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

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

  • ravenford
    6·
    9 months 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·
      9 months 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.

    • JustSomePerson@kbin.social
      12·
      9 months ago

      That is entirely irrelevant. “The king exists, therefore the constitution should give different rights to regular people based on their race”. Disgusting argument.

      • ravenford
        2·
        9 months ago

        Im pointing out the hypocrisy, not providing an endorsement of monarchy. The Australian constitution has an original sin baked in, so pretending it’s a sacred document and not already a biased setup is naive.

        • JustSomePerson@kbin.social
          11·
          9 months ago

          Nobody is proving an endorsement of monarchy. You’re using monarchy as an argument for adding (additional) racism to the constitution. It’s a fucking stupid argument. “One thing is bad, therefore it is not a problem to make other things worse too.”

          If something has a flaw (monarchy) that’s not a reason to make it worse (enshrine racially based representation).

          • ravenford
            1·
            9 months 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.

            Your words. I’m simply pointing out the hypocrisy nothing further. The constitution is already in the state you say is fundamentally objectionable, it is not a neutral, equal set of laws. But you draw the line here, when advantage is already enshrined one way. Funny that.

            You’re pretty rude and divisive in your comments here, you can take negativity too far you know.