Australian national broadcaster ABC has projected three states voted No, effectively defeating the referendum.

  • JustSomePerson@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    There was absolutely no reason to vote no to this.

    Of course there was. Enshrining different rights to different people in the constitution based on their race, is fundamentally objectionable.

    • ravenford@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      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?

      • Welt@lazysoci.al
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

      • JustSomePerson@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        That is entirely irrelevant. "The king exists, therefore the constitution should give different rights to regular people based on their race". Disgusting argument.

        • ravenford@startrek.website
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

          • JustSomePerson@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            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).

            • ravenford@startrek.website
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              There was absolutely no reason to vote no to this.

              Of course there was. Enshrining different rights to different people in the constitution based on their race, is fundamentally objectionable.

              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.

    • MJBrune@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • JustSomePerson@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • MJBrune@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

          • JustSomePerson@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.

            • ravenford@startrek.website
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              "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?

              • Pladermp@aussie.zone
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                It's possible to hold both of these beliefs simultaneously:

                • The constitution conferring special rights and privileges on the royal family and their delegates is a bad idea.
                • The constitution conferring special rights and privileges to a subset of people within the country based on race is a bad idea.
                • ravenford@startrek.website
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  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.

            • MJBrune@beehaw.org
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              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.

            • hitmyspot@aussie.zone
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Racism, by definition, is treating one race negatively. Enshrinign the voice in the constitution is not racist, while you're being pedantic.

              • Welt@lazysoci.al
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                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.

                • hitmyspot@aussie.zone
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  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.

                  • JustSomePerson@kbin.social
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    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!

      • PoliticalAgitator@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

      • JustSomePerson@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • Anchorite@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          You’re looking at a set of unequal scales and saying they should be equal, while refusing to place more weight onto either side…

          • JustSomePerson@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Enshrining racial differences in the constitution is absolutely disgusting, no matter how good your intentions are.