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

  • 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
            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!