Sounds like it was a protest not a hate rally as the no campaign are making it out to be. It wasn’t even an explicitly pro yes protest. Looks like they were protesting against racism and fracking, as is their democratic right.
Do we really want the opposing sides protesting the other side’s events? Tensions are high enough now. Wait until a bunch of idiots start throwing punches.
They weren’t from the yes campaign. If anything I’d say they’re likely progressive no voters - but that’s just my assumption.
It was a socialist alternative protest not unlike something you’d see most days on your typical university campus.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has condemned the actions of protesters outside a major No campaign event in Adelaide, calling for a respectful debate.
About 20 protesters gathered outside the Adelaide Convention Centre on Monday night holding signs reading “fight racism” and “no pride in genocide” while chanting “always was, always will be, Aboriginal land”.
South Australian Liberal Senator Alex Antic posted a video to social media platform X (formerly Twitter) which appeared to show him being heckled by the crowd.
At least one person could be heard yelling abusive phrases as Senator Antic walked past, including the word “racist”.
“I’ve never persuaded anyone by calling them names, so it’s crazy stuff, and I certainly don’t think it reflects where the majority of Australians are at in the course of this debate.”
Coalition Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price told about 1,000 attendees of the event that Indigenous supporters of the No campaign were being singled out for their stance against the Voice.
The original article contains 440 words, the summary contains 152 words. Saved 65%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
yelling abusive phrases as Senator Antic walked past, including the word “racist”.
Strange to single that out as abusive - the word could only be abusive if it were uttered abusively, otherwise that’s a redundant bit of detail.
I love how giving specific powers to a specific race within the constitution is anything but racism. Sounds almost like the textbook definition of racism to me but what do i know.
Apparently not a lot, considering actual race based powers have been in the constitution since its inception.
The foundation of the Australian colony is predicated on the notion that Indigenous People are not real humans and therefore the land was unoccupied.
Most where removed currently there are only 2 sections that mention race that being section 25 and section 51. Section 25 prohibits a state from considering a race prevented from voting as part of their population (this was to encourage states not to discriminate but with our mandatory voting seems kinda irrelevent). Section 51 grants the commonwealth the ability to make laws about specific races. So as of current nothing in the constitution grants a race specifi powers it simply grants the government the ability to govern race.
Why do you think 51(xxvi) was created?
For the white Australia policy there was a referendum in 19 something that removed indigenous peoples exception
Yes, so there we have it. The white race has historically held exclusive powers within the constitution. An Indigenous Voice, on the other hand, would have no such power. If you want to cry about racism, you should start with white Australians, rather than the most disadvantaged minority group in the country.
Historically being the key word their we realised our mistakes and became a better nation because of it. Also ur missing the fundamental understanding that causation is not correlation. By saying what you said your are implying they are disadvantaged because of their race. Historically they where seen as lesser because of their race that has been abolished for very good reason. However the historical president has set many up for failure this has been carried forward through many things like intergenerational wealth inequality etc. By solving a problem for a specific race we are not solving the underlying issue that not all people have equality we are solving a subset of that issue and only addressing disadvantaged people contingent upon their race. If you think they white Australia policy was a mistake as you should how can u stand by as we separate the nation based upon nothing but race?
I still don’t think you understand the concept of the voice. It’s not there to end the disadvantage of Indigenous Australians.
It’s there to recognise that they are the traditional owners of this land and that we want them to help us to move forwards together. For over 60000 years they took care of this land and developed their way of life. At the end of the 18th Century, only ~200 years ago this effectively ended. Non-indigenous Australians aren’t expected to pack up and move to Europe, and it’s unfair to demand that Indigenous Australians give up their culture. The Voice will be a step in the right direction along a joint path
Edit: Clarity
Of which powers do you speak?
There is nothing in the proposal that says the body will have any power whatsoever. It can’t propose bills. It can’t veto bills. All it can do is draw attention to matters that will specifically impact First Nation peoples.
Ok so if its powerless then its pointless and a waste of taxpayer money. If its not powerless then its exactly as i said. So which one is it? How is it not racist to have a body as part of government that requires u have a particular race to be a part of.
It is a step. The first step towards a reconciliation and hopefully a treaty between First Australian and the new Australians who have come in the past 250 years.
Because it is to be constitutionally recognised, the body cannot be dissolved by some future government. If and when we reach a treaty, the body will exist to represent the diverse Aboriginal peoples around the nation.
So we should scrap all the other 20+ advisory panels with the same “powers” such as the landlords one, and the big business one?
Yes lol. Half the reason this country is deteriorating is because big business is calling the shots, and the state of our property market is well trodden ground.
Are any of them in the constitution?
I will not remove this comment, however, this argument is tired and has been rejected time and time again. It’s just wrong. In fact I would go so far as to say misinformation.
As has been stated by other users the alteration actually gives no power to Indigenous Australians that they don’t already have:
Chapter IX Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples
129 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice
In recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia:
there shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice; the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to the Parliament and the Executive Government of the Commonwealth on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples; the Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, including its composition, functions, powers and procedures.
I forgot to mention it in the post because Dale wouldn’t have picked up that this article was about the voice but we do have a megathread where this has been brought up before. If it becomes apparent that you are engaging in bad faith there will be further action taken.
I dont believe im engaging in bad faith if i am i would be more than happy for you to explain how
is this one of the arguments you got from that pro-putin cooker who is organising ‘NO’ protests?
No this is the argument that any lines drawn by race are inertly racist. I have no idea who this pro putin cooker is but putin is genociding the Ukrainian people which is also racist.
