Resistance to colonisation has rarely been polite. The senator asked questions Aboriginal people are still waiting – after two centuries – to get the answers to
The reasons I saw from the no campaign were 1. Unclear wording in the constitution 2. Bringing race into the constitution (either for all or none) 3. Lack of explanation as to how the changes, again to our constitution, would tangibly “close the gap”. I largely blame labour for it failing. Plenty of nos could have been yes if the campaign was more clear and informative imo but I don’t doubt racism played its part. Blaming it exclusively on racism and political apathy is disingenuous and certainly won’t inform people nor change their minds.
I feel like you could have sought out all that information though… So that’s not “reason” (which is what I said) - that’s you having further questions you could have answered with google, looking into it, and asking around the yes campaign.
Sounds like you fell for the no campaign and were just too lazy to give things a second thought.
P.S The constitution already contains stuff about “race” and identifies Aboriginal Australians as distinct from people who came here. It’s always had race in it …hence your argument that it “will bring race into the constitution” - is again just you not questioning the no campaign.
People being lazy and not bothering to find shit out isn’t the same as “having a reason” to vote no. It IS a reason a lot of people voted no, but that’s not the same as having had a legitimate reason to.
I’m providing some of the reasons I’ve read or heard from the campaign. Not that I support them or their validity. Regardless of whether people “could” have sought it out if labour wanting to put forward these changes the onus is on them address all the “concerns” either directly or by be being more informative in their campaign.
Which is all an aside, my point remains there were other reasons people didn’t vote yes contrary to what the writer of the article asserted.
Cool, but yeah, I do think modern western government are struggling to get messages out in the digital age of media consumption. People don’t have to go look for info, and often don’t care to, so they get bubbled in their own algorithms.
Agreed, even worse is algorithms continual boosting of “ragebait” or emotion centred content. Why read/watch an article that will “just” be informative when you can watch something claiming how any step forward means you’ll lose something.
They didn’t refuse to answer, and some of the questions were designed to derail the effort, such as “Define Aboriginality” when that’s not in the purview of the Australian government (just like define britishness wouldn’t be), the Australian government can only (in a parliamentary setting where the questions were tabled) define Australian, and only do so in legal terms.
The reasonable questions were answered, such as “Would it be a decision making body” the answer being no, it was an advisory body.
But yeah, that the Liberal party wanted to play party politics with the good will and unity of the Australian people and the desire to settle historical and cultural divisions isn’t surprising and isn’t the win you think it is.
It’s just another sign they’re not responsible, and not fit to be in a leadership position that requires unity and good will, not attempts to derail the country by plunging it into culture wars.
The campaign was plenty clear. People just didn’t want to hear it. “Don’t know, vote no” worked, even though the right response to “don’t know” is “do a modicum of fucking research”.
The reasons I saw from the no campaign were 1. Unclear wording in the constitution 2. Bringing race into the constitution (either for all or none) 3. Lack of explanation as to how the changes, again to our constitution, would tangibly “close the gap”. I largely blame labour for it failing. Plenty of nos could have been yes if the campaign was more clear and informative imo but I don’t doubt racism played its part. Blaming it exclusively on racism and political apathy is disingenuous and certainly won’t inform people nor change their minds.
I feel like you could have sought out all that information though… So that’s not “reason” (which is what I said) - that’s you having further questions you could have answered with google, looking into it, and asking around the yes campaign.
Sounds like you fell for the no campaign and were just too lazy to give things a second thought.
P.S The constitution already contains stuff about “race” and identifies Aboriginal Australians as distinct from people who came here. It’s always had race in it …hence your argument that it “will bring race into the constitution” - is again just you not questioning the no campaign.
People being lazy and not bothering to find shit out isn’t the same as “having a reason” to vote no. It IS a reason a lot of people voted no, but that’s not the same as having had a legitimate reason to.
I’m providing some of the reasons I’ve read or heard from the campaign. Not that I support them or their validity. Regardless of whether people “could” have sought it out if labour wanting to put forward these changes the onus is on them address all the “concerns” either directly or by be being more informative in their campaign.
Which is all an aside, my point remains there were other reasons people didn’t vote yes contrary to what the writer of the article asserted.
Cool, but yeah, I do think modern western government are struggling to get messages out in the digital age of media consumption. People don’t have to go look for info, and often don’t care to, so they get bubbled in their own algorithms.
Agreed, even worse is algorithms continual boosting of “ragebait” or emotion centred content. Why read/watch an article that will “just” be informative when you can watch something claiming how any step forward means you’ll lose something.
The Liberal party literally wrote all their questions to the Yes campaign and they refused to answer any of them.
They didn’t refuse to answer, and some of the questions were designed to derail the effort, such as “Define Aboriginality” when that’s not in the purview of the Australian government (just like define britishness wouldn’t be), the Australian government can only (in a parliamentary setting where the questions were tabled) define Australian, and only do so in legal terms.
The reasonable questions were answered, such as “Would it be a decision making body” the answer being no, it was an advisory body.
But yeah, that the Liberal party wanted to play party politics with the good will and unity of the Australian people and the desire to settle historical and cultural divisions isn’t surprising and isn’t the win you think it is.
It’s just another sign they’re not responsible, and not fit to be in a leadership position that requires unity and good will, not attempts to derail the country by plunging it into culture wars.
https://www.crikey.com.au/2023/01/10/peter-dutton-letter-indigenous-voice-parliament/
The campaign was plenty clear. People just didn’t want to hear it. “Don’t know, vote no” worked, even though the right response to “don’t know” is “do a modicum of fucking research”.