Canada

I think the problem is partly that at least a couple generations have been taught about exactly one genocide: the holocaust. So to them anything short of the holocaust isn't genocide, because they simply have no grasp of the general concept beyond systematic mass-murder of epic proportions. These people grew up with the UN Genocide Convention -- arguably the most authoritative definition and certainly the most influential one -- and have probably never even read or heard Article II (the definition).

But it certainly doesn't get much more explicit than:

(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group

The other part is just refusing to recognize crimes committed against a group you don't like or want, if doing so might negatively affect you. I shake my head when people complain about leftist discussion getting bogged down on definitions. These things matter, which is exactly why the right treats words like a game based on deception and subversion. Caring about definitions is just a communication fundamental necessary so we can actually have the same conversation. But individualistic philosophies don't even need that; they need wedges for grievance politics and maximally-flexible boundaries.

The big question in my mind is why are dictionaries adopting modern slang and responding to other drift in linguistic meaning while still maintaining super-narrow and otherwise vague definitions of genocide?