148

Australian national broadcaster ABC has projected three states voted No, effectively defeating the referendum.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] MJBrune@beehaw.org 36 points 1 year ago

Man, I didn't know Australia was full of idiots. There was absolutely no reason to vote no to this. It was simply a group that would give feedback to the Australian Senate. Feedback from a marginalized group of the land you stole. Feedback that could simply be ignored by the Senate. It was simply giving that group a voice. How you could vote against that, I have no clue.

[-] olof@lemmy.ml 15 points 1 year ago

Is it just racism? I also don't get it.

[-] comfy@lemmy.ml 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

No, it is not just racism. There would have been an element of that, but it's certainly far from the main reason. That idea is contradicted by the facts that a very significant portion of Indigenous people and Indigenous activists voted against it.

Linking to this useful post, explaining why various progressive groups were against it.

[-] Anchorite@lemm.ee 5 points 1 year ago

Significant proportion, but a minority still.

But yes it’s not racism alone, also confusion, selfishness, disinterest, spite, partisanship, a long list of reasons

[-] hitmyspot@aussie.zone 2 points 1 year ago

I'd say apathy more than anything. So many people didn't bother to actually find out what was going to happen. Yes side messaged it poorly. No side preyed on low information, making it divisive and about non relevant semantics.

[-] DampSquid@feddit.uk 7 points 1 year ago
[-] Welt@lazysoci.al 2 points 1 year ago

I'd go with "yeah nah".

[-] PerogiBoi@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago

We have this same issue in Canada. It seems the average person finds it completely acceptable to dismiss our First Nations peoples as “drunks” and “bums” and less than citizens.

[-] Splitdipless@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 year ago

Don't forget the words of our leader of His Majesties Loyal Opposition, and possible future PM: "My view is that we need to engender the values of hard work and independence and self reliance. That's the solution in the long run -- more money will not solve it."

He's apologized since, but you as they say, you understand how someone truly feels the first time they say something, unfiltered.

load more comments (19 replies)
[-] comfy@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 year ago

You've actually explained one of the reasons many Indigenous people rejected this: it is just feedback that could simply be ignored by the Senate. That's powerless, and we've seen from royal commissions into Aboriginal deaths in custody that the feedback does get ignored. Why accept such a bad deal, pretending it's a victory or progress?

The Black Peoples Union interview with ABC explains why they took the 'no' position.

[-] MJBrune@beehaw.org 6 points 1 year ago

I saw this stance and I still don't know why you wouldn't want a position to give you more of a platform. It's still progress to give minority groups a larger platform than they had before.

[-] PipedLinkBot@feddit.rocks 1 points 1 year ago

Here is an alternative Piped link(s):

Black Peoples Union interview with ABC

Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.

I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.

[-] JustSomePerson@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

There was absolutely no reason to vote no to this.

Of course there was. Enshrining different rights to different people in the constitution based on their race, is fundamentally objectionable.

[-] ravenford@startrek.website 6 points 1 year ago

Like enshrining the position of head of state as being the next in line for a particular family who are born & live on the other side of the world?

[-] Welt@lazysoci.al 2 points 1 year ago

For the love of democracy let's not fuck that one up again next time it comes around. Based on yesterday the next PM may well be one of our most evil statesmen around. I think the ARM is planning for a 2027 republican referendum... please let's not elect a skilled reactionary to lead our country when the time comes.

[-] hitmyspot@aussie.zone 2 points 1 year ago

Judging by the way the vote went in previous libs, now teal seats, it may be more likely he's cemented his status as unelectable.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[-] MJBrune@beehaw.org 4 points 1 year ago

I feel like you say that without the context of anything. In isolation what you say might be true but within context it's just fairly clear to see why you'd get a minority group committee of advisers to be more widely heard. "Different rights to different people" is literally how the world works. If you want to pretend that majority bias doesn't exist then so be it, I can't change your support for systemic racism.

[-] JustSomePerson@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago

When you choose to use the expression "absolutely no reason", it is trivially easy to disprove your claim. My argument is one of them, and it is a valid reason to vote no. Your further arguments are valid reasons to vote "yes", and their pros and cons may or may not outweigh each other.

But you are verifiably wrong to claim that there are no reasons to vote no. Opposing race-based legislation in all its forms is a very valid position, and the only non-racist position possible to take in this.

[-] MJBrune@beehaw.org 3 points 1 year ago

Sorry, I figured you wouldn't be pedantic. I clearly meant no valid reason that I see to vote no. Racism and support of systemic racism is a reason, you are right. Go get your internet pedantic star.

[-] JustSomePerson@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago

Grow the fuck up. You are the one arguing for race-based legislation. That makes you the racist. Every human has the right to be equal in the eyes of the law. There simply cannot be an excuse for having tests based on genetics that lead to different rights in a society. That's just purely despicable in every way.

[-] SpicyLizards@reddthat.com 2 points 1 year ago

The constitution has been and still is racist - try researching it before spreading misinformation.

[-] ravenford@startrek.website 2 points 1 year ago

"Tests based on genetics that lead to different rights". Again, that sounds alot like the constitutional rights granted to just one family line as head of state. And that genetic line didn't come from Australia. So which race of humans have primacy in australian law?

[-] Pladermp@aussie.zone 1 points 1 year ago

It's possible to hold both of these beliefs simultaneously:

  • The constitution conferring special rights and privileges on the royal family and their delegates is a bad idea.
  • The constitution conferring special rights and privileges to a subset of people within the country based on race is a bad idea.
[-] ravenford@startrek.website 1 points 1 year ago

Sure but then we must acknowledge one of those unacceptable things is reality, and the other which could have added some equality and balance was rejected, leaving the constitution favoured to one group of people, as society has been structured.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] MJBrune@beehaw.org 1 points 1 year ago

There is Equality, Equity, and Justice. I highly recommend reading about why you should go for Justice rather than Equality. Also, this law would have nothing based on race or genetics. It was based on what the tribes, which are organization bodies like the Australian government, would put in the committee. It's fairly racist to assume that indigenous committee representatives have to be of indigenous genetics in this day and age.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[-] PoliticalAgitator@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

They know. The whole "progressives are the real racists" shtick is just a way for them to chew up values and spit them back in peoples faces.

They're not actually concerned about genuine racism and routinely tolerate it, if not outright support it.

[-] Anchorite@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

Hard to say that the right to be heard is objectionable imo

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (18 replies)
this post was submitted on 14 Oct 2023
148 points (98.1% liked)

World News

32359 readers
360 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS