Despite their opposing views, Foley, Mayo, Finlay and Grayl agreed that a majority “no” vote on the referendum would be irreversibly harmful for Indigenous rights.
This is my reasoning for voting 'Yes'. The Overton Window is too far to the right in this country and the racists shouldn't get another win. There's nothing to lose and something to gain by at least ensuring that the Indigenous get an official, non-binding say on policy.
I assumed Yes was a good option once I saw who was funding No - back before we had any details. So far this assumption has been holding up.
I'm not a fan of explicit institutional racism, even if it's done with good intentions.
We tried the "certain people recognized by the government have exceptional powers granted along hereditary lines" thing, and everyone for a while agreed it wasn't the best.
Fuck you
Imagine equating an oppressed minority finally getting a modicum of power to a goddamn hereditary monarchy
You are not clever, Nazi fuck.
You're calling for special privileges based on race and I'm the Nazi for being against it?
Ok.
Yep. Glad you understand.
Run into a burning building and stay there please.
The Voice isn't about granting "exceptional powers granted along hereditary lines". The proposed constitutional amendment would create a body that can make representations to Parliament - that's it. The Voice would not have the power to manage money, deliver services or create legislation. It is simply a means for platforming issues affecting Indigenous communities directly to Parliament. In fact, a lot of people aren't happy with the proposed amendment because they're worried all of the Voice's representations will simply be ignored by Parliament.
The general idea here is that peoples Indigenous to the land were colonised and subject to a system of government and law completely foreign to their traditional way of life. The Voice provides a means for people living in remote, traditional communities to express their perspective, needs and concerns through a forum that is compatible to their way of life.
Think about how difficult it would be for someone raised in these communities to get Parliament to acknowledge their perspective otherwise - to move away from their community, get an advanced university degree in politics or law and table legislation to protect their interests.
The 'exceptional power' is just guaranteed consultation for an independent and permanent advisory body representing Indigenous Australians. That's it. They don't even have to do what they say, they just have to ask.
That's... a bizarre take. Aboriginal Australians didn't get the vote until the 1960s.
The Voice is only to let Indigenous people have a mechanism for consultation since they are so heavily outnumbered that the Australian electoral system is essentially a "tyranny of the majority".
Aboriginal and Torres straits Australians have measurably worse outcomes in health, wealth, education, crime, life expectancy, etc. That is institutional racism.
"a landmark referendum to enshrine in the Australian Constitution an Indigenous body — known as a “Voice to Parliament” — to advise the government on legislation and policy affecting Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, who make up almost 4% of Australia’s population of 26 million."
This seems, at the very least, reasonable. It's odd that they don't have any actual representation, though.
Why do you say they have no representation? There are a lot of specific bodies operating in the government, advisory and otherwise, with the sole focus of indigenous affairs. And of course, currently, indigenous Australians are over represented in terms of parliamentarian race (more than 4% if parliamentarians are of indigenous descent).
Breaking news and current events worldwide.