this post was submitted on 14 Oct 2023
148 points (98.1% liked)

World News

32290 readers
792 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

The constitution currently allows for laws,to be specifically made about ATSI people. I didn’t see any of the people worried about inequality protesting that. Ever.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Not specifically about ATSI people, but of any race. The 'races power' part of the Constitution (section 51(xxvi)) reads as follows:

Current text:
The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to:
"the people of any race for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws"

Original text:
The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to:
"the people of any race, other than the aboriginal race in any State, for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws"

https://www.ausconstitution.org/home/chapter-1-the-parliament/part-v-powers-of-the-parliament/section-51/26-race-power

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Yes, as ATSI people arent currently recognized in the constitution. In practice, it's only used to target them.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I was not talking about legality.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That’s odd, as your first sentence talks about laws. Maybe you said something you didn’t mean.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

One can talk about laws and yet not discuss their legality, but their morality.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yes, one can. You however were comparing comparison under laws, which is speaking about legalities. You were incorrect. Doubling down just makes it clear you are not discussing in good faith, but have been caught in a lie.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

No, I do not know how you get this impression. Please reread my posts. I was talking about what laws should be for good society, not what can or can not be allowed legally.