309
Australians look set to vote against Indigenous voice in parliament
(www.theguardian.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 12 Oct 2023
309 points (100.0% liked)
World News
38878 readers
1933 users here now
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
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/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Nope, its a vote to change the consimtitution to add a body which is for one racial group and then to decide its powers after its been created. Its undemocratic and racist
You're undemocratic and racist.
It is undemocratic and racist if the position is (edit: not!) filled by an elected person and it is based on the race of people. That's like directly derived from the very definition of those words.
It can still be morally correct though!
You're being a dolt. They're there because of their quasi sovereign pre invasion nationality, you see it as color they see it as an attachment to the land.
Yes, that's why I say it can still be morally correct to create this position in parliament. Quite frankly I think they should get more than just this one position. It boggles the mind how land can just be taken and the native population just ignores like this for centuries.
But if it's based on race it's racist. That's a fact. Unless you redefine racist to be only against minorities. Or only against non-white people. But for me racism is action based on the race of people.
Agreed.
Nope. Not even by the definition of racism. It's equity, equitable things can be based on protected classes, sure.
As opposed to what exactly, non humans?
Your delineation of race is bigoted and frankly stupid. Also, morally incorrect.
My edit didn't go through. It should read
(I blame the federated nature of lemmy for that, but in the future I need to double check if any corrections do reach the intended server.)
I am aware that some people think racism can only be done by white people or by the majority. My definition of racism is that it is action based on the race of people.
I'm from Germany and quite frankly, I think the concept of race is indeed stupid. We got rid of that concept and its everyday use 75 years ago. But it is commonly used in the anglosphere (no doubt due to the big influence of the USA and it's domestic problems with african-american citzens), so that's the word I use in internet discourse as well.
Hilarious. Germany.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_Germany
I'm from Germany, and frankly, you're talking shit.
have you considered that you may be racist?
No I haven't cos I'm not. I'm only interested in preserving democracy. That means equality and egalitarianism. Representative government, which we already fucking have.
White Australians just standing up for democracy and egalitarianism. How noble. First nations people dying at 50 yo will no doubt salute your brave stance
White Australians making decisions on things they don't understand because of guilt for things the British empire did. How noble.
The Brits were dicks. But its current white australians getting their knickers in a twist being merely asked to listen to the people who's land they stole.
As other commenters have pointed out, anything coming out of the Voice is non-binding, so it's powers have been already decided and it will be effectively powerless. There are legitimate arguments that have been made for and against, but I don't think yours is one of them.
Moreover, I think you are looking at it the wrong way. It's not so much that it is giving a specific racial group a special government body as it's giving a group of people that stand apart from the Australian government a voice. If this group of people were not a single racial group, but otherwise everything was exactly the same, would you still vote no?
On first sight, coming from a German perspective, I'm asking "why put it in the constitution if everything is non-binding", over here we we have various councils that represent minorities and they're all plain and simply registered associations, nothing special. But, well, then they're also actually listened to. So on second sight given the degree of ignorance aboriginals are generally afforded I'd say it's probably a good idea to make the "fucking listen" part mandatory.
...and now my head is playing the dead heart on repeat, should've seen that one coming.
I'm not campaigning here so I'm not really making a coherent argument, and I know that isn't helping.
Still, here's the main point - look at the constitution. What's it about and what's it for? It starts by outlining theformationa and function of the house of reps, senate, and judiciary. There's a section on the states and one on commerce. That's it. Its a how-to manual for the federal government.
So how then does an advisory body fit into thatdocuments? What's its purpose? It can only be as a third (fourth?) Branch of government because that's what the document is.
When you get all these people saying "oh its just this or that it has no power its just so they get a say" - that's not the function of the constitution and its parts. By putting it in there with a legislative blank check - that's the creation of a part of the government.
I would not support the creation of that body regardless of its makeup. For 300 years no we've been running vaguely successful democracies (that's a whole other conversation) with two legislative branches and a judiciary. Nobody through this whole process has given any reason why this should change or even given a thought to a change management process.
What's the actual reasoning, the actual effect, the actual risks? Nobody knows! Because if you dare to raise any question you're clearly just a fucken racist.
Final question - people that stand apart from the Australian government? Can you clarify that? Because that sounds like insurrection to me. If this is some sort of soft revolution, I'm even more against it.
So your argument boils down to, "I don't want to change the constitution?" If a purely advisory body was created by an act of parliament then you'd be okay with it?
What I meant by standing apart is that there is this group of people that were living their best lives for 60k years and then another group of people came and said, "This place is ours now and we are going to run it like we want and we don't give a shit about your customs, so either start doing things our way or fuck off." They are standing apart because they weren't included.
My argument is that this is the shut way to make a change and does nothing to address any issue that . All it does is create a new branch of government that is exclusive to one type of people. That's the start of apartheid, not a solution to the issues of health education and opportunity.
They were and are included you fucking moron. How many first nations people are currently sitting members of state and federal parliament? And besides that every fucking person in this country has council members, state MPs and federal MPs already. Not included my shiny metal ass
Name calling is unnecessary.
Indigenous people definitely were NOT part of the formation of the Australian government and in order to participate they have had to conform in order to get votes from people outside their group, right?
And to reiterate, it's called the Voice because that's what it will give them. That's it. Just a way to have some formal input (that can still be ignored) without having to pander to people that do not understand their way of life. Is it enough? No, but it's a start at least.
I, for one, know that if I was just living my life and an outside group of people came and told me that they were taking over and I had to do things their way instead if I had any hope of having a say in my future, I would be pretty pissed. I would also be pretty pissed that those same outsiders would presume to deny me a voice for reasons that they can't coherently articulate without resorting to name calling.
How many of usnin this country are here because exactly that situation occered in their homeland? And now they arrive here and find that instead of equal opportunity for everyone, we are actively implementing apartheid?
In this case name calling is necessary
Giving indigenous people a voice is apartheid? That's some racist fearmongering if I've ever heard it. You say that every time you try to have a conversation about the issue you get called racist? Have you considered that maybe it's because you are racist? No, of course not; that would require a level of introspection that you are too cowardly to reach for, whether you admit it or not.
I sincerely hope that you some day find the courage to confront your prejudices and grow as a person, but I'm not interested in waiting for that day.
This is completely false, but unfortunately that is the type of lie that has been spread and amplified by conservatives and their media, and caused a lot of uncertainty and fear in people.
It is clear what the voice is going to be. It is clear what powers it will have. It is clear how it is going to work. Everything else is FUD.
What are you on about? How is it clear? if anything its deliberately unclear. Theres no framework, no restrictions, no indicationonf membership or how it will be chosen, no scope of any kind.
How the fuck does that parse as "clear" in your mind?
If it's so unclear as you make it out to be, how can you be so certain that it will be all the bad things you're harping on about in this thread?
What bad things would those be?
You keep repeating the same demagoguery. Shush.
This whole thing is demagoguery on both sides. Contribute or shush yourself