Frankly, I’ve had it with being soft on conservatives. they’re overwhelmingly uninformed and aggressive. Thankfully they’re also stupid; trawl their social media and it’s easy to target and damage/destroy their employment/business and personal relationships just using opinions they post themselves. Start the social engineering. it’s great fun when they break, leverage those male suicide rates in Australia. bullying neo-cons is easy af. it’s not systemic change but you can clear them out of your local community, be relentless, it’s not illegal.
EDIT: why am i a mod?
Might be time to introduce that “no lying on election material” piece that we’ve been missing.
How do you enforce that? At best you have an inquiry that reports days/weeks/months later and the damage has been done and is considered old news. In any case, you’ll have the pollies inserting a grain of truth into their lies and rules lawyering the rest. It may harm truth-telling because a government/political party has a lot more means to shut down a conversation that an individual or even a community group.
A better solution would be more transparent political finance reporting laws, but even that is likely to be a temporary measure. Political parties will always find the loopholes. To misquote Keating, never get between a politician and a bag of money. It’s still worth pursuing.
Through the AEC and the courts. Zali Steggall had a bill ready to go: https://assets.nationbuilder.com/brains/pages/936/attachments/original/1669687880/Commonwealth_Electoral_Amendment_(Stop_the_Lies)_FAQs.pdf?1669687880
Personally I don’t think the consequences are hard enough (don’t publish further, might have to require a correction, might have to pay a fine).
Absolutely agree campaign financing also needs to be looked at though.
Political parties will wear a $10k fine. A good lie is worth millions to them especially if they win govt.
Political speech is way too nuanced to be restricted by legislation of this kind. Was The Voice proposal racist? It depends. Yes says no. No says yes. Both sides can be right and wrong. Is TUSotH one page or eighteen? Were we voting on just the Voice or Voice, Truth, and Treaty? Depending on who/where you ask you’ll get different answers. There are very few absolute right and absolute wrongs in politics. Even the ‘fact checkers’ got it wrong on occasion during the campaign. The referendum would be an even bigger shitshow, with finger pointing and accusations flying, if political speech was deemed wrong and penalised.
I live in a country where similar laws already exist and the govt uses it to shut down speech it finds (rightly or wrongly) objectionable. It often does this by finding a minutia of perceived incorrectness and forcing the publishers to retract and apologise under the penalty of fines and publishing bans. It’s chilling.
I don’t think there is a path forward. Not for another generation or so anyways.
Constitutional recognition seems pretty much dead. There have been predictions made already that such widespread rejection of what was a very safe, conservative-friendly, good faith proposal from Indigenous activists will cause many to give up on this approach and shift further towards the tactics used by Thorpe and the Blak Sovereign Movement. They obviously have even less chance of succeeding within the current political and social climate, so it may take some time for any progress to be made at a national level.
That’s pretty much what Noel Pearson was saying a few days before the vote. I don’t really blame them. Australia just overwhelmingly rejected a very modest invitation for reconciliation, I don’t really see what else Indigenous leaders can do. It’s still worthwhile to fight for treaty and truth. But voice was kind of the easier option of the 3, so the other 2 are going to be very difficult.
Yeah, I suspect some of that generation of Indigenous activists will step back now. They’ve been at this for decades, making more and more concessions to try to get bipartisan support and have ultimately been betrayed at the final hour by the Coalition. Must feel pretty soul destroying.
not sure about generation but 1 or 2 election cycles for sure. this is the main problem with the outcome, it will be presented as a rejection of action and not of the voice itself. I would like to see the case from both major parties for what next, they both have said they have a plan so let’s hear it
Constitutional change isn’t on the cards, not in the near future. We’re not doing another referendum. Dutton fucked up when he said he would support one on just constitutional recognition alone because the conservatives do not support it. Sure, the government can legislate a voice but there’s always a chance that it will be dismantled like every other advisory group - that’s why it needed to be enshrined in the constitution. I think there’s more that can be achieved for voice and treaty now at the state level. That might even be more effective because states are responsible for health, education, child protection and justice, which are all areas that can be aligned to the close the gap outcomes. I would support a federal treaty process, hands down, but I’m sceptical that the majority of Australia will.
