How do we sleep while our beds are burning?
I love this song, it's still in my playlist
All this over an advisory board with no real power? How could that even be harmful?
Conservatives oppose it for the same reasons indigenous groups want it.
I'm voting yes, and i have tried to help people see why it's a good thing, but when people call me racist for saying I'm in the yes camo, i know that far too many are just morons who have no critical thinking, or ability to tell what is a good source of information.
The real reason it will fail is politics. The opposition party decided getting this voted down would strike a blow to the government.
So they’ve just blown racist dog whistles, racist trumpets, set of racists cannons and doubled down on ignorance: “If you don’t know vote No”
They have effectively weaponised division.
They created division by spreading lies, uncertainty and fear. Lies were repeated over and over, and became increasingly outrageous, despite being refuted again and again.
Then they pointed at the division they created and said "this is too divisive, we shouldn't do it."
What's even the point of having a democracy if the majority of the voter base is uninformed
Not just uninformed - deliberately misinformed.
Colonialism intensifies
Voting on yes or no was made very easy when I saw that neo nazis, flat earthers, anti vaxxers and a multitude of other whack jobs are voting no. You are the company you keep in my book.
What a bunch of cunts
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Australians look set to reject a referendum proposal to recognise Indigenous people in the constitution by creating a body to advise parliament, with polls showing a clear majority for no in almost all states before Saturday’s vote.
The yes campaign has also been battered by the Blak sovereignty movement, which has led the progressive no case, arguing the voice would be powerless while pushing for truth and treaty to come ahead of constitutional recognition.
The no campaign has leaned heavily on the slogan “If you don’t know, vote no”, which former high court justice Robert French described as an invitation to “resentful, uninquiring passivity”.
The Australian prime minister, Anthony Albanese, spent part of the final campaigning week in the nation’s centre, Uluru, where the proposal for the voice was first formally presented in 2017.
Sitting with senior traditional owners in central Australia, Albanese said Australians had an opportunity to “lift the burden of history” and move forward with a positive vote on Saturday.
“Many Indigenous Australians who are on the frontlines of dealing with these problems in towns and cities and communities and outstations and home lands are very worried about the prospect of losing the voice because they already have little say, and a loss will mean that they have even less.”
The original article contains 827 words, the summary contains 213 words. Saved 74%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
fucking national disgrace....
'cos Aussies love racism
Keep it classy, Australia.
Not a good look. Very disappointed.
I've voted Yes, albeit with a bit of hesitancy.
As far as I am concerned, the role and functioning of the Voice is clearly defined in the proposal so this was never an issue for me. Where I feel people are generally stuck on is whether or not having an advisory body for just one demographic of people is naturally divisive. The argument becomes almost a bit of a slippery slope; if we have one body for indigenous people, why don't we have one for other ethnic groups?
At face value, I understand why this can be perceived as racist and divisive, however, I think we have to also agree there is a slight nuance to this issue. The fact of the matter is that our government has been creating laws surrounding indigenous people for ages and it is because they are unfortunately the most disadvantaged group within Australia. This has been long going now before even having a Voice and we haven't been calling the government racist or divisive up until now (well most of us at least). Clearly what is in place now doesn't work and we have a history of failed Voice to parliament's because we have change hands so frequently that no one bothers to continue with taking those issues with the seriousness it deserves.
Establishing a Voice does 2 things in my book. It provides the indigenous community with a level of autonomy to fix their own issues. Secondly, changing hands down the line cannot remove them. The proposal here also means that their level of influence will change as their needs are met. If at one point in time a Voice is no longer needed, it can be pulled back as needed.
I hope people don't buy into the catch phrases and simple minded thinking. Please make an informed decision and vote with how you feel best. Being open minded is all I really hope people can be when deciding how to vote.
' The argument becomes almost a bit of a slippery slope; if we have one body for indigenous people, why don't we have one for other ethnic groups?'
idk I'll take a wild stab and guess maybe becuse all other ethical groups in Australia didn't live here for 60 000 plus years, have their land forcably removed, experienced mass genocide and an ongoing attempt to breed their ethnicity out of existence?
that said, I'm glad you voted yes.
but this is a dumb thing to say.
Huh, TIL that humans showed up in Australia 60,000 years ago. I thought for sure it would be less than 20,000 years until I looked it up.
As for the slippery slope, nah, it's a natural thing to ask. That being said, I think you have a good answer to it.
I'll add that most ethnic groups don't/shouldn't need a Voice (ombudsman?) type function in a functioning democracy. However, we frequently see that the rules as written don't actually apply equally. We see this a lot in the U.S. (where I'm from). It sounds like you have a similar effect in Australia.
At face value, I understand why this can be perceived as racist and divisive
I appreciate that you're not working to promote the talking point where if a profoundly disadvantaged racial group is given representation it's "racist against white people", but I live in a country where white people routinely argue that any amount of civil rights protections is "racist against white people" and it gives me a headache processing that level of stupid.
Yep, in my country it's regular fare to hear GOP politicians bleat "you're being divisive!" (as if our failure to submit to their rule is a fault)- it takes two to be on opposing sides of a divide, and it's morally dishonest to pretend that only the other side of a disagreement is at fault for honest disagreement. Don't let them work the 'you're being divisive' angle, you'll never hear the end of it.
Literally nothing stops the government making "the voice" without changing the constitution. The only reason they want it in the constitution is so future governments can't change the function of the body.
The whole thing is an organised circus for political gain and dividing the population.
In the past, the government had a "voice" for the indigenous for like 10 years. Just bring it back, no constitutional change needed.
If you're going to try put an aboriginal rights group in the constitution, just make it basic human rights group with representation for everyone. Basic human rights that are severely lacking in Australia. Freedom of speech? We don't even have that.
Who is preventing your speech?
Let me guess, ‘woke green loonies who use cancel culture’.
Referendums are always such a spineless way out of doing the right thing.
Looks like NSW and Tasmania are already no. One more state to vote no and it’s over
A community for discussing events around the World
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
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.
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/