- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
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.
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.
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.
Ah the classic “I’m going to vote no to something good for me because I wanted something even better” argument 🤦♂️
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.
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?”
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?
Because they are Indigenous. Do you understand the difference between Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples in a colonial state?
No, obviously not.
Basic human rights and equal representation, for starters.
How about instead of spending your time here making such outlandishly ignorant comments, you spend it instead looking up for yourself how Aboriginal people are treated, and what equal rights they’re fighting for?, rather than sit back and demand others do the work for you?
Ok, thank you for your patience.
He is flat out wrong. Or lying, not sure which. Of course they are citizens and have the right to vote.
Another way to view it: It’s not about the individual person you’re replying to. Even unreasonable questions are a chance to bring more quality content into the thread, so more people can see it. It’s a chance to highlight things you value. It also makes nicer answers.
I’m not sure why you’re confused because the first sentence of the article literally says:
Which sums up why they were trying to make this happen, which also sounds like they don’t have an official group of Indigenous peoples advising the government on anything that is an Indigenous issue, which is super bad.
Thank you for your reply. It’s simple:
if they have Australian citizenship (I think in 67 was a push for this) then they already have all the Constitutional rights and obligations like every other Australian citizen. Why are these extra steps necessary?
if they don’t: what is their current legal status? Why not just give them citizenship and thus having the right of representation in the Parliament and so forth?