The Necessity of Reparation for Historic Injustices
"What labor has proposed ? It’s not” labor’s “ voice to parliament."
well yeh, you're right... but it's labor that has largely fucked it up..
every time I see aboriginal YES advocates on TV, I think they are generally very honest, and forthcoming with information... endeavour to answer questions...
every time I see a labor representative, they are cagey as fuck... presenting a wall of obfuscation... full of shit...
they have fucked this up so much!
all their advisors should be sacked!
yesterday!
two months ago!!!
sypkan wrote:"...do you find dutton also is sincere towards aboriginals ?"
no
I think he is absolutely full of shit
but I still don't think he wants them to live in poverty
I don't believe for a minute his main motivation is to keep them in their place, as some would have you believe...
he is a law and order man... that brings certain 'beliefs' with it...
He had no problem locking up children , besides spending millions and millions doing it , blokes a dead set grub .
sypkan wrote:"What labor has proposed ? It’s not” labor’s “ voice to parliament."
well yeh, you're right... but it's labor that has largely fucked it up..
every time I see aboriginal YES advocates on TV, I think they are generally very honest, and forthcoming with information... endeavour to answer questions...
every time I see a labor representative, they are cagey as fuck... presenting a wall of obfuscation... full of shit...
they have fucked this up so much!
all their advisors should be sacked!
yesterday!
two months ago!!!
Someone on this thread suggested maybe labor never wanted it to succeed, I don’t believe that , I do believe they didn’t anticipate the level of shitfuckery the LNP & murdoch would stoop too . They underestimated how low can LNP go and thought it would breeze through . Shame that such a simple concept turned into what it is .
Hiccups wrote:sameaswas wrote:Hiccups wrote:burleigh wrote:Vote No. why didn’t Briggs mention this in his paid ad?
Briggs wasn't paid, you heinous bullshit artist.
oxford dictionary...heinous...utterly odious or wicked.
AB briggs aka king billy!! his lyrics are heinous.
and he is the darling of the yes23 campaign and idolised by fnp youth, ffs go and listen to his evil music videos, wake up to these narcisists don't give them any power.
Fuck off boomer. If you were an adult in 1956, you'd be clutching your pearls over Elvis on Ed Sullivan.
so i take it your a fan of king billy!! he who encourages fnp to baseball bat white ppl?
and a rabid yes supporter to boot as well, fat racist bigoted hate monger towards whitey.
Says the guy that calls em abos. This thread is nuts
@indo , not sure why you addressed me in your last post , anyway your main reason for voting no is because you don’t want it put into the constitution because if the voice body doesn’t work then we are stuck with it and it would take another referendum to remove it . You do realise the voice is an advisory body and it’s up to the parliament what it does with the advice ? If the voice gives shit advice and the government acts on it who do you blame ? You have said a voice won’t work from the very beginning, is that because you believe FNP are incapable of knowing what works best for them ? Have you ever come across a rich parent that all they ever did was throw money at their child thinking that’s what they wanted and needed instead of actually listening to what the child had to say ?
Supafreak wrote:sypkan wrote:"What labor has proposed ? It’s not” labor’s “ voice to parliament."
well yeh, you're right... but it's labor that has largely fucked it up..
every time I see aboriginal YES advocates on TV, I think they are generally very honest, and forthcoming with information... endeavour to answer questions...
every time I see a labor representative, they are cagey as fuck... presenting a wall of obfuscation... full of shit...
they have fucked this up so much!
all their advisors should be sacked!
yesterday!
two months ago!!!
Someone on this thread suggested maybe labor never wanted it to succeed, I don’t believe that , I do believe they didn’t anticipate the level of shitfuckery the LNP & murdoch would stoop too . They underestimated how low can LNP go and thought it would breeze through . Shame that such a simple concept turned into what it is .
there's an old saying..."keep it simple, stupid." and "you can fool some of the ppl some of the time but not all of the ppl all of the time".
i want the best for fnp thats why i'm going with jp and wm.
and if no wins noel pearson said early on he would step down from public life, good.
seeds wrote:Says the guy that calls em abos. This thread is nuts
hey fair enough and apologised for it, but the rants and hate and negative assumptions by some yessers on here towards anyone who questions the details(?) of it all.
if it's racism you want put king billy!! on yer hifi...haha.
"Someone on this thread suggested maybe labor never wanted it to succeed, I don’t believe that , I do believe they didn’t anticipate the level of shitfuckery the LNP & murdoch would stoop too . They underestimated how low can LNP go and thought it would breeze through . Shame that such a simple concept turned into what it is ."
I actually think dutton's influence amounts to zero, no one but lnp diehards are listening to that clown...
and, once again, that is labor's fuck up, seeing it through the two party lens... and hence hobbling any potential pragmatism...
those days are over
same with murdoch, his minions have published just as much pro as against
but the blame has to go somewhere...
it's just classic contemporary left politics... blame, blame, blame... with an absolute incapacity for self reflection...
we saw it with brexit, trump, shorten's unloseable election, and now the voice...
blame trump, blame the voters, blame murdoch, blame russia, blame racism, blame boomers...
when really, they just show time and time again, they are out of touch with the electorate...
none of this is really surprising with decades of widening inequality... with that, comes a widening gulf in values and priorities...
and this is also where labor advisors totally missed the mark... not identifying a race based clause in the constitution as a potential problem...
it's like the last 10 years didn't even happen
for them...
Supafreak wrote:@indo , not sure why you addressed me in your last post , anyway your main reason for voting no is because you don’t want it put into the constitution because if the voice body doesn’t work then we are stuck with it and it would take another referendum to remove it . You do realise the voice is an advisory body and it’s up to the parliament what it does with the advice ? If the voice gives shit advice and the government acts on it who do you blame ? You have said a voice won’t work from the very beginning, is that because you believe FNP are incapable of knowing what works best for them ? Have you ever come across a rich parent that all they ever did was throw money at their child thinking that’s what they wanted and needed instead of actually listening to what the child had to say ?
Yeah sorry about that im not sure why i thought it was you, i wouldn't have bothered replying if id clicked it was Harry who had reposted the post.
Anyway that's not really the main reason im voting No, but we have gone through all this before.
@sypkan ……same with murdoch, his minions have published just as much pro as against ……really? Besides Kenny who or what other murdoch publication has been pro voice ?
indo-dreaming wrote:Supafreak wrote:@indo , not sure why you addressed me in your last post , anyway your main reason for voting no is because you don’t want it put into the constitution because if the voice body doesn’t work then we are stuck with it and it would take another referendum to remove it . You do realise the voice is an advisory body and it’s up to the parliament what it does with the advice ? If the voice gives shit advice and the government acts on it who do you blame ? You have said a voice won’t work from the very beginning, is that because you believe FNP are incapable of knowing what works best for them ? Have you ever come across a rich parent that all they ever did was throw money at their child thinking that’s what they wanted and needed instead of actually listening to what the child had to say ?
Yeah sorry about that im not sure why i thought it was you, i wouldn't have bothered replying if id clicked it was Harry who had reposted the post.
Anyway that's not really the main reason im voting No, but we have gone through all this before.
Ok indo , I read this and from what you have said in the past I interpreted it as you were mainly against it going into the constitution …….” The end game is to prevent this going into the constitution, there is nothing else after that i couldn't care less if states do their own voices im not a fan of treaties but im not overly concerned about these ones being done by states, and i sure am not one of those people who think their land is in danger.
Like ive said many times before and again today, i and most No voters dont even have an issue with a voice in policy only, actually id welcome it. (see my post from earlier today) “
news.com has gone right down the middle
in fact, you could argue they haven't gone negative at all... just reported various scandals and developments...
with numurous clearly pro voice articles
especially joe hildebrand, he's been passionately pro voice
but yeh... sky news...
sypkan wrote:news.com has gone right down the middle
in fact, you could argue they haven't gone negative at all... just reported various scandals and developments...
with numurous clearly pro voice articles
especially joe hildebrand, he's been passionately pro voice
Ok I will take your word for it as I only occasionally read news.com and haven’t for some time . . On sky I see a balance of 10-1 I only last 30secs to a minute, strange crew
Sameaswas said “ i want the best for fnp thats why i'm going with jp and wm. “ hahahaha now that’s funny…….when will fnp realise what’s good for them ?
sameaswas wrote:seeds wrote:Says the guy that calls em abos. This thread is nuts
hey fair enough and apologised for it, but the rants and hate and negative assumptions by some yessers on here towards anyone who questions the details(?) of it all.
if it's racism you want put king billy!! on yer hifi...haha.
Sorry, if you’ve only just realised what that means you haven’t got any right to comment here. But yet here you are.
#everyoneelseisracist
Actually that’s Pauline’s stick. Now we know.
Did we just find out who GSCO is? Or who he idolises?
Latest TV Ad punchline I just saw:
"A no vote means no progress"
Then I check the NIAA web site to see what they do and read this:
"The National Indigenous Australians Agency (NIAA) vision is to ensure Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are heard, recognised and empowered. We recognise each First Nations community is unique. We work in partnership with community to make sure policies, programs and services meet their unique needs."
Sounds like they've got it covered already? Listen, empower, customise and advise. Good stuff.
So what is the "no hope for change without the Voice" message of the campaign implying?
Is the concept of hearing and empowering not that effective after all?
or
Have the existing FNP dedicated agencies and NGOs done a poor job so far and will continue to do so?
or
Has the government has sort of given up and wants to abdicate responsibility to others?
At its core the campaign has these weird, negative underlying messages baked into the cake. i.e. We have been listening for years but not very well. But this time with the Voice we will listen harder and better. But with no Voice, we will sort of give up and not try to find a better way to listen.
No wonder doubt has grown.
The narrative has also sadly disempowered and diminished the hard work of so many.
Come Monday the NIAA will still be there listening, advising and empowering no matter what the outcome. And Linda Berney can get busy as well and do her job to find a ways to improve things.
sameaswas wrote:Hiccups wrote:sameaswas wrote:Hiccups wrote:burleigh wrote:Vote No. why didn’t Briggs mention this in his paid ad?
Briggs wasn't paid, you heinous bullshit artist.
oxford dictionary...heinous...utterly odious or wicked.
AB briggs aka king billy!! his lyrics are heinous.
and he is the darling of the yes23 campaign and idolised by fnp youth, ffs go and listen to his evil music videos, wake up to these narcisists don't give them any power.
Fuck off boomer. If you were an adult in 1956, you'd be clutching your pearls over Elvis on Ed Sullivan.
so i take it your a fan of king billy!! he who encourages fnp to baseball bat white ppl?
and a rabid yes supporter to boot as well, fat racist bigoted hate monger towards whitey.
Hey dikhead... when yr people have been brutalised, expect brutality. You only need to look at Gaza and Hamas at the moment Lucky it's just in lyrics here.
burleigh wrote:You guys don't like what Indo says but if the polls are correct he's speaking for the majority.
Indo has never said anything racist (unlike others in the yes camp on here) The personal attacks at Indo are fowl and unfortunately a common theme with the yes voters.
Southern & Harry are the worse offenders with abuse being thrown around. Hiccup tries but he can't throw.
Living in the burbs aint doing you any good.
Expand, open your mind brotha.
It's all right there in front of you.
60,000 years of magic and mystery just waiting for you to connect with.
@sameasiteverwas, the broad spectrum of music pumped out by Indigenous artists is a truly heartening thing - choice, brother!
indo skanked about listening to Fk The Police (top selling youth album) in a Yankees cap as a kid, and good on him, a bit of political anti-establishment metaphor-exploring is healthy. Freedom! (look at him now!)
You sound more like a Tiddas, King Stingray, Gurrumul, Pigrim Bros man, samaswas.. good on you, me too! 'Sall good, man. Maybe you could have a calm chat to 'your version' of Briggs?
(thank you, sameaswas, you've made me read about Briggs, pretty interesting cat, might order his kids' book.)
I dunno @basesix, i get the feeling even Peter Garrett might be too black for ol s.a.w...
This is the dad of an exgirlfriend of mine, and a girl i hold so dear in my heart. 3 years of amazing times together.
Her old man, Bobby Williams. Champion indigenous fighter.
Sadly my ex is no longer with us, life gone too soon...
If i seem, as Indo has so poignantly pointed out, to have a 'fetish' with indigenous folk, well yeah, fuck what do you expect.
Of course i'm going to be fighting for the crew who i know their struggles to be too real because i've lived it with them. I have seen aspects that you can't see without living alongside it. Not to mention other indigenous friends, some of who are also sadly no longer with us. (common theme).
Didn't wanna share this but since i've been carrying on like a headless chook at times on this thread, and been called out for it, probably rightly so, i felt it only fair to explain a little bit of the why.
https://www.abc.net.au/local/stories/2013/07/04/3796246.htm
nice share, @southern, and in lieu of not a single indigenous voice in this thread, these stories are appreciated. hope you got into it yesterday.
What an absolute tragedy https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-10-10/calls-for-help-as-indigenous-chil...
san Guine wrote:What an absolute tragedy https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-10-10/calls-for-help-as-indigenous-chil...
Agreed - Tragic. extract:
"Now we've moved into the referendum space … I think it's this snowball of events and and uber-focus on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples — our communities, our lives in general ... that has really led to the situation that we're witnessing now.
"I think the extra pressures that we have on us — it's quite overwhelming for many people."
6 months of FNP, in full view of every Australian, being told over and over in the glare of the media tthat they are full of problems and there is no hope unless ONE particular event happens is another tragedy.
Albo's tears and "last hope" commentary is defeatist and totally dispiriting.
Listening is not that hard. Doing something right takes sustained effort and competence. That should be the focus into the future.
Not sure Albo and Linda Berney's "can't do" attitude is going to help.
This is no surprise, perhaps the original figure was correct when released but Aboriginal people can change their minds too when they gain more information.
"Anthony Albanese’s key claim about support for the Voice rubbished by new poll
With just days left, one of Anthony Albanese’s biggest claims about the Voice is in tatters after the release of a damning poll.
A key claim by Anthony Albanese about significant support for the proposed Voice to Parliament among Indigenous people has been rubbished by a shock new poll.
The Age newspaper has published research showing the number of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders in favour of the Voice is sitting at just 59 per cent.
While that represents a clear majority, it is dramatically lower than the 80 per cent figure repeatedly cited by the Prime Minister and the official Yes campaign."
https://www.news.com.au/finance/work/leaders/anthony-albaneses-key-claim...
or
https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/indigenous-support-for-voice-fal...
PS. Voted today.
[ If You Don't Know Vote No ] Equally Exclusive #1 swellnet Voice Bombshell.
Biggest ongoing bastardized gripes thwarting 1999 / 2023 Referendums
1999 : Republic Reffo Booklet : The Case for Voting No
Opening Clause : [ Don't Know? -Vote No ] ...No Author/ization
+
1999 : Preamble Reffo Booklet : The Case for Voting No
Opening Clause : [ If You Don't Know - Vote No ] ... No Author/ization
https://www.aec.gov.au/elections/referendums/1999_referendum_reports_sta...
2023 : Voice Reffo Booklet : The Case for Voting No
Opening Clause : [ If You Don't Know Vote No ]...No Author/ization
https://www.aec.gov.au/referendums/files/pamphlet/referendum-booklet.pdf
Coincidence! Wanna see an even bigger bolder coincidence...
Same again : Plays out Bold as Brass front and centre right before everyone's Eyes.
+
Same again no one notices & Whole of Oz have No Idea to even ask as to Who or Why?
Only this time an even Bigger Bombshell...
Even the Queen despised Howard's mean spirited long winded obstinate Preamble
Yet it was opposed by just the one Federal MP...the very same MP that authored the [NO] case! Huh?
The very reason for drafting the infamous...[ Don't No Vote Know! ]...Like OMG! Exactly...
This dude is the Ultimate Indy Tripper of highest acclaim but very few will know him.
Holy Shit tbb...that is some grandiose feather dusting of the highest order...sure is #1 Shitfuckery!
All bold as brass, pies in yer faces were handed out by the same extreme left Indy MP {r.i.p}
1,000 people attended funeral...
Posthumously Honoured by Queen / Nation / Unis for Advocacy for ethical quelling of ongoing crises.
[Discliamer] tbb did honestly dig this secret out himself after identifying the Mystery Author.
(Above) Only fair to credit 'Equally Exclusive'
tbb had nearly done diggin...then was blasted at the finish line by a VIP sidewinder...WTF.
How is this possible that in same battle field that tbb is hit by friendly fire by some Uptight [L] Hodad.
From entirely extreme bipolar worlds crossed light sabres (Flash!) but kept going about our ways!
[L] Maestro personally congratulated this Indy MP back in the day, wrote a puff piece this week.
Extraordinary Reffo retrospective but either lazily / cleverly regurgitates [L] 2023 directive.
This Hodad thinks he & Voldemort are hot shit but tbb knows as fact he's on the wrong track!
By releasing his secret this [L] Hodad has confirmed tbb's theory of a more monumental devotee.
This Old School Prez Hangs Ten in the Shack while stickin' pins in his New Wave Voodoo Dolls.
Like the Phantom he steps into his Beloved Mentor's Biggest Boots & starts walkin' like a God.
He is on the move...kickin' the biggest of heads we are not worthy to be his Zombies!
Yes! He has many new wave elected devotees doin' his bidding...
Dawning of The Age of The Advocates...
tbb toked then nearly choked on his Peace Pipe...this shit just gets better the deeper they bury it!
Yes! You are reading a real life ongoing Reffo 2 Reffo legacy bossing real time biggest power plays.
Tribal Hodad Reffo Law says ya gotta Answer 3 Questions to have a toke
Non voters like tbb haven't got their hands bound & can make breaches for any pretend rules.
Mostly as elite puppeteers attract bipolar shit stirrers like tbb...
Like...if ya dig deep enough and breach the Stage Floor Trap Door ya can spot a loose thread! Busted!
Yeah! That level crazy is needed to crack on...still, yer Voice advocates won't buy into it...Bugger!
Hodads Secret Reffo Business
1. Who is this multi award winning Master of Ceremonies
2. Who is his Devotee Voicing the Cover Version
3. Why must we again fall under his spell during his Reffo Comeback Special
Bonus : What is the Holy Grail
Once ya toke ya know all...Grand Poobah has ordained tbb to riddle a fiddle-de-dee!
Toke 1 : Mystery Author of original classic 1999 Reffo [NO] Case...Just google until week 3...
Toke 2 : Awards crew their Uni Dementor's Degree
Toke 3 : Masters Degree is also awarded free for all intrepid independents you'll see!
Grand Poobah Anoints yer Holy Grail Decree...Seen but not heard! Good'nuff.
Happy to share futile joint exercising of yer Democratic right to Veto any crossfire Voice Volley.
Important as a non voter to respect the right for Voters to exercise restraint...have a toke, clear the air!
After all that diggin' ya Still Don't Know...Woke UN advises tbb is obliged to show...bugger!
STATEMENT - AUSTRALIAN JEWISH ASSOCIATION WILL OPPOSE THE PROPOSED INDIGENOUS VOICE
— Australian Jewish Association (@AustralianJA) July 10, 2023
The Australian Jewish Association (AJA) is publicly coming out in opposition to the proposed Indigenous voice.
AJA President Dr David Adler said, “The Australian Jewish Association is the… pic.twitter.com/Gw7wMhvSoP
It would appear the No camp have adopted their position largely as they do not want race based laws in Australia.
Refer to the Australian Constitution Part V Section 51 (xxvi).
Which states:
Part 5 - Powers Of The Parliament
51. Legislative powers of The Parliament
The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to:
(xxvi) the people of any race for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws;
Please note this was amended by the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginals) 1967, and previously read as follows:
"(xxvi) the people of any race, other than the aboriginal race in any State, for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws;"
Could someone please enlighten us all as to why "race based laws" are now an issue.
The only positive if the No vote gets up is that spud will remain as leader of the LNP ensuring the party will never be elected .
Exercise in Democracy (All are official institutionalised Definitions)
* Voice breaches of Universal Voting Rights
Exercising yer Democratic Right is Imperative!
Suffragettes exercise their Right to Vote
Aborigines were never encouraged to exercise their Vote
Govts build barriers to prevent voters exercising their Constitutional Right
As said..these are AEC text or near as such.
Futile exercise in Democracy
You have the right to Vote for a Govt to exercise leadership to exercise Power to exercise influence!
A Joint Military Exercise...Leader then exercises his VETO to exercise Restraint.
Voter uprising exercise their right to bear arms!
UN Charter...Universal Right to exercise your Right to Vote is a Vital part of Human Rights
Your Right to Vote without discrimination is a Human Right...Your Civil Liberty!
Your right to Information in order for all to exercise their Right.
Role of Govt
Ensure Citizens have effective opportunity to enjoy voting rights.
To also be able to exercise this right
Take effective measures to ensure all who can are eligible to Vote.
* [L] Restrict Aborigines [ID] / Migrants - annual enrollment vs * [ Alp ] Direct Enrolment
* Over 50% of Australian Aborigines are banned from Voting for their Own Voice
Universal Suffrage
Govts ensure effective exercise of Voting Rights to inform the community.
Voter education campaigns are necessary * Voice Booklet Fail
Enjoy the Right to "Choose their form of Constitution or Govt"
* 1967 Govts massaged a feel good Aboriginal Reffo to corrupt a [YES] Senate Reffo but failed.
https://www.swellnet.com/forums/wax/521681?page=123
* After 25yrs (Oz) to 'Alter' Ye Old Testament Vote [YES] or If you don't Know Vote [NO]
Other Nations > To 'Amend' your Modern Constitution simply Vote [X] same as last week
Electoral Process
To ensure effective exercise of Rights of Informed Community
Are accountable thru Electoral Process of exercising Allocated Powers.(*Mandated Covid / Flu Jabs)
Take steps toward inclusive measures to ensure broad accessibility!
Do not restrict Physical Disability / Imposing 'Literacy Requirement'.
*tbb raised the massive unseen physical bias of AEC : 8 stroke [YES] vs [NO] 2 stroke Warring Factions
https://www.swellnet.com/forums/wax/521681?page=122
Universal [X] or [X] = Least combative > Equal / Fair / All ability min impost / cost!
Oz conducts least Fair Referendums in Modern World.
Exercising your Voting Rights
Freedom from Party Influence & Pressure > allow Party members to exercise own Voting Rights.
*[LNP] Mandate [NO] Vote for [L] Frontbench Members to influence Party.
Self determination without undue influence, collusion, to manipulate or distort or inhibit Voting.
*Voice : Don't Know Vote [No] is massively manipulative!
Exercising Your Vote
Great privilege to exercise your freedom to choose
Exercise your right for your Views to be heard (Voice)
Being active pays respect to the Voting Process (*Socialist + [L] call/ed for Boycotts)
Exercise your Responsibility to secure your Voting Rights (*Ignore Don't know Vote [NO] Manipulation)
Initially drafted as a ploy is now adopted by Monarchists [L] > [no] as an institutionalized breach.
Deliberately instructing Voters to Abdicate their Sovereignty by lazily not exercising Vote Rights.
Mandating [NO] Voting upon [LNP] Members as if Hostages.
Then corruptly gaining from mass instructional surrender of Constitutional Convention is a breach.
Daily we endure the largest breach of Royal Protocol by evil Monarchists plotting against our King.
[ Don't Know Vote No ] Plotters Are traitors...enemy of the State...a Public Flogging & no less!
Undermining security of our Constitution
By mandating [no] / boycotting / faking Reffos / corrupting Referendum as a giant turd.
Hijacking our rights & hostaging our Future Referendum as now a creepy mickey mouse cartoon!
Considering this reviewer is neutral...can't begin to imagine how enrolled Voters feel!
Consider this major affront on the security of our empire relegates any Com Games breach of trust.
These [ Don't Know Vote No] renegades just surrendered any right to whinge over Com Games!
Anti Oz brigade must be struck from the King's Voting Roll...deport them for being Unaustralian.
These cowardly [No] [L] monarchists that piss on Empire Duty will expect to be knighted for such!
Neocon Media will campaign for these lowest lifeforms to be rewarded for hostaging our Sovereignty!
A Salty Dog wrote:It would appear the No camp have adopted their position largely as they do not want race based laws in Australia.
Refer to the Australian Constitution Part V Section 51 (xxvi).
Which states:
Part 5 - Powers Of The Parliament
51. Legislative powers of The Parliament
The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to:
(xxvi) the people of any race for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws;
Please note this was amended by the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginals) 1967, and previously read as follows:
"(xxvi) the people of any race, other than the aboriginal race in any State, for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws;"
Could someone please enlighten us all as to why "race based laws" are now an issue.
This has been talked about a few times before but as a No voter i will answer your question.
This is a common misconception by the Yes side about what the No side think or feel.
The No side is against a single race being inserted in the constitution, because it creates a clear divide a clear us and them it's would be a big step backwards to an era we should have left behind long ago.
While the race laws dont mention any single race they can be applied to any race, until they are applied they see all as equal.
Its a very different thing so its BS when people say, oh but there is already race in the constitution.
Personally i think the race laws should be removed, IMHO in this day and age there should be no mention of race in the constitution, we should all be seen as Australians.
It also should be noted the race laws were inserted long ago, if we didnt have them and we were voting on them in a referendum it would never get up.
Heres a good article from a few years back
"Does the races power still have a place in the Australian constitution?"
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-06-04/races-power-in-constitution-shoul...
I think you are simplifying the Goliath of No reasons that are out there, @indo.
I was just at a wine&tapas bar in Robe, a small tourist town, and two caucasian Aussie women (one proudly claimed Italian heritage) were describing the Voice to a Yorkshire couple they had just met. One went on about Austudy and Abstudy in the 90s and kept saying 'oh, they are WELL looked after'.. the other kept saying 'they burn their houses down, not all of them, not sure percentages, but we give them houses and they burn them down'. They went on and on and didn't address anything. Certainly not the constitution.
The Yorkies were trying to navigate the aboriginal-privilege stuff their new friends were spouting, by saying 'well.. the best person for the job, should get the job, for sure...'
Obviously there is all kinds of views out there and all kind's of reason's for voting No
But here was one of the recent polls, as you can see the division aspect is a popular one, while as you can see with Yes voters its a popular view that it will bring us together.
BTW. Some of the results are surprising, im super surprised Yes voters think it would bring us together but also surprised yes voters didn't rank the practical advice aspect much higher.
wow. there's you david and goliath @indo, positive vs negative. font size and all.
not a single 'I think the future would be brighter with a no vote'.
"it creates a clear divide a clear us and them"
Mate this divide already exists and has done for a long time.
That's the whole point of this thing, to reduce an already-existing divide.
I don't understand how you don't understand this.
To say that a divide will be created either shows that you don't understand that one already exists or shows that you are being disingenuous and duplicitous.
And if you're "super surprised" Yes voters think it would bring us together then I suggest you completely misunderstand the Statement From the Heart.
Or haven't read it.
Part of it goes as follows:
"Makarrata is the culmination of our agenda: the coming together after a struggle."
Indigenous Australians are looking to make peace and reconcile their relationship with the rest of Australia.
Despite being colonised and despite everything that goes with that colonisation, First Nations People are the ones coming forward and looking to move forward together with an honest relationship with the people of Australia.
They were bluntly rejected by the Turnbull government but are still patiently extending the hand of friendship.
I hope we don't reject it again.
AndyM wrote:"it creates a clear divide a clear us and them"
Mate this divide already exists and has done for a long time.
That's the whole point of this thing, to reduce an already-existing divide.
I don't understand how you don't understand this.
To say that a divide will be created either shows that you don't understand that one already exists or shows that you are being disingenuous and duplicitous.
As you can see from the poll above this isn't just my mind set its the main mind set of No voters who at this stage appear to be the majority, so we are talking million of Australians.
Its also not really true, 80% of indigenous people in built up regions have outcomes no different to the rest of the population. (roughly one third of indigenous people live in cities, one third regional areas, one third remote areas)
BTW. Even if it was true, why on earth would you want to create more division and then cement that division in the constitution forever, that makes no sense at all.
You know how you bring people together?...
You treat them the same and you treat people based on need not race.
If you see and treat people differently you create division, its like those studies done on eye colour where they separate people into groups based on eye colour and then treat then differently, which then of course results in division between groups where before there was none.
the drum 10/9/23
fred hooper - progressive NO voter
geez he had some real interesting things to say about division...
very straight talking practical things
so straight talking the host didn't know what to do with it...
but, it was most encouraging hearing how blackfellas will move on post referendum... regardless of outcome...
hope the rest of us can do the same
From the 7.30 report , 8 minute clip , https://x.com/grumpyoldfool62/status/1711743473202958762?s=46&t=5RczxwAf...
https://m.
geez this was interesting too
loved the little hardnut kuarna actress girl whose name escapes me...
hard as nails, and like an unruly schoolkid for patricia karvelas to control
made burney and friends most uncomfortable too
her direct questioning to peter malinaukas was most impressive
and fuck me if I couldn't but wholeheatedly agree with her about the digging up of 31 of her ancestors for the riverlea development north of adelaide
peter... fucking weazal words... the show must go on...
Like all democratic things, majority will rule, as it should.
Wonder what this thread will become in the next few weeks?
and speaking of uncomfortable...
Here's some "truth telling" from the debate on channel 7 last night about the Uluru statement that the yes campaign don't want Australians to know about. It's not what all aboriginal people have asked for... It's looking more and more like the process was a farce! #VoteNo2023 pic.twitter.com/RH44rrcOog
— Francynancy (@FranMooMoo) October 9, 2023
"...and fuck me if I couldn't but wholeheatedly agree with her about the digging up of 31 of her ancestors for the riverlea development north of adelaide..."
honestly cannot believe this was the first I've heard of this...
"80% of indigenous people in built up regions have outcomes no different to the rest of the population."
Do you have a reference for that Indo?
As far as I can work out, there's a class element to urban Indigenous issues but there's so much more.
"Research in Newcastle, NSW, by Howard-Wagner (2019) found that complex and intersecting layers contribute to disadvantage experienced by Indigenous people, reinforcing past findings.
Improved material or socio-economic conditions did not erase disadvantage—and the ‘disadvantage Aboriginal people living in Newcastle experience is not experienced by all Novocastrians of lower socio-economic status’ (Howard-Wagner 2019: 15).
Interviewees in Howard-Wagner’s study themselves defined Indigenous disadvantage in a way that differs considerably from how it is defined in mainstream policy circles in Australia, where limited sociological and policy consideration are given to racism as a determinant of disadvantage (Howard-Wagner 2019: 15).
However, racism and discrimination are institutionalised.
Homelessness exists as one of the ‘significant social [problems] that Aboriginal people continue to experience’ in Newcastle (Howard-Wagner 2019: 10), exacerbated by interconnecting social problems and other factors—such as family violence, difficulties with renting in the private market, and lack of housing for families in crisis."
https://www.ahuri.edu.au/sites/default/files/documents/2022-08/AHURI-Fin...
Indo I really think you misunderstand a lot of what you're saying.
basesix wrote:I think you are simplifying the Goliath of No reasons that are out there, @indo.
I was just at a wine&tapas bar in Robe, a small tourist town, and two caucasian Aussie women (one proudly claimed Italian heritage) were describing the Voice to a Yorkshire couple they had just met. One went on about Austudy and Abstudy in the 90s and kept saying 'oh, they are WELL looked after'.. the other kept saying 'they burn their houses down, not all of them, not sure percentages, but we give them houses and they burn them down'. They went on and on and didn't address anything. Certainly not the constitution.
The Yorkies were trying to navigate the aboriginal-privilege stuff their new friends were spouting, by saying 'well.. the best person for the job, should get the job, for sure...'
That's what I'm saying... we're not all racist but.... we're not all aware of our racism but... we're definitely not racist but... we don't even know if we're racist but
sypkan wrote:"...and fuck me if I couldn't but wholeheatedly agree with her about the digging up of 31 of her ancestors for the riverlea development north of adelaide..."
honestly cannot believe this was the first I've heard of this...
Yeah... interesting it wasn't reported... but Mali's face kind of said something
Uni assignment i did a few years ago. This is my take on things. I'm sure this will ruffle many feathers. I hope so.
Love Blue Diamond x
The Necessity of Reparation for Historic Injustices
Introduction – Compensatory Justice
Disparities between the standards of living of humans on this planet have long been a part of our history on this planet. From the wealthy nations of the West to the developing and undeveloped nations on this globe, the diversity in the quality of life when viewed from a moral standpoint are without a doubt grossly unfair.
In this paper I will look at why historic injustices do require some form of reparation. I take a strong stance that we are more obliged to solve current injustices than to provide reparation for every act of injustice in the past. In doing this I will first investigate the historic injustice of the Aboriginal people of Australia and I will look at the argument that they are entitled to some form of reparation and why.
I will incoroporate some interesting views from Jeremy Waldron, Robert Nozick and others which will help me slowly build to my conclusion that reparation should be in the form of Non Indigenous Australians surrendering some of our priveleges as a form of reparation.
Historic Injustices to Indigenous Australians:
Australia the continent was well inhabited for many years long before white settlement. It is commonly known that in 1788 Australia was colonised as a country under the rule of the British Empire, with total contempt for the fact that it was already inhabited by a native indigenous race of people.
The way the original inhabitants have been treated, including forced assimilation, execution, stolen families and not even allowed to be recognised as citizens for a large part of white Australia’s history are also well known facts. (Poole, 1999,pp114-142)
There exists now a situation where there is a large divide between Aboriginal and non Aboriginal Australian’s that can be traced back to the moment Australia was invaded by English settlers and the brutal and unfair treatment that has followed.
So at this point now, in 2013 what is the just and fair way to make amends for past actions?
I would argue that a moderate to large amount of reparation is overdue for this nation of people, the Aboriginal people. But there are many challenges to this view point especially that of how much reparation, and what sort of compensation.
Past injustices or present suffering?
One of the questions raised in an issue like this is whether it is better to provide compensation or reparation for past deeds, which have already been done in a previous generation and cannot be changed, or whether it is better to now provide assistance to those who are suffering in their current situations and consider that as a form of moral duty.
To understand this we need to delve a little deeper into this issue and hear some differing viewpoints.
Firstly we need to understand what the best way to provide reparation. How do we judge what is the best way of giving back and how much? Jeremy Waldron states “The historic record has a fragility that consists, …in the sheer contingency of what happened in the past” (Waldron,1992,p5 )
This is saying that we can’t trace every single injustice back to the original act therefore reparation for every act would be almost impossible because it would ultimately be guess work.
In this statement he has an objection from Robert Nozick who believes it is in fact possible to address this problem by “changing the present so that it resembles how the past would have looked had the injustice not taken place” (McKenzie, 2013)
This would be a way to ultimately provide maximum reparation, but is it the correct approach? I believe this is a fairly radical approach, although it does have some merits in the fact it would be working in a positive way for indigenous people, I don’t think it is entirely the right way to deal with these issues but it is on the right track.
Waldron argues that it is based on too many unknowns. “The status of counterfactual reasoning about the exercising of human reasoning of human freedom is unclear”(Waldron 1993,p10)
Which leaves the question somewhat open about the sort of reparation that is required, but provides one clear answer to the key question. Both agree that yes, reparation to some extent is required. But how much and in what form?
Another philosopher who leans more towards Waldron’s views is Kymlicka. He is somewhat more straightforward in his assessment that property rights in particular for Aboriginals would create “massive unfairness” and also he maintains the argument “Aboriginal rights must be grounded in concerns about equality and contemporary disadvantage. (McKenzie, 2013) I agree with both these views but I don’t think they provide any active solutions.
The Solution?
So if its not handing back all of Australia’s land to the original inhabitants that is the most appropriate way to deal with past injustices, then what is?
I look at the current country I grew up in, as a white Australian. I ask myself why I never had Aboriginal friends growing up, no understanding of Aboriginal culture and why my basic understanding of Indigenous Australians is mostly 200 years old. I look at our flag, a symbol of a nation that stole a country from its original inhabitants, with no recognition of the Indigenous people at all on it. I see that Australia considered Indigenous people as less than people until only 40 years ago and I see the way that Indigenous Australians live a completely separate life to the way of life I know as an Australian. I see that the only indigenous politician I am aware of is a former Olympian and it is because of this fact of her sporting status that I know this. I see no collective power or representation of Indigenous Australians and I see non Indigenous Australians,( a culture built on a history of stealing a land and mistreating its people) still taking, taking as much out of this land as they can, with little to no regard of sharing or giving to the original inhabitants. I see a government that says lots of words about ‘closing the gap’ and bringing the living standards of non- indigenous and indigenous Australians closer together, but apart from nice words, there is no conviction, no follow through, just assimilation , and all that still remains are injustices.
As stated by Sparrow, “Continuity gives rise to responsibility on part of present generations of Australians for our history”.(McKenzie,2013). Although deeds happened in the past beyond our control, what we do now to either ignore, or rectify these issues will reflect on us in history. So if we choose to do nothing, we are contributing to the history of the mistreatment of non- indigenous Australians. And this is simply unacceptable in my opinion.
Conclusion
So what is fair? I believe that the way forward is a surrendering of some of our privileges as non- indigenous Australians. The simple fact is it was morally wrong without a doubt what has happened in the past. And it is also morally wrong without a doubt to ignore these facts and not offer some form of reparation in the present. But how much?
I think that going back to Robert Nozick’s argument is a start. I think Nozick is wrong to make the present resemble the past in every aspect. But I do think that it would be reasonable to restore some aspects of the way things should be. The things that happened in the past were out of our control and we can’t go back to changing the way things were. But we could change the way things are.
For some examples. Why not give at least 50% of political power to indigenous people? It surely would be a fair thing to do considering this is their country. Media control. 50 percent. Industry. Realestate. The list goes on. Why do we not acknowledge the indigenous people on our flag, or better still use their flag? Why is Australia still a part of the Commonwealth when it serves little purpose to any of us and serves as a constant reminder to Indigenous Australians that they are still controlled by the original invaders. These to me are fairly simple reparations that would have minimal impact on Australia as a whole. Perhaps, it would alter the way we live but I think it is our responsibility, morally to forfeit some of our privileges for the greater good. Basically a little bit goes a long way.
In closing, it is a fact that a huge injustice occurred to the Indigenous population and suffering continues to this day. There is no easy solution to such a burden of pain. I believe the only solutions are for the non- Indigenous population to take responsibility and sacrifice our own way of life to bring about an overall equality. Sacrifice is not an easy word. But it all comes down to right and wrong. We are in a position to give, in this current generation. What are we so scared to lose, that was never ours in the first place??
Bibliography
McKenzie,C.”Prof” (2013), Lecture, Historic Injustices and Indigenous Rights, Macquarie University
Poole, R. (1999). Nation and Identity.Routledge, London, pp.114-142
Waldron,J. (1992). ‘Superseding Historic Injustice’. Ethics, 103 (1), 4-28
References
Poole, R. (1999). Nation and Identity.Routledge, London, pp.114-142
Waldron,J. (1992). ‘Superseding Historic Injustice’. Ethics, 103 (1), 4-28