952

Australia rejects proposal to recognise Aboriginal people in constitution (www.theguardian.com)

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

359 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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.

(page 2) 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] Faceman2K23@discuss.tchncs.de 17 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Thanks to the media shovelling fear, misinformation and lies into our minds. I blame Facebook, Twitter and Murdoch for this one.

The conspiracy theories around this issue were fucking wild. Ranging from the UN taking control of our government, to abolishing all land ownership and giving them the right to have your home demolished, to some bizarre thing about the pope or some shit.

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] MargotRobbie@lemmy.world 17 points 1 year ago

Disappointing, to say the least.

[-] MooseBoys@lemmy.world 16 points 1 year ago

The preview image looks like the lady on the right just let loose the most foul stench imaginable and the other two are being forced to deal with it.

[-] fiat_lux@kbin.social 13 points 1 year ago

Yet again, I'm sorry. And yet again, that's not enough.

load more comments (2 replies)

[-] autotldr@lemmings.world 10 points 1 year ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:

Australians have resoundingly rejected a proposal to recognise Aboriginal people in its constitution and establish a body to advise parliament on Indigenous issues.

The defeat will be seen by Indigenous advocates as a blow to what has been a hard fought struggle to progress reconciliation and recognition in modern Australia, with First Nations people continuing to suffer discrimination, poorer health and economic outcomes.

Nationwide support for the voice was hovering at about 40% in the week before the vote, with coverage of the campaign being overshadowed by the outbreak of war in the Middle East in the crucial final days.

The failure of Australia’s previous referendum in 1999 – to become a republic and acknowledge Indigenous ownership – was seen to have failed because it put forward a specific model to voters.

It weathered accusations that it championed the voice push while failing to deliver tangible improvements for citizens facing cost of living pressures and a housing crisis hurt the yes side.

Opposition also emerged from the far left of progressive politics and a minority of grassroots Indigenous activists, who rejected the voice while calling for more significant reconciliation measures, including a treaty with Aboriginal Australians.

The original article contains 724 words, the summary contains 196 words. Saved 73%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[-] Treczoks@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago

Australian Brexit moment. Some "action committees" with questionable financial sources managed to manipulate public opinion.

[-] Edgelord_Of_Tomorrow@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Not really. This is a tragedy but historically referendums in Australia only pass with bipartisan support.

Also historically, the side that wins the referendum doesn't win the next election, because our referendums are zero-sum yes or no choices akin to FPTP elections which favours American-style extreme politics, whereas our general elections employ preferential voting and compulsory suffrage which requires potential governments to appeal to the political centre. The referendum has shown people who the opposition party really are, and they won't be able to walk that back.

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments (3 replies)

load more comments

this post was submitted on 14 Oct 2023

952 points (96.5% liked)

World News

39395 readers

2900 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.

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.

Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.

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.