Justice & Equality

A tragic lost opportunity. Why didn't those proposing the voice make changes to remove ambiguity and eliminated enough of the negative perception to win over enough support instead of simply declaring" "No, if that is how you see it you are either racist or stupid!" Was it just that there was no willingness to listen? Australians had an opportunity in a constitutional referendum to righteously shout loudly "I am not a racist" by voting for a proposition that, at its core, could be seen as fundamentally flawed, divisive and even potentially racist, in the hope even a risk of moving in the direction of apartheid is still better than nothing. The referendum resulted in a huge setback for action on indigenous disadvantage and while it did seem unlikely to do anything to unify Australians and offer more than some possible affirmative action, the division resulted with even sometimes "yes" voters being encouraged to also be racist. This is a deeper look trying to see each side from the perspective of the other, with the reality that both sides had a point, and a vast majority of people do want equality and unity. Perhaps it little more work could bring things …

A quick internet search with the keywords 'lead crime' in the search bar will reveal many articles which all propose that lead pollution in the air caused a dramatic increase in violent crime. Any victim of violent crime in affected locations has a right to feel disturbed by this, but what about perpetrators of violent crime, and should society share the guilt?

Around the world, many countries have both a battle with equality for some racial groups and minorities and also a battle with crime-rates within and by those same groups. Should we consider crime rates the real sentinels of problems and a solution require focusing on factors behind crime rates? Or is the correct response to rising crime rates or crime rates within specific groups an adoption of being "tough on crime", thus increasing rates of incarceration and even deaths in custody for oppressed minorities and racial groups? This is an exploration of not adjusting the level of penalties and instead focusing on the core issues and inequalities behind crime-rates. It is clear that it is "damaged people" in general rather than specific racial groups that correlate with elevated crime rates, so why not use crime rates to identify who is facing inequality?