Bringing-Them-Home-Report-Web

the extent to which that intention has been achieved. Genocide is committed even whenthe destruction has not been carried out. A conspiracy to commit genocide and an attemptat genocide are both crimes which are committed whether or not any actual destructionoccurred.However, the extent of destruction can be relevant to the offender’s ‘intention’. Theintention to destroy the group as such in whole or part must be proven. It is widely (seeLippmann 1994 pages 24-25, Robinson 1950 page 498) but not universally (see Dinstein1975 page 55, Bryant 1975 page 691) agreed that an intention to destroy the group ‘inpart’ can be genocidal if the aim is to destroy it ‘substantially’.The Inquiry’s process of consultation and research has revealed that the predominantaim of Indigenous child removals was the absorption or assimilation of the children intothe wider, non-Indigenous, community so that their unique cultural values and ethnicidentities would disappear, giving way to models of Western culture. In other words, theobjective was ‘the disintegration of the political and social institutions of culture,language, national feelings, religion, and the economical existence of’ Indigenouspeoples (Lemkin 1944 page 79). Removal of children with this objective in mind isgenocidal because it aims to destroy the ‘cultural unit’ which the Convention isconcerned to preserve.On this point the Inquiry’s finding is contrary to that of Commissioner ElliottJohnston in the final report of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody.Commissioner Johnston considered that the child removal policies were adopted ‘not forthe purpose of exterminating a people, but for their preservation’ (National Report Volume5 para 36.3.7).As this issue is central to this Inquiry’s terms of reference, it has been the subject ofmuch wider research than Commissioner Johnston undertook. This Inquiry concludeswith certainty on the evidence that while child removal policies were often concerned toprotect and ‘preserve’ individual children, a principal aim was to eliminate Indigenouscultures as distinct entities.… we tried to remove Aboriginal children because they were Aboriginal children and I thinkthat’s a very important thing. It wasn’t just a question of looking at children and saying, ‘There’sa child in need of care, there’s a deserted child, we must look after those individual cases’. TheAustralian experience has been, ‘We dealt with them en masse because they were Aborigines(Professor Colin Tatz, Centre for Comparative Genocide Studies, evidence 260).Mixed motives are no excuseThis finding raises a third issue, namely, the question of mixed motives. Does theGenocide Convention apply where the destruction of a particular culture was believed tobe in the best interests of the children belonging to that group or where the child removalpolicies were intended to serve multiple aims, for example, giving the children aneducation or job training as well as removing them from their culture? Where goodintentions are acknowledged, do they negate the bad or transform the intention to destroythe group as such (ie for its own good) into a benign intention? Does the Convention