experience ofsolidarity, of possessing a common history,--in short, of being apeople'. (69) Respect for 'the laws of humanity', such as thosesurrounding genocide, is clearly significant, but it does not guaranteethat we avoid inflicting violence and pain on each other. Rather thansimply being an error in judgement, a mistake for which Australianstoday should or should not apologise, the policies and practicessurrounding the 'stolen generations' reveal more fundamentalcharacteristics of 'civilized' liberalism. If human beings areconceived as 'disembodied, defamilialized, and degendered'(O'Neill 1995:3), this prevents a comprehension of individuals associally located, inter-generational, inter-subjective beings, theiressentially communal identities 'stretched' over time bothbackwards and forwards (van Krieken 1997). A mono-cultural andorganicist conception of 'society', also allows only forassimilation to a single, individualised and de-communalised 'wayof life'. It is only to the extent that both these aspects ofliberal political rationality are addressed, and a form of liberalism isnourished which instead conceives individuals as integral parts ofcollectivities, with their communal identity an essential rather thanexpendable element of their relationship to the state, that we can hopethat similar histories might not re-emerge, and that people might ceaseexperiencing themselves as the objects of one or other form of organizedviolence, regardless of whether it is appropriate to call it'genocide' .70 CASES Amalgamated Society of Engineers Amalgamated Society of Engineers may refer to one of the following trade unions: Amalgamated Engineering and Electrical Union in the United Kingdom, known as the Amalgamated Society of Engineers from 1851 until 1920 v Adelaide Steamship steamship,watercraft propelled by a steam engine or a steam turbine.Early Steam-powered ShipsMarquis Claude de Jouffroy d'Abbans is generally credited with the first experimentally successful application of steam power to navigation; in 1783 his Co lad (theEngineers" Case) (1920) 28 CLR (Common Language Runtime) The runtime engine in Microsoft's .NET platform. The CLR compiles and executes programs in Microsoft Intermediate Language (MSIL). The counterpart to the CLR for the Common Language Infrastructure (CLI), ECMA's standard version of . 126. Avel Pty lad v Attorney-General for NSW NSWNew South WalesNoun 1. NSW - the agency that provides units to conduct unconventional and counter-guerilla warfareNaval Special Warfare (1987) 11 NSWLR NSWLR New South Wales Law Reports (law report series in Australia)126. Balog v Independent Commission Against Corruption Several places have organisations called the Independent Commission Against Corruption: Independent Commission Against Corruption of Hong Kong, established 1974 Independent Commission Against Corruption (New South Wales), established 1988 (1990) 169 CLR625. Bradley v Commonwealth (1973) 128 CLR 557. Bropho v State of WA (1990) 171 CLR 1. Building Construction Employees and Builders' LabourersFederation of New South Wales v Minister for Industrial Relations industrial relationspl.n.Relations between the management of an industrial enterprise and its employees.industrial relationsNoun, plthe relations between management and workers (1986)7 NSWLR 372. Coco v R (1994) 179 CLR 427. Corporate Affairs Commission (NSW) v Yuill (1991) 172 CLR 319. Crafter v Kelly [1941] SASR SASR Special Air Service Regiment (Australian SAS)SASR Special Application Scoped Rifle (US military)SASR South Australian State ReportsSASR Strategic Airport Security RolloutSASR Software Accomplishment Summary Report 237. Cubillo & Anor v Commonwealth (No 2) (2000) 103 FCR FCRfeed conversion rate. 1. Dietrich v R (1991) 109 ALR ALR Administrative License RevocationALR Agricultural Land Reserve (Canada)ALR Automatic Locking Retractor (seat belts)ALR Australian Law Reports (University of Tasmania Library)385. Heydon's Case (1584) 3 Co Rep 7a. Higgon v O'Dea [1962] WAR 140. Kioa v West Kioa v West [1985] HCA 81; (1985) 150 CLR 550, was a notable case decided in the High Court of Australia regarding the extent and requirements of natural justice and procedural fairness in administrative decision making. (1985) 159 CLR 550. Kruger, Bray & Ors v Commonwealth (1996-1997) 190 CLR 1. Martitime Services Board of NSW v Posiden Navigation Incorporated[1982] 1 NSWLR 72.. Metal Manufacturers Pry lad v Lewis (1988) 13 NSWLR 315. Mills v Meeking (1990) 169 CLR 214. Minister for Immigration immigration,entrance of a person (an alien) into a new country for the purpose of establishing permanent residence. Motives for immigration, like those for migration generally, are often economic, although religious or political factors may be very important. & Ethnic Affairs v Teoh (1995) 183 CLR273. Nulyarimma & Ors v Thompson & Ors (1999) 96 FCR 153. Potter v Minahan (1908) 7 CLR 277. Secretary of Dept of Health v Harvey (1990) 21 ALD ALDabbr.adrenoleukodystrophyALD,n.pr See adrenoleukodystrophy.ALDaldolase. 393. Simsek v MacPhee (1982) 148 CLR 636. Sorby v The Commonwealth (1983) 152 CLR 281. Tickner v Bropho (1993) 40 FCR 183. Union Steamship Co of Australia Pty lad v King (1988) 166 CLR 1. Ex parte [Latin, On one side only.] Done by, for, or on the application of one party alone.An ex parte judicial proceeding is conducted for the benefit of only one party. Walsh & Johnson; In re Yates (1925) 37 CLR 36. Ward v The Queen (1981) 54 ALJR 271. NOTES (1.) An excellent analysis of Lemkin's campaign for the UNGenocide Convention can be found in Power 2002:3-60. (2.) Kruger, Bray & Ors v Commonwealth (1996-1997) 190 CLR 1. (3.) Mabo & Ors v Queensland (No. 2) (199-1992) 175 CLR at 104. (4.) B v R 127 FLR FLR FloorFLR Florence, Italy (Airport Code)FLR FlareFLR Florida Lambda RailFLR Forest Land ReserveFLR Forward-Looking RadarFLR Female Led RelationshipFLR Force of Lower Readiness 438 at 447. (5.) As OLoughlin J said of the policy regarding part-Aboriginalchildren in the Northern Territory in the 1950s, 'On the one hand,it can be emphasised that removal was only to be effected 'in theinterests of the children' and after 'a painstakingattempt' had been made to explain to the mother the advantages thather child would enjoy; but, on the other hand, ... the policy was silenton the subject of the mother's consent. A careful reading of theterms of the policy shows that, in the final analysis, a child could beremoved against the express wishes of its mother' (Cubillo &Anor v Commonwealth (No 2) (2000) 103 FCR 1 at 88). (6.) Mr Perez Perozo, 3rd Session, 6th Committee. 1948-1949, 83rdMeeting, 25 October 1948; cited in BTH, 271. (7.) Frequently asked questions about the National Inquiry:<http://www.hreoc.gov.an/social_justice/stolen_children/faqs.html#ques7> (8.) For example, Bob Collins said to the Senate Legal &Constitutional References Committees Inquiry into the implementation ofthe BTH Report's recommendations: 'It is a fact that,particularly after the Second World War, many of the cases that wereinvolved in children being forcibly separated from their parents weredone for what would now be seen to be legitimate welfare reasons. Thereis no question about that. But having acknowledged that, it is justoutrageous to try to pretend that the genesis of this policy was not thedeliberate extermination of Aboriginal people from Australia, because itwas. If anybody doubts that, it is all contained in the officialtranscripts of what was probably one of the more appalling conferencesthat has taken place in Canberra, our national capital. That was that1937 conference where it was made explicitly clear. In fact, if you lookat the transcript of the conference, there is not a single mention ofthe welfare of the kids. That never even rated a mention. It was all todeal with the 'half-caste problem' and what needed to be doneto eliminate that problem. And, as Neville said, after five or sixgenerations there would be no trace left of any Aboriginal people inAustralia. In the face of all that, how people could disagree--prominentamong them the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait IslanderAffairs--with the application of the word 'genocide' to thatprocess, I do not know' (Senate Legal & ConstitutionalReferences Committee 2000, 490 [11 August 2000]). (9.) The former is additionally limited by the 'goldenrule', and the latter is also known as the 'mischiefrule'. (10.) Amalgamated Society of Engineers v Adelaide Steamship Co Ltd(1920) 28 CLR 126, 161-2 (Higgins J); Higgon v ODea [1962] WAR 140. (11.) Heydons Case (1584) 3 Co Rep 7a at 7b; Ward v The Queen(1981) 54 ALJR 271,279; Martitime Services Board of NSW v PosidenNavigation Incorporated [1982] 1 NSWLR 72. (12.) Metal Manufacturers Ply Ltd v Lewis (1988) 13 NSWLR 315,325-6(Mahoney JA). (13.) Avel Pty Ltd PTY LTD Propriety Limited (company structure in Australia)v Attorney-General for NSW(1987) 11 NSWLR 126 at127. This despite the fact that Kirby P is also one of the mostenthusiastic supporters of the 'purposive approach' (Cook etal. 1996:171), See also Kirby (1988). (14.) For example, Tickner v Bropho (1993) 40 FCR 183. (15.) Secretary of Dept of Health v Harvey (1990) 21 ALD 393(Meagher JA). (16.) Bropho v State of WA (1990) 171 CLR 1; c.f. Crafter v Kelly[1941] SASR 237; Coco v R 179 CLR 427. (17.) Potter v Minahan (1908) 7 CLR 277, 304. (18.) '[T]he Constitution deals, almost without exception,with the structure and relationship of government rather than withindividual rights ... The framers preferred to place their faith in thedemocratic process for the protection of individual rights and sawconstitutional guarantees as restricting that process': Kruger, 61(Dawson J). (19.) Building Construction Employees and Builders LabourersFederation of New South Wales v Minister for Industrial Relations (1986)7 NSWLR 372, 405 (Kirby P); Union Steamship Co of Australia Pty Ltd vKing (1988) 166 CLR 1, 10. Chief Justice Brennan Justice Brennan could refer to: William J. Brennan, Jr., former Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States Gerard Brennan, former Chief Justice of Australia, current Justice of the Court of Final Appeal of Hong Kong pointed out that'In retrospect, many would say that the risk of a child sufferingmental harm by being kept away from its mother or family was too greatto permit even a well-intentioned policy of separation to beimplemented, but the existence of that risk did not deny the legislativepower to make the laws which permitted the implementation of thatpolicy'. (Kruger, 40). (20.) Amalgamated Society of Engineers v Adelaide Steamship Co Ltd(the Engineers Case) (1920) 28 CLR 129, 151-152 (Knox CJ, Isaacs, Rich& Starke JJ). (21.) Mills v Meeking (1990) 169 CLR 214, 235 (Dawson J). (22.) Kruger at 105; Potter v Minahan (1908) 7 CLR 277, 304-305(OConnor J); Ex parte Walsh & Johnson; In re Yates (1925) 37 CLR 36,93 (Isaacs J); Sorby v The Commonwealth (1983) 152 CLR 281,289-290(Gibbs CJ); 309, 311 (Mason, Wilson & Dawson JJ); Balog vIndependent Commission Against Corruption (1990) 169 CLR 625, 635-636;Bropho v Western Australia (1990) 171 CLR 1, 18 (Mason CJ, Deane,Dawson, Toohey, Gaudron & McHugh JJ), Corporate Affairs Commission(NSW) v Yuill (1991) 172 CLR 319, 322 (Brennan J); 331 (Dawson J); 338(Gandron J); 348 (McHugh J); Coco v R (1994) 179 CLR 427, 437-438 (MasonCJ, Brennan, Gandron & McHugh JJ); 446 (Deane& Dawson JJ). (23.) Kruger at 71; see also Toohey J at 88; McHugh J at 144. (24.) Id, at 107. (25.) Ibid. (26.) Nulyarimma & Ors v Thompson & Ors (1999) 96 FCR 153,162 (Wilcox J); see also Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs vTeoh (1995) 183 CLR 273, 286-287 (Mason CJ & Deane J); Dietrich v R(1991) 109 ALR 385, 391 (Mason CJ & McHugh J); Bradley vCommonwealth (1973) 128 CLR 557, 582; Simsek v MacPhee (1982) 148 CLR636 at 641-644; Kioa v West (1985) 159 CLR 550, 570-157. (27.) Contrary to Matthew Storey's (1998) interpretation,repeated in Tatz (1999), and in the BTH Report. (28.) In relation to a different plea, but equally relevantly,Justice Toohey commented on the plaintiff's reference to'official reports and correspondence which, they say, evidence thevery purpose of the policy embodied in the Ordinance as the removal ofhalf-caste children to prevent them from assimilating the 'habits,customs and superstitions of the full-blooded Aboriginals',Assuming that the material in question is admissible (algorithm) admissible - A description of a search algorithm that is guaranteed to find a minimal solution path before any other solution paths, if a solution exists. An example of an admissible search algorithm is A* search. in the constructionof the Ordinance, it cannot be relied upon in the proceedings as theyare now before the Court. The possibility of sustaining the claim byreference to extrinsic EVIDENCE, EXTRINSIC. External evidence, or that which is not contained in the body of an agreement, contract, and the like. 2. It is a general rule that extrinsic evidence cannot be admitted to contradict, explain, vary or change the terms of a contract or of a material does not warrant giving a qualifiedanswer to so much of Question 1 [constitutionality of the Ordinancesrestriction of movement] as is relevant to this head of the plaintiffsclaim'. (Kruger, 86-7). (29.) 'Virtually all lasting separations where parents did nothave free choice are lumped together as "forcibleseparations", whether they were for the purpose of ensuring thatchildren would grow up physically or culturally cut off from anAboriginal community, to remove them from an environment where theirsafety or health was considered in jeopardy, to secure them a secondaryeducation, or to take them into custody under the processes of thecriminal justice system' (Wootten 1998:6-7). (30.) The drafting committee consisted of two members of the UNDivision of Human Rights: Prof Humphrey (Director), Prof Girand (Chiefof Research Section), Mr Kliava from the Secretariats Legal Dept, andthe three external experts invited by S-G: Professor Donnedieu de Vabres(Prof of Law, Pads), Professor Vespasion V. Pella (Romanian LawProfessor, Chair of International Penal Law Association) and ProfessorLemkin. (31.) UN Doc E/447:16. (32.) Ibid. (33.) Id, p.23. (34.) Id, p.24. (35.) Ibid. (36.) Id, p.27. (37.) Ibid. (38.) It is not entirely clear, then, why Helen Fein (1993:9-11)insists that cultural genocide 'was not a term used by Lemkin'(p.9) and that he had 'never distinguished cultural genocide'(p. 11). It is true that the phrase does not appear in Axis Rule, butthere he certainly meant 'genocide' to include a culturaldimension, and the first Secretariat's draft proposes a wholeArticle III dealing specifically with 'Cultural Genocide', towhich Lemkin lent his support. (39.) It is likely that Pella and de Vabres only agreed to itsinclusion, while continuing to disagree with Verb 1. disagree with - not be very easily digestible; "Spicy food disagrees with some people"hurt - give trouble or pain to; "This exercise will hurt your back" the inclusion of culturalgenocide, because they saw it as a different kind of act. (40.) 3rd Session, 6th Committee, 82nd Meeting, 23 October 1948. (41.) 3rd Session, 6th Committee, 82nd Meeting, 23 October 1948. (42.) 3rd Session, 6th Committee, 82nd Meeting, 23 October 1948. (43.) Consisting of the USSR USSR:see Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. , the BSSR BSSR Belorussian Soviet Socialist Republic , the UkSSR, Yugoslavia,Czechoslovakia, Poland--Egypt, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia Saudi Arabia(sä`dē ərā`bēə, sou`–, sô–), officially Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, kingdom (2005 est. pop. , Ethiopia,Syria--China, Pakistan, the Philippines--Mexico, Ecuador. (44.) 3rd Session, 6th Committee, 83rd Meeting, 25 October 1948. (45.) Ibid. (46.) Ibid. (47.) Ibid. Mr Perozo was a little later reminded by the Chairmanof the ten minute speaking rime limit (p. 197), as a result of whichVenezuela abstained from the final vote, since 'it had not had anopportunity of fully stating its point of view on the question' (p.206), which was that despite its support for the general concept ofcultural genocide, it was unhappy with the wording of Article III andwould have preferred an amended version to be put to the vote (pp.196-7). (48.) Ibid. (49.) Ibid. (50.) Ibid. (51.) Ibid. (52.) 3rd Session, 6th Committee, 63rd Meeting, 30 September 1948,83rd Meeting, 25 October 1948. (53.) Similar arguments were mobilised against the protection ofminority rights, or the extension of the concept of human fights tocollectivities and groups as well as individuals, for related reasonsassociated with state-formation (Morsink 1999; Thornberry 1991:122). (54.) As the jurist Pieter Drost argued a little later,'Genocide is collective homicide and not official vandalism orviolation of civic liberties. It is directed at the life of man and notagainst his material or mental goods. The protection of culture belongsprimarily to the province of human rights and, perhaps to a lesserdegree also to the department of minority rights. It is foreign to thefield of criminal law. In a convention on group murder it is completelyout of place' (1959:11). (55.) UN Doc E/3/SR. 175-225 (1948) at 7. (Summary Records ofMeetings 175-225, UN ESCOR, 3rd Year, 7th Session, Supp No. 6). [inMorsink 1999 at 1024] (56.) For deletion: South Africa, UK, USA, Australia, Belgium,Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Denmark, Dominican Republic Dominican Republic(dəmĭn`ĭkən), republic (2005 est. pop. 8,950,000), 18,700 sq mi (48,442 sq km), West Indies, on the eastern two thirds of the island of Hispaniola. The capital and largest city is Santo Domingo. , France,Greece, India, Iran, Liberia, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand,Norway, Panama, Peru, Siam, Sweden, Turkey. Against: USSR, BSSR, UkSSR,Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, Ecuador, Egypt, Ethiopia, Lebanon, Mexico,Pakistan, Philippines, Poland, Saudi Arabia, Syria; Abstaining:Venezuela, Afghanistan, Argentina, Cuba. (57.) This means that the BTH Report's usage of the Venezuelandelegate's comments (p. 271) is a little misleading, in that itgives the impression that they reflect the UN's overall position onthe child transfer question. But the ultimately successful arguments forthe inclusion of the child transfer clause were those based precisely onits exclusion from the concerns about assimilationist policies andpractices, or 'cultural genocide', and its redefinition as anessentially biological or physical intervention. We need to recognizethe Venezuelan delegate's speech, then, as an (unsuccessful)attempt to re-assert a 'cultural' understanding of childtransfer so as to gather support for the idea of cultural genocide morebroadly, rather than as based on a shared understanding that'forced transfer of children" should be approached as an actof cultural genocide. (58.) Related arguments can be found in Levene (1999). (59.) On the broader public's approach to questions of apologyand reparation, see Augoustinos, Tuffin & Rapley (1999) andLeCouteur & Augonstinos (2001). (60.) Salmon was born in 1861, educated at Scotch College Scotch College is the name of several schools affiliated with either the Uniting Church or Presbyterian Church. (There are also a number of schools and Roman Catholic seminaries called Scots College. ,Melbourne University, and Edinburgh Medical School. He joined theAustralian Natives Association in 1894, its Board of Directors in 1895,and became President in 1898. Salmon was a member of the LegislativeAssembly A Member of the Legislative Assembly, or MLA, is a representative elected by the voters of an electoral district to the legislature or legislative assembly of a subnational jurisdiction. between 1893 and 1901, and became Minister for Education.Between 1901 and 1913 he was a member of the House of Representatives Member of the House of Representativesmember n (US) → membre m de la Chambre des repr��sentantsinthe Federal Parliament, and he was Speaker of the House during 1909-10. (61.) Commonwealth Parliamentary Debates, 4th Parl, 3rd Session,Vol. LXVIII, 13 Nov 1912 p.5462. (62.) Id, p.5463. (63.) Id, p.5462. Later AO Neville was to come to a different view,telling the 1937 Commonwealth Conference that '[t]he Asiatic cross,however, is not a bad one. We find that half-caste Asiatics do very wellindeed; in fact, very often they beat the white cross'(Commonwealth of Australia 1937:11). (64.) Commonwealth Parliamentary Debates, 4th Parl, 3rd Session,Vol. LXVIII, 13 Nov 1912 p.5463. (65.) Cecil Cook, for example, spoke of 'colour of themind' and wrote, 'where the coloured individual is"white" in all but colour very little conflict is likely totake place' (in McGregor 1997:162). Cook's notion of'breeding out the colour' was thus aimed more at theperception of people of Aboriginal descent among Europeans, who wouldnot accept non-whites, than at what he regarded as the real differencebetween Aboriginals and Europeans, which he constructed in sociologicalterms. (66.) NAA A1838 557/1; Peters was also unimpressed withHasluck's response to criticism: 'Mr Hasluck attacks thosewho, unaware of the complexities of the problems facing Aborigines, arebold enough to criticise Government policy. The implication seems to bethat Govt policy, like the laws of the Medes and Persians, isunalterable and profoundly wise. It may be difficult to argue this pointto overseas critics'. Hasluck was fond of attributing any criticismof the management of Aboriginal affairs to a Communist plot (Hasluck1988:97). I am grateful to Susan Taffe (1995) for drawing my attentionto this memo, and also for providing me with her copy of it, since I wasunable to locate it personally in National Archives. (67.) Elkin Papers, University of Sydney, Series 17, Box 19, Item109. (68.) Elkin Papers, University of Sydney, Series 17, Box 143, Item,111. (69.) Elkin Papers, University of Sydney, Series 17, Box 19, Item109. See also the discussions in Thomas (1994), Rowse (1998) andMcGregor (1999). Russell McGregor observes, then, that 'Elkin seemsto have sincerely believed that his proposals, by recognising theviability of some degree of indigenous identity and cultural continuity,offered Aborigines a more secure and satisfying route to citizenshipthan did the official insistence on their becoming black replicas ofwhite Australians' (1996:124). (70.) For a discussion of these issues in relation to the USA, seeJulie Scales-Trent's (2001) comparison of American and Nazi racelaws. REFERENCES AUGOUSTINOS, M., K. TUFFIN, and M. RAPLEY. 1999. Genocide or afailure to gel? Racism, history and nationalism in Australian talk.Discourse & Society 10. BARNES, J.W. 1994. Statutory interpretation, law reform andSampford's theory of the disorder of law (part 1). Federal LawReview 22:116-70. 1995. Statutory interpretation, law reform and Sampford'stheory of the disorder of law (part 2). Federal Law Review 23:77-132. BARRY, B. 2001.The muddles of multiculturalism. New Left Review8:49-71. BARTA, T. 1985. After the Holocaust Main article: The Holocaust Further information: The Holocaust (responsibility) The Holocaust became the dark symbol of the 20th century's crimes against humanity. : consciousness of genocide inAustralia. Australian Journal of Politics & History 31:154-161. 1987. Relations of genocide: land and lives in the colonization ofAustralia. In I. Wallimann and M.N. Dobkowski (eds), Genocide and theModern Age: Etiology and Case Studies of Mass Death, pp. 237-51. NewYork New York, state, United StatesNew York,Middle Atlantic state of the United States. It is bordered by Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and the Atlantic Ocean (E), New Jersey and Pennsylvania (S), Lakes Erie and Ontario and the Canadian province of : Greenwood Press. BATES, D. 1944. The Passing of the Aborigines. London: John Murray Not to be confused with John Murry.There have been several important people by the name of John Murray (roughly in chronological order): John Murray of Falahill, a Scottish outlaw John Murray, 1st Duke of Atholl (1660-1724) . BISCHOPING, K., and N. FINGERHUT. 1996. Border lines: Indigenouspeoples in genocide studies. Canadian Review of Sociology &Anthropology 33:481-506. BRANTLINGER, P. 1995. 'Dying races': rationalizinggenocide in the nineteenth century. In J. Nederveen Pieterse and B.Parekh (eds), The Colonization of Imagination: Cultures, Knowledge andPower, pp.43-56. London: Zed. CHISHOLM, R. 1985a. Black Children: White Welfare? Sydney: SocialWelfare Research Centre, University of NSW. 1985b. Destined des��tine?tr.v. des��tined, des��tin��ing, des��tines1. To determine beforehand; preordain: a foolish scheme destined to fail; a film destined to become a classic.2. Children: Aboriginal Child Welfare in Australia:Directions of Change in Law and Practice. Aboriginal Law Bulletin 1:6-8. CHURCHILL, W. 1986. Genocide: toward a functional definition.Alternatives 11:403-30. 1997. A little matter of genocide: holocaust and denial in theAmericas, 1492 to the present. San Francisco San Francisco(săn frănsĭs`kō), city (1990 pop. 723,959), coextensive with San Francisco co., W Calif., on the tip of a peninsula between the Pacific Ocean and San Francisco Bay, which are connected by the strait known as the Golden : City Lights Books. CLASTRES, P. 1988. On ethnocide. Art & Text 28:51-58. CLENDINNEN, I. 2001. "First contact." in TheAustralian's Review of Books May: 6-7,26 COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA. 1937. Aboriginal Welfare: InitialConference of Commonealth and State Aboriginal Authorities. Canberra:Government Printer. 2000. Federal Government Submission to the Senate Legal &Constitutional References Committee Inquiry into the Stolen Generation.Canberra: Government Printer. COOK, C., R. CREYKE, R. GEDDES, and I. HOLLOWAY. 1996. Laying Downthe Law: The foundations of legal reasoning, research and writing inAustralia. Sydney: Butterworths. CUNEEN, C. 2001. Reparations reparations,payments or other compensation offered as an indemnity for loss or damage. Although the term is used to cover payments made to Holocaust survivors and to Japanese Americans interned during World War II in so-called relocation camps (and used as well to and restorative justice A philosophical framework and a series of programs for the criminal justice system that emphasize the need to repair the harm done to crime victims through a process of negotiation, mediation, victim empowerment, and Reparation.The U.S. : responding tothe gross violations of human rights. In Heather Strang and JohnBraithwaite (eds), Restorative Justice and Civil Society, pp.83-98.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Cambridge University Press (known colloquially as CUP) is a publisher given a Royal Charter by Henry VIII in 1534, and one of the two privileged presses (the other being Oxford University Press). . DE TOCQUEVILLE, A. 2000. Democracy in America De la d��mocratie en Am��rique (published in two volumes, the first in 1835 and the second in 1840) is a classic French text by Alexis de Tocqueville on the United States in the 1830s and its strengths and weaknesses. . Chicago: Universityof Chicago Press The University of Chicago Press is the largest university press in the United States. It is operated by the University of Chicago and publishes a wide variety of academic titles, including The Chicago Manual of Style, dozens of academic journals, including . DROST, P.N. 1959. Genocide: United Nations Legislation onInternational Criminal Law. Vol. 2 of Crimes of State. Leiden: A.W.Sythoff. FEIN, H. 1993. Genocide: A Sociological Perspective The sociological perspective is a particular way of approaching a phenomena common in sociology. It involves maintaining objectivity, not by divesting oneself of values, but by critically evaluating and testing ideas, and accepting what may be surprising or even displeasing based . London: Sage. GAITA, R. 1997. Genocide: the Holocaust and the Aborigines.Quadrant 41:17-22. GORDON, R.W. 1996. Undoing historical injustice. In Austin Sarat Austin Sarat is William Nelson Cromwell professor of Jurisprudence and Political Science at Amherst College in Amherst, Massachusetts. He is also a Five College Fortieth Anniversary Professor. and Thomas R. Kearns (eds), Justice and Injustice in Law and LegalTheory, pp.35-75. Ann Arbor Ann Arbor,city (1990 pop. 109,592), seat of Washtenaw co., S Mich., on the Huron River; inc. 1851. It is a research and educational center, with a large number of government and industrial research and development firms, many in high-technology fields such as : University of Michigan (body, education) University of Michigan - A large cosmopolitan university in the Midwest USA. Over 50000 students are enrolled at the University of Michigan's three campuses. The students come from 50 states and over 100 foreign countries. Press. HAEBICH, A. 1988. For Their Own Good." Aborigines andGovernment in the Southwest of Western Australia, 1900-1940. Perth:University of Western Australia Press. HASLUCK, P. 1953. Native Welfare in Australia: Speeches andAddresses. Perth: Paterson Brokenshaw. 1956. "Policy of Assimilation." in National Archives ofAustralia. Canberra. 1959. The Future of the Australian Aborigines. Dawn 8:11-15. 1988. Shades of Noun 1. shades of - something that reminds you of someone or something; "aren't there shades of 1948 here?"reminder - an experience that causes you to remember something Darkness: Aboriginal Affairs 1925-1965. Melbourne:Melbourne University Press. HUMAN RIGHTS AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION. 1997. Bringing ThemHome: Report of the National Inquiry into the Separation of Aboriginaland Torres Strait Islander Children from their Families. Sydney:Sterling Press. IGNATIEFF, M. 2000. "The danger of a world without enemies.Lemkin's world." Pp.25-28 in The New Republic. JOSEPH, S. 1998. Kruger v Commonwealth Kruger v Commonwealth (1997) 190 CLR 1, also known as the Stolen Generation Case, is a High Court of Australia case that deals with any implied right to legal equality, and the section 116 prohibition on the establishment of a religion. : constitutional rights andthe stolen generations. Monash University Law Review The Monash University Law Review is a scholarly refereed law journal based at the Monash University Faculty of Law. Each issue contains articles by prominent academics, judges and legal practitioners, critically discussing a range of legal issues. 24:486--498. KIRBY, J.M. 1988. Statutory interpretation and the rule oflaw--whose rule, what law? In David St L. Kelly (eds), Essays onLegislative Drafting, pp.? Adelaide: Adelaide Law Review Association,Law School, University of Adelaide Its main campus is located on the cultural boulevard of North Terrace in the city-centre alongside prominent institutions such as the Art Gallery of South Australia, the South Australian Museum and the State Library of South Australia. . KUPER, L. 1981a. Genocide: its political use in the twentiethcentury. New Haven New Haven,city (1990 pop. 130,474), New Haven co., S Conn., a port of entry where the Quinnipiac and other small rivers enter Long Island Sound; inc. 1784. Firearms and ammunition, clocks and watches, tools, rubber and paper products, and textiles are among the many : Yale University Yale University,at New Haven, Conn.; coeducational. Chartered as a collegiate school for men in 1701 largely as a result of the efforts of James Pierpont, it opened at Killingworth (now Clinton) in 1702, moved (1707) to Saybrook (now Old Saybrook), and in 1716 was Press. 1981b. Theories of Genocide.Ethnic & Racial Studies 4:320-333. LASCH, C. 1973. Origins of the Asylum. In (eds), The World ofNations, pp. 3-17. New York: Knopf. LECOUTEUR, A., and M. AUGOUSTINOS. 2001. Apologising to the stolengenerations: Argument, rhetoric, and identity in public reasoning.Australian Psychologist 36:51-61. LEMKIN, R. 1944. Axis Rule in Occupied Europe: Laws of Occupation,Analysis of Government, Proposals for Redress. Washington: CarnegieEndowment for International Peace The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace is a private, nonprofit organization dedicated to advancing cooperation between nations and promoting active international engagement by the United States. . 1947. Genocide as a crime under international law. American Journalof International Law 41:145-51. LEVENE, M. 1999. The Chittagong Hill Tracts: A Case Study in thePolitical Economy of "Creeping" Genocide. Third WorldQuarterly 20:339-369. MACDONALD, R. 1995. Between Two Worlds: The Commonwealth Governmentand the Removal of Aboriginal Children of Part Descent in the NorthernTerritory. Alice Springs: IAD (Integrated Access Device) A device that multiplexes a variety of communications technologies in the customer's premises onto a single telephone line for transmission to the carrier. It also demultiplexes the incoming streams into their respective channels. Press. MCGREGOR, R. 1996. Intelligent parasitism parasitism:see parasite. parasitismRelationship between two species in which one benefits at the expense of the other. Ectoparasites live on the body surface of the host; endoparasites live in their hosts' organs, tissues, or cells and often rely : A.P. Elkin and therhetoric of assimilation. Journal of Australian Studies 50/51:118-30. 1997. Imagined Destinies: Aboriginal Australians and the DoomedRace Theory, 1880-1939. Melbourne: Melbourne University Press. 1999. Wards, words and citizens: A.P. Elkin and Paul Hasluck onassimilation. Oceania 69:243-59. MEMMI, A. 1965 [1957]. The Colonizer and the Colonized. New York:Orion Press. MERIVALE, H. 1967. Lectures on Colonization and Colonies. London:Frank Cass. MILLER, D. 1995. Citizenship and Pluralism. Political Studies43:432-50. MORSINK, J. 1999. Cultural genocide, the Universal Declaration, andminority rights. Human Rights Quarterly 21:1009-1060. MULVANEY, D.J., and J.H. CALABY. 1985. 'So Much that isNew': Baldwin Spencer, 1860-1929, A Biography. Melbourne: MelbourneUniversity Press. O'NEILL, J. 1995. On the liberal culture of child risk: acovenant critique of contractatian theory. Sociological Studies ofChildren 7:1-18. PALMER, A. 1998. Colonial and modern genocide: explanations andcategories. Ethnic & Racial Studies 21:(89)-115. PALMER, A.E. 2000. Colonial genocide. Bathurst, N.S.W.: CrawfordHouse Publishing. POWER, S. 2002. "A Problem from Hell": America and theAge of Genocide. New York: Basic Books. READ, P. 1983. The Stolen Generations: The Removal of AboriginalChildren in New South Wales, 1883 to 1969. Sydney: Ministry forAboriginal Affairs. ROWLEY, C.D. 1962. Aborigines and other Australians. Oceania32:247-66. 1972. The Destruction of Aboriginal Society. Melbourne: Penguin. 1972. Outcasts in White Australia. Melbourne: Penguin. ROWSE, T. 1998. The modesty of the state: Hasluck and theanthropological critics of assimilation. In Tom Stannage, Kay Saunders,and Richard Nile (eds), Paul Hasluck in Australian History: CivicPersonality and Public Life, pp.119-32. St. Lucia: University ofQueensland The University of Queensland (UQ) is the longest-established university in the state of Queensland, Australia, a member of Australia's Group of Eight, and the Sandstone Universities. It is also a founding member of the international Universitas 21 organisation. Press. SAMPFORD, C,J.G. 1989. The Disorder of Law: a Critique of LegalTheory. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. SAUL, B. 2000. The International Crime of Genocide in AustralianLaw. Sydney Law Review 22:527-84. SCALES-TRENT, J. 2001. Racial Purity in the United States and NaziGermany: the targeting process. Human Rights Quarterly 23:259-307. SCHABAS, W.A. 2000. Genocide in International Law: the Crime ofCrimes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. SPENCER, W.B. 1913. Preliminary Report on the Aboriginals of theNorthern Territory. Melbourne: Government Printer. STARKMAN, P. 1984. Genocide and International Law: Is There a Causeof Action? ASILS ASILS Associazione Scuole Italiano Lingua Seconda (Italy, national school association)International Law Journal 8:1-65. STOREY, M. 1998. Kruger v Commonwealth: Does Genocide RequireMalice? UNSW UNSW University of New South Wales (Australia)UNSW Unidentified SwallowUNSW United Nations Scholars' Workstation (Yale University)Law Journal 4. TAFFE, S. 1995. Australian diplomacy in a policy vacuum: governmentand Aboriginal affairs, 1961-62. Aboriginal History 19:154-72. TATZ, C. 1999. Genocide in Australia. Journal of Genocide Research1:315-352. TENNANT, C. 1994. Indigenous peoples, international institutions,and the international legal literature from 1945-1993. Human RightsQuarterly 16:1-57. THOMAS, C.K. 1994. "From 'Australian Aborigines' to'white Australians: Elkin, Hasluck and the Origins ofAssimilation." in Dept of History. Melbourne: Monash University Facilities in are diverse and vary in services offered. Information on residential sevices at Monash University, including on-campus (MRS managed) and off-campus, can be found at [2] Student organisations . THORNBERRY, P. 1991. Minorities and Human Rights Law. London:Minority Rights Group. TULLY, J. 1995. Strange Multiplicity: Constitutionalism con��sti��tu��tion��al��ism?n.1. Government in which power is distributed and limited by a system of laws that must be obeyed by the rulers.2. a. A constitutional system of government.b. in an Ageof Diversity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY. 1949. The Convention on Genocide.Lake Success, N.Y.: Department of Public Information United Nations. VALVERDE, M. 1996. "Despotism despotism,government by an absolute ruler unchecked by effective constitutional limits to his power. In Greek usage, a despot was ruler of a household and master of its slaves. " and ethical governance.Economy & Society 25:357-72. VAN KRIEKEN, R. 1992, Children and the State: Social Control andthe Formation of Australian Child Welfare. Sydney: Allen & Unwin. 1997. Sociology and the Reproductive Self: Demographic Transitionsand Modernity. Sociology 31:445-471. WILLIAMS, J., ROBERT A. 1989. Columbus's legacy: law as aninstrument of racial discrimination against Indigenous peoples'fights of self-determination. Arizona Journal of International &Comparative Law 8:51-75. 1990. The American Indian in Western Legal Thought: the discoursesof conquest. New York: Oxford University Press. WOOTTEN, H. 1998. Ron Brunton Dr Ron Brunton is an Australian anthropologist. He is currently the Director of Encompass Research Pty Ltd and a Director of the Board of the public broadcaster, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation for a five year term from 1 May 2003. and Bringing Them Home. IndigenousLaw Bulletin 4:12-12. Robert van Krieken University of Sydney