• MüThyme@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    31
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Again, it’s not dividing race at all.

    There are two good reasons for putting it in the constitution. One, it stops it being repealed by the opposition who have a history of that sort of thing, thus it won’t be limited to the term of a specific government.

    Secondly, Australia’s history is 100% built on disenfranchisement of our first people. Slavery, being defined as fauna, voting rights younger than a lifetime etc. Our national identity built this problem, our constitution should recognise who this country belongs to, it should recognise who this country has murdered, abducted and generally hated for it’s entire history. This definitely belongs in our constitution, colonialism stole Australia and it’s only fair to recognise that.

    • muntedcrocodile@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      30
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      An advisory body for a particular race is by definition a division based on race. Say hypotheticaly there was a body in the constitution called the “nazi advisory body” where u had to be a true arian to join, would you agree that is blatantly racist? If so what does it matter what race it is or what its called its still a devision of race by definition.

      For you first point see the timeline of all bodies i have posted in this thread may shed some light on ur over generalisation.

      Second putting the voice in the constitution doesnt address that whatsoever if you want to put recognition of histories ateocities in the constitution put recognition of histories actrocities in the constitution. What does an advisary body in the constitution have to do with recognition of historical actrocities in the constitution.

      • JethPeter
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        21
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I understand your point, however I think it misses a key element. This land was owned and occupied by our first nations peoples for 65k years.

        The British decided to take it over a few hundred years ago, a pretty rough decision for first nations peoples. In fact they were only recognised as real people with a right to vote in 1967.

        We can’t reverse that bad decision now, each of us are now Australian. Yet no other group of peoples were the victim of our new country formation. Having recognition in the constitution, and a protected voice for national decisions that affect them seems reasonable.

        No other group, culture, or religion has this relationship with our government. A voice for any other group wouldn’t make sense. It’s not a cultural voice - it’s a political one for the nations we forced from power.

        • muntedcrocodile@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          19
          ·
          1 year ago

          I understand that i just dont beleive i can moraly accept making any devision based on race whatsoever regardless of purpose or reason. I guess thats where we differ.

              • Nudding@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                9
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Sounds like you don’t know how racism works then? I don’t know what else to tell you, my slow friend.

                • muntedcrocodile@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  10
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  How it works has nothing to do with how its defined. Granting or denieing somthing based upon race is racist you are willing to do that (doesnt fuckin matter if u think its for the greater good) its by definition racist. Im sorry im not willing to compromise on equality.

                  • Nudding@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    5
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Yeah, nothing has changed. You continue to not understand what racism is or how it works. Have a good one

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

                    Perhaps Canadas relationship with Quebec can serve as an analogy to help you frame this in a manner than is not based in racial divisions.

                    From my(Canadian) perspective Australia seems to be dealing with a number of the same issues that are important to the structure and formation of Canada and it’s constitution. Quebec holds status as a ‘nation within a nation’ and holds several concessions within our constitution to allow it to preserve the French language and unique Quebecois culture. Going back to the confederation of Canada and before 1867 we’ve always had a tension between the dominant English/Protestant culture and the French/Catholic culture and various protections for the language. Ontario and other provinces have constitutionally protected Catholic School boards which is fucking weird nowadays but make sense in the historical context. Take a look at the ‘not-withstanding’ clause and it’s history too! Bonkers.

                    All that said, perhaps a better lens to view this ‘Voice’ within parliament is in a similar sense to a nation to nation representative within your parliament. A recognition that there is another nation of people who hold a different value structure, sense of polity and ideas of the derivations and justifications for authority. This cultural nation within the larger Australian nation-state does not hold political or legislative power nor did the referendum propose granting any level of sovereignty to this subsumed nation(unlike Quebec), but in the interest of human rights, equality, cultural discourse and integration it would be prudent for this cultural nation to be able to provide advice and its perspective on the administration of its people.

                    This Nation to Nation method does have its own complexities and compromises however as Canada is seeing with its various treaty(or lack of treaty) obligations. The Crown Lands in my neck of the woods may be ceded to the local Algonquin tribe as their land was colonized but no treaty signed with their national representatives. It’s also holding up all sorts of large resource development projects.

                    I’m also curious, how do you feel about the Westphalian nation state? The right of a people’s self determination etc? I suspect you don’t want to tear down borders because their inherently based on racist principles as well.

                  • Spzi@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    5
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    You’ve been given excellent and calm explanations why your concern makes no sense in this specific context.

                    That you choose to cling to a shallow definition instead makes it seem as if you cared more about words than people.