• muntedcrocodile@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    30
    ·
    1 year ago

    Great so make the body and dont put it in the constitution. Simple that way we can have the same body with the same “lack” of powers and dont need to divide race within the constitution.

    • MüThyme@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      31
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Again, it’s not dividing race at all.

      There are two good reasons for putting it in the constitution. One, it stops it being repealed by the opposition who have a history of that sort of thing, thus it won’t be limited to the term of a specific government.

      Secondly, Australia’s history is 100% built on disenfranchisement of our first people. Slavery, being defined as fauna, voting rights younger than a lifetime etc. Our national identity built this problem, our constitution should recognise who this country belongs to, it should recognise who this country has murdered, abducted and generally hated for it’s entire history. This definitely belongs in our constitution, colonialism stole Australia and it’s only fair to recognise that.

      • muntedcrocodile@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        30
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        An advisory body for a particular race is by definition a division based on race. Say hypotheticaly there was a body in the constitution called the “nazi advisory body” where u had to be a true arian to join, would you agree that is blatantly racist? If so what does it matter what race it is or what its called its still a devision of race by definition.

        For you first point see the timeline of all bodies i have posted in this thread may shed some light on ur over generalisation.

        Second putting the voice in the constitution doesnt address that whatsoever if you want to put recognition of histories ateocities in the constitution put recognition of histories actrocities in the constitution. What does an advisary body in the constitution have to do with recognition of historical actrocities in the constitution.

        • JethPeter@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          20
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I understand your point, however I think it misses a key element. This land was owned and occupied by our first nations peoples for 65k years.

          The British decided to take it over a few hundred years ago, a pretty rough decision for first nations peoples. In fact they were only recognised as real people with a right to vote in 1967.

          We can’t reverse that bad decision now, each of us are now Australian. Yet no other group of peoples were the victim of our new country formation. Having recognition in the constitution, and a protected voice for national decisions that affect them seems reasonable.

          No other group, culture, or religion has this relationship with our government. A voice for any other group wouldn’t make sense. It’s not a cultural voice - it’s a political one for the nations we forced from power.

          • muntedcrocodile@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            19
            ·
            1 year ago

            I understand that i just dont beleive i can moraly accept making any devision based on race whatsoever regardless of purpose or reason. I guess thats where we differ.

                • Nudding@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  9
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Sounds like you don’t know how racism works then? I don’t know what else to tell you, my slow friend.

                  • muntedcrocodile@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    arrow-down
                    10
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    How it works has nothing to do with how its defined. Granting or denieing somthing based upon race is racist you are willing to do that (doesnt fuckin matter if u think its for the greater good) its by definition racist. Im sorry im not willing to compromise on equality.