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.
As an American, it’s nice to know we’re not the only pieces of shit out there.
That’s not something you should be happy about.
It was a vote on whether one specific group of people based on race should have a say in parliament that no other race would have.
A lot of people in Australia seen that as racist and a way to divide the population.
Australians voted to remain in a system where everyone has an equal vote and voice in parliament.
The headline is very obviously misleading and not what people who voted no actually thought.
It’s important to note a lot of Aboriginals voted no and we’re campaigning for no. As such the left/internet whoever have jumped on the bandwagon about something they don’t understand.
Your home is now mine and I just had a vote if you should have any say at all in anything. It failed. So you have no say. Move out tomorrow. Equal rights to everyone!
You moron everyone else has a voice: it’s called the house of representatives. This was a body specifically to advise on indigenous issues, primarily because they live in remote communities and are therefore under-represented. A lot of money goes their way each year from the federal budget for purposes decided by old white men who live in cities, so why not have an indigenous body advise on where that money gets spent? Seems a lot less wasteful to me.
If I never heard again about an American being grateful/surprised/emotion that other humans are just like the humans from the US, I would begin to suspect that simulation theory is real and that there’s a huge glitch in the matrix. So, thanks for confirming this is all very real again, I guess.
Quite honestly it was a very confusing referendum. The question seemed simple on the surface but as soon as you ask questions very quickly it was hard to find answers. I think this confusion is the reason the majority voted no, they were scared to choose yes for something they didn’t understand. I tried to understand and still couldn’t find a straight answer of what this referendum was actually about.
The confusion definitely wasn’t helped by the large amounts of deliberate misinformation being put out there about the intention of the Voice, and requests for specificity.
And then the apparently contradictory arguments (often by the very same person, within the same argument) that it was too much, and therefore privileged indigenous Australians over other Australians, and yet also not enough, and would therefore achieve nothing at all. Or that more information needed to be provided, or more often, that specifics needed to be pre-decided and included within the wording (overlooking that those specifics would then be enshrined in the constitution and largely unchangeable ever again)
An argument to paralyse everyone along the decision spectrum who wasn’t already in the yes camp or no camps.
To answer your question, the voice was essentially a yes or no to creating a constitutionally recognised body of indigenous Australians, that could lobby Government and Parliament of behalf of indigenous Australians on issues concerning indigenous Australians.
To use an extended analogy:
It would be similar to a board meeting of a large company asking their shareholders to agree to a proposal to create a position within the company of “Disabilities, Diversity, and Equity Officer”, and have that position enshrined within the company’s charter, to enable a dedicated representative to make representions on behalf of those that fall under those categories, as they all tend to be in minority groups whose needs or ideas don’t tend to be (on average) reflected or engaged with by existing company processes or mainstream society. And that the position be held by someone within one of those minority groups.
Sure, an individual employee could take an issue to their supervisor (i.e. the Government/parliament), but that supervisor rightly has a need to observe the needs of the company (its voters) and the majority of employees (the average Australian), and the thought that a policy might not actually be effective for person Y would likely not even occur to the supervisor, as it seems to work for the majority of employees anyway, and they’re not raising any issues. The supervisor is unlikely to go proactivelly asking employee Y’s opinion on implementing X policy when they feel they already understand what employee a, b, c and d etc. want out of the policy.
Even if employee Y brings up an issue directly with the supervisor, the supervisor is structurally unlikely to take it on board or give it much weight, as it’s a single employee vs the multitude of other employees who are fine with the policy as is. And listening involves extra work, let alone actually changing anything as a result.
Having a specific Disability/Diversity/Equity officer not only allows employee Y an alternative chain of communication to feel like they’re being seen, and their concerns heard (which has important implications for their sense of self worth, participation, and mutual respect in the company), but the fact that it’s a specified company position within the company’s charter means the supervisor is much more likely to give that communication from that position much more weight, and consider it more carefully, than if that random, singular enployee Y had just tried to tell the supervisor directly.
The Disability/Diversity/Equity officer doesn’t have the power to change rules, or implement anything by fiat. He can only make representations to the company and give suggestions for how things could be better. The supervisor and company still retain complete control of decision making and implementation, but the representations from the DDE officer could help the company and supervisor create or tweak policy and practices that work for an extra 10-15% of employees, and therefore a total of 85% of the company’s employees, instead of the previous 70%.
Now, would you expect that the company provide the shareholders with exact details of: what hours the DDE officer will have, how much they’ll be paid, what room of what building they’ll operate on, how they’ll be allowed or expected to communicate with others in the organisation, etc? With the expectation that all this additional information will be entered into the company charter on acceptance, unchangeable except at very rare full General Meetings of all shareholders held every 2 or 3 decades?
No. They just ask the shareholders if they’re on board with creating a specific position of Disability/Diversity/Equity officer, and that its existence be noted and enshrined in the company charter so the position can’t be cut during an economic downturn, or easily made redundant and dismissed if an ideologically driven CEO just didn’t like the idea of having a specific Disability/Equity officer position in the company.
We really need to move on from this divisive attitude that people who don’t vote the way we do, especially with such a clear democratic majority, are necessarily ‘pieces of shit’. Life and politics are more complicated than that and more politically informed left-leaning voters should know better.
Except it is often the case they are pieces of shit.
Sane people don’t vote for Clive or Pauline, for example.
Perfectly sane people do. I wouldn’t, but I don’t denigrate others’ sanity based on their political views. This is how you inflame and stifle debate, which only fuels ignorance.
No, they don’t. No-one sane does.
American cultural hegemony tends to influence the world. If we go farther to the right, the world tends to follow. If American exported cultural propaganda didn’t work, the world would have condemned us years ago.
We’re both born from Western colonialism and converted into capitalism
The article is deliberately misleading. The vote was to change the Australian Constitution to include a section giving Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples a voice in parliament, which they already have through inner dialogue between their mobs and local government. How this constitutional change would look or be enacted was not known and very vague, with the crux being that it would still be government controlled, there was widespread animosity from First Nations people about it being another ‘white-man’s decision’, it would create division by being unequal when indigenous Australians are striving for equality.
Yeah, nah. It was an oppurtunity for aboriginal and Torres straight islanders to be heard.
There has been years of inner dialogue, and discussion with both parties. That led to the Uluṟu statement from the heart, which called for voice, treaty, truth.
The first step was voice. It was not designed by white people but came from within the discussions between mobs.
It was not divisive or destroying equality. As it stands, the constitution was changed to allow Lars specifically targeting ATSI people. This was a way to ensure they had a voice of reply. On all measures, they are faring worse than all other Australians.
Many people voted no with good intent, or because they were unsure, but make no mistake, this was a step backwards for our country, a step backwards in race relations and a victory for racists.
I’m not saying all those who voted no are racist. However, all the racists voted no. Sometimes you need to look at who’s on your side and why.
Oh it’s not just us.
UK, and Canada have sordid pasts as well.
UK
Where do you think the US learned it from?
I LEARNED IT FROM YOU, MOM AND DAD! 😭😭
Where do you think Australian colonialism comes from?
Yeah but this is the present.
And that is why I am soo embarrassed, and shocked, and dissappointed, and
Canada is actively shitty to their indigenous people.
I’m not disagreeing with you, but the point to understand here is that Australia cannot even make it over the very first hurdle. Indigenous peoples are recognised in Canada’s constitution, the Canadian government has signed many treaties over hundreds of years and Canada even has a form of Indigenous self-governance in Nunavut. Australia cannot get anywhere even close to these things. Constitutional recognition was just rejected, widespread treaty making is only in its infancy and self-governance is an absolute pipe dream.
Other former colonies may be shitty towards their Indigenous peoples, but at the very least there is generally some form of recognition of their importance as Indigenous. In Australia, we do not even see Indigenous peoples as Indigenous. We don’t understand what that word actually means. So much of the commentary from No voters during this referendum was about how Indigenous Australians are just another racial minority group, equating them with Chinese Australians, Indian Australians, etc. People fundamentally do not understand the difference, because they do not understand the history of their own country.
I’m from the UK so I can vouch that the government are actively shitty to it’s not rich people.
If I want to explain the class system to someone from a former colony, I start with colonialism, but practised at home.
It could be ignorance, but as a Canadian of European descent, I’d have claimed we were passively shitty more than actively shitty.
Sorry to yell you, but Canada has been, and still is, actively shitty to the indigenous peoples. Just more polite about it in public.
Finland also has quite a bad history with Sami people. Not quite as savage as US and Indians but still.
English and thr Irish… it’s savage all the way down.
Oh fuck.
How grim.
This is a victory for racists, and bad-faith actors, some some of which have received lots of money from China and Russia to help destabilise another Western country.
Yea I wouldn’t go around underestimating Australia’s ability to fuck up its indigenous people without any conspiratorial help like that.
Lol there’s no China and Russia. Baby boomers mostly britishers and racist as fuck in australia…
Honestly don’t know if that latter bit is true. We manage to be absolutely atrocious to the indigenous population without third parties meddling. I don’t think there’s a single native population that hasn’t been mistreated; had their culture and names taken away, sent for reeducation, eugenics, and so on, so forth.
I agree but at the same time in this modern age of ‘social media’ I am certain that the people who said openly that they wanted to take down The West, are doing so.
SudanEthiopia and Thailand, IIRC. There’s one African nation, and one SEA nation that never got colonized.Edit: I didn’t remember correctly
That’s what I as an outside person have read for like a decade. Australia is usually looking good because it’s not 'murica, kind of like Canada, but bloody hell don’t look too close.
Not just them. The Sami people of Scandinavia were subjects of eugenic experimentation during the early-mid 1900s. The Ainu people of Russia/Japan had their names and culture stripped, and were forced to marry Japanese, and live as Japanese citizens. Many branches of that culture is dead.
There’s the Icelandic people who fairly recently were subjected to forced sterilisation.
Can I believe that third parties fuel this kind of thing to wreak havoc? Absolutely. But I can also believe that we’re fully capable of doing this ourselves. Mankind is hateful.
Disappointing, to say the least.
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.
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.
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?
What are the extra rights and representation needed?
Because they are Indigenous. Do you understand the difference between Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples in a colonial state?
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?
Ok, thank you for your patience.
He is flat out wrong. Or lying, not sure which. Of course they are citizens and have the right to vote.
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.
Ah the classic “I’m going to vote no to something good for me because I wanted something even better” argument 🤦♂️
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.
Except when it’s put to a general vote like that, all the nuance is lost, and the voters remember “well we resoundingly voted no on the last one, why vote this one in?”
I remain hopeful. Even though a vast majority voted no to establish a body, I certainly hope that we have a government that can put something into action and that the Libs stay stuck in the weeds until they find what they stand for again.
Is there currently an Australian equivalent to the BIA? If not, is a Constitutional Amendment required to establish one or can one be established by legislation?
Wow. I just looked at the front page and that’s actually amazing.
Short answer - no. Australia does not have such a thing, especially with that much support. We have some indigenous people in government but they represent their seat, not specifically indigenous affairs. There is currently no body that represents indigenous affairs as a whole.
It can be established by the government of the day, which it was back when Kevin Rudd was our PM (Labor Party). However, this body was then abolished by the next government, run by Tony Abbott and others since (Coalition).
Now, we have Labor in power again and this referendum was called to have a voice enshrined in our constitution so that it couldn’t be abolished by future governments. Since we nationally voted no, our current Labor government can establish something like the BIA, however there is a high risk that this will be yet again abolished like last time.
How the hell are we taking so many steps backwards as a species? “I feel like I’m taking crazy pills!”
At what point backwards in time was it normative indigenous peoples get representation in government?
Sometimes progress is slow, and many younger people being upset about a ‘no’ to indigenous representation is exactly the kind of thing that eventually leads to steps forward.
It’s just very much the case that many people today are upset with how slow social progress seems to be taking. But in large part, that’s because of how quickly social issues are advancing for new generations relative to how slowly older generations set in antiquated ways are disappearing from the equation.
What was the average age of who voted on the measure?
What’s the average age of the people looking at the result with disappointment?
The gap will tell you roughly how long it’s going to take for that change to start to meaningfully happen.
I’ll answer your question if you can tell me why you put quotes around your second sentence?
It’s in quotes, because it’s a quote from Zoolander
Ah, an actual quote, thought you might be one of those brutes who use quotation marks instead of any other form of punctuation. In the Old Forum, there was a good community for signage with this kind of thing. My favorite was a marijuana dispensary sign with “taxes and fees included”.
The answer to your question is greed enabled through capitalism; it makes people think there isn’t enough because most people are constantly being abused by the system and don’t have enough, as it was designed.
Noooo. Sorry. Just a regular brute, I fear . I do comprehend sentence structure.
The Aborigines were Mauri Rebels forced to play the role of “savage” for colonization part of Australia co’s production they still haven’t been paid and are still underpaid by Australia Co.
Let’s get you back to the home, grandma.
Stay classy, Australia
So far this is filled with posts about how Australia is racist and Americans talking about America (because that’s relevant?)
The title is a lie, or at the very least being maliciously deceptive. This is a common theme among ‘Yes’ supporters I’ve noticed. They laughably claim that their opponents spread ‘fake news’ all the while plugging their fingers in their ears spreading their own misinformation while sniffing their own farts so they can feel superior.
The referendum was about permanently enshrining an advisory body into Australian politics specifically to make race-based representations to parliament. That is racist. Most Australians don’t support embedding racism into our Constitution. They voted against it. The end.
I’ll have two of what this one is smoking, please.
The referendum was about permanently
Lie. Not permanent, just more resistant to change.
enshrining
Lie. Not religious.
an advisory body into Australian politics specifically to make race-based representations to parliament.
Lie. Specifically to make CULTURE based respresentations.
That is racist. Most Australians don’t support embedding racism into our Constitution.
While “true”, not relevant, since nothing racist was being embedded. But it IS racist to try and make up a lie to mislead and oppress.
They voted against it. The end.
Lie. It won’t be “the end” until you racists finish massacring them all.
Yeah, I’ve said enough. Not wasting my time on this nonsense any more. Feel free to read my other comments if you want some counter-arguments to your ‘points’. You haven’t said anything particularly original (apart from your strange belief that ‘enshrining’ must have a religious basis, which doesn’t warrant a response).
They’d rather stick with the de facto racist shit they’ve been putting aboriginals through obviously. After all, creating an advisory body to address issues of racism is obviously itself racist.
If you’re completely captured by punditry and manipulation that is.
They’d rather stick with the de facto racist shit they’ve been putting aboriginals through obviously.
Opponents of the amendment weren’t protesting in front of Parliament House to scrap the Racial Discrimination Act.
They were just lying about the extent of the law to fear monger, true. Wonder if they might’ve said something when that act was initially passed though.
The only people I have personally seen lying are ‘Yes’ supporters. For instance, I’ve seen none of this ‘veto’ nonsense that is allegedly being spread everywhere. The only ‘No’ pamphlets I received were pretty bloody accurate representations.
In your two replies to me you’ve created three different straw men; I don’t think you need to worry about other people lying.
If you haven’t seen it then it clearly doesn’t exist lol. Argument from anecdotal evidence is a huge logical fallacy.
You talk about rhetorical fallacies like you understand how to use them and it’s hilarious. You’re right though I should be more concerned with morons like you that eat up fallacious thinking.
Sharing my personal experience that I haven’t personally been lied to is not a logical fallacy. Also, the burden of proof lies on the one making the claim, not the one negating it. You and other ‘Yes’ supporters can’t go two minutes without claiming that, “THEY’RE SPREADING LIES!!!”, yet can never seem to back it up. You’d much rather wave your dick in the air calling everyone but your reflection a moron.
It’s been backed up by a recent comment. It speaks volumes though that instead of reading the language of the bill to clarify you just throw out fallacies to defend your interpretation.
You’re claiming that an advisory body existing is racist and clearly don’t understand that this advisory body has no legislative power. It literally exists to just give opinions to actual lawmakers. That’s just one misrepresentation that people like you eat up uncritically.
Given this definition of racism, it creates an interesting problem: how can one solve systemic racism, without doing actions which take race into account? If someone needs help, is it unfair to treat them the same as someone else who doesn’t need help? Or would it be more unfair to treat them the same as someone who doesn’t need help, and therefore keeping things the same, leading to them still needing help? And, regardless of whether it’s fair or not (subjective morality), is it more beneficial to society (material outcome)?
I had decided to abstain from commenting on this subject further. Pretty much every reply I have received is a variation of ‘fake news’ or ‘racist cunt’.
As you’ve asked a good question in a civil manner (how novel!), it’s only fair to respond in kind.
To answer your question; I believe removing restrictions is more helpful than adding divisive policies that benefit one race over another. I would argue that abolishing slavery, universal suffrage, and anti-discrimination laws have done far more to solve systemic racism than racial affirmative action.
Also, off the top of my head, I can’t think of a situation where it wouldn’t be even better if affirmative action policies were focused on factors outside of race. Affirmative action based on geographical location or economic prosperity would help the most people in need and capture many more who would otherwise fall through the gaps.
Thank you for your constructive comment.
The title is hugely misrepresenting the referendum.
Not even our conservative party, the liberals, opposed recognition of aboriginal and Torres islander people as the traditional owners of the land.
The neo liberal progressive party, labor, put in a change to political process. This is what people disagreed with.
It wasn’t a change to political process. It was to be another advisory body, of which we have many over several decades.
Yep very misleading. There’s recognition, and then there’s the advisory board question. The Yes campaign did a shoking job and alienated everyone by calling people racist who asked questions about the Voice.
No. Asking questions is one thing.
Sealioning is another.
Do you mean ‘concern trolling’ or ‘sealioning’?
‘Concern trolling’ is falsely pretending to agree with an idea but raising concerns, in order to sew discontent. Something like, "I agree with giving them a Voice, but I’m concerned that … ", an insincere astroturfing attempt.
‘Sealioning’ is when someone relentlessly stalks a person asking them for evidence or arguments, in order to ‘just try and have a debate’ when the other person doesn’t want to. The term comes from from this comic, which describes it well. It’s personal harassment pretending to be civil debate.
“sealioning”, in my experience, is also a way to attack someone asking you to back up your claims in any way.
I think most people didn’t understand what was being proposed.
White people were a mistake.
It’s always so funny when Americans on here, including me, are openly willing to discuss how shitty, racist, and full of bigots the United States is. Around 40% of the population is complete filth and we’re happy to openly acknowledge that.
Meanwhile, Canada, the UK, and Australian users, even if they’re on the left, try to find excuses to not acknowledge that their general public is also significantly racist and bigoted. And always have been.
The Canadian government loves to advertise how open and inclusive they are, while at the same time oppressing indigenous people. For example (although it was a while ago, I don’t think a lot has changed), the Oka crisis started over a Golf Course wanting to expand into indigenous territory, which the Canadian Government eventually deployed the military (largest deployment since WWII) to support… the Golf Course.
Even elected representatives have to deal with racist bullshit while serving their country (like Mumilaaq Qaqqaq of Nunavut). It’s so intertwined in Canadian society it often isn’t recognized, likely because for the most part it isn’t overt. A lot of the racism is subtle, reinforced by inequitable laws & policies and almost always acted on if there’s plausible deniability (that is, unless they screw up). It’s almost like a lot of Canadians are politely racist.
The origin of the horsy police was to control indigenous peoples and take their children away to residential schools. Not much has changed in the meantime. They just pretend to police in the off hours when they aren’t ignoring forced sterilizations and disappearances of native women, giving starlight tours, and pointing AR-15s at unarmed protestors in their own homes on behalf of the oil pipeline companies.
yeah nah cus. we’re racist as and generally the progressives are willing to admit it.
Our cities don’t have shit like the stark divide I saw over in Atlanta Georga usa where there’s like the black side and the white side (was 20 years ago, better now?) but like even in sydney we have the red rooster line. Beyond that the wealthy east likes to assume everyone on the other more non white migrant side is an ignorant moron.
But especially to blackfellas we’re horrible. I remember being told not to walk down streets because an “abbo” lived there as a kid. Like what the flying faaaark?
Lefty Canuck here - Very willing to admit my country is full of racist pieces of shit. And so is every other country. 30% of the world is made up of trash humans who would fuck over their mother for a dollar, or to get to their destination 10 seconds faster.
You’re being very generous there.
A sad day for Australia. It was cool to see a lot if Australian celebrities come out in support of a yes vote.
If the Yes campaign are serious about the Voice to the nation being important to the Indigenous people, then no-one is standing in the way of making it happen. The vote to enshrine it in the Constitution failed, but the body can still be created and can still function primarily the same.
The whole topic is now radioactive. No politician will touch it for at least the next 10 years.
yeah until the Liberals dismantle it. again.
No until it turns corrupt like what most of these bodies inevitably do. But I guess it’s racist to ask if there will be a framework to oversee and manage corruption.
I mean, yeah - didn’t you read the proposed legislation released back in March?
Yeah mate, the lnp is concerned about corruption. That’s what leads them to tear down every proposal. It’s corruption.
