205

Australians vote No in referendum that promised change for First Nations people but couldn't deliver (edition.cnn.com)

submitted 8 months ago by AlmightySnoo@lemmy.world to c/world@lemmy.world

88 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] Zehzin@lemmy.world 66 points 8 months ago

I said do you speak my language

He just smiled and gave me a genocide sandwich

[-] metaStatic@kbin.social 3 points 8 months ago

Kangaroo

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] trk@aussie.zone 54 points 8 months ago

Add it to our list of embarrassingly backwards decisions as a country.

[-] AlmightySnoo@lemmy.world 42 points 8 months ago

What's depressing is that they lost to a “If you don’t know, vote No” slogan:

During months of campaigning, the No vote gained momentum with slogans that appealed to voter apathy – “If you don’t know, vote No” – and a host of other statements designed to instil fear, according to experts, including that it would divide Australia by race and be legally risky

load more comments (5 replies)

[-] angrymouse@lemmy.world 48 points 8 months ago

The proposal, to recognize Indigenous people in the constitution and create an Indigenous body to advise government on policies that affect them, needed a majority nationally and in four of six states to pass.

Jeez

[-] FaceDeer@kbin.social 29 points 8 months ago

The text of the proposed constitutional amendment can be found here. The entire extent of its "recognition" was to create a body that can make presentations to Parliament.

load more comments (3 replies)

load more comments (7 replies)

[-] Mojojojo1993@lemmy.world 31 points 8 months ago

Most Australian thing ever. Im.not surprised in the slightest

[-] muntedcrocodile@lemmy.world 3 points 8 months ago

This is a very deceptive headline a majority of australians support the idea of a reccomandary body for indiginouse peoples (the voice what was proposed). However, the reason i beleive it failed is because it would have direcrly made a devision of race within our constitution. I would define any devision of race regardless of purpose as textbook racism but i seem to get a lot of pushback from such an idea. I think the thing that ultumatly caused it to fail was not the concept but the unesaasary implementation within the constitution.

[-] MuThyme@lemmy.world 44 points 8 months ago

Solving systemic racial injustice is an inherently one sided thing, and that isn't racist or divisive.

What is racist and divisive is allowing the traditional owners of the land to be trapped in perpetual poverty, with significantly shorter lives and with next to no hope of help. Setting up something to address an imbalance like this, to bring actual equality, is not racist.

There's a fairly well known saying "when you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression." Things aren't getting worse for you, we're just trying to pull other people out of a hole so they can stand beside you.

load more comments (17 replies)

[-] Selmafudd@lemmy.world 23 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

There have been a dozen or so advisory bodies since the 60s and most of the time they're been disassembled when the following party gains controll of parliament. The only thing that would have changed would be to protect the body from being dissolved without another referendum, that's it... All these people that have a problem with the voice probably have nfi these bodies already exist and have never been concerned with any recommendations they've made.

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] FaceDeer@kbin.social 12 points 8 months ago

Yeah, I was reading about this in another thread and as I understand it this "advisory council" would have no actual authority, it would just hold meetings and make suggestions to lawmakers who could then take it or leave it. Left me with no idea why something like that needs to be in the constitution of a country. Just pass a law establishing it.

[-] Suspiciousbrowsing@kbin.social 16 points 8 months ago

Because laws can be repealed ? The purpose was to make it binding so there was always a indigenous body, unlike all of the previous bodies that cease to exist with change in government. Granted none were legislated I don't believe

[-] FaceDeer@kbin.social 1 points 8 months ago

According to the text of the amendment laws would have to be passed to set the body's "composition, functions, powers and procedures" anyway.

I'm not saying this body would be a bad thing, I'm just unable to see why it needs to be in the constitution itself. The failure of the referendum doesn't seem like it really impacts anything.

[-] PoliticalAgitator@lemm.ee 13 points 8 months ago

Your suggestion has been tried repeatedly and the moment the right-wing have the power needed to tear it down, that's what they do.

load more comments (5 replies)

load more comments (6 replies)

[-] x4740N@lemmy.world 4 points 8 months ago

This is why they should have a explain in your own words why you are voting this way on referendums

Because it gives a lot more feedback than the binary yes or no option

[-] WaxedWookie@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago

Solicit feedback, definitely - but soliciting that feedback in the moment that people are voting on the constitutional amendment that would implement that feedback is a little late, no?

load more comments (28 replies)

[-] WaxedWookie@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago

That was the concerning part. Defining, very permanently, a group of people from all the others based on race. That's literally anti-equality.

Be well, but be better, my guy.

load more comments

this post was submitted on 15 Oct 2023

205 points (93.2% liked)

World News

37283 readers

1789 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!
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.