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

    • comfy@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      No, it is not just racism. There would have been an element of that, but it’s certainly far from the main reason. That idea is contradicted by the facts that a very significant portion of Indigenous people and Indigenous activists voted against it.

      Linking to this useful post, explaining why various progressive groups were against it.

      • Anchorite@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        Significant proportion, but a minority still.

        But yes it’s not racism alone, also confusion, selfishness, disinterest, spite, partisanship, a long list of reasons

        • hitmyspot
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          I’d say apathy more than anything. So many people didn’t bother to actually find out what was going to happen. Yes side messaged it poorly. No side preyed on low information, making it divisive and about non relevant semantics.

    • PerogiBoi@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      We have this same issue in Canada. It seems the average person finds it completely acceptable to dismiss our First Nations peoples as “drunks” and “bums” and less than citizens.

      • Splitdipless@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Don’t forget the words of our leader of His Majesties Loyal Opposition, and possible future PM: “My view is that we need to engender the values of hard work and independence and self reliance. That’s the solution in the long run – more money will not solve it.”

        He’s apologized since, but you as they say, you understand how someone truly feels the first time they say something, unfiltered.

    • MxM111@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      15
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • hitmyspot
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • morry040@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          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

          • hitmyspot
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

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

          • hitmyspot
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

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

              • hitmyspot
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Yes, one can. You however were comparing comparison under laws, which is speaking about legalities. You were incorrect. Doubling down just makes it clear you are not discussing in good faith, but have been caught in a lie.

                • MxM111@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  No, I do not know how you get this impression. Please reread my posts. I was talking about what laws should be for good society, not what can or can not be allowed legally.

      • PoliticalAgitator@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        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.

        • FaceDeer@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

          • PoliticalAgitator@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

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

            Not exactly rocket science.

            • FaceDeer@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              You think that this very specific constitutional amendment is the only way to “begin to address it?” You say it could begin to address it so it’s clear you’re not even sure of that.

              • PoliticalAgitator@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                There’s plenty of ways to address the problem – none of which the Liberal Party will ever implement or the “No” campaign will ever support.

                You can feign all the indignation you want but at the end of the day, we know you won’t support any of those changes, just like you didn’t support the voice, nor even a token apology on behalf of the government for the inhumane things their predecessors did.

                Want to prove you actually care? Campaign for a solution that isn’t “let’s just ignore the problem since it doesn’t impact me”, perhaps with the financial support of all of those “vote no” organisations that don’t exist at their registered addresses.

                We both know there’s not a chance of that happening. You’ll just continue to pretend you have some standard that isn’t being met, rather than admitting that nothing ever will because you simply don’t want it to happen.

      • MJBrune@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        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”

        • MxM111@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

          • MJBrune@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.

      • comfy@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        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.

      • Omega_Haxors@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

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