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

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

  • JustSomePerson@kbin.social
    64·
    9 months ago

    There was absolutely no reason to vote no to this.

    Of course there was. Enshrining different rights to different people in the constitution based on their race, is fundamentally objectionable.

    • ravenford@startrek.website
      3·
      9 months ago

      Like enshrining the position of head of state as being the next in line for a particular family who are born & live on the other side of the world?

      • Welt@lazysoci.al
        2·
        9 months ago

        For the love of democracy let’s not fuck that one up again next time it comes around. Based on yesterday the next PM may well be one of our most evil statesmen around. I think the ARM is planning for a 2027 republican referendum… please let’s not elect a skilled reactionary to lead our country when the time comes.

      • JustSomePerson@kbin.social
        12·
        9 months ago

        That is entirely irrelevant. “The king exists, therefore the constitution should give different rights to regular people based on their race”. Disgusting argument.

        • ravenford@startrek.website
          1·
          9 months ago

          Im pointing out the hypocrisy, not providing an endorsement of monarchy. The Australian constitution has an original sin baked in, so pretending it’s a sacred document and not already a biased setup is naive.

          • JustSomePerson@kbin.social
            11·
            9 months ago

            Nobody is proving an endorsement of monarchy. You’re using monarchy as an argument for adding (additional) racism to the constitution. It’s a fucking stupid argument. “One thing is bad, therefore it is not a problem to make other things worse too.”

            If something has a flaw (monarchy) that’s not a reason to make it worse (enshrine racially based representation).

            • ravenford@startrek.website
              1·
              9 months ago

              There was absolutely no reason to vote no to this.

              Of course there was. Enshrining different rights to different people in the constitution based on their race, is fundamentally objectionable.

              Your words. I’m simply pointing out the hypocrisy nothing further. The constitution is already in the state you say is fundamentally objectionable, it is not a neutral, equal set of laws. But you draw the line here, when advantage is already enshrined one way. Funny that.

              You’re pretty rude and divisive in your comments here, you can take negativity too far you know.

      • JustSomePerson@kbin.social
        11·
        9 months ago

        Everybody should have the same right to be heard. Different people having different rights to be heard, based on their race, is absolutely objectionable. And racist.

        • Anchorite@lemm.ee
          1·
          9 months ago

          You’re looking at a set of unequal scales and saying they should be equal, while refusing to place more weight onto either side…

          • JustSomePerson@kbin.social
            1·
            9 months ago

            Enshrining racial differences in the constitution is absolutely disgusting, no matter how good your intentions are.