Yes. May be not create but fuel existing one. In this moment racists can base their views only on their own prejudges (hard core one may use some pseudoscience to base their believes , but they are beyond redemption). Special treatment even without any real power will give some creditability to arguments like. "These guys using their status to stole our taxes" and shit like that. If only referendum was about giving special voice to disadvantaged comminutes, a kind of political shortcut it will be way more palatable with pretty much same effect.
TheHolm
joined 2 years ago
I guess we reach to root of our disparagement. I do not accept racism in any form. You seem accept it as method of fixing old wrong doing. Dixi.
It may be a point but it uses unacceptable methods. If voice was about , "let's give any deprived people more voice" ( and define how it is actually will work) i would vote yes.
Any differential treatment which mention race is racist, by definition. Even it intended to To. Make. The. Playing. Field. Level." but i fail to see how it can be in this case.
Sorry. I have explained it other thread of this discussion. Make them special will give everyone who discriminate them are real "constitutional" reason to do so, which will will hurt average guy. Been "special" only good if you hold power. Plus I have doubt that "the voices" will be voice of average guy, not some Aboriginal elite, but this is my pure speculation.
He is absolutely fantastic.
I did many times. Referendum was about First nation which is race. It make it racist, you can't interpreter it in any other way.
It is about giving special voice to first nation which is race. It is clear as day.
Your main one seems to be that this was somehow racist when the whole point of it was to counter centuries old, ingrained racism. My point that you can't counter racism with racism.
But it usably getting dry over time and you can't remove it cleanly.
We have different dictionaries. From Webster: