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

      • comfy@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        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
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          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
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            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.

      • PerogiBoi@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        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
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          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.

      • MxM111@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        15
        ·
        1 year ago

        In my opinion a racism is having different laws for people with different genetics/skin color. “Black is not allowed” is racism. The proposed law is actually the one doing exactly the same - it treats people differently according to their genetics. Why people think it is good - is beyond me.

        • hitmyspot@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          The constitution currently allows for laws,to be specifically made about ATSI people. I didn’t see any of the people worried about inequality protesting that. Ever.

          • morry040@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Not specifically about ATSI people, but of any race. The ‘races power’ part of the Constitution (section 51(xxvi)) reads as follows:

            Current text:
            The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to:
            “the people of any race for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws”

            Original text:
            The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to:
            “the people of any race, other than the aboriginal race in any State, for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws”

            https://www.ausconstitution.org/home/chapter-1-the-parliament/part-v-powers-of-the-parliament/section-51/26-race-power

            • hitmyspot@aussie.zone
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Yes, as ATSI people arent currently recognized in the constitution. In practice, it’s only used to target them.

            • hitmyspot@aussie.zone
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              That’s odd, as your first sentence talks about laws. Maybe you said something you didn’t mean.

                • hitmyspot@aussie.zone
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Yes, one can. You however were comparing comparison under laws, which is speaking about legalities. You were incorrect. Doubling down just makes it clear you are not discussing in good faith, but have been caught in a lie.

                  • MxM111@kbin.social
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    No, I do not know how you get this impression. Please reread my posts. I was talking about what laws should be for good society, not what can or can not be allowed legally.

        • PoliticalAgitator@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Sounds like you’re fine with it happening, you’re just not fine with it being written down.

          But sure. Tell us how a yes vote would have meant “different laws for people with different skin color” and what color your skin is.

          • FaceDeer@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Sounds like you’re fine with it happening

            Care to point out where it “sounds” that way in what he wrote? I’m not seeing it.

            • PoliticalAgitator@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Sure: it’s already happening and he voted ‘no’ to something that could begin to address it.

              Not exactly rocket science.

              • FaceDeer@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                You think that this very specific constitutional amendment is the only way to “begin to address it?” You say it could begin to address it so it’s clear you’re not even sure of that.

                • PoliticalAgitator@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  There’s plenty of ways to address the problem – none of which the Liberal Party will ever implement or the “No” campaign will ever support.

                  You can feign all the indignation you want but at the end of the day, we know you won’t support any of those changes, just like you didn’t support the voice, nor even a token apology on behalf of the government for the inhumane things their predecessors did.

                  Want to prove you actually care? Campaign for a solution that isn’t “let’s just ignore the problem since it doesn’t impact me”, perhaps with the financial support of all of those “vote no” organisations that don’t exist at their registered addresses.

                  We both know there’s not a chance of that happening. You’ll just continue to pretend you have some standard that isn’t being met, rather than admitting that nothing ever will because you simply don’t want it to happen.

          • MxM111@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            If there is problem with enforcement the laws in different ways, then address that directly. Don’t create laws separating people by genetics. That’s the opposite to what equal society should have! Why would you help one poor person and will not help another poor person just because their genetics is different?

            And I will ignore your “sounds like” comment as completely made up statement.

        • comfy@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          That isn’t a useful definition of racism. It’s sounds alright, although it’s ultimately idealistic, it doesn’t hold up when applying to material circumstances.

          As for why people think having different rules for different groups is good, I think one of the simplest ways to sum it up is: Equality of treatment will not give equality of outcome until there is already equality of conditions. Treating all people the same isn’t fair in the real world.

          As a thought-experiment to demonstrate: If we have two people, one has $200 savings after rent and the other has $10,000,000, you can’t make them more equal or make the money more distributed by treating them the same: if society wants to reduce poverty (which is obviously a good thing for society, to have less people in poverty), it makes some sense to supply the poorer of the two with money, but it makes no sense to supply the richer: they already have more money than 90% of people! There isn’t a moral or ethical benefit in giving them more money, they don’t need the money as much as others do, it’s not how to achieve fairness or equality.

          The generalised point of that being, if a group is disadvantaged and the status quo is keeping them disadvantaged, solving that will require special treatment. Treating Indigenous people the same way as always just keeps the systemic racist status quo, and to solve that, the Government will inevitably have to treat Indigenous people differently. That’s a consequence of trying to create a more equal outcome in an unequal environment.

          The same goes for other types of disadvantage, of course. I am obviously not trying to imply that all people who aren’t indigenous have all the advantage they need! Ultimately, everyone who is not a mega-multi-millionaire is disadvantaged, but we can’t fix that all in one change. We have to start somewhere.

        • Omega_Haxors@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          This is veering dangerously close to the arguments neo-nazis make against affirmative action.

    • comfy@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      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.

    • JustSomePerson@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        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
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          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.

        • JustSomePerson@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year 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
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year 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
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year 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
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                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.

                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.

        • JustSomePerson@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          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.

            • JustSomePerson@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              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.

              • ravenford
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                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
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  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
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    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.

              • hitmyspot@aussie.zone
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                Racism, by definition, is treating one race negatively. Enshrinign the voice in the constitution is not racist, while you’re being pedantic.

                • Welt@lazysoci.al
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  If one “race” (which isn’t a scientific term and its use in the US is dated and itself racist) is treated differently from another, regardless of which group is perceived to be treated favourably or unfavourably, such a situation can legitimately be described as racist.

                  • hitmyspot@aussie.zone
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Not according to the definition, to wit: prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism by an individual, community, or institution against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized.

                    Racism is by definition negative treatment, not different treatment. Putting darker make up on a black actor is not racist. Giving women breast cancer screening is not sexist.

        • PoliticalAgitator@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          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.

        • JustSomePerson@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Everybody should have the same right to be heard. Different people having different rights to be heard, based on their race, is absolutely objectionable. And racist.

          • Anchorite@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            You’re looking at a set of unequal scales and saying they should be equal, while refusing to place more weight onto either side…

            • JustSomePerson@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Enshrining racial differences in the constitution is absolutely disgusting, no matter how good your intentions are.

    • atetulo@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Australia has some of the most racist people on the planet.

      The problem is, since they live in a self-contained ‘white-zone’, they rarely have to deal with the problems of racial diversity.

      So many people think Americans are racist, but that’s just because the USA actually has to deal with diversity.

      It’s easy for nations like Australia or Iceland to appear as they though care about other races until it comes home.

      • Welt@lazysoci.al
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Left-leaning voters in this very thread are oversimplifying in the exact way you’re accusing conservative bigots of doing. It’s the state of politics, not the political positions that are the problem. I try not to look at politics in such a polarised way because it adds to the problem.

    • SpicyLizards@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Really, we just have demonstrated to the indigenous community that we don’t give a shit about them. It’s sickening…

    • morry040@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Who stole the land, exactly? The last Census detailed that 28% of Australians were born outside Australia and 48% have a parent born overseas, so the population who could be traced back to “stealing land” is a small minority.

      From the perspective of some in the older generations, Indigenous Australians were given a voice and representation in 1962 when they were given the option to enrol and vote in federal elections, the same as every other Australian.

      • SpicyLizards@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        From the perspective of some in the older generations, Indigenous Australians were given a voice and representation in 1962 when they were given the option to enrol and vote in federal elections, the same as every other Australian.

        That’s just dishonest. The link you posted paints a much more grim picture.

    • MxM111@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      1 year ago

      They did not steal from these people, but from their several generations long dead ancestors.

      The goal of the prosperous society should be equality between people. This law is differentiating people by their genotype.

      Worried about poor people? Just help them regardless color palette of their hair, eyes or skin.

        • FaceDeer@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Feedback from a marginalized group of the land you stole.

          There’s the spot where you accused OP (or, more generally, modern-day Australians) of being land thieves.

          How old do you think OP is?

            • FaceDeer@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Did you not see the parenthetical I put in that sentence? It specifically covers all of this. You wasted a paragraph complaining about something that was already addressed, and then completely ignored the actual question that is relevant.

              I’ll repeat it, in a simpler and more general form so you can hopefully understand it better. How old are the people you’re accusing of being land thieves?

                • FaceDeer@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  The original people who stole the land are dead.

                  So when you said “the land you stole” you were talking about dead people, not about anyone who is alive. There are no identifiable “thieves” any more.

                  The sins of the fathers should not be laid on their children. Helping people alive today who are disadvantaged is a fine goal, but trying to divvy those groups up on the basis of ethnicity or ancestry is simply repeating the original problem. You can ban discrimination, provide social programs, promote cultural enrichment and exchange, improve living conditions and economic opportunities for poor communities, without ever once having to make decisions on the basis of who’s grandfathers belonged to which families and have what genetic profiles.

                  This is not “supporting systemic racism.” It’s the opposite.

      • PoliticalAgitator@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        So we can expect the 10 of millions of dollars that bankrolled the “no” groups will now go directly to “poor people” now?

          • KᑌᔕᕼIᗩ@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Makes me wonder if the Yes campaign was deliberately shit to achieve exactly that. Surely they knew that they could establish it anyway without constitutional support and prove that it worked and could be trusted before going for a full referendum.