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.
I know precisely fuck all about this situation, but your summary that includes " their mobs" tell me you are a feckless cunt.
Unless mobs is a kind of political group. Which a quick Internet search reveals no such thing.
https://www.google.com/search?q=aboriginal mob&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-m
It is you who is the feckless cunt, sir.
This comment is right wing propaganda, brought to you by the racist cunts that run Sky News.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-07-19/fact-check-yes-no-campaign-pamphlets-aec/102614710
Edit: downvotes don’t change the facts, or tend your bruised feeling.
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 difference is our electoral system doesn’t let the 30% of racist pieces of shit run the entire country.
Maybe not but we just saw that it’s a fuckin’ lot more than just 30 for you guys!
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.
This is the inherent flaw in democracy in general. If most people are shit, the government will also be shit
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.
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?
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.
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!”
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.
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.
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.
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’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.
As an American, it’s nice to know we’re not the only pieces of shit out there.
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.
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.
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.
Pretty much any white person who doesn’t live in Europe is guilty of these atrocities.
You mean… the UK. Given that the USA, Canada and Australia were all British colonies, ergo the same past.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Finland also has quite a bad history with Sami people. Not quite as savage as US and Indians but still.
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.
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.
Sudan Ethiopia 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.
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.
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.
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.
It wasn’t a change to political process. It was to be another advisory body, of which we have many over several decades.
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
A bit off topic but, American here, the liberals are your conservative party? Interesting.
American politics are all right wing compared to other socially democratic countries.
Our major political parties are the Australian Labor Party (progressive/socialist), Liberal Party of Australia (capitalist/liberal), The Greens (environmental/progressive), National Party of Australia(authoritarian/regressives).
The Liberals and the Nats have a coalition called the Liberal National Party (LNP) because it’s the only way they can get enough representation to get majority government.
Greens typically vote along Labor lines.
It’s worth noting that Australian and American interpretations of liberalism differ quite significantly. The modern Liberal party and its predecessors formed in direct opposition to the Labor party, in direct opposition to the labor movement. They formed as a party against radical social change, against socialism, and for free-market policies and laissez faire capitalism, describing themselves as “classical liberals”. On the other hand, “liberalism” in the US more refers to social liberalism, but it’s actually the exception in that regard.
All that is to say that, when Australians refer to someone as a liberal, we mean a different interpretation of the word closer to classical liberalism.
