Correction. I don’t believe anyone can be trusted to run their own affairs. And I’ve explained why. The best we can do is group together and try and make the world a better place.
Why do you think it would be a good idea? And do you think that marginalised groups losing rights and equality is an acceptable trade off ?
Dear god your reading comprehension is terrible.
Who is “we”?
Society, everyone, progressives, anyone who agrees everyone was created equal and deserves equal respect, anyone who agrees the system is still fucked and we can and should change it for the better.
What do you mean by “our job”?
Improving the system to improve the rights, respect and outcomes for everyone.
We only just legalised gay marriage and homosexuality was still illegal in some places in Australia under 25 years ago. There is still plenty of discrimination going on in this place that needs sorting out.
Stop trying to play the white saviour card. It’s bullshit. I fully acknowledge the British invaders where shit to the First Nations and committed genocide. It’s been a shit time for the original inhabitants for the first two hundred plus years of colonisation. No white saviour going on there. But now we have an option to decide what we can do to make the world a better place and it’s not to set up hundreds of semi-sovereign enclaves that will turn out shit for the marginalised individuals in them.
No I didn’t ? I specifically called out that this exists in modern Australian society? I provided examples of indigenous issues so you couldn’t accuse me of making this out of whole cloth.
I don’t think every aboriginal community will have these issues. I think it’s a bad idea to have multiple (hundreds of) smaller governments where these issues could pop up. Every Australian deserves the same and the best rights we can give them. Our job isn’t done in that regard and it would be a backward step to allow small communities to “decide for themselves” in these regards.
What a strange assumption to make. Why would Indigenous Australians be any different in this regard? This sounds like some flawed “white knows best” thinking.
These are contemporary modern issues too. Plenty of the rest of Australia have backwards beliefs on these issues. Our society has only made progress on these issues in the last decades. Other contemporary societies haven’t made any progress on these issues. (See the Middle East or Africa.)
I would like to take a moment to acknowledge this argument does lear close to white-supremacists white-society arguments. I don’t think race has anything to do with it. I think economics do. Prosperous societies become more liberal. Western society has just been the most prosperous society in the last few hundred years. Previous nonwestern societies have had periods of liberalism during prosperous times (see the Middle East). I think this is also an argument that giving sovereignty to non-prosperous regional communities is a bad idea.
The elders of 70 aboriginal communities delivered a petition against gay marriage to the government.
Corporal (and capital) punishment was used in aboriginal lore.
Your “white knows best” comment reeks of moral relativism. And while I’m not a moral realist you’d be pushing shit uphill to win an argument against individual rights.
You are misinformed. There are about 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit to every 1 degree Celsius. Or a change of 10°C is a change of 18°F
Anyone but I don’t think it would affect anyone but first Australians. I think everyone in Australia deserves the same rights. Having a seperate or parallel legal system/government doesn’t seem like a good idea. What if they have some backwards ideas on the rights of women, the lgbt or on corporal punishment.
To be fair I haven’t looked to see how it works in other countries with the similar First Nations issues, but the Indian Reservation system in the US doesn’t seem like something to copy.
The argument that they never conceded defeat doesn’t hold much water with me; it was an assimilation that’s not how that works.
I’m voting yes because I don’t want to empower the subset of “No” voters who will take a “no” win as a sign that Australia approves of their racism views and become a louder voice in political discussion.
But I don’t believe the voice to parliament will be useful in anyway or something we want to lock into our constitution till the end of time.
I’m open to civil discussion with anyone here to convince we the voice to parliament is actually a good thing. Or indigenous sovereignty in general. Not convinced in that either.
Dudes locked in for another 2-3 years on a senators salary and work expectations. He isn’t going to quit out of allegations that don’t rise to the criminal level. Especially since he’s going to be unemployable after this.
Thanks. I hadn't seen your message, but I did come to the same conclusion. I do honestly want to have my mind changed. It seems to be the progressive stance, but I cant see any upside and there is plenty of downside.