985
submitted 1 year ago by GreyShuck@feddit.uk to c/world@lemmy.world

Australians have resoundingly rejected a proposal to recognise Aboriginal people in its constitution and establish a body to advise parliament on Indigenous issues.

Saturday’s voice to parliament referendum failed, with the defeat clear shortly after polls closed.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Gerula@lemmy.world 37 points 1 year ago

New to the subject here: why is it a desirable thing to recognise Aboriginal people in the Constitution?

As I read through the article in the Aboriginal camp not everyone wants this. So I'm puzzled.

[-] bennysaurus@lemmy.world 58 points 1 year ago

It's complex. Quite a few in the indigenous "no" camp want treaty instead; a formal legal recognition of aboriginal rights and representation, not just an advisory voice in parliament. Voting no for them was as much a protest as an attempt to send a message saying this should be much more. For them it's all or nothing.

Others didn't see the point, yet others don't see the problem in the first place, comfortable with the status quo.

[-] miridius@lemmy.world 35 points 1 year ago

Ah the classic "I'm going to vote no to something good for me because I wanted something even better" argument 🤦‍♂️

[-] comfy@lemmy.ml 36 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Their argument is that the Voice isn't even something good. It doesn't give Indigenous people any powers they didn't already have, and the Voice can be ignored just as easily as the advice of the royal commission into Aboriginal deaths in custody recently was. Interview with the Black Peoples Union describes in better detail.

But even if that weren't the case and they did think it wasn't worthless symbolism, successful collective bargaining doesn't just settle for every first offer. So I don't know why you're claiming it's a bad strategy, it's how unions have won important gains for workers. It's a strategy that has been historically shown to work when applied correctly.

[-] Gerula@lemmy.world 15 points 1 year ago

But aren't Aboriginal people citizens of Australia and so already part of the Constitution thus having legal rights like everyone else? What are the extra rights and representation needed?

[-] DessertStorms@kbin.social 11 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

But aren’t Aboriginal people citizens of Australia and so already part of the Constitution thus having legal rights like everyone else?

No, obviously not.

What are the extra rights and representation needed?

Basic human rights and equal representation, for starters.

How about instead of spending your time here making such outlandishly ignorant comments, you spend it instead looking up for yourself how Aboriginal people are treated, and what equal rights they're fighting for?, rather than sit back and demand others do the work for you?

[-] Gerula@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago

Ok, thank you for your patience.

[-] Sanity_in_Moderation@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

He is flat out wrong. Or lying, not sure which. Of course they are citizens and have the right to vote.

[-] Spzi@lemm.ee 9 points 1 year ago

Another way to view it: It's not about the individual person you're replying to. Even unreasonable questions are a chance to bring more quality content into the thread, so more people can see it. It's a chance to highlight things you value. It also makes nicer answers.

[-] canuckkat@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I'm not sure why you're confused because the first sentence of the article literally says:

Australians have resoundingly rejected a proposal to recognise Aboriginal people in the country’s constitution and establish a body to advise parliament on Indigenous issues.

Which sums up why they were trying to make this happen, which also sounds like they don't have an official group of Indigenous peoples advising the government on anything that is an Indigenous issue, which is super bad.

[-] Gerula@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Thank you for your reply. It's simple:

  • if they have Australian citizenship (I think in 67 was a push for this) then they already have all the Constitutional rights and obligations like every other Australian citizen. Why are these extra steps necessary?

  • if they don't: what is their current legal status? Why not just give them citizenship and thus having the right of representation in the Parliament and so forth?

this post was submitted on 14 Oct 2023
985 points (100.0% liked)

World News

39367 readers
1997 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS