• Aurolei@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’ve voted Yes, albeit with a bit of hesitancy.

    As far as I am concerned, the role and functioning of the Voice is clearly defined in the proposal so this was never an issue for me. Where I feel people are generally stuck on is whether or not having an advisory body for just one demographic of people is naturally divisive. The argument becomes almost a bit of a slippery slope; if we have one body for indigenous people, why don’t we have one for other ethnic groups?

    At face value, I understand why this can be perceived as racist and divisive, however, I think we have to also agree there is a slight nuance to this issue. The fact of the matter is that our government has been creating laws surrounding indigenous people for ages and it is because they are unfortunately the most disadvantaged group within Australia. This has been long going now before even having a Voice and we haven’t been calling the government racist or divisive up until now (well most of us at least). Clearly what is in place now doesn’t work and we have a history of failed Voice to parliament’s because we have change hands so frequently that no one bothers to continue with taking those issues with the seriousness it deserves.

    Establishing a Voice does 2 things in my book. It provides the indigenous community with a level of autonomy to fix their own issues. Secondly, changing hands down the line cannot remove them. The proposal here also means that their level of influence will change as their needs are met. If at one point in time a Voice is no longer needed, it can be pulled back as needed.

    I hope people don’t buy into the catch phrases and simple minded thinking. Please make an informed decision and vote with how you feel best. Being open minded is all I really hope people can be when deciding how to vote.

    • set_secret@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      ’ The argument becomes almost a bit of a slippery slope; if we have one body for indigenous people, why don’t we have one for other ethnic groups?’

      idk I’ll take a wild stab and guess maybe becuse all other ethical groups in Australia didn’t live here for 60 000 plus years, have their land forcably removed, experienced mass genocide and an ongoing attempt to breed their ethnicity out of existence?

      that said, I’m glad you voted yes.

      but this is a dumb thing to say.

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

        Huh, TIL that humans showed up in Australia 60,000 years ago. I thought for sure it would be less than 20,000 years until I looked it up.

        As for the slippery slope, nah, it’s a natural thing to ask. That being said, I think you have a good answer to it.

        I’ll add that most ethnic groups don’t/shouldn’t need a Voice (ombudsman?) type function in a functioning democracy. However, we frequently see that the rules as written don’t actually apply equally. We see this a lot in the U.S. (where I’m from). It sounds like you have a similar effect in Australia.

    • BeautifulMind ♾️@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      At face value, I understand why this can be perceived as racist and divisive

      I appreciate that you’re not working to promote the talking point where if a profoundly disadvantaged racial group is given representation it’s “racist against white people”, but I live in a country where white people routinely argue that any amount of civil rights protections is “racist against white people” and it gives me a headache processing that level of stupid.

      Yep, in my country it’s regular fare to hear GOP politicians bleat “you’re being divisive!” (as if our failure to submit to their rule is a fault)- it takes two to be on opposing sides of a divide, and it’s morally dishonest to pretend that only the other side of a disagreement is at fault for honest disagreement. Don’t let them work the ‘you’re being divisive’ angle, you’ll never hear the end of it.