The assertion by Jenny Macklin that the Coalition should line up behind the Government to support a Constitutional referendum to
acknowledge first Australians
has as much credibility as claiming that the Coalition should line up behind Labor to support the carbon tax.
It is entirely reasonable, and in fact democratic, to oppose such a referendum. Why should a Constitution acknowledge any group in society? It is supposed to represent Australia as a whole.
The proposed referendum would also be inconsistent
In January, an expert panel recommended that the Constitution be altered to remove racist sections and create power for the advancement of Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders and the protection of language and culture. It also called for a clause against racial discrimination.
Thus the referendum would at a stroke remove racist provisions and add them back.
The proposed referendum is divisive and should be opposed. All Australians, whether born here or overseas; whether their ancestors are Italian or Egyptian; or whether their ancestors have lived in Australia for generations should be equal under the Constitution. No group should be singled out for special mention: all groups have contributed to make Australia what it is today.
They don’t seem to have received the message that this is as dead as a dodo after a certain li’l fracas on Australia day.
FFS, give it rest, you stupid, sanctimonious plonkers.
Rabz
6 Jul 12 at 8:59 am
“and the protection of language and culture.”
Not to put too fine a point on it…..isn’t adherence to their failed cultural values in the 21st century the reason for the disaster that is Aboriginal society?
How about an amendment that aims to assimilate these people into the Western culture of success, otherwise tax money I should be spending fishing will be thrown at it in useless truckloads forever.
Alfonso
6 Jul 12 at 9:06 am
Typical of the left, scream for bi-partisanship when they put forward divisive legislation.
Token
6 Jul 12 at 9:13 am
How about a bill of rights?
Lysander Spooner
6 Jul 12 at 9:55 am
Did you read the Bolt case? Did you understand it? Obviously not. A bill of rights would give every disgruntled ratbag and group of ratbags licence to wreak havoc.
Why don’t people like you advocate a Bill of Responsibilities?
cohenite
6 Jul 12 at 10:00 am
‘Fighting racism by entrenching racism.’ Just how stupid is the Left.
Mind you, they have form on this with the Left advocating fighting gender discrimination by entrenching gender discrimation by imposing gender employment quotas and gender ‘balance’ in Board appointments.
(How come the femmonazis haven’t been arguing for Gina to be given a Fairfax directorship because she is a woman. Ohh yeah, Gina isn’t on Emily’s List.)
johno
6 Jul 12 at 10:02 am
And she has balls.
cohenite
6 Jul 12 at 10:12 am
How about a constitutional referendum to repeal the income tax?
Driftforge
6 Jul 12 at 10:26 am
Whatever the outcome, it will be bad for many (mainly in outstations and in the lumpenproletariat) of those descended from the Aborigines. If the amendment is passed, it will generate much ill-will towards all such descendants and reluctance to recognise the need for tax-payer funded assistance; if it fails, there will be much bitterness and hatred, which when manifested will produce the same reluctance.
Only Gillard’s gang could have promoted this.
rafiki
6 Jul 12 at 11:06 am
Just a subset of fighting discrimination by entrenching discrimination.
The responsiblity to discriminate has been taken from the community and assumed by the government.
Just one of the responsibilities we once held that we need to take back.
Driftforge
6 Jul 12 at 11:16 am
perhaps Sinc can run a competition to frame the question.
Here’s my suggestion:
‘do you agree that, while individuals of all races should be equal before the law (platitude, platitude), people of some races (provided they are ALP clients) should be more equal than others?’
Hint: if you say ‘no’, you’re a racist
any referendum proposed by this mob, regardless of its merits (none I can see in this case), would inevitably be a referendum about them so its bound to fail
larrikin
6 Jul 12 at 11:30 am
Recognise First Australians?
Which ones?
And it’s a racist idea, too.
This gets me steamed, the worst part is that none of these noddys seem to understand that elevation/promotion/favouritism on the basis of race is racism!!
kae
6 Jul 12 at 11:53 am
“and the protection of language and culture.”
Yeah, which language? There are supposed to be hundreds of aboriginal languages.
And about that culture…
kae
6 Jul 12 at 11:55 am
Grrr. Steams me.
kae
6 Jul 12 at 11:56 am
And has anything changed since?
kae
6 Jul 12 at 12:05 pm
Seriously… any proposal by this bunch of idiots has to rejected before any consideration is given to its merits.
Have they actually managed to do anything that hasn’t been a colossal fuckup? I’d be keeping them well away from the constitution.
duncan
6 Jul 12 at 12:09 pm
Libs have said before they’d support “recognition” in the constitution – indeed, Howard promised a referendum to do so (amazing isn’t it? Our second longest lasting “conservative” PM – who also introduced gun control, and promised an ETS!)
Abbott and Libs may be more worried about being labelled racist for opposing it, so we have to make sure they understand the grassroots position on this. If he genuinely supports it, he should of course say so… but when he supports stuff he doesn’t care for, because he thinks he “has to” – as he previously did with ETS – then it’s just a failure of leadership.
He came around on ETS (toppling Turnbull in the process). Let’s hope he comes around on this.
Fleeced
6 Jul 12 at 12:18 pm
Are there any “racist sections” in the Constitution? (I thought the prohibition on aboriginals voting etc was removed about ’67).
Can someone fill me in, (so to speak)?
Bill
6 Jul 12 at 12:26 pm
The RIGHTS TO A WIFE??!!?
Since when the hell did women become objects?!
Kae, this is complete and utter bullshit.
Winston SMITH
6 Jul 12 at 1:35 pm
Tribal society is totalitarian society.
The more we do to ‘respect’ Aboriginal culture the longer they will take to learn to live in ours, and the longer they will suffer.
jupes
6 Jul 12 at 1:41 pm
As an insight into the Left’s arguments here might be insightful into the government’s thought processes:
1. The laws in place to help Aboriginals are working – just not everywhere
2. It’s the greedy white folk, and ‘coconuts’, who are ruining it.
3. Conservatives are to blame, because the greedy white conservatives are forcing a once-proud warrior race to become right-wing consumers.
I shake my head at them…
Bela Bartok
6 Jul 12 at 3:20 pm
Now – with a free bumperticker!
“In the future, everyone will be a Hansonite for fifteen minutes”
– Bruce Warhol
sdog
7 Jul 12 at 9:13 am
Nothing in the way of a referendum will pass while ever this government is in power whether Abbott supports the question or not. Many referenda have failed in the past with both sides supporting the change. With a grossly unpopular government like the Gillard/Rudd/Shorten/Smith/Crean/whoever administration in power, no support from the Coalition would help. The aboriginal hierarchy would be better to wait a few years until things in general in Canberra are less on the nose with the populace at large.
davey street
7 Jul 12 at 5:28 pm
Imagine the disaster of a crusading alliance of “expert” White Aborigines and the current ALP front-bench? It would be the most disastrous political campaign in Australian history.
Peter Patton
7 Jul 12 at 5:34 pm
Didn’t they try this in 99? The referdum was for a preample that tried to fit in all the popular leftist ideologies of the time including specific mentions of: God, Aboriginals, and lets not forget ‘the enviroment’
mundi
8 Jul 12 at 1:56 pm
Actually the preamble was written by those well known far leftists, John Howard and Les Murray.
Peter Patton
8 Jul 12 at 6:15 pm