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
How do we sleep while our beds are burning?
74I love this song, it's still in my playlist
17
Sitting on stolen land and still telling abo’s to get fucked.
63Australian Government: "Should we finally grant the victims of our historic genocide a symbolic advisory role on matters that impact those victims"
Australians: "Git Farked"
Edit: That last viz "by age group" is really about how society progresses one death at a time.
59They're not telling the indigenous people to get fucked, they're merely saying, "I'm too ignorant of the many many crimes committed against you for me to possibly vote in your favor. Perhaps if we were more educated, but alas.... That would require voting for someone like you and I'm simply too ignorant...." See the difference? It's a far more diplomatic way of telling someone that you really couldn't give a shit whether they get fucked or just go off and die somewhere.
34Thefartographer’s going to be prime minister and get a Nobel peace prize one day
12
Can you not use hate-speech in your post please?
-3Ummm, nah.
0
All this over an advisory board with no real power? How could that even be harmful?
58Conservatives oppose it for the same reasons indigenous groups want it.
46
I'm voting yes, and i have tried to help people see why it's a good thing, but when people call me racist for saying I'm in the yes camo, i know that far too many are just morons who have no critical thinking, or ability to tell what is a good source of information.
53Adding a new governmental body that is open to only one racial group is racist and it is also undemocratic.
Your vote is well intentioned its just poorly informed. You've been propagandised.
-52You idiots have the same repeated talking points and they are just plain wrong.
In late 2023, Australians will have their say in a referendum on whether to recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia in the Constitution through an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice.
Not just one group, but two. And they are not racial you fuckwit, they are geographical and historical groupings.
Cultures have value and our First Nations are owed a debt. We live on their lands, we benefit from their experience. We owe them so much and this is just a vote for First Nations to be formally represented in parliament.
36
The real reason it will fail is politics. The opposition party decided getting this voted down would strike a blow to the government.
So they’ve just blown racist dog whistles, racist trumpets, set of racists cannons and doubled down on ignorance: “If you don’t know vote No”
44They have effectively weaponised division.
They created division by spreading lies, uncertainty and fear. Lies were repeated over and over, and became increasingly outrageous, despite being refuted again and again.
Then they pointed at the division they created and said "this is too divisive, we shouldn't do it."
5
What's even the point of having a democracy if the majority of the voter base is uninformed
33Not just uninformed - deliberately misinformed.
26
Colonialism intensifies
32Voting on yes or no was made very easy when I saw that neo nazis, flat earthers, anti vaxxers and a multitude of other whack jobs are voting no. You are the company you keep in my book.
26What a bunch of cunts
15This is the best summary I could come up with:
Australians look set to reject a referendum proposal to recognise Indigenous people in the constitution by creating a body to advise parliament, with polls showing a clear majority for no in almost all states before Saturday’s vote.
The yes campaign has also been battered by the Blak sovereignty movement, which has led the progressive no case, arguing the voice would be powerless while pushing for truth and treaty to come ahead of constitutional recognition.
The no campaign has leaned heavily on the slogan “If you don’t know, vote no”, which former high court justice Robert French described as an invitation to “resentful, uninquiring passivity”.
The Australian prime minister, Anthony Albanese, spent part of the final campaigning week in the nation’s centre, Uluru, where the proposal for the voice was first formally presented in 2017.
Sitting with senior traditional owners in central Australia, Albanese said Australians had an opportunity to “lift the burden of history” and move forward with a positive vote on Saturday.
“Many Indigenous Australians who are on the frontlines of dealing with these problems in towns and cities and communities and outstations and home lands are very worried about the prospect of losing the voice because they already have little say, and a loss will mean that they have even less.”
The original article contains 827 words, the summary contains 213 words. Saved 74%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
13fucking national disgrace....
12'cos Aussies love racism
8Keep it classy, Australia.
7Not a good look. Very disappointed.
6I've voted Yes, albeit with a bit of hesitancy.
As far as I am concerned, the role and functioning of the Voice is clearly defined in the proposal so this was never an issue for me. Where I feel people are generally stuck on is whether or not having an advisory body for just one demographic of people is naturally divisive. The argument becomes almost a bit of a slippery slope; if we have one body for indigenous people, why don't we have one for other ethnic groups?
At face value, I understand why this can be perceived as racist and divisive, however, I think we have to also agree there is a slight nuance to this issue. The fact of the matter is that our government has been creating laws surrounding indigenous people for ages and it is because they are unfortunately the most disadvantaged group within Australia. This has been long going now before even having a Voice and we haven't been calling the government racist or divisive up until now (well most of us at least). Clearly what is in place now doesn't work and we have a history of failed Voice to parliament's because we have change hands so frequently that no one bothers to continue with taking those issues with the seriousness it deserves.
Establishing a Voice does 2 things in my book. It provides the indigenous community with a level of autonomy to fix their own issues. Secondly, changing hands down the line cannot remove them. The proposal here also means that their level of influence will change as their needs are met. If at one point in time a Voice is no longer needed, it can be pulled back as needed.
I hope people don't buy into the catch phrases and simple minded thinking. Please make an informed decision and vote with how you feel best. Being open minded is all I really hope people can be when deciding how to vote.
5' The argument becomes almost a bit of a slippery slope; if we have one body for indigenous people, why don't we have one for other ethnic groups?'
idk I'll take a wild stab and guess maybe becuse all other ethical groups in Australia didn't live here for 60 000 plus years, have their land forcably removed, experienced mass genocide and an ongoing attempt to breed their ethnicity out of existence?
that said, I'm glad you voted yes.
but this is a dumb thing to say.
11Huh, TIL that humans showed up in Australia 60,000 years ago. I thought for sure it would be less than 20,000 years until I looked it up.
As for the slippery slope, nah, it's a natural thing to ask. That being said, I think you have a good answer to it.
I'll add that most ethnic groups don't/shouldn't need a Voice (ombudsman?) type function in a functioning democracy. However, we frequently see that the rules as written don't actually apply equally. We see this a lot in the U.S. (where I'm from). It sounds like you have a similar effect in Australia.
2
At face value, I understand why this can be perceived as racist and divisive
I appreciate that you're not working to promote the talking point where if a profoundly disadvantaged racial group is given representation it's "racist against white people", but I live in a country where white people routinely argue that any amount of civil rights protections is "racist against white people" and it gives me a headache processing that level of stupid.
Yep, in my country it's regular fare to hear GOP politicians bleat "you're being divisive!" (as if our failure to submit to their rule is a fault)- it takes two to be on opposing sides of a divide, and it's morally dishonest to pretend that only the other side of a disagreement is at fault for honest disagreement. Don't let them work the 'you're being divisive' angle, you'll never hear the end of it.
4
Referendums are always such a spineless way out of doing the right thing.
3Literally nothing stops the government making "the voice" without changing the constitution. The only reason they want it in the constitution is so future governments can't change the function of the body.
The whole thing is an organised circus for political gain and dividing the population.
In the past, the government had a "voice" for the indigenous for like 10 years. Just bring it back, no constitutional change needed.
If you're going to try put an aboriginal rights group in the constitution, just make it basic human rights group with representation for everyone. Basic human rights that are severely lacking in Australia. Freedom of speech? We don't even have that.
3Who is preventing your speech?
13Let me guess, ‘woke green loonies who use cancel culture’.
5
Looks like NSW and Tasmania are already no. One more state to vote no and it’s over
1Breaking Indigenous
0Lol why is it still surprising that Europeans don’t give a shit about the atrocities they’ve committed, or the land they’ve stolen? Come on y’all, they’ve been at it for like 600 years. It’s like expecting the methhead to stop doing meth.
-3All the non european migrants i work with are voting no. They see the voice as racist and, like you, view indigenous issues as the fault of white people and therefore not their problem.
8I have the exact same experience. Most of the people with an anglo saxon background are voting yes, most of the people from other backgrounds are voting no. Some of the reasons given is because they think it will privilege one group over another, they don't like the idea of one group being identified for "special treatment", etc.
2
Europeans? Do you call Americans Europeans too? How long ago must a nation be established before they become their own entity to you? You might as well call us all Pangeans!
4Well I’m not gonna call you Native Australians. You’re European Australians. Or if you want me to put it differently, people that look like Europeans are from Europe, doesn’t matter if your mom birthed you elsewhere, you’re still European.
1
Hey keep Europeans out of it, stop the generalization. Specifically it was britishers so
fuck the british
3Fair. My bad homie.
2
Specific groups and races have no place in Australia's constitution. Find another way.
-17You say this as someone who has at least skimmed the constitution, right? I ask because here's the first couple of paragraphs of our constitution - the bolding is mine...
Whereas the people of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland, and Tasmania, humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God, have agreed to unite in one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and under the Constitution hereby established:
And whereas it is expedient to provide for the admission into the Commonwealth of other Australasian Colonies and possessions of the Queen:
Be it therefore enacted by the Queen’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:
But yeah - if you put aside the huge chunk of the text calling out specific individuals and groups throughout the entire document, you're right.
19
I’m voting ‘no’.
If you want a job in politics with a $200K salary, earn it. I don’t care what colour your skin is.
-58Why is the assumption that the individuals who will receive these jobs won’t be qualified for them?
38He's just repackaging the usual "hiring quotas" idiocy where they pretend that there's people in board rooms saying "well this man has every degree that Harvard offers but unfortunately we need to hire a woman so we're giving the job to this high school drop out that was visibly drunk in the interview".
The reality is that any job opening ends up with a pool of candidates, all of which are qualified for the job and it won't be any different here.
But they can't say the truth, so they say shit like this instead.
37
I don’t care what colour your skin is.
A very popular saying among racists.
29Methinks somehow they do care what colour their skin is...
2