55
Australian state suspends human rights law to lock up more children | Al Jazeera
(www.aljazeera.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 18 Sep 2023
55 points (100.0% liked)
World News
2231 readers
131 users here now
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
They're arguing against giving the first nations peoples any voice at all atm. The "colonisation was good for you savages, now you can enjoy modern technology" is said aloud by these types.
As for refugees, many are thrown into offshore 'detention centres' and suffer abuse.
With the current rhetoric in some of the more open circles, if there are more camps set up in the future, it will be minorities who will be sent there for being the enemies of their papa USA.
The whole "voice" thing even being a debate is so strange to me.
Why is there even a referendum about this? Why give people the option to say no? Would it have been ok to put slavery up to a referendum? Not that this is anywhere near as radical a step as abolishing slavery, in fact it's mostly performative/symbolic. I just don't care what the majority of a settler nation thinks on this issue. Why do white people get to decide whether indigenous people even have a "voice"?
And as i said it's not even that much of a step forward, it's just more liberal incrementalism. Indigenous people don't just need a "voice" in the settler system, they need real political power. They don't need a consultative, borderline ceremonial role through which they can express their opinion, they need their fucking land back! They need independence as a nation!
At the very least they should get a veto on all laws passed and all political appointments in the government.
It's really telling that even this symbolic/performative liberal policy is struggling to get anywhere.
Now that being said, it is interesting to note that there is some opposition to this from indigenous people themselves precisely because they view it as a performative empty gesture, as liberal virtue signaling that will not actually address their material concerns and only make white people feel better about themselves and their racist history.
However i find it very difficult to know what the real indigenous consensus is on this topic as someone looking at Australian politics from the other side of the world since there has been a concerted billion dollar campaign in the liberal media to promote the idea that there is virtually no indigenous opposition to "the voice" other than from fringe right wing groups.
Hilariously (and typically of the new cold war McCartyist paranoia), they have accused Russia of being behind the "fringe" indigenous groups who are on the "no" side. Why the fuck would Russia care about Australian internal politics? Australians have a way overinflated sense of their own importance. Outside of nerdy politics circles like ours nobody even thinks about them over here in Europe, and they are an insignificant afterthought even in Asia.
This is an article that does a pretty good job of explaining the indigenous opposition/skepticism to this proposal and why many would rather have a sovereign treaty in which they are recognized as their own nation and given tangible guarantees rather than a consultative body in the settler state which can always be defunded, disempowered or sidelined as the settler state pleases.
My own personal take on this is: it's an ok gesture but nowhere near enough. Voices can be silenced, ignored, drowned out by the crowd. Political power does not grow out of loud complaints, it grows out of the barrel of a gun. More than a "voice", indigenous people need a fist with which to take back what was stolen from them. Because as much as the liberals may protest otherwise, the settler state has not and will not suddenly grow a conscience.
I spent all of 30 seconds thinking about it. Yes for me, and moved on. Just annoyed at the slogan "If you don't know, vote NO" i.e The voice is SCARY. I hear it up to 30 times a day, mailers in my leterbox and other advertising. That's where the money is. I've seen one yes poster and that had NO spray painted over it.
I agree this should be a no-brainer, especially since it's so little. The only worry i would have is that this could demobilize some of the enthusiasm behind the movement for indigenous rights/autonomy, at least as far as the liberal allies are concerned who will view this as having done enough and think now all is magically fixed.
I hope that this passes and that this is just the first step to more substantial, tangible progress. But i don't think that the settler state will ever just willingly give that to the colonized peoples.
Why stop at nothing? for the activists anyway. Just a step to another step. One thing I remember about ATSIC (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission) was at the minimum it got indigenous voices in the media. Whether or not they were the right voices is open, but at least here was a voice to be heard. In the end ATSIC was reduced to "Aboriginals Talking Shit in Canberra" and was disbanded. Whatever replaced it can't have had much of a voice because I don't know what it was.
Tells you all you need to know about Australia.
Just in case not retorical, the point of the referendum is so that the voice can't just be removed at the whim of the government like previous advisory bodies. There would have to be a referendum to remove it.
It may not be able to be removed but it can still be ignored, overruled, or made irrelevant by any number of bureaucratic hurdles and chicanery thrown at it by future conservative/liberal governments.
Imo a better (non-liberal) solution would have been to construct something like the USSR's Soviet of Nationalities where all the indigenous nations would get not just a "voice" but constitutionally guaranteed representation and the ability to advance/protect indigenous interest with real influence in the legislative process, including veto powers.
Agree