923
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.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Facelesscog@lemmy.world 274 points 1 year ago

As an American, it's nice to know we're not the only pieces of shit out there.

[-] foggy@lemmy.world 104 points 1 year ago

Oh it's not just us.

UK, and Canada have sordid pasts as well.

[-] AbidanYre@lemmy.world 82 points 1 year ago

UK

Where do you think the US learned it from?

[-] makingStuffForFun@lemmy.ml 59 points 1 year ago

Where do you think Australian colonialism comes from?

[-] andrew@lemmy.stuart.fun 19 points 1 year ago

I LEARNED IT FROM YOU, MOM AND DAD! 😭😭

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (14 replies)
[-] PersonalDevKit@aussie.zone 28 points 1 year ago

Quite honestly it was a very confusing referendum. The question seemed simple on the surface but as soon as you ask questions very quickly it was hard to find answers. I think this confusion is the reason the majority voted no, they were scared to choose yes for something they didn't understand. I tried to understand and still couldn't find a straight answer of what this referendum was actually about.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] arin@lemmy.world 16 points 1 year ago

We're both born from Western colonialism and converted into capitalism

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (14 replies)
[-] gladflag@lemmy.ml 88 points 1 year ago
[-] maegul@lemmy.ml 46 points 1 year ago

I personally didn’t pay close attention to the campaigns, and think it pretty obvious Australia has a fair way to go on indigenous issues, but my impression is also that the Yes campaign was poorly executed and thought through, failing, in part, to recognise how much of an uphill climb it was going to be and how easy the No campaign was going to be. For instance, while reading the ballot, I was taken aback by how vague and confusing the proposal was, despite having read it before.

Otherwise, I’m hoping there’s a silver lining in the result where it will prompt an ongoing conversation about what actually happened and get the country closer to getting better at this.

[-] zik@zorg.social 44 points 1 year ago

There was a massive, heavily funded FUD campaign by the "no" proponents. Sadly, it was very effective.

[-] Selmafudd@lemmy.world 42 points 1 year ago

Yeah as soon as I heard the "if you don't know vote no" slogan I knew it was already over.. this one line just forgives people for being racist.

I'm not saying every No vote was racist just that many would have been and this made it so fucking easy for them to feel no guilt.

[-] maegul@lemmy.ml 20 points 1 year ago

Yea that’s kinda what I meant. The No campaign here was pretty easy to cook up I think. And for the Liberal party it was a very attractive chance to kick the Labor govt down no matter the cause.

Which means, IMO, if you were going to do this, you had to be ready for all of that and not rely on calls to be “be on the right side of history”. Australia isn’t there and needs convincing, unfortunately.

[-] zik@zorg.social 18 points 1 year ago

The mining lobby seems to be behind it too - they stand to lose a lot if Aboriginal rights are given more credence.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)
[-] SuperJetShoes@lemmy.world 80 points 1 year ago

I'm sorry, I'm stupid and not up-to-date with this.

Taken at face value, Constitutional Recognition for the indigenous population sounds correct.

So what was wrong with it?

[-] MuThyme@lemmy.world 51 points 1 year ago

Nothing.

The no and yes sides to a referendum prepare an informational pamphlet that everyone receives but there's absolutely no requirement that any of it be truthful, so the opposition just openly lied until the whole thing died.

Actual information was obscured, fear mongering was rampant, the voice was harmless at worst, but could have been the spark that changed Australia for the better.

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

Thank you. But I'm still not sure I get it. Could you maybe give an example of what kind of lie or fear mongering would make people want to say:

"No, I don't want the constitution to recognise that there were an indigenous people here before us."

That seems like an unarguable fact, isn't it?

I'm sorry, I don't mean to put you on the spot but since you were kind enough to take the time to give an overview, it makes me hungry for more detail!

[-] Inductor@feddit.de 38 points 1 year ago

The referendum was (if I understand it correctly) about adding an advisory body of indigenous people to parliament. This wouldn't have given them any power to make decisions, only to advise parliament on things.

The No Campaign just straight up lied to people saying it would let them write laws, take away your land, etc..

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] snoopen@lemmy.world 27 points 1 year ago

First off to be precise, this was a ”proposal to recognise Aboriginal people in its constitution and establish a body to advise parliament on Indigenous issues".

Some examples of what I think were sadly effective for the no campaign:

"This will allow indigenous peoples to reclaim your land"

"It will only further divide our nation"

"We don't know how this might be misused"

These all play on peoples fear. On the other hand some indigenous peoples also were campaigning for a no vote, primarily because they thought it wasn't strong enough.

This gave voters a lot of reasons to hide behind while voting no.

And all this was not helped by a rather poor yes campaign that barely did anything to address misconceptions.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] danl@lemmy.world 49 points 1 year ago

Leaving the moral arguments aside, there were also massive campaign failures on the Yes side. No had two clear cheerleaders with an absurdly simple catchphrase: “If you don’t know, vote No”. Meanwhile Yes didn’t have a star for the campaign and had made the amendment way too simple/general so there weren’t any included details of the practicalities. So they ended up with 100 people having to re-explain their plans every campaign stop and occasionally tripping over each other’s messages. As a result, the complicated sell from Yes played right into No‘s hands.

[-] SeaJ@lemm.ee 19 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

So the No side's campaign was one of deliberately not educating people? To me that just says that people educated on the subject are voting Yes.

While that may be an absurdly simple slogan, it is also absurdly stupid.

load more comments (13 replies)
[-] Affidavit@aussie.zone 21 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

It's clear that most of the people responding to you are being deceptive and crying 'racism' to make themselves feel superior.

This was not a referendum to recognise indigenous people. Whomever titled this article is a liar. It was a referendum to create an advisory body that makes representations to parliament to support a specific race. Contrary to the holier-than-thou crowd around here, many people voted 'No' because they do not agree with permanently enshrining this in the Constitution.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (16 replies)
[-] gorkette@aussie.zone 47 points 1 year ago

If the Yes campaign are serious about the Voice to the nation being important to the Indigenous people, then no-one is standing in the way of making it happen. The vote to enshrine it in the Constitution failed, but the body can still be created and can still function primarily the same.

[-] naevaTheRat@lemmy.dbzer0.com 30 points 1 year ago

yeah until the Liberals dismantle it. again.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[-] Gerula@lemmy.world 34 points 1 year ago

New to the subject here: why is it a desirable thing to recognise Aboriginal people in the Constitution?

As I read through the article in the Aboriginal camp not everyone wants this. So I'm puzzled.

[-] bennysaurus@lemmy.world 57 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.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Strayce@lemmy.sdf.org 25 points 1 year ago

Yeah this fucking sucks. I have to admit I was expecting Yes to win by a landslide, but I guess I give people too much credit.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] spark947@lemm.ee 25 points 1 year ago

A sad day for Australia. It was cool to see a lot if Australian celebrities come out in support of a yes vote.

[-] DaBabyAteMaDingo@lemmy.world 24 points 1 year ago

American here, what does it mean to recognize a class of indigenous people in Australia?

Because we have a very different understanding of the word lol

[-] Edgelord_Of_Tomorrow@lemmy.world 35 points 1 year ago

It was to put them in the constitution as the original inhabitants of Australia and give them the right to a mostly powerless advisory body to the Commonwealth government called "the Voice".

It was a pretty conservative idea but unfortunately the conservative opposition leader is the arch-racist piece of shit who will never win a real election, but in his desperation to make a name for himself he campaigned against the referendum, and referendums traditionally only succeed with bipartisan support. So now all that's really been accomplished is to disenfranchise our indigenous population even more.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (22 replies)
[-] fruitleatherpostcard@lemm.ee 22 points 1 year ago

How grim.

This is a victory for racists, and bad-faith actors, some some of which have received lots of money from China and Russia to help destabilise another Western country.

[-] dojan@lemmy.world 42 points 1 year ago

Honestly don’t know if that latter bit is true. We manage to be absolutely atrocious to the indigenous population without third parties meddling. I don’t think there’s a single native population that hasn’t been mistreated; had their culture and names taken away, sent for reeducation, eugenics, and so on, so forth.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] maegul@lemmy.ml 16 points 1 year ago

Yea I wouldn’t go around underestimating Australia’s ability to fuck up its indigenous people without any conspiratorial help like that.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] makingStuffForFun@lemmy.ml 20 points 1 year ago

This is shameful. I'm sorry.

[-] 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.

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

Disappointing, to say the least.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 14 Oct 2023
923 points (96.8% liked)

World News

38969 readers
2238 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS