• MüThyme@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    29
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    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 One, it stops it being repealed by the opposition who have a history of that sort of thing, thus it won’t be limited to the term of a specific government.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
      26
      ·
      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.