World News

32310 readers

823 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

[email protected]

147

Indigenous Voice: Australians reject historic Indigenous referendum - BBC News (bbc.in)

submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

101 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Hope so

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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).

[–] [email protected] 1 points 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.