- cross-posted to:
- news@beehaw.org
- cross-posted to:
- news@beehaw.org
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 must log in or register to comment.
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.
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.
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).
You haven’t actually said anything. Wind and fury, signifying nothing. The definition of s blow hard.
Just a useless liar, called out for his weak bs.
This is why I voted no and this needs to be at the top.
Because you believed the lies? Weak.
Cool story bro…
They weren’t cool stories, bro.
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.
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’.
Yeah, kneejerk reactions get tiring. I tend not to use reddit-like or twitter-like forums much because of how low-effort and unempathetic most posts are. ‘Read the news title, get angry’, might as well be the motto. I’m glad you appreciated it.
Affirmative action based on […] economic prosperity would help the most people in need and capture many more who would otherwise fall through the gaps.
This absolutely is and should be fought for, alongside other movements. The concentration of wealth at the top has just accelerated after the main COVID crisis. Our whole economic system funnels wealth to those with capital, and their influence on our political system and mass media is the root cause of most issues in our society. My caveat is that affirmative action re: economic prosperity won’t solve this, the problem runs so deep that affirmative action will ultimately be inadequate, treating the symptoms rather than the cause. We need a systematic overhaul… far far far far easier said than done.
That said, economic equity doesn’t cover everything, as many Indigenous people have other priorities that aren’t strictly economic, a major one being land rights. A somewhat-known recent example of the issue is mining companies destroying sacred land or historical artifacts, another is traditional use of the land to live off of. I admittedly don’t know enough about land right to explain in proper detail, but it’s one of the main demands that protesters have demanded for decades and decades.
I would argue that abolishing slavery, universal suffrage, and anti-discrimination laws have done far more to solve systemic racism than racial affirmative action.
I agree, and I would say that this doesn’t mean affirmative action isn’t still important. To take a metaphor from the Civil Rights struggle, that anti-discrimination is taking the knife out, there is still a need to heal the wound before we can say things are fine. We’ve abolished the most blatant aggression like non-suffrage, but done very little to make amends on things like colonisation and centuries of repression and land possession.
Generations of loss and disadvantage evidently still exist, and will remain without positive interference. Disadvantage is cyclical, it doesn’t heal by itself, poverty is an self-evident example of the cyclic nature of powerlessness. And to re-emphasise, this applies generally to disadvantage, not just disadvantage caused by colonisation or racial disadvantage.
As a side note, I’m not sure if it’s even correct to frame this as about race, Indigenous classification just inherently matches up with race since the historical inhabitants of Australian land were all, to use a racial term, Black indigenous Australians, and we’ve historically just grouped them all together when it comes to the social concept of race because they’re not White or Asian. The ill-advised and quite frankly worthless Voice proposal was about them being the native peoples, not about them being a certain race or having been racially discriminated.
I’ll have two of what this one is smoking, please.
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.
What the fuck are you on about
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.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-07-19/fact-check-yes-no-campaign-pamphlets-aec/102614710
That’s not what the referendum was about. You got lied to.
Rather than sharing a useless link, why not specifically say which part of what I wrote was a ‘lie’? I’d be very interested to see which part, considering I specifically tailored my comment to adhere as much to the proposed wording in the amendment to avoid sanctimonious people coming and claiming with their noses 10-foot in the air that, ‘I was lied to’.
The only thing your actually saying is that it’s racist, which is a gross misinterpretation of the word. Racism as a form of harassment or degradation can only effectively apply to a minority or marginalised group, it requires a power dynamic to be in play.
Saying that giving a horribly treated minority group the power to have their voices heard in law is racist is double think, it’s a perversion of the term racist.
You have been misled, and your happy about it because it means you can be righteously wrong
it requires a power dynamic to be in play
Tell that to every major dictionary.
You using an out-of-whack definition of the word that almost no one outside of the liberal-arts agrees with is not me being ‘misled’. Language is owned by the masses.
But not owned by you.
Everything you wrote was a lie.
A sad day for Australia. It was cool to see a lot if Australian celebrities come out in support of a yes vote.
Saw a post about that yesterday. We already knew the results, but it’s sad to see it happens anyways.
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.
It would have made more sense to just legislate an advisory body to parliament as envisioned and planned, to show people: see, it’s literally just an advisory body with no veto or other legislative power, and then put it to a refenedum to enshrine it in the constitution afterwards.
Would have given the no campaign less space. “If you don’t know, vote no” would have had less traction.
The preview image looks like the lady on the right just let loose the most foul stench imaginable and the other two are being forced to deal with it.
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.
I’m Australian and I acknowledge the levels of racism. I think it’s the racists who think it’s not racist here. One guy told me he wasn’t racist, his hatred and disdain for ALL aboriginal people was valid because he had had traumatic experiences, first hand. (makes me so freaking angry even typing this) his traumatic experiences were absolute bullshit. Racists justify thier racism as “a valid explanation” so they don’t call themselves racists. So if people are saying it’s not racist here you’re probably talking to the racists. And Facebook. I also blame Facebook for this.
The difference is our electoral system doesn’t let the 30% of racist pieces of shit run the entire country.
Fair enough. I think every democracy needs to have the compulsory voting system that Australia does.
The perceptual downside to the system though is that it definitively and accurately tells you out of the entire population the amount that are bigoted POS’.
There were many ATSI people who voted no because they want treaty, not an advisory committee with no veto powers.
Not everyone who voted no is racist and proclaiming they are is far more reminiscent of US divisive politics than how Australian politics works.
First person who’s bothered to try and understand the result rather than denouncing the country. The No campaign was deliberately divisive, like Abbott’s 2013 election or Howard’s manipulation of the republic referendum in 1999. Not only that, lack of political engagement and awareness - most embarrassingly from our most prominent left party, the Greens, who get so embroiled in internecine disputes that they seem not to really get what a political party does. The LNP may not be doing well at the moment but they’re a true coalition and trusted voting bloc.
In short, people just don’t want to run headlong into progressive politics without thinking it through. We’re tired of government interference following years of lockdowns, don’t trust our state and federal governments because of repeated betrayal by the Morrison government and broken promises there and elsewhere, and Indigenous people were divided and made the perfect the enemy of the good.
So, the problem is it didn’t change the political process enough?
For progressive no voters, that is correct.
There is of course an element of society who want to ignore or bury any discourse on issues impacting ATSI Australians but they’re not the full picture either.
This is the inherent flaw in democracy in general. If most people are shit, the government will also be shit
That’s why access to quality education is tantamount to functioning democracy.
Maybe not but we just saw that it’s a fuckin’ lot more than just 30 for you guys!
You actually think 55% of Australians are racist?
You understand that the vast majority of No voters voted that way because they didn’t understand what it was, and the No campaign very deliberately did everything they could to make it unclear and confusing.
I think it’s a cultural difference honestly.
I’ve only travelled the US, haven’t spent a significant amount of time there, about 6 weeks.
I’m Australian and growing up, I was quite shocked to learn at different points of my life that a few fair people were actually racist, sexist, very right or even religious.
These things just aren’t overly openly discussed. Maybe in small groups etc but a lot of the population are quite apathetic (a whole other issue) and I think there apathetic tendencies both mask their own racism or whateverism but also make them not really speak out against others.
On the other hand, America embraces individuality, fame, speaking out and standing up for your rights etc. As a whole, I feel a racist American is far more in your face than a racist Australian.
I’m curious to know if this vote really is a racist result or if a large percentage of the population got caught up with the ‘no campaign’ which was pushing things like ‘separating us in the constitution is going to create a divide, we are ALL Australians’ etc.
Interesting none the less and a shit result.
The 1967 amendment already did that. But yes, the campaigns were about the voice, not recognition of first nations people
Afraid I have to agree on the UK front. It shocks me how so many people refer to the UK as a multicultural, tolerant nation.
London, Bristol, Leeds, Liverpool, and Birmingham, perhaps? Outside of maybe 5-8 major cities, the amount of sexism, racism, and general hate for anyone poor or not of Anglo origin is unreal.
I remain weirded out that the racist response during Brexit was a bunch of harassment of Polish immigrants.
Why Polish? I assume it has to be some internal thing that the rest of the world doesn’t have information about.
The Polish people are like the Mexicans (previously Irish) are to the US. They’re foreigners who move to another country to do manual work cheaper than locals are willing to.
In the words of one of my favourite comedians “They’re going to come over here and take all of the jobs we didn’t want to do!”
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?
Let’s just stop trying out new referenda, OK?
I’m Canadian and yeah… Even IRL a lot of people refuse to admit it.
I’ve been forced to educate people about the Chinese Head Tax and the 2 very distinct Chinese Exclusion Acts and how that on top of Yellow Peril still affects Chinese disapora today in government regulations including immigration and social programs, which is super traumatic as a Hong Kong diaspora who is also trans, queer, female-bodied, and neurodivergent.
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.
I think the term you’re looking for is covert racism.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
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.
This is shameful. I’m sorry.
Well, that’s going to age like milk.
I’m sorry, I’m stupid and not up-to-date with this.
Taken at face value, Constitutional Recognition for the indigenous population sounds correct.
So what was wrong with it?
Nothing.
The no and yes sides to a referendum prepare an informational pamphlet that everyone receives but there’s absolutely no requirement that any of it be truthful, so the opposition just openly lied until the whole thing died.
Actual information was obscured, fear mongering was rampant, the voice was harmless at worst, but could have been the spark that changed Australia for the better.
I’d say an excuse for politics to ignore indigenous issues for another decade by placating the white masses for the next few election cycles would be a lil worse.
Also generations of non-ATSI Australian children being taught total dehumanising racist bullshit, and never being corrected largely because the genocide was very successful.
A society can’t just start trying to correct some of the history taught to children over the last few years, and then be surprised by the outcome of a referendum when success relies on the judgement of people who grew up on the old lies. Correcting the record for the next generation is necessary, but it doesn’t fix the existing damage the lies have done and continue to do.
I don’t know what Labor was thinking when they took this path. From the outside it looks like a huge unforced strategic failure.
Shit’s fucked and there are no simple solutions and I hate it.
Our history is shameful but also our efforts to redress past wrongs recurrent and inspiring. Negativity about a well-intentioned referendum helps nobody. I’ll note that this was driven by the Labor Party, not by Indigenous Australians, who don’t trust the good intentions of politicians who carried out policies like the Stolen Generations on behalf of the poor unfortunate blacks of the time. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Thank you. But I’m still not sure I get it. Could you maybe give an example of what kind of lie or fear mongering would make people want to say:
“No, I don’t want the constitution to recognise that there were an indigenous people here before us.”
That seems like an unarguable fact, isn’t it?
I’m sorry, I don’t mean to put you on the spot but since you were kind enough to take the time to give an overview, it makes me hungry for more detail!
First off to be precise, this was a ”proposal to recognise Aboriginal people in its constitution and establish a body to advise parliament on Indigenous issues".
Some examples of what I think were sadly effective for the no campaign:
“This will allow indigenous peoples to reclaim your land”
“It will only further divide our nation”
“We don’t know how this might be misused”
These all play on peoples fear. On the other hand some indigenous peoples also were campaigning for a no vote, primarily because they thought it wasn’t strong enough.
This gave voters a lot of reasons to hide behind while voting no.
And all this was not helped by a rather poor yes campaign that barely did anything to address misconceptions.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-07-19/fact-check-yes-no-campaign-pamphlets-aec/102614710
There’s the bare bones of the thing. The yes side had the exact same grasp of messaging that the Democrats in the US do. Which is to say none.
Amazing this was posted 4 days after the in person voting… how is an Aussie meant to make an informed choice when the data comes after the voting day?
Not sure what you mean, the linked article was from months ago and the in person vote was yesterday. People had plenty of time to decide to make an informed choice and many decided not to.
The referendum was yesterday. We have early access polling, access to which has increased since the pandemic, but most people still typically vote on the election day, as I did, which was yesterday - so an article from 19 July is plenty of notice for most people.
by reading literally anything or listening to one of the dozens of speeches on the topic.
The referendum was (if I understand it correctly) about adding an advisory body of indigenous people to parliament. This wouldn’t have given them any power to make decisions, only to advise parliament on things.
The No Campaign just straight up lied to people saying it would let them write laws, take away your land, etc…
I see, thank you (and to everyone else who responded).
The problem is you’re trying to rationalise racism, which isn’t rational.
The democratic result was clear. Assuming it was all about racism is so reductive that you’re stultifying your own outlook by simplifying a more complex issue.
Then go look it up, lazy. That other person has no obligation to teach you a customized course on the Australian referendum to recognize indigenous peoples. Use the internet that you’re reading their post with to look it up yourself if you’re so hungry for detail. I’d be willing to bet you can find scanned copies of each pamphlet if you tried. I’d Google it to find out for sure, but then you’d want me to read them to you.
Your point is a valid one, so I’ll answer it. Initially I did use Google. I was overloaded with a mash-up of sites from which it would have been difficult to resolve right from wrong. As this doesn’t relate to my country I’d have simply moved on.
Instead, I feel much more informed from all the considered, well-written responses which people were kind enough to write here.
How would someone unfamiliar with Australia, unfamiliar with our laws, unfamiliar with our methods of referenda get the information better from the pamphlets over asking Australians?
The pamphlets have falsehoods. They are released by the election commission. People not from Australia would assume it is verified information if it’s in an election commission pamphlet, for instance.
Rather than being helpful, your comment in unnecessarily combative, while being confidently incorrect.
I dont understand people who complaining about other people asking simple questions. What a waste of time to make such a pointless and angry reply.
Arguments included:
“If you don’t know, say no” Incredibly reductionist, could be used to justify any position, but a very effective soundbite. It’s only when you extrapolate it, that you realise the issues. Imagine if someone told you “If you don’t know whether a girl/boy will say yes to you, never ask them out on a date”. Uncertainty is an inherent part of most of human nature. A lot less humans would be born if no one had the presence of mind to find out more about whether a person liked them, or just took a gamble and asked for a date.
“This will allow aboriginals to claim and take your land” Because Australia was declared “terra nullus” on ‘discovery’, and therefore regarded as uninhabited under English law, colonisers basically took and claimed all the land and dispossesed the Native Australians. And ever since, there’s been a resistance to recognising prior ownership and use by native Australians, because that might threaten current ownership of land. No one wants land and property they own to be arbitrarily taken away from them with no recompense (ironic, yes?), so it’s very easy to create fear in current landowning/propertyowning Australians by saying increased recognition of indigenous Australians in any form could have their land taken from them and given back to indigenous Australians.
“This will be a 3rd chamber of parliament” There are currently two houses of Parliament of government, in which candidates are voted and elected by a majority of their constituents. The houses form the core mechanics of how laws are created, debated and enacted. By portraying the proposed advisory body as a 3rd legislative body on par with the 2 existing houses, and pointing out the body was to be formed from indigenous Australians, the no campaign capitalised on fears of changing our entire political system, and the false impression of giving indigenous Australians incredibly disproportionste and unfair weighting within the political system.
“Enshrining a specific ‘political’ body made up of only indigenous Australians in the constitution makes us unequal, because they don’t do that for other Australians”. This one tries to capitalise on feelings of equality, and therefore fairness. Because I don’t get X, they shouldn’t have X. And neatly creates the assumption that the status quo is equal, so why change it. Ignoring that indigenous Australians are a very small percent of population, and therefore less than 5% or so of the voting population, so unlikely to ever form an effective voting bloc or have their needs and desires reflected in mainstream politics like the average Australian might. Also, the statistics for quality of life are extremely poor when compared to the average Australian, in terms of social and financial mobility, education, health, prison incarceration rates, birth complication rates etc. The average life expectancy of an indigenous Australian is at least 8 years lower than the average Australian. These have been persistent gaps in societal outcomes that haven’t closed despite decades of government focus and money, hence trying something new, like the Voice.
“It won’t do anything, so there’s no point creating it” The argument was that this body has no executive powers, and can only talk ‘at’ the government, and there’s no obligation in the current wording in the referendum, that the government even needs to listen. So it won’t achieve anything at all, it will be useless and ineffective.
“It does too much” The argument was that it was too powerful, and would put too much unequal power in the hands of indigenous Australians, and that it would therefore be unfair and unequal. That it would allow indigenous Australians to create laws, change them, create treaties between them and Australia, recognise indigenous land rights etc.
Lots more out there, but that’s it for now from me
This makes sense, thank you for taking the time to explain.
The only case against it was that at best it would be symbolic, as if there isn’t dozens of symbolic bodies around the world providing suggestions to governments that are nothing more than just that, being another opinion on a matter.
The majority of Australians are decendant from the colonists, an they’re against it. They’re never going to leave
You’re really righteous for an ignorant bastard.
Majority of people here descended from people who arrived well after the colonists. About a third of us were born overseas. Around half have a parent born overseas.
Would the Aboriginals think differently about the colonists who arrived first, second, last?
A decade ago our PM said sorry. Twenty years ago we were told the gap in life expectancy would be closed. One of our most famous moments in history is a PM giving old Lingari a handfull of dirt.
The majority of indigenous people I’ve spoken to have said they’re voting no or don’t care. Another empty gesture to placate the white population for another election cycle isn’t what we need. An official voice that can make recommendations to the same governing body that has oppressed them for a century and to this day continue to ignore or obfuscate the most basic voices of reason from academics, human rights experts and elders?.. Yeah nah fuck that for a solution.
I didn’t vote because I think each country should decide how and if they want to be incorporated into the Western system. The polarisation in the media compared to the results on the day make me think I made the right choice. Australians famous laconic apathy is ripe for spin masters to manipulate by only giving extreme minority groups the mic and as usual the actual victims are doubly fucked.
It was never “a solution”, it was “part of solution”. The world isn’t so simple.
Theoretically… Yes.
Sunce Lemmy constitutes 99% ‘Yes men’ circlejerks ill try to rationalize the opposition. From what I was told, there is no language in the proposal to suggest the extent of how the Aboriginals power over any matter. It gave them the freedom to be a blockade in matters that dont even affect them. This is what an aus friend has told me.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-07-19/fact-check-yes-no-campaign-pamphlets-aec/102614710
Try again. Your friend was lied to.
Maybe I misunderstood my friends position… but yeah your post is the only one showing both positions.
Now that two people have shattered the circlejerk you live in are you going to reassess anything? Maybe let your Australian friend know that he was duped too.
Lol i dont know, i was playing telephone… I may have just jumbled it all up. You guys are ridiculous.
The amendment if full,
i. there shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice;
ii. the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to the Parliament and the Executive Government of the Commonwealth on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples;
iii. the Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, including its composition, functions, powers and procedures
So… No. Your friend is full of shit. It provides no powers whatsoever.
The same parliament ignoring indigenous voices for a century will be the only one free to listen to “the” indigenous voice.
Your friend was wrong. All it required was that a designated group of people be consulted with to discuss an issue - if they wanted to discuss it. There was no veto power attached or any other additional rights or privileges conveyed.
Again, I’m not from the area and i only have what I was told. I was just putting what I was told how I understood it, maybe I misunderstood, maybe its Maybelline.
Leaving the moral arguments aside, there were also massive campaign failures on the Yes side. No had two clear cheerleaders with an absurdly simple catchphrase: “If you don’t know, vote No”. Meanwhile Yes didn’t have a star for the campaign and had made the amendment way too simple/general so there weren’t any included details of the practicalities. So they ended up with 100 people having to re-explain their plans every campaign stop and occasionally tripping over each other’s messages. As a result, the complicated sell from Yes played right into No‘s hands.
So the No side’s campaign was one of deliberately not educating people? To me that just says that people educated on the subject are voting Yes.
While that may be an absurdly simple slogan, it is also absurdly stupid.
You are correct on all counts.
The ‘No’ campaign was largely nonexistent. The ‘Yes’ campaign was enough reason to vote ‘No’. And the ‘No’ voters are just as educated as ‘Yes’ voters. It’s just that some people can’t understand why other people would disagree with them.
Didn’t get a single flyer from the yes campaign, the no campaign, however. Just depends on where you live
Some are educated, some are racist - no reason they can’t be both.
It’s easy to understand ignorance and racism.
(There’s a third option, and that’s for the mining magnates like Clive who want less complaining about digging up sacred sites)
uni educated people overwhelmingly voted yes. so yep pretty much
I don’t understand why the media is so desperate to frame the result around cost of living. It was clearly about education.
The only Territory to vote yes, out of all our States and Territories, was the Australian Capital Territory which is the most educated and most involved with governance.
Also, the Yes slogan eventually became “if you don’t know - find out” and “just Google it”.
Just Google it, the advice you always hear when the other person is shutting down any more conversation. What an unfortunate result
“Google it” vs “no”. The point of the slogan was to highlight a) how the other side was shutting down the conversation and b) that their premise of ignorance was stupid, in a short pithy way.
It wasn’t saying “go find out”, so much as “you CAN find out if you care, there is no reason to not know”
That said, without question, the Yes campaign’s official messages were pretty poor. Supporters have been far more eloquent.
On the “just google it” topic, this short video was brilliantly well done: https://youtube.com/watch?v=SAqIypjk-5A
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://piped.video/watch?v=SAqIypjk-5A
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Which isn’t in any way how it works. You’re making the claim, you sell it. I’m not going digging to make someone’s claim on their behalf.
It is how “it” works, where “it” is “mock reductionist ignorance worshipping”.
It’s clear that most of the people responding to you are being deceptive and crying ‘racism’ to make themselves feel superior.
This was not a referendum to recognise indigenous people. Whomever titled this article is a liar. It was a referendum to create an advisory body that makes representations to parliament to support a specific race. Contrary to the holier-than-thou crowd around here, many people voted ‘No’ because they do not agree with permanently enshrining this in the Constitution.
It had nothing to do with race, how someone could be against something as simple and inoffensive as an advisory body is beyond me
race‘cultural group’Still not race, infact it didn’t even require that the members were first nations peoole
I never saw any arguments against the Voice that weren’t either simplistic ideology (“it’s racist to have an advisory body for indigenous people!”) or outright lies and conspiracy theories. Claiming that it wouldn’t have gone far enough isn’t a good argument to do nothing instead. Does anyone really think that a treaty is more likely now than if we had voted yes?
Well technically a treaty doesn’t need a referendum but given the strong no result it could be political suicide, a risk I hope the Albanese government is willing to take
removed by mod
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-07-19/fact-check-yes-no-campaign-pamphlets-aec/102614710
Absolutely nothing. Just racists being racist.
That attitude cost the Yes vote. Idiots couldn’t organise a root in a brothel.
Not racist, merely conservative. I voted yes but it’s important to separate political observations instead of lumping them all together as “just racists being racist”. It’s dumb.
The referendum isn’t about recognition of the indigenous population. That was 1967, which overwhelmingly passed.
This referendum was to add into the constitution that a body (a group of people) that represents the voice of indigenous and Torres strait Islander people must exist.
That’s it.
The obfuscation occurred when people expected more from it, which a constitution does not do. That’s a legislative power, which the current government of the time will then determine how the body is made up, how people will be chosen for the Voice etc. Additionally, there was a huge misinformation campaign and we have a media monopoly with an agenda here, so many, many people voted No as a result of the confusion.
The No vote was very, very largely done in good conscience. I firmly believe that these voters want what’s best for Australia and I’m glad for that. I wish it was a Yes, but hopefully this will spur more conversation on what we can do to bridge the gap.
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.
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.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://www.piped.video/watch?v=l3pguf37KTM
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
The whole topic is now radioactive. No politician will touch it for at least the next 10 years.
White people were a mistake.
As an American, it’s nice to know we’re not the only pieces of shit out there.
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 it’s not just us.
UK, and Canada have sordid pasts as well.
Pretty much any white person who doesn’t live in Europe is guilty of these atrocities.
That’s not how generations or guilt works.
You mean… the UK. Given that the USA, Canada and Australia were all British colonies, ergo the same past.
Yeah but no because we are talking about today and not the 1700s.
“sordid pasts”
“bUT WE’re tAlkiNg aBouT TodAy!”
🤦 goddamn you’re an idiot.
eLOquEnT
So, are we talking about the past or today? Make up your mind. 🤦 seriously, how do you remember to breathe in the morning?
removed by mod
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 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.
As is the US. Let’s have a threesome!
Down 😊
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.
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.
UK
Where do you think the US learned it from?
Where do you think Australian colonialism comes from?
I LEARNED IT FROM YOU, MOM AND DAD! 😭😭
You can throw the French, Spanish, Dutch, and Portuguese in there too
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Agreed, there were too many “then what?” when you start to ask questions. On the surface, yep, sounds good to me! But “how does that help?” or “what would they do?” or “who picks them?” lead to some pretty piss poor answers.
I think the biggest red flag for people was that a large portion (possibly not the majority) of the Aboriginals that had a platform of some kind were against it themselves. Why?
that a large portion (possibly not the majority)
Not the majority. Not close. Less than 20%.
In retrospect Albanese made a big mistake breaking his own rule in being a small target and “taking Australia with you” on big changes. I suspect this will be a bit of a “told you so” moment for the section of the Labor party agitating for bigger social and economic initiatives.
deleted by creator
Copy paste is working over time, iddnt it
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.
There’s a lot to break down about your post with half truths but it’s a perfect microcosm of the Yes campaign and why it failed.
What are “mobs?”
AI controlled monsters that you kill for exp and loot.
An Aboriginal community.
Huh, in the US we use it as a term for a violent group of people. Does it not mean that in Australia?
In the US a “mob” isn’t necessarily violent. You have peaceful mobs, and even just generic “mobs of people everywhere”. A mob is just a group of people.
In the US a mob is also a type of crime organisation.
In Australia it means the exact same thing. However, in addition to that, it can also mean something else, thanks to the actual meaning (a group of people) and context.
deleted by creator
We’re both born from Western colonialism and converted into capitalism
Western colonialism was capitalism, have a wee read about the East India Company for starters
deleted by creator
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.
A bit off topic but, American here, the liberals are your conservative party? Interesting.
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.
I think most people didn’t understand what was being proposed.
The obfuscation was purposeful. The mining / oil industry were backing the no vote, and there’s no onis to be truthful in political advertising. That’s what needs to change.
Bhp put their support behind the yes campaign. And Albo voted down the need for truth in advertising
BHP was the one behind the weak messages attributed to the yes campaign. They deliberately played this one to lose.
deleted by creator
It wasn’t a change to political process. It was to be another advisory body, of which we have many over several decades.
