Brian Ross wrote on Sep 2
nd, 2018 at 7:58pm:
Frank wrote on Sep 1
st, 2018 at 7:32pm:
Of course they were recognised as human being, you hyperbolic, unmoored looney.
To recognise just how far back they have been and many still are is not wacism. Why is there special treatment of them if they are not a different ckkass of people?
Then, Soren, why weren't they counted in the national census? Why were they denied citizenship until 1967? Why were they denied the rights that every citizen enjoyed? Why did they have their wages stolen? Why did they have their children stolen? Why did they have their land stolen? Why were some treated as virtual slaves by the colonists? Hardly the way a civilised nation acts towards people who are considered "human beings" legally and morally. Tsk, tsk. Just more examples of that superior culture, I suppose, innit?
Because you are an idiot, Bwian. A simple, addled old fool.
Experts told Fact Check that the referendum involved "dry" technical amendments to the constitution relating to Indigenous Australians.
As these were difficult to explain in a campaign-friendly way, campaigners for a yes vote instead pushed the idea of equal rights and justice for Aboriginal people.
The hugely successful referendum was thereby imbued with a symbolism that further enriched the conditions for the myth to take root; that before the constitution was amended, Indigenous Australians were classified according to a flora and fauna act — a completely incorrect conclusion.
...
Section 51 (xxvi) was altered and section 127 was deleted. More than 90 per cent of the nation and a majority in all states voted yes.
Before the referendum, the Commonwealth could not make special laws for Aboriginal people (except in the territories) because they were governed by state laws.
Removing a reference to Aboriginal people in section 51 (xxvi) meant the Commonwealth gained the power to make special laws for Aboriginal people.
Constitutional law expert Professor Anne Twomey, in a 2017 opinion article in The Australian, cited native title laws as an example of this.
Meanwhile, section 127 of the constitution had excluded Aboriginal people from being counted for constitutional purposes; they were not included in the populations of states and territories for the purposes of allocating federal seats in Parliament.
Nor were they counted for the purposes of calculating certain Commonwealth grants. The removal of section 127 allowed Aboriginal people to be counted for these purposes.
Professor Twomey noted that this did not prevent Aboriginal people from being counted for other purposes — they were counted in the first Commonwealth census in 1911 (except in remote areas).
Also, by 1967, Indigenous Australians were already able to vote in federal and state elections.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-03-20/fact-check-flora-and-fauna-1967-referendum/9550650