this post was submitted on 14 Oct 2023
148 points (98.1% liked)
World News
32294 readers
1074 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Of course there was. Enshrining different rights to different people in the constitution based on their race, is fundamentally objectionable.
Like enshrining the position of head of state as being the next in line for a particular family who are born & live on the other side of the world?
For the love of democracy let's not fuck that one up again next time it comes around. Based on yesterday the next PM may well be one of our most evil statesmen around. I think the ARM is planning for a 2027 republican referendum... please let's not elect a skilled reactionary to lead our country when the time comes.
Judging by the way the vote went in previous libs, now teal seats, it may be more likely he's cemented his status as unelectable.
Hope so
That is entirely irrelevant. "The king exists, therefore the constitution should give different rights to regular people based on their race". Disgusting argument.
Im pointing out the hypocrisy, not providing an endorsement of monarchy. The Australian constitution has an original sin baked in, so pretending it's a sacred document and not already a biased setup is naive.
Nobody is proving an endorsement of monarchy. You're using monarchy as an argument for adding (additional) racism to the constitution. It's a fucking stupid argument. "One thing is bad, therefore it is not a problem to make other things worse too."
If something has a flaw (monarchy) that's not a reason to make it worse (enshrine racially based representation).
Your words. I'm simply pointing out the hypocrisy nothing further. The constitution is already in the state you say is fundamentally objectionable, it is not a neutral, equal set of laws. But you draw the line here, when advantage is already enshrined one way. Funny that.
You're pretty rude and divisive in your comments here, you can take negativity too far you know.
I feel like you say that without the context of anything. In isolation what you say might be true but within context it's just fairly clear to see why you'd get a minority group committee of advisers to be more widely heard. "Different rights to different people" is literally how the world works. If you want to pretend that majority bias doesn't exist then so be it, I can't change your support for systemic racism.
When you choose to use the expression "absolutely no reason", it is trivially easy to disprove your claim. My argument is one of them, and it is a valid reason to vote no. Your further arguments are valid reasons to vote "yes", and their pros and cons may or may not outweigh each other.
But you are verifiably wrong to claim that there are no reasons to vote no. Opposing race-based legislation in all its forms is a very valid position, and the only non-racist position possible to take in this.
Sorry, I figured you wouldn't be pedantic. I clearly meant no valid reason that I see to vote no. Racism and support of systemic racism is a reason, you are right. Go get your internet pedantic star.
Grow the fuck up. You are the one arguing for race-based legislation. That makes you the racist. Every human has the right to be equal in the eyes of the law. There simply cannot be an excuse for having tests based on genetics that lead to different rights in a society. That's just purely despicable in every way.
"Tests based on genetics that lead to different rights". Again, that sounds alot like the constitutional rights granted to just one family line as head of state. And that genetic line didn't come from Australia. So which race of humans have primacy in australian law?
It's possible to hold both of these beliefs simultaneously:
Sure but then we must acknowledge one of those unacceptable things is reality, and the other which could have added some equality and balance was rejected, leaving the constitution favoured to one group of people, as society has been structured.
Fuck, that's an awful take. All laws based on race or genetics are always a bad idea.
The constitution has been and still is racist - try researching it before spreading misinformation.
There is Equality, Equity, and Justice. I highly recommend reading about why you should go for Justice rather than Equality. Also, this law would have nothing based on race or genetics. It was based on what the tribes, which are organization bodies like the Australian government, would put in the committee. It's fairly racist to assume that indigenous committee representatives have to be of indigenous genetics in this day and age.
Racism, by definition, is treating one race negatively. Enshrinign the voice in the constitution is not racist, while you're being pedantic.
If one "race" (which isn't a scientific term and its use in the US is dated and itself racist) is treated differently from another, regardless of which group is perceived to be treated favourably or unfavourably, such a situation can legitimately be described as racist.
Not according to the definition, to wit: prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism by an individual, community, or institution against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized.
Racism is by definition negative treatment, not different treatment. Putting darker make up on a black actor is not racist. Giving women breast cancer screening is not sexist.
It is fucking disgusting to see your defense of racism.
ALL HUMANS HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE TREATED EQUALLY IN THE EYES OF THE LAW!
Currently, the Australian constitution allows for different races or people to be treated differently. In practice, this has meant laws targeting ATSI people. The voice was a proposal, from consultation over many years within their community to have a say in any proposed law. It gives minimal power, just a voice to be heard. It’s part of the Uluṟu process, which is guided by the Uluṟu statement.
Racism is treating one group negatively, based on race, as per the definition above. This was an attempt to start a process to right historical racist wrongs and lead a path to true equality together. Quite the opposite of racism.
Screeching about misplaced racism doesn’t make you factually correct or morally correct.
They know. The whole "progressives are the real racists" shtick is just a way for them to chew up values and spit them back in peoples faces.
They're not actually concerned about genuine racism and routinely tolerate it, if not outright support it.
Hard to say that the right to be heard is objectionable imo
Everybody should have the same right to be heard. Different people having different rights to be heard, based on their race, is absolutely objectionable. And racist.
You’re looking at a set of unequal scales and saying they should be equal, while refusing to place more weight onto either side…
Enshrining racial differences in the constitution is absolutely disgusting, no matter how good your intentions are.
That's already occurred. Google it.