60
Secretive firm behind voice no campaign billed taxpayers almost $135,000 via Coalition MPs, documents show (www.theguardian.com)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/australia@aussie.zone
24 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

Ah, 'race', always dangerous ground to take the discussion to.

The constitutional change wasn't about 'race'. It was about giving a group of people with a similar context an irrevocable minimum base of contact for the wider community to engage with, and build upon.

I don't know that calling all aboriginal australians a single race is well thought out. I defer to 'nations'. The important distinctions between people, especially where policy decisions are concerned, are their contextual groupings, not ambiguous 'racial' groups. This is demonstrated in no better place than the population of Australia, we are many races, and they aren't what defines an 'Australian'.

To say one group in a society, who is identified as having particular impediments to their prosperity, getting particular attention is anti-equality means you misunderstand the point of the Australian, and Western, model of social welfare states. Instead of demanding equality for all, which has been tried and failed through many different types of governance structures its more practical to demand minimum standards for all. And thats really what we attempt to do in Australia, we equalise to a minimum standard. If you want more, go for gold.

Your comment reflects a confusion about the 'apples to apples' comparison, (say white to black) but the focus on race is the comments problem. So far as you can ever distinguish a specific 'race'.

The real 'apples to apples' comparison is with other contextual groupings of people in Australian society who do, or do not get much attention from the government. These groupings are diverse and overlapping they include, disabled people, the oil and gas industry, farmers, immigrants, Tasmanians, retail workers, retailers, the Swedish diaspora. These are all groups of people based on all sorts of significant contextual and cultural, geographical characteristics that aren't based on the ambiguous term race.

Read the calma langton report, and you'll see their approach to a Voice representative body never treated the Aboriginal people of Australia as a single entity. They have a plan for a broad spectrum of geographic and nation based representation.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    race /rās/ noun

    1. A group of people identified as distinct from other groups because of supposed physical or genetic traits shared by the group. Most biologists and anthropologists do not recognize race as a biologically valid classification, in part because there is more genetic variation within groups than between them.
    2. A group of people united or classified together on the basis of common history, nationality, or geographic distribution.

    Im pretty sure the definition of race covers exactly what u described.

    Still even using your language i disgree with giving a specific group of people an irrovocable anything of power with the only prerequsite being that u are of that specific group.

    Sure give disadvantaged a represntative voice but u really need to be carefull with making something irravocable eg the americans where given irravocable guns to fight the british and now they have to live with the consequences of that decision.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago

    I'm happy you've looked up the definition of race. My comment was about your use, not the definition.

    Now we are on the same page, i'm sure you can see that the use of the word 'race' didn't meaningfully capture the kind of group we're talking about.

    Unfortunately you've applied my use of the word irrevocable too broadly. Fair enough there was no explicit mention of group. I was inferring the ability of Parliament to remove without replacement, not the general populace, who always have the referendum option for constitutional change open. We had previously discussed the need for parliamentry restraint as a key reason for the Voice, therefore i didn't feel a need to re-establish the notion. Nonetheless, now we understand each other on that point also.

    Your last point is good, and i largely agree with the sentiment. The problem with the US constitutional example is that its not an example of an irrevocable law, and no law should be thought as irrrevocable in the broad sense. They could and probably should amend their constitution.

    Lack of gun reform in the US is actually a problem of their legal and political systems losing the essence that makes the Western legal system strong. Our legal systems are supposed to slowly react with the changing world, be it a local Magistrate interpretting common law, or the Constitution, these legal instruments are built as changeable entities. Because as you rightly point out nothing can be truly irrevocable. (And this is why i am personally worried about the increasing codification of laws, like the police assault offences i highlighted earlier).

    With my clarification of parliament being unable to revoke a Voice power, i hope you understand the misunderstanding between our positions.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent