this post was submitted on 14 Oct 2023
323 points (97.1% liked)

World News

39032 readers
2458 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

With a two-letter word, Australians have struck down the first attempt at constitutional change in 24 years, major media outlets reported, a move experts say will inflict lasting damage on First Nations people and suspend any hopes of modernizing the nation’s founding document.

Early results from the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) suggested that most of the country’s 17.6 million registered voters had written No on their ballots, and CNN affiliates 9 News, Sky News and SBS all projected no path forward for the Yes campaign.

The proposal, to recognize Indigenous people in the constitution and create an Indigenous body to advise government on policies that affect them, needed a majority nationally and in four of six states to pass.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] dragonflyteaparty@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

From the article it seemed that a big criticism of the amendment was that it was too vague. There were people from different political beliefs and some aboriginals who didn't like how vague it was, though the aboriginals wanted it to further.

[–] ASeriesOfPoorChoices@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

That's because it was a constitutional amendment.

The legislation (details) that would come out afterwards has been out for 6-7 months now.

[–] ReverseThePolarity@aussie.zone 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm sorry. I did heaps of reading about this and I couldn't find any details. If it was out they did a terrible job of making it available.

[–] ASeriesOfPoorChoices@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Did you check Wikipedia?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_Voice_to_Parliament

(It's there, under "Structure and powers of the Voice")

[–] ReverseThePolarity@aussie.zone 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It even says in the Wikipedia article that they would design it after the referendum. They just had a couple of ideas about how it might work.

Now, that's not what they said, as much as you wish it.

[–] jagungal@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The Yes campaign did a shit job of publicising it though. I've consistently heard that people were told to educate themselves which is generally a bad way of getting someone to agree with you when the opposition is all to happy to fill in the gaps with disinformation. The fact that we are still telling people why the wording was vague should be enough to tell you that the Yes campaign failed.

There's quite a few things they did poorly, sure. Which is a shame, since they did everything else well.