Its mostly about were you can fight kangoroos and how to protect against drop bears.

y'know, good news, we did write it down and you can look it up

@@TalenLee that is shocking information. I think if that information spreads world peace may happen.

@@TalenLee*proceeds to search “Australia Constitution” in ao3* I’m sorry that this is the first thing that popped in my head.

you don't. it's mega boring. it's mostly legal jargon regarding parliamentary processes , the senate, and the handling of giant spiders in bathrooms. the US constitution is only fun because of the amendments and we ain't got those.

*_(Inserts the Starship Troopers "I'm doing my part!" scene here)_*

I'm too lazy, someone please explain it in the comments

Edumacatuon!

Not before time

​@genericname2747 there essentially is none. The parliament does what it wants with a bunch of snooty processes that do nothing

If you see a person who is entrenching their political views around the constitution, 9/10 you can troll them by quoting the constitution.

I mean hey, americans get enough shit, the least we can do is remember our constitution lol

@@xerpenta If it's written it's scripture, and if it's scripture they probably don't know it as well as they think they do or merely cherrypick it. You can always break them. Religious or political.

even most americans, what they know about the constitution is actually the bill of rights, which is still very important.

@@romegypt5675 Unless they had to take the citizenship test are or really interested in their rights, no american knows what stuff comes from where lmao

All I know about the Canadian constitution is that Québec never signed it. Which is an interesting historical fact, but kinda irrelevant 😅. EDIT: Oh. Right. As others mentioned below, what the Americans and apparently Australians call their "constitution" is their equivalent to the Canadian charter of rights and freedoms, which we do care about a lot. And said Charter was sanctioned as part of the constitutional act. That sure wasn't my brightest moment.

@@DominoPivot I'd say also that the charter or rights and freedoms is the most relevant legal document we have, because that's where a lot of our freedoms are enshrined rather than the constitution. We go hard for charters in Canada XD

YES. CONSTANTLY. When I was a Barista during covid people ALWAYS referenced it.

@@purpleghost106 Oh right. See, we use the word "constitution" so little that it completely escaped my mind that... the charter of rights was sanctioned as part of the constitutional act. So it would be right to say that is very much is our equivalent of the US constitution. I am a fool 🤦‍♀

not likely when Australia imports conservatism direct from the US… like literally Republican advisors to help the Liberals get elected by using divide and conquer, evangelism and conspiracy theories and frickin qanon with our former prime minister, and letting American colonial racism reinforce our own ugly legacy. what’s with the imported transphobia and homophobia suddenly making our queer events close down from bomb threats? America again. Covid deniers and wannabe coup agitators? goddamn American conservatives. organising the No vote with half-arsed racist conspiracies and constitution myths? Americans. Fuckin hell. We really are the stupidest country.

course, when it's one sided love like this bro Darren's, we gotta get her support and tell that fucker Darren that he needs to work on his communication skills. Listening/reading comprehension are essential in all relationships... especially with legally binding documents

Well technically Federal legislation is only part of the constitution. There’s also the Judiciary and the Executive. The true love is only between that man and one part of the consitution

…it wasn’t even a Referendum, it was a Plebiscite 😭 an expensive opinion poll…

@@tkmry158 At least it did lead to actual change. I was pretty annoyed with the plebiscite as an idea as well - whole lot of money for an answer that wasn't binding. But at least it did work.

@@AxelSpinnet for me, it meant I could go to my sister’s wedding the following year :))

while optional, it by law forces the gov to debate it in federal chambers thats what a Plebiscite is which is y it had weight because we got to see more facts & how they did/didnt care also forced there hand to debate it, they could of stone walled the descution otherwise it also put pressure on who was in party because when 80% come back as yes you know & we all know what the ppl want then, no argument from them lol

@@tkmry158also fun fact it is so named because we, the plebs, get to have a say. Legit, pleb is Latin for common people, just like the derogatory term, plebeian.

I was watching this going "I'm glad we don't have a constitution...." then realised I am an idiot, because in my head a constitution needs to have been made by a bunch of white dudes in wigs in one room at one point in time that then sign it and...I'm pretty sure that's just the US bill of rights?? Of course *every* country has one. So, seconding this with a "thank you for teaching me what a constitution even is" (I did know a lot about it, though. I like laws. :D Language is where I'm apparently a moron!

So far the rupert murdoch media empire has been trying hard to sink the vote. They own most newspapers and stations here, it bloody sucks.

​@@ReichaNow I'm curious, which country are you from?

@@PuripuriDrawings Me too

So, it was denied.. and there are quite a number of people that the constitution was FOR that voted against because of how capitalist it was, as well as the fact that Australia is and was, a stolen country that only gives indigenous people 50% of what they deserve. No wonder why people outside only think of Aus through its very... white stereotypes and not its origin and culture

Just had to stop and say you have great taste

Niche and outrageous? I think this is a bit of a big thing in Australia...

Niche... because you don't know or care about it, because 'Merica? How outrageous

@@StartledOctopus "Niche" is a reference: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/eJuooapiu8y2Y3k.html

Code Monkey like yooooooou, a lot.

They're both written on paper

@@mirkwoodlodge And I'm pretty sure they have freedom of speech too

something about koalas or kookaburras or something too

@@BARBECUE_GUN No, just the americans

@@gwen9939 really?

That that thing. The voice is not about change. It's about white people patting themselves on the back

same!

Unfortunately it’s not a big enough change to actually give them a say, it’s a strictly advisatory role that will likely be ignored

@@richiescarf7993 It could still be a step in the right direction and show that the people want change

@@richiescarf7993 For their sake, I hope your wrong and hope this is just a step in the right direction for them to have a voice that is able to do something

There's always a comedy element to right-wing outrage, all you gotta do is just say the same thing they're saying but make the voice funny.

​@@gwen9939same is true of both sides

​@@matthewantonello5029Name a comedy element of left-wing outrage

​@@ErvoBut comedy doesn't exist on the left. Edit: the fact this has no upvotes shows that the left can't take a joke and proves my point.

What’s specifically crazy about it tho, it’s comedy about colonials being racist again.

Crash course- We are currently having a referendum to add something to our constitution. It’s basically a council made up of indigenous Australians that can have a say on laws that affect them, since there is currently some pretty sad statistics regarding equality in australia. It’s pretty similar to a system that New Zealand has already instituted. New Zealand politics are basically Australian politics but better

​@@schrodingersbraincell5861Oh hell no those assholes want to erase our treaty, terrible white supremacy in Nz

​@@schrodingersbraincell5861 That doesn't sound that bad actually. It makes total sense, at least the way you described it.

@@alu2901 the referendum was a great idea! Unfortunately it failed because we are a relatively racist country and also referendums are hard to pass

Tom plus creators like Sammy J, Randy feltface and *kinda* aunty Donna are the best our country have to offer 🙏

@@julesburke5996 friendlyjordies is up there too

You've got me reading this shit like it's the Cat of Bubastes; it is DENSE. But howdy, fellow Alaskan 🫎

They did not, in fact, let the people speak. 😮‍💨

It gosh darn better be 😂

Nickolas Cage at it again.

You're obsessed with Aussie politics?

@@user-gn1cl9ix7p yes i am 😄

​@@user-gn1cl9ix7pLol a lot of non Americans are obsessed with American politics, so what?

​@@unknowns78it's just so boring over here than anywhere else just a bunch of hyper religious nut jobs yelling at each other and monopolies tearing up more of the country to send it to china

@@unknowns78 They are? Our politics is basically Keeping Up With The Kardashians but in a formal setting. Why anyone would watch that trash is beyond me.

SO true. It's crazy to think about how catastrophic misinformation really is. We currently live in a time where all that information is available to us, yet we STILL mix stuff up. Imagine back in the day when information was passed via word of mouth.

the angriest people? oh, so the people who are the victims of racism & other bigotries and policies aren’t fucking angry? are you just referring to privileged folks? that’s who is listened to and counted as people with anger that needs taking notice of, anyway. the rest of us are just… idk, ignored. amazing that you say this on a song about First Nations rights.

@@snokful Whoa. Meta.

@@snokful Well, I can't speak for OP, but I think they were referring to the people the song itself was dogging on, misinformed privileged people. I was just thinking about how much worse it could be if we didn't have access to the vast sea of sources and information that we do today. That's not to say the situation is perfect now, far from it. It's just better than it was in the past.

Too be fair the “yes” voters still have zero idea why people point out that the voice referendum is absolute madness.

Have you actually read about the referendum? About what the "Voice of Australia" actually is? Its not an aboriginal representing aboriginal rights at federal level. Its an unknown number of seats, with undetermined powers, that will be apointed by the sitting government. "The Voice of the First Nation People" should be chosen by the people of the First Nation. Do research, Vote No.

​@@Brett1692 - Source: trust me mate I bet you can't even come up with a source when asked and expect everyone to just "dO tHeIr rEsEaRcH!!1!" like a fuckwit who blindly listens to their shitty facebook group

@foolishlyfoolhardy6004 but thats the point, they people who hold the seats wont be elected like current MPs, they will be appointed by the current sitting government. Meaning the white labour government decide who get the seats, and how many. Then when the white liberal government come to power, they will decide who holds the seats and how many, and there is no requirement for them to be of the first nation. The first nation should elect whoever holds it. Its a step in the right direction, but it doesnt mean its the right step

@AgentTasmania the actual proposal, can be easily found on the aec website 129 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice In recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia: there shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice; the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to the Parliament and the Executive Government of the Commonwealth on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples; the Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, including its composition, functions, powers and procedures. This last point is what im referring to, the government will get to decide who fills the position and what powers they will have. Thats not right

@AgentTasmania my only issue with this is that the voice of the first nation, should be elected by the first nation. Not the prime minister and his mates

Australians don't seem to care about indigenous children starving on our own land

I mean, the only things I know off the top of my head is that it defines NZ as a state (they were invited but ultimately chose not to join) and the '67 referendum (in addition to the counting them in the census) took the right to make racist laws about Aboriginal people away from the states and gave it to the Federal government, by striking out the exception that had previously existed.

THANK YOU i was listening to this like please i know that i know this song but i couldn't remember the name, it was driving me insane 😩

name one thing about it

Do you remember the second minute of this skit? What did it pertain to?

name one thing that this skit talked about or enshrined

It's about the australian constitution@@PALYER1REHAB

your mom@@honeycomb937

This made me laugh way more than it should have

@@BreaddShell I thought you were American?

Drives me mad that people think the UK has a right to freedom of speech, no we don't. We have a right to free expression granted through our membership of the European Court of Human Rights, but that's not full free speech.

@@Deiwos0 the High Court of Australia has actually determined that Australians do have a right to "freedom of political communication" implied by our constitution. Kind similar to, but nowhere near as broad as, American "freedom of speech".

​@@JimCullenwhich like, is way better, cos it means people don't assume hate speech falls under that

I'm from the Netherlands and we have freedom of speech (vrijheid van meningsuiting) as well so I just kinda assumed everybody had it. Surprises me to see UK doesn't.

@@soulangela7154 a quick Google Search that lead me to an official NL Govt website suggests that the Dutch understanding of freedom of speech is much closer to the UK or Australia than it is to the US. It says "a journalist may express an opinion concerning a particular religion in an article but may not use that article to incite hatred against followers of that religion". That's basically how it is in the UK and Aus. In the US, anything short of directly inciting _violence_ (not the same as "hatred") is permitted, under their very absolutist interpretation of free speech.

I mean you can't predict everything that the constitution would need to address, or how it will fit within a consistently changing social climate. So it makes sense that we'd be able to do that.

​@@kindred6453tell that to a 2A activist and they will unironically accuse you of treason. People have literally made the argument that the founders predicted fully automatic rifles because automatic weapons """""technically""""" existed (big ol finger quotes there. The main example I've seen used was the Puckle gun, even though it was never used in warfare and potentially as few as 2 were ever even made. Oh, also the little tiny insignificant fact that a Puckle gun isn't really comparable to a modern automatic rifle)

The Australian constitution is currently facing a referendum with the simple question: “A Proposed Law: to alter the Constitution to recognise the First Peoples of Australia by establishing an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice. Do you approve this proposed alteration?” It has significantly divided the population with major political players either pushing a yes vote or a no vote.

@@gusmather1564 thank you for the great explanation, much appreciated

@@gusmather1564 Meanwhile across the ditch in NZ we had the Treaty of Waitangi for that purpose literally over 140 years before we got a formal constitution in... *checks notes* 1986??? Wait, really? We were an independent country for nearly 140 years before we even laid out the laws determining how we govern ourselves? I guess we really did go "she'll be right mate"... I guess that's NZ for you, winging it since 1840. 🤣

​@@anthonyhovens7488I don't know the full story true behind why that law was made, but I'd been told once it was because the Māori were such badasses that the British conolisers wrote and officiated it quickly just so they wouldn't have to fight them anymore.

The consensus among progressive Australians is that we need to be taking more pages out of your book, especially regarding how we treat our First Nations people.

probably the magna carta, right?

lol that feels more like great great great grandma- like 90% of magna carta is about hunting and fishing rights @@invertin

I mean, the best argument for opposition is it unfairly gives indigenous people more influence in the government than normal australians. And the fact that is forces a 50/50 gender split, which naturally is at odds with actually finding the best candidates to represent people.

@@romegypt5675 What do you mean by "normal australians" in this context my guy?

​@@romegypt5675indigenous people are not normal?

@@romegypt5675 Except the Voice only gives them input into things that explicitly target Indigenous Australians, as a balance to the already frequently exercised governmental power to make race-based laws which has since Federation been used exclusively to make laws that restrict the rights and control the lives of Indigenous Australians. The 50/50 split is not at odds with the goal to have candidates that represent the occasionally gendered interests of both male and female Aborigines. Therefore the best argument for opposition to the Voice relies on ignoring the reality of the situation.

@@Dantyx1 I suppose he means the usual, typical or expected condition of someone who lives in Australia.

that's basically correct. If you wanna get a better feel for stuff like this you gotta avoid the Murdoch news and go for independent indigenous publications like the National Indigenous Times who cut through the smokescreen laid down by mostly white voices to give a much more clear view of how little the voice is actually asking for.

When I first heard about it, I was supportive, too. But the more I thought about it, the more problems I found with it. We don't know what the Voice is going to constitute, what it's going to look like. And, if we pass this, there's no guarantee that things will keep changing - this might be the ONLY step taken. Are you sure this is going to be THE step, and the right step? If we vote no, we can change things in the future, if we vote yes, we may not get that chance. A yes could mean absolute havoc, or it could mean absolutely nothing but a token affirmation. A no can be a "not yet"

@@jakeking3859 nah fuck that this is just the first baby step towards equality in this bloody country. The voice is clearly defined as an advisory body with no actual power to do anything but offer opinions on parlimentary topics, parliament literally can ignore them with no legal repurcussions. There's literally zero reason not to and if you've deluded yourself into believing the tripe places like sky news put out to try and sow doubt maybe you need to step back and use your brain

@@jakeking3859 'What if' bullshit like "there's no guarantee things will continue changing" is absolutely bullshit and absurd. Of course there's gonna be more opportunities. Progress begets progress, my dude.

@@OutbackCatgirl we have proof that that's not true: how many token black/gay/women hires are there who are still treated like trash in their workplaces, but "our workplace can't be racist/homophobic/misogynistic, look at (insert name here). And they love it here! Don't you love it here (insert name here, often pronounced wrong, as well)?" The sexist/racist jokes don't stop. The toxic work culture perpetuates. The sexual harassment continues. But "we've dealt with it all. If they didn't like it here, they'd leave." I am worried that if we vote 'yes', we're signing away a lot of freedoms that the indigenous population do currently enjoy, and tying them down to a constitution written by people who were not very kind to them, who wanted to wipe them out or enslave them. I'm worried that the people appointed will be unable or unwilling to cooperate with the members of their communities that wanted to vote NO, for very valid reasons. I'm worried that in voting 'yes', there will be more silencing. After all, it is only an advisory role they're being offered, and there's no guarantee that the advice offered will be listened to. While I agree that nothing can change if nothing is changed, I think we owe it to everybody involved to say yes to something we know the contents of, and can at least judge for ourselves what we imagine the outcomes to be. There are currently too many question marks for me to feel confident in this. Right now, this Voice is a blank slate, upon which anything can be put, and as far as we know, the people putting that together aren't the people who will be on this committee. How could they be, after all? They haven't been signed into the constitution yet. Don't you see how backwards that is? If I asked you to agree to having more responsibilities at work, but don't worry, I'll pay you for those extra tasks - but if you agree, you agree to whatever tasks and raises I give you, and if we want to rehash it again later, maybe we can, if I feel like it, you would be a fool to take that deal. This is that deal.

Can we not?

God you are the 3rd person I have had to correct on this. Yes they are amendments meaning they CAN be amended but the fact rest 10 amendments also known as the bill of rights were literally apart of the document from the start. Is our education system so bad that this basic concept that was drilled into me from 6th grade onward no longer taught?

@@exilestudios9546 I’m not American and feel like I’ve heard that, possibly from the Hamilton musical though lol

@@exilestudios9546 The Bill of Rights was initially devised as a compromise between Federalists and Anti-Federalists regarding the specific enumeration of rights within the Constitution. The Anti-Federalists wanted it as protection against government over-centralization and over-reach. The Constitution was ratified in 1788, while the Bill of Rights wasn't even formally written out until 1789 under the First Congress, with 10 of the 12 amendments being ratified in 1791 (proposals 3-12, which became amendments 1-10), and one in 1992 (proposal 2, which became amendment 27). It was understood that the amendments were going to be proposed in the First Congress, but they weren't part of the original constitution.

That's not radical Leftism, that's just typical dum**ss Leftism. You know who should be a protected class? Everyone or no one. Special treatment often paves ways into segregation and hatred.

Aussies have a mandatory referendum vote soon whether or not to amend the constitution to include Indigenous people in it, thus officially recognising them as having been here when the land was colonised. There are some people saying wE cAnT cHaNgE tHe CoNsTiTuTiOn but can't name a single fkn thing about it

@@stephe1506 ahh ok, thanks!

A collab between these two? God that would absolutely break the f*cking matrix

Talking about a people who don't even make up a percent of your population

Every American would have known about the amendment that gives us the right to mass shootings.

We know the vibe

I carry a pocket Constitution. It's our Congress that doesn't know (or care) what's in it.

@@Icemario87 lmfao

@@forgettablelisa mass shootings were invented in 1996. The Constitution was signed in 1776. 220 years of 0 mass shootings. fancy that.

I did stuff before where I had that oath to defend the US constitution... our constitution includes instructions on amending it and freedom of speech, so logically, defending the US constitution includes defending people's right to amend it via the stated procedures, and to trash talk it. 🦅*red-tailed hawk cry* Just don't go all National Treasure on it I guess.