Australians look set to vote against Indigenous voice in parliament
Australians look set to vote against Indigenous voice in parliament
Bruising campaigns for and against recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people has exposed enduring racial divides
You're viewing a single thread.
All this over an advisory board with no real power? How could that even be harmful?
Conservatives oppose it for the same reasons indigenous groups want it.
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
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.
(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.
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?
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.
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