Australian national broadcaster ABC has projected three states voted No, effectively defeating the referendum.

You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments View context
-7 points

In my opinion a racism is having different laws for people with different genetics/skin color. “Black is not allowed” is racism. The proposed law is actually the one doing exactly the same - it treats people differently according to their genetics. Why people think it is good - is beyond me.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points
*

Sounds like you’re fine with it happening, you’re just not fine with it being written down.

But sure. Tell us how a yes vote would have meant “different laws for people with different skin color” and what color your skin is.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

Sounds like you’re fine with it happening

Care to point out where it “sounds” that way in what he wrote? I’m not seeing it.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-1 points

Sure: it’s already happening and he voted ‘no’ to something that could begin to address it.

Not exactly rocket science.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

The constitution currently allows for laws,to be specifically made about ATSI people. I didn’t see any of the people worried about inequality protesting that. Ever.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Not specifically about ATSI people, but of any race. The ‘races power’ part of the Constitution (section 51(xxvi)) reads as follows:

Current text:
The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to:
“the people of any race for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws”

Original text:
The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to:
“the people of any race, other than the aboriginal race in any State, for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws”

https://www.ausconstitution.org/home/chapter-1-the-parliament/part-v-powers-of-the-parliament/section-51/26-race-power

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Yes, as ATSI people arent currently recognized in the constitution. In practice, it’s only used to target them.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

I was not talking about legality.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

That’s odd, as your first sentence talks about laws. Maybe you said something you didn’t mean.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

Because systemic racism already exists. Minorities all over the world are treated worse. The Indigenous people’s problems are ignored. “Just make equal laws” doesn’t happen. They are enforced differently.

Someone else said it perfectly “Sounds like you’re fine with it happening, you’re just not fine with it being written down”

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

If there is problem with enforcement the laws in different ways, then address that directly. Don’t create laws separating people by genetics. That’s the opposite to what equal society should have! Why would you help one poor person and will not help another poor person just because their genetics is different?

And I will ignore your “sounds like” comment as completely made up statement.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

So instead of preventing the laws from being written in ways that will affect minorities disproportionally, correct the legal system for following the law and instead train them to follow the law in a different way than it was written. Got it, no way that will go wrong.

Also, this isn’t about poor people. The fact you equate indigenous people to poor people is extremely racist.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

This is veering dangerously close to the arguments neo-nazis make against affirmative action.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points
*

That isn’t a useful definition of racism. It’s sounds alright, although it’s ultimately idealistic, it doesn’t hold up when applying to material circumstances.

As for why people think having different rules for different groups is good, I think one of the simplest ways to sum it up is: Equality of treatment will not give equality of outcome until there is already equality of conditions. Treating all people the same isn’t fair in the real world.

As a thought-experiment to demonstrate: If we have two people, one has $200 savings after rent and the other has $10,000,000, you can’t make them more equal or make the money more distributed by treating them the same: if society wants to reduce poverty (which is obviously a good thing for society, to have less people in poverty), it makes some sense to supply the poorer of the two with money, but it makes no sense to supply the richer: they already have more money than 90% of people! There isn’t a moral or ethical benefit in giving them more money, they don’t need the money as much as others do, it’s not how to achieve fairness or equality.

The generalised point of that being, if a group is disadvantaged and the status quo is keeping them disadvantaged, solving that will require special treatment. Treating Indigenous people the same way as always just keeps the systemic racist status quo, and to solve that, the Government will inevitably have to treat Indigenous people differently. That’s a consequence of trying to create a more equal outcome in an unequal environment.

The same goes for other types of disadvantage, of course. I am obviously not trying to imply that all people who aren’t indigenous have all the advantage they need! Ultimately, everyone who is not a mega-multi-millionaire is disadvantaged, but we can’t fix that all in one change. We have to start somewhere.

permalink
report
parent
reply

World News

!worldnews@lemmy.ml

Create post

News from around the world!

Rules:

  • Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc

  • No NSFW content

  • No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc

Community stats

  • 4.8K

    Monthly active users

  • 11K

    Posts

  • 126K

    Comments