323
submitted 1 year ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/world@lemmy.world

With a two-letter word, Australians have struck down the first attempt at constitutional change in 24 years, major media outlets reported, a move experts say will inflict lasting damage on First Nations people and suspend any hopes of modernizing the nation’s founding document.

Early results from the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) suggested that most of the country’s 17.6 million registered voters had written No on their ballots, and CNN affiliates 9 News, Sky News and SBS all projected no path forward for the Yes campaign.

The proposal, to recognize Indigenous people in the constitution and create an Indigenous body to advise government on policies that affect them, needed a majority nationally and in four of six states to pass.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] coldv@lemmy.world 88 points 1 year ago

Yup. Sounds like Australia. Proudly admitting they're racist, and afraid even of a symbolic gesture that has no actual power in the parliament. I'm just embarrassed that it is now official.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] calhoon2005@aussie.zone 82 points 1 year ago

After a definite disinformation campaign with a side of racist fear mongering...ffs. I'm embarrassed to be an Australian.

[-] alvvayson@lemmy.world 17 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Here in the European press, I read that many Aboriginals also opposed it. They want recognition, land transfers or compensation.

To really reconcile over past wrongs, I get that. There needs to be something substantive and I think something like that will only be possible when most boomers are gone.

We have similar debates over our colonial and enslaving past.

[-] MuThyme@lemmy.world 44 points 1 year ago

The point is that this would have given them a path toward voicing those sorts of things, directly to the people who can actually do something about it.

It could have been the start to a lot of great change, it was a simple easy thing to do

[-] alvvayson@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Sure, I understand the idea and it would have been good if it passed.

But they can still voice their opinions, we have free speech, and change in the future is still possible.

Who is "we" that has free speech, because that isn't exactly what Australia has.

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

Australia does not have free speech and you are delusional to believe that.

In 2003, CSIRO senior scientist Graeme Pearman was reprimanded and encouraged to resign after he spoke out on global warming. The Howard government was accused of limiting the speech of Pearman and other scientists.

And... Oh wait never mind.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] fiat_lux@kbin.social 20 points 1 year ago

Many is a bigger word than I would use. Some definitely did, but no group of people has a homogeneous opinion of what the right next actions on any big issue are, and it's kind of weird anyone would expect otherwise. Overall I got the impression that ATSI Australians supported the change, but others may not have felt it looked that way based on what they saw.

only be possible when most boomers are gone.

20 years ago I believed that might be true. Since then i have learnt to never rely on it being about age. Imcreased age can correlate with increased power and the reluctance to change the system to increase competition, but age isn't the cause of stagnant beliefs. In 50 years time there will still be a generation of old people afraid of social change and a bunch of younger people who are the same or just think change is not in their personal best interest, even though it's an entirely different set of people.

We're all going to have to do a lot more than just keep waiting for the elderly to shuffle off the mortal coil if we want something different for the future.

[-] alvvayson@lemmy.world 17 points 1 year ago

Studies of Millenials show that we are not growing more conservative as we age, and neither did boomers.

It's more that, what is currently considered progressive becomes conservative and new progressive positions emerge.

Boomers didn't suddenly become opposed to interracial marriages or premarital sex or divorce or against gay people or minorities as they aged. The generations before them had those issues and now that those generations are gone, those issues are no longer issues.

And now the issues are more things like trans rights, reparations, climate justice, etc.

[-] Jaysyn@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

those issues are no longer issues.

Maybe not in AU, but they very much are in other places.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] ASeriesOfPoorChoices@lemmy.world 15 points 1 year ago

The numbers were about 80+% of First Nations people are for it.

They may/do want recognition, land transfers or compensation, but voting No helped ensure they wouldn't get anything in the future.

[-] batmangrundies@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Over 63% of indigenous people voted in favour of the voice.

You are repeating propoganda.

load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] satanssultana@artemis.camp 47 points 1 year ago

This is a very sad day in Australia’s history. Many of us thought we were a more progressive nation than we are.

[-] coldv@lemmy.world 47 points 1 year ago

As a POC, I am not surprised, but I was still optimistic because there was no way to vote "no" without looking like a racist cunt. Well turns out Australia has no problem with looking like a bunch of racist cunts.

[-] dyathinkhesaurus@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

Try and tell them they're a bunch of racist cunts tho... Then you'll see hypocrisy too!

[-] ReverseThePolarity@aussie.zone 10 points 1 year ago

We are more progressive. The trouble is the amendment was too vague and if anyone asked questions or suggested that they might vote no, they got called a racist and told to educate themselves.
The Yes campaign ended up mostly using the argument that you should vote yes because conservative are telling you to say no.

[-] WaxedWookie@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

It's a toothless advisory body that could make (ignorable) representations to parliament about matters relating to the indigenous community. What else do you need to know?

[-] ReverseThePolarity@aussie.zone 5 points 1 year ago

There were 2 main issues for me.

  1. The wording did not specify how they would be selected.
  2. The voice did not require that the members needed to be Aboriginal. So it would have been a bunch of non Aboriginal mates of politicians in the voice. Just like how Tony Abbott got to be the minister for women.

The yes campaign just said trust us it will do nothing so you don't need to worry. What was the point then?

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] STRIKINGdebate2@lemmy.world 34 points 1 year ago

Looking over the r/Australia comments on this referendum has been fascinating. Apparently acknowledging indigenous people in the constitution is giving them special privileges and it was a bad idea to launch this because the average Australian had no idea what this campaign was about as if googling it is so fucking hard. Sorry aboriginal people, but you made me have to use Google so you don't get any say now.

[-] masterspace@lemmy.ca 33 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

tfw all those jokes about Australians being racist is put to a national referendum and turn out to be true.

[-] seiryth@lemmy.world 20 points 1 year ago

It's interesting to see the breakdown by electorate. Electorates close to Melbourne and Sydney cbds voted yes. The further out of vic and nsw, the more the no grows.

Qld, wa, NT and SA didn't have the same problem. Blanket no.

Tldr, the progressive part of the country that wants this is city focused. The rest of the country has a long way to go.

[-] shasta@lemm.ee 18 points 1 year ago

This is true in the entire world.

[-] fiat_lux@kbin.social 8 points 1 year ago

Electorates close to Melbourne and Sydney cbds voted yes.

The centre of Sydney has one of the largest populations of ATSI people, not sure about Melbourne, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's true there too.

I think it's easier to see people as people when you live closely with a lot of different variations on the base model.

[-] seiryth@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Jimmy Carr was on Joe Rogan (I know he's awful but it was a decent episode) recently and was talking about how Hitler worked out propaganda works best when the "other" feels alien, which is why he closed down clubs in the 30s. Seeing Jews as "one of us" through clubs and hospitality made the propaganda against them ineffective because they were just seen as one of the people and this Hitler guy was just a nut, the whole movie cabaret being about it.

I think you're right. Melbourne is an amazing melting pot of people, so it's difficult to be not emphatic towards a cause that would improve their QOL

[-] ReverseThePolarity@aussie.zone 3 points 1 year ago

There are very few in inner city Melbourne.

[-] fruitleatherpostcard@lemm.ee 11 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

A toxic mix of the social heritage of brutal colonialism, domestic racism, and the trolling money from China and Russia.

[-] Hogger85b@kbin.social 9 points 1 year ago

Follow the money.....fossil.fuel and other mining extraction companies would lose if the first nations took more control of parts of land

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

Marketing, image, and ads are everything with these kinds of things. Seems like the "Yes" campaign fucked that up.

[-] dragonflyteaparty@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

From the article it seemed that a big criticism of the amendment was that it was too vague. There were people from different political beliefs and some aboriginals who didn't like how vague it was, though the aboriginals wanted it to further.

That's because it was a constitutional amendment.

The legislation (details) that would come out afterwards has been out for 6-7 months now.

load more comments (6 replies)
[-] autotldr@lemmings.world 3 points 1 year ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


Supporters of the Yes vote had hailed it as an opportunity to accept the outreached hand of First Nations people and to work with them to solve problems in their most remote communities – higher rates of suicide, domestic violence, children in out-of-home care and incarceration.

Constitutional experts, Australians of the Year, eminent retired judges, companies large and small, universities, sporting legends, netballers, footballers, reality stars and Hollywood actors flagged their endorsement.

Aussie music legend John Farnham gifted a song considered to be the unofficial Australian anthem to a Yes advertisement with a stirring message of national unity.

Kevin Argus, a marketing expert from Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology (RMIT), told CNN the Yes campaign was a “case study in how not to message change on matters of social importance.”

Argus said only the No campaign had used simple messaging, maximized the reach of personal profiles, and acted decisively to combat challenges to their arguments with clear and repeatable slogans.

Maree Teesson, director of the Matilda Center for Research in Mental Health and Substance Use at the University of Sydney, told CNN the Voice to Parliament had offered self-determination to Indigenous communities, an ability to have a say over what happens in their lives.


The original article contains 945 words, the summary contains 204 words. Saved 78%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

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

So, what does a right way to accomodate indigenous groups look like? Has any country accomplished it?

What rights or opportunities are these groups lacking?

[-] STRIKINGdebate2@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

A good way to start would be making sure they have adequate political representation. Shutting them out of the politically. When you don't get a groups voice in when making decisions that can lead to consequences. Big issues that aboriginals face in extremely high unemployment, decaying infrastructure and high incarceration rates.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] 01011@monero.town 2 points 1 year ago

Relying on scared white supremacists to not be white supremacists is foolish.

[-] watson387@sopuli.xyz 2 points 1 year ago

Every news article I see anymore makes me lose a little more faith in humanity. I don’t have much left…

[-] trewq@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

good for you, you still have some. I have zero faith. Now I'm just waiting for ELE or aliens to wipe us out.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 14 Oct 2023
323 points (97.1% liked)

World News

38977 readers
3103 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS