952
submitted 1 year ago by GreyShuck@feddit.uk to c/world@lemmy.world

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] bennysaurus@lemmy.world 58 points 1 year ago

It's complex. Quite a few in the indigenous "no" camp want treaty instead; a formal legal recognition of aboriginal rights and representation, not just an advisory voice in parliament. Voting no for them was as much a protest as an attempt to send a message saying this should be much more. For them it's all or nothing.

Others didn't see the point, yet others don't see the problem in the first place, comfortable with the status quo.

[-] miridius@lemmy.world 18 points 1 year ago

Ah the classic "I'm going to vote no to something good for me because I wanted something even better" argument 🤦‍♂️

[-] comfy@lemmy.ml 35 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Their argument is that the Voice isn't even something good. It doesn't give Indigenous people any powers they didn't already have, and the Voice can be ignored just as easily as the advice of the royal commission into Aboriginal deaths in custody recently was. Interview with the Black Peoples Union describes in better detail.

But even if that weren't the case and they did think it wasn't worthless symbolism, successful collective bargaining doesn't just settle for every first offer. So I don't know why you're claiming it's a bad strategy, it's how unions have won important gains for workers. It's a strategy that has been historically shown to work when applied correctly.

[-] Wrench@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

Except when it's put to a general vote like that, all the nuance is lost, and the voters remember "well we resoundingly voted no on the last one, why vote this one in?"

[-] Gerula@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

But aren't Aboriginal people citizens of Australia and so already part of the Constitution thus having legal rights like everyone else? What are the extra rights and representation needed?

[-] Ilandar@aussie.zone 3 points 1 year ago

What are the extra rights and representation needed?

Because they are Indigenous. Do you understand the difference between Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples in a colonial state?

this post was submitted on 14 Oct 2023
952 points (96.5% liked)

World News

39395 readers
2247 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS