The Necessity of Reparation for Historic Injustices

Indo, I respect that comment.
I wasn’t born in this country, my parents made the awesome decision to move here when I was 4. We lived in the Shire, a much mocked part of Sydney, but one that is blessed with access to natural wonderlands.
I grew up in an age where the local reserve / creek / streets were our playgrounds in primary school. As a teenager, my parents were strict with curfews when it came to going to parties, but I had an open slather to go in the bush and go camping in the Royal National Park. I’ve walked those coast track from bundeena to otford numerous times, and all the permutations between.

I have a literal, physical, positive reaction to being back there. Not so much Cronulla and the Shire because it’s changed a lot, but definitely to the RNP and that part of the world. It’s connection.

I joined the army at 18, I’ve spent probably years of my life living in the bush here in Australia. Absolutely silent at dawn and dusk. Patrolled so slowly that birds have tried to land on me, and then realised at the last moment that I’m not a tree.

While I’ve probably lost those instincts now, I cherish those moments where I felt completely and utterly part of nature.

That doesn’t even touch on my surfing experiences. Those almost undefinable moments of connection you get from sitting just offshore and looking back. That peace and calm on a LAGO session, or that absolute maelstrom of chaos on a massive swell.

It doesn’t touch on my military service because I don’t agree that that entitles me to much, if anything. But I’ve got to say I’ve had moments where I’ve questioned why, and come back to something more than the political system.

I really enjoy sharing what ‘connection to country’ means. I’m aware of our history. I acknowledge dispossession and systemic repression and generational disadvantage.

My connection to this country is no more, or no less, than anyone else’s. But one thing that grinds my gears is someone telling me that because of my ancestry, or any other factor, that I don’t have connection to this country.

Good comments, ID and etarip.

That said I do get Indigenous people that are still living on country and still have all the knowledge to survive on country are on another level which you would expect would bring even more connection to the land.

Imagine if you had the ability, knowledge and confidence to survive without help of others or modern tech, if you had all the knowledge of knowing what was edible and other uses for basically any plant, knowing you wont go without water and can find and hunt animals and confidence to start fire etc your connection to the land would be even higher.

And again there is that aspect of being so in tune with your environment, all your sense are so tuned in on another level, you see it sometimes with Indigenous folk on some doccos/TV shows in the bush especially like trackers, they pick up all these details as all their senses are naturally picking up all these little factor's, constantly scanning from feet to horizon but also listening, smelling and feeling and knowing things like what animals have been there recently and what is still nearby.

Very good hunters and bush man are similar, it is something that can be learnt but obviously like anything, first you need a teacher and then the time and being taught and exposed from a very young age is a huge advantage, just like surfing

As surfers especially good ones we actually have this heighten awareness in line ups, all our senses are so in tune with our surroundings we generally know exactly where we are in relation to where a wave will break and how far out or wide we are, we are constantly picking up little clues to where we should be, surface conditions and how waves draw water and move, white water trails, boils and of course land marks.

And we are also in tune with all these slight changes that are constantly happening like tide changes, current changes, wind changes and strength and then often a something else factor that almost cant be described but a change in mood, perhaps to do with things like lighting or how all these other factors are effecting the waves and conditions.

And then we are taking in all these things and making adjustment to where we sit or paddle where we take off or how we approach the wave once on it, we do it so often it becomes second nature.

All that said i personally think its more about time spent in an environment and knowledge passed on rather than something magical passed on based on ethnicity or something, if a white person was born on land among those with this knowledge and connection it would be passed on, while a black fella born in the city with no exposure will not have it.

Although that said they might be drawn to a feeling of wanting to more connected to the land but i think that is in most of us and kinda goes back to my other post.

I’m in awe of people still living that way.

Couple of mates have worked up in the NT and FNQ with the (largely) indigenous regional surveillance units. Amazing stories.

Two things - there are some guys who come with great bush skills (indigenous and non-indigenous). That’s usually reflective of their background, not their ancestry. Urban kids are urban kids.

The second thing is that familiarity with country in one area does not automatically translate to another area. Guys from Central Squadron, desert mob, aren’t automatically ‘naturals’ in Arnhem land. The complexity of the human landscape is extraordinary.

(Not my direct experiences - passed on by mates who’ve worked in those units)

Good posts again indo, etarip.
Something to ponder is imagine having that same connection Indo, to what you described, but having that interwoven into the same place, and all your ancestors for 50,000years or more.
That's a connection i don't think any of us who don't have it can comprehend.
Great posts above. Cheers.

Supafreak wrote:

@sameaswas , did you read the article above my post ? https://www.aap.com.au/uncategorised/email-misleads-with-secret-voice-do... Do you honestly believe that if what JP has written had any truth to it at all , that all major news outlets would then ignore and cover it up ? Someone at those meetings could have said that all Australians besides FNP should be put on temporary visas, does that mean it’s going to happen if the voice gets up ? Sounds like JP has a conspiracy going , it’s a bit desperate .

supa...another thing i want to know from "voice" is how many fnp isolated communities are there? fair enuf question?
marcia langdon has said "if oztralians don't vote yes they won't be able to "hold there heads high" in the international airports" (not exact wording) allso "anyone who does'nt vote yes will not be able to look her in the eye" after the referendum.
the secrecy behind this voice and animosity towards "no" and the $millions of dollars going to all media pro propaganda is shamefull and a scam, waste of public monies.

This might help your first question but it’s from the government not the voice. https://www.indigenous.gov.au/communities/list-view Sounds like your minds made up and it’s a no from you as you believe it’s just a big scam . Not going to try to convince you otherwise, believe what sits well with you .

https://johnmenadue.com/how-hard-they-thought-sophistication-of-first-na.... HISTORY, INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
How (hard) They Fought: sophistication of First Nations’ resistance

Supafreak wrote:

This might help your first question but it’s from the government not the voice. https://www.indigenous.gov.au/communities/list-view Sounds like your minds made up and it’s a no from you as you believe it’s just a big scam . Not going to try to convince you otherwise, believe what sits well with you .

thanks supa i counted 74 and some i would'nt call isolated communities eg wilcania imo, allso the post about early warfare makes sense because it is well documented that fnp were used to "plenty fight" amongst each other.

No Means No...Jacinta's Mob joins Jacinta's Mob
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-05-11/key-no-camps-merge-to-strengthen-...

[YES] October 2022 Budget (Oz for Indigenous Constitutional Recognition) DGR (Tax Deductions)
[NO] May 2023 Budget (Recognise a better Way) DGR (Tax Deductions)
Fair Australia tried to cash in on Recognise a Better Way DGR = Now (Australians For Unity)

Govt are having trouble recognising a fairer way for Australian's United DGR!
News being that Govt will recognize new mob's DGR within' a week or so!
https://www.theage.com.au/national/the-no-way-price-mundine-formally-joi...
Merger explanation by Warren
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x8ku4ws
Merger explanation by Lidia
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x8kuaw5

I wonder if this questionable speller could perhaps articulate which ‘rights‘ are denied first nations people that are afforded everyday Australians?

Ps- I wonder if people are getting a little bit weary about being constantly reminded how racist they are.

I know I am.

You feeding @info lines all The Two Ronnies like @zen?

Are you racist Guy?

Fuck yeah, doesn’t that genie live in all of us Ronnie?

I am for this one, Zen. A modern, egalitarian society with an acknowledged advisory elder race representing the world's oldest living culture sounds good to me. No good?

I don't know Guy. Enlighten me.

Sounds good to me Base, but I tend to think actions speak louder than words. Ask Guy.

The Two Ronnies were more into slapstick and double entendre humour @zen,

https://open.spotify.com/track/4N4Ur9YUDiefPBEaJkmMk2?si=0ZJiz6RTREWIXwW...

These jokers aren’t playing fair
https://apple.news/ATIN850f1QeWA5OGw7tZw3Q

Speaking of not playing fair.

"Yes, Indeed, the Intention is to Deceive

Most likely you have seen Yes23’s campaign’s Voice referendum TV ad many times by now. It’s slick in seeking to provoke an emotional reaction, but that is not its only attribute, for it is also misleading, disingenuous, misinformation and disinformation. Before we go any further, here’s the ad:

Misleading is defined as “giving the wrong idea or impression”; Disingenuous as “slightly dishonest, or not speaking the complete truth”, with Disinformation being “deliberately misleading or biased information; manipulated narrative or facts; propaganda.” As we shall see, the Yes23 television advertisement is all of the above. It opens with these words:

Australia’s Constitution is 122 years old and still doesn’t recognise indigenous Australians.

This statement is correct. After 122 years the Australian Constitution does not “recognise Aboriginal people.” However, in point of fact, it does not ‘recognise’ anyone, and that is deliberate. The purpose of the Constitution is, in essence, to set out the working relationships between the states and the newly formed Commonwealth of Australia. It was never intended to ‘recognise’ anyone. The Constitution only refers to “the people” of Australia, as it should, of whom all Aborigines, immigrants and people native-born in Australia are included.

WHEREAS the people of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland, and Tasmania, humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God, have agreed to unite in one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and under the Constitution hereby established…

Australia’s Constitution does not ‘recognise’ or mention any group of people, just as it shouldn’t. It is intentionally blind to race and religion, and should never be allowed to mention any specific racial group as being more important than any other group, as this would immediately be hierarchical, divisive and, indeed, racist.

Clearly, the Yes23 campaign intends to create the impression there has been some mistake in that Aborigines have been inadvertently omitted or deliberately excluded from the Constitution. This is untrue, misleading and deceptive, aimed at making viewers think this alleged omission is a ‘mistake’ that needs to be be corrected. Note, too, that the male speaker’s voice is pitched in a complaining tone as if something is amiss. This adds to the ad’s emotional appeal. The Yes23 website says the same thing, but goes further and makes the misrepresentation worse:

Australia’s now 122-year-old constitution still doesn’t recognise our first Australians; Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. It’s time it did. By voting “Yes” you’ll ensure that they are finally recognised in our constitution in a simple and meaningful way: through a Voice to Parliament that will ensure they are heard on the issues that affect their communities.

This statement does not tell the whole story and omits key facts. For Aboriginal people to be recognised in the Constitution in a “simple and meaningful way through a Voice to Parliament …” is yet more deceitful and disingenuous propaganda. To attempt to convince the population that the proposed Voice would be “simple” is to deny the complexity of the proposal, its enormous financial cost and the massive political and social impact it will have on our democracy and way of life. Further, the Voice clearly would not be restricted only to issues “that affect their communities”. This, again, is a lie intended to mislead. The Yes23 campaign clearly hopes to garner Yes support by by denying voters the information they need to make a properly informed decision.

The ad’s next effort to mislead is the following statement from an Aboriginal woman:

‘We’ve been here for 65,000 years.’

In follow-on from the first misleading statement, the Aboriginal woman, also in a complaining tone of voice, implies that the length of time Aboriginal people have been in Australia makes this purported exclusion/omission even worse. The length of time Aborigines have been in Australia is a highly contested argument, but that is beside the point. What relevance has that habitation, however long, to changing the Constitution? The two are in no way connected, except by emotional appeal.

The advertisement then goes on to say:

This year, Australians have a chance to fix that…

… to fix what exactly? That Aborigines have been omitted from nor mentioned in the Constitution, or that Aborigines have allegedly inhabited Australia for 65,000 years? The segue is vague and unclear. What follows next is this:

…with a referendum to give Indigenous Australians a real say in their future.

This is horrendously misleading. The vast majority who identify as Aborigines are urban city dwellers who, just like everyone else, have identical opportunities to ‘have their say’, as does every other Australian. They are not disadvantaged in that way, not at all.

The misleading implication is that Indigenous Australians don’t “have a say” because they are not mentioned in the Constitution. In actual fact, apart from the eleven elected Aboriginal members of the federal parliament, Aborigines across Australia currently have a ‘real say in their future’ through a multitudinous plethora of representative Aboriginal organisations numbering in the hundreds. Indeed, Aboriginal Australians are organisationally the most thoroughly over-represented group in Australia. Further, what is a “real” say? Implicit in Yes23’s use of that word is the assertion that all those bodies are a pretense or simply not valid or real, that they are insufficient, don’t work or whatever. This is fraud in the service of a political deception.

Then there are the ad’s follow-up comments, the first by a man who appears to be Aboriginal and who says “Fair enough!” (as if the current situation is unfair) and a couple of white people agreeing with him saying “I’ll second that!”. Regard that as just a little bit of positive whitefella confirmation stuck in there for persuasive good measure.

Thus, to review, the ad creates a false and misleading impression that Aboriginal people were:

1/ Deliberately or accidentally omitted from the Constitution.

2/ That, on the basis of the length of time Aboriginal people have allegedly inhabited Australia, this was a mistake that must be corrected.

3/ That a change to the Constitution is required to provide Aboriginal people with a ‘real say’ in their lives which they are alleged not currently to enjoy.

All of these statements and implications are patently untrue.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese clearly stated that what he termed ‘misleading’ information would not be tolerated in the referendum process and perhaps even made illegal. We can assume he was referring only to the ‘No’ campaigners, because this ad is a prime example of the intention to deceive.

Let’s be under no illusion; advertisements such as the Yes23 campaign’s example — no doubt there will be many more in coming months — are nothing more than a stalking horse towards the path of “simple and meaningful” Aboriginal sovereignty over all of Australia via the ‘Voice’, ‘truth-telling’, ‘treaty’ and ‘reparations’, all things that the likes of Yes23 doesn’t want Australians to know about.

Some readers might be inclined to lodge complaints about the ad. If so they can be presented via the following link to Australian Electoral Commission."

https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/the-voice/2023/05/yes-indeed-the-intenti...

Quadrant?
I expect you were a massive fan of Keith Windschuttle, Indo.

Personally i think the whole thing is shaping up to be a bit of a sham and unfair.

Originally most people understood that the refererendrum was about the voice advisory body

But its clearly about two very seperate different topics.

1. Constitutional recognition

2. The voice advisory body

However its looking like there wont be two question's where people can answer each differently, its looking like they are going to mix the two together and use the fact they know most people (including myself) are fine with Constitutional recognition to push through the voice.

The Yes campaign is already being misleading and focussing on the Constitutional recognition aspect instead of voice aspect.

You know i think LNP have to take some of the blame for this though, they were saying back as far a Howard era they would get Constitutional recognition for indigenous people through, they should have had a refereredrum on this and thrown in Australia day as a second question.

They could have then got browny points on getting Constitutional recognition through (as supported by about 70% of population), and got a no vote on Australia date change date and put that to bed ands stopped it from being an issue or changed in the future.

It would then also have been harder for this to even be put a refereredrum and if it had Constitutional recognition couldn't be uses to get it up.

But as we know hindsight is a beautiful thing.

Really don't want to get into this shit again, however when bullshit like that Quadrant article get posted I can't help myself. There is so much that is misleading and wrong contained in it, including completely ignoring the history and reasoning of the 1967 Referendum, but I don't feel like getting into a critique of more No vote propaganda, so I will just quote this from the Quantum piece:
"It (the Constitution) is intentionally blind to race and religion, and should never be allowed to mention any specific racial group as being more important than any other group, as this would immediately be hierarchical, divisive and, indeed, racist."
And then as but one example of how misinformed and unqualified the author is about the Australian Constitution I will refer to the section known as the "Race Power":
"Section 51(xxvi) enables the Commonwealth to make laws for the peace, order and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to: … the people of any race for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws."
You can decide for yourself if you think the author knows what he is talking about or is just another idiot.

Is there any ethical boundary the “No” campaign will not cross? https://www.themonthly.com.au/the-politics/rachel-withers/2023/05/17/new...

indo-dreaming wrote:

Speaking of not playing fair.

"Yes, Indeed, the Intention is to Deceive

Most likely you have seen Yes23’s campaign’s Voice referendum TV ad many times by now. It’s slick in seeking to provoke an emotional reaction, but that is not its only attribute, for it is also misleading, disingenuous, misinformation and disinformation. Before we go any further, here’s the ad:

Misleading is defined as “giving the wrong idea or impression”; Disingenuous as “slightly dishonest, or not speaking the complete truth”, with Disinformation being “deliberately misleading or biased information; manipulated narrative or facts; propaganda.” As we shall see, the Yes23 television advertisement is all of the above. It opens with these words:

Australia’s Constitution is 122 years old and still doesn’t recognise indigenous Australians.

This statement is correct. After 122 years the Australian Constitution does not “recognise Aboriginal people.” However, in point of fact, it does not ‘recognise’ anyone, and that is deliberate. The purpose of the Constitution is, in essence, to set out the working relationships between the states and the newly formed Commonwealth of Australia. It was never intended to ‘recognise’ anyone. The Constitution only refers to “the people” of Australia, as it should, of whom all Aborigines, immigrants and people native-born in Australia are included.

WHEREAS the people of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland, and Tasmania, humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God, have agreed to unite in one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and under the Constitution hereby established…

Australia’s Constitution does not ‘recognise’ or mention any group of people, just as it shouldn’t. It is intentionally blind to race and religion, and should never be allowed to mention any specific racial group as being more important than any other group, as this would immediately be hierarchical, divisive and, indeed, racist.

Clearly, the Yes23 campaign intends to create the impression there has been some mistake in that Aborigines have been inadvertently omitted or deliberately excluded from the Constitution. This is untrue, misleading and deceptive, aimed at making viewers think this alleged omission is a ‘mistake’ that needs to be be corrected. Note, too, that the male speaker’s voice is pitched in a complaining tone as if something is amiss. This adds to the ad’s emotional appeal. The Yes23 website says the same thing, but goes further and makes the misrepresentation worse:

Australia’s now 122-year-old constitution still doesn’t recognise our first Australians; Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. It’s time it did. By voting “Yes” you’ll ensure that they are finally recognised in our constitution in a simple and meaningful way: through a Voice to Parliament that will ensure they are heard on the issues that affect their communities.

This statement does not tell the whole story and omits key facts. For Aboriginal people to be recognised in the Constitution in a “simple and meaningful way through a Voice to Parliament …” is yet more deceitful and disingenuous propaganda. To attempt to convince the population that the proposed Voice would be “simple” is to deny the complexity of the proposal, its enormous financial cost and the massive political and social impact it will have on our democracy and way of life. Further, the Voice clearly would not be restricted only to issues “that affect their communities”. This, again, is a lie intended to mislead. The Yes23 campaign clearly hopes to garner Yes support by by denying voters the information they need to make a properly informed decision.

The ad’s next effort to mislead is the following statement from an Aboriginal woman:

‘We’ve been here for 65,000 years.’

In follow-on from the first misleading statement, the Aboriginal woman, also in a complaining tone of voice, implies that the length of time Aboriginal people have been in Australia makes this purported exclusion/omission even worse. The length of time Aborigines have been in Australia is a highly contested argument, but that is beside the point. What relevance has that habitation, however long, to changing the Constitution? The two are in no way connected, except by emotional appeal.

The advertisement then goes on to say:

This year, Australians have a chance to fix that…

… to fix what exactly? That Aborigines have been omitted from nor mentioned in the Constitution, or that Aborigines have allegedly inhabited Australia for 65,000 years? The segue is vague and unclear. What follows next is this:

…with a referendum to give Indigenous Australians a real say in their future.

This is horrendously misleading. The vast majority who identify as Aborigines are urban city dwellers who, just like everyone else, have identical opportunities to ‘have their say’, as does every other Australian. They are not disadvantaged in that way, not at all.

The misleading implication is that Indigenous Australians don’t “have a say” because they are not mentioned in the Constitution. In actual fact, apart from the eleven elected Aboriginal members of the federal parliament, Aborigines across Australia currently have a ‘real say in their future’ through a multitudinous plethora of representative Aboriginal organisations numbering in the hundreds. Indeed, Aboriginal Australians are organisationally the most thoroughly over-represented group in Australia. Further, what is a “real” say? Implicit in Yes23’s use of that word is the assertion that all those bodies are a pretense or simply not valid or real, that they are insufficient, don’t work or whatever. This is fraud in the service of a political deception.

Then there are the ad’s follow-up comments, the first by a man who appears to be Aboriginal and who says “Fair enough!” (as if the current situation is unfair) and a couple of white people agreeing with him saying “I’ll second that!”. Regard that as just a little bit of positive whitefella confirmation stuck in there for persuasive good measure.

Thus, to review, the ad creates a false and misleading impression that Aboriginal people were:

1/ Deliberately or accidentally omitted from the Constitution.

2/ That, on the basis of the length of time Aboriginal people have allegedly inhabited Australia, this was a mistake that must be corrected.

3/ That a change to the Constitution is required to provide Aboriginal people with a ‘real say’ in their lives which they are alleged not currently to enjoy.

All of these statements and implications are patently untrue.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese clearly stated that what he termed ‘misleading’ information would not be tolerated in the referendum process and perhaps even made illegal. We can assume he was referring only to the ‘No’ campaigners, because this ad is a prime example of the intention to deceive.

Let’s be under no illusion; advertisements such as the Yes23 campaign’s example — no doubt there will be many more in coming months — are nothing more than a stalking horse towards the path of “simple and meaningful” Aboriginal sovereignty over all of Australia via the ‘Voice’, ‘truth-telling’, ‘treaty’ and ‘reparations’, all things that the likes of Yes23 doesn’t want Australians to know about.

Some readers might be inclined to lodge complaints about the ad. If so they can be presented via the following link to Australian Electoral Commission."

https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/the-voice/2023/05/yes-indeed-the-intenti...

spot on 100%, very well written indo.

haha, excellent..

oops just realised not indo but an article by someone else.

apoligies indo but thankyou for enlightening me and hopefully other ppls too, cheers made my day.
ps put a complaint in to the aec and placed it under the "fraud" category cos this voice is a scam, as i have mentioned here b4.

sameaswas wrote:

oops just realised not indo but an article by someone else.

apoligies indo but thankyou for enlightening me and hopefully other ppls too, cheers made my day.
ps put a complaint in to the aec and placed it under the "fraud" category cos this voice is a scam, as i have mentioned here b4.

Ha ha, god no chance i could write that, i have awful grammar, spelling and sentence construction.

You know before reading that article i didn't have an issue on the indigenous constitutional recognition aspect, if it was a two part question i would vote yes on that aspect.

But the article actually make's a really good point and possibly changed my mind

"Australia’s Constitution is 122 years old and still doesn’t recognise indigenous Australians.

This statement is correct. After 122 years the Australian Constitution does not “recognise Aboriginal people.” However, in point of fact, it does not ‘recognise’ anyone, and that is deliberate. The purpose of the Constitution is, in essence, to set out the working relationships between the states and the newly formed Commonwealth of Australia. It was never intended to ‘recognise’ anyone. The Constitution only refers to “the people” of Australia, as it should, of whom all Aborigines, immigrants and people native-born in Australia are included.

WHEREAS the people of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland, and Tasmania, humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God, have agreed to unite in one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and under the Constitution hereby established…

Australia’s Constitution does not ‘recognise’ or mention any group of people, just as it shouldn’t. It is intentionally blind to race and religion, and should never be allowed to mention any specific racial group as being more important than any other group, as this would immediately be hierarchical, divisive and, indeed, racist."

The thing in the constitution that in my opinion really needs to be erased is the race power laws.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-06-04/races-power-in-constitution-shoul...

IMHO the constitution should be completely free from any description or mention of race and should only mention Australians.

At the most if there is any mention of race it should just be an acknowledgement of Indigenous people being here first but then go on to say we are now all one and just Australians and equal in all ways under the constitution.

Surely in time this will happen be it 20 years or 100 years, i cant see how anyone could argue for anything different, but strangely enough we could actually be adding more racial aspects into the constitution.

indo-dreaming wrote:

sameaswas wrote:

oops just realised not indo but an article by someone else.

apoligies indo but thankyou for enlightening me and hopefully other ppls too, cheers made my day.
ps put a complaint in to the aec and placed it under the "fraud" category cos this voice is a scam, as i have mentioned here b4.

Ha ha, god no chance i could write that, i have awful grammar, spelling and sentence construction.

You know before reading that article i didn't have an issue on the indigenous constitutional recognition aspect, if it was a two part question i would vote yes on that aspect.

But the article actually make's a really good point and possibly changed my mind

"Australia’s Constitution is 122 years old and still doesn’t recognise indigenous Australians.

This statement is correct. After 122 years the Australian Constitution does not “recognise Aboriginal people.” However, in point of fact, it does not ‘recognise’ anyone, and that is deliberate. The purpose of the Constitution is, in essence, to set out the working relationships between the states and the newly formed Commonwealth of Australia. It was never intended to ‘recognise’ anyone. The Constitution only refers to “the people” of Australia, as it should, of whom all Aborigines, immigrants and people native-born in Australia are included.

WHEREAS the people of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland, and Tasmania, humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God, have agreed to unite in one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and under the Constitution hereby established…

Australia’s Constitution does not ‘recognise’ or mention any group of people, just as it shouldn’t. It is intentionally blind to race and religion, and should never be allowed to mention any specific racial group as being more important than any other group, as this would immediately be hierarchical, divisive and, indeed, racist."

The thing in the constitution that in my opinion really needs to be erased is the race power laws.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-06-04/races-power-in-constitution-shoul...

IMHO the constitution should be completely free from any description or mention of race and should only mention Australians.

At the most if there is any mention of race it should just be an acknowledgement of Indigenous people being here first but then go on to say we are now all one and just Australians and equal in all ways under the constitution.

Surely in time this will happen be it 20 years or 100 years, i cant see how anyone could argue for anything different, but strangely enough we could actually be adding more racial aspects into the constitution.

i agree, one thing no ones thought of is if that "races power 51 (xxvi) is dissolved does that mean that all the ppl that have been deported cos they were'nt born here and convicted of a crime + 12mnths jail, will then be able to sue the "feds" for racially biased villification and persecution and demand to come home?
fair enuf me thinks.

Wilhelm Scream wrote:

#These People Vote

Yep hard to believe…

Wilhelm Scream wrote:

#Reconciliation Week 27 May to 3 June

https://lens.monash.edu/@politics-society/2023/02/27/1385518/voice-to-pa...

this voice "commitee" says it listens to isolated communities.
alice springs respected elder said parents of young miscreants should be named and shamed and punished and children removed from dysfunctional home for their wellbeing...he is ignored by the canberra bubble voice mob.

last week a well respected elder from kunnunurra (nw wa) said exactly the same and again ignored by the same ppl.

in both occasions they only had 1 day on msm and then censored and no mention ever again, so much for freedom of speach and listening to the elders.

this voice has $320+ million to spend (waste) on propaganda while women and children are sleeping in cars, ah well the advertiseing agencies and media+artyfartys are lapping it up kachingkaching$$ and are looking forward to another referendum in 3yrs time for a republic vote and another cash cow.

not voteing yes for a cabal of canberra bubble "animal farm" pigs. (george orwell +1984)

The voice simplified . Is it really that hard to understand ?

The Voice will be about recognition, and it will be about listening. pic.twitter.com/9TnjpcNNyv

— Anthony Albanese (@AlboMP) May 29, 2023

Supafreak wrote:

The voice simplified . Is it really that hard to understand ? https://twitter.com/albomp/status/1663124508121907204?s=46&t=5RczxwAfzXe...

Yep we already know its just another Indigenous advisory body, nothing at all new we have quite a few at federal level in the past all have failed and have a shitload currently at all kinds of other levels and havent change much.

Add another if you like, but just not to the constitution cause the aim should be to remove anything of race in the constitution and Australians be seen as one, not add more creating more division.

As i said above only mention of race if any should be in the preamble acknowledging Indigenous people as being here before non indigenous, but then it should make it clear we are all one and all Australians and equal under constitution, law and all other respects, and any mention of race/ethnicity in the constitution should be removed and never be able to be put in there.

JP doesn’t believe it’s just an advisory body indo , she believes albo is lying to the public and hiding “ secret government documents “ from the public, she has written articles stating this . In the past indo who has appointed these advisory bodies ? Is it the government of the day or are they elected by the indigenous communities ?

Mabo 2.0

Some of the outstanding Australians from the NO campaign.

Supafreak wrote:

JP doesn’t believe it’s just an advisory body indo , she believes albo is lying to the public and hiding “ secret government documents “ from the public, she has written articles stating this . In the past indo who has appointed these advisory bodies ? Is it the government of the day or are they elected by the indigenous communities ?

supa, marcia langton at the beginning of the voice stated that if ppl knew everything about what the voice was about, (or words to that effect) "they would not vote for it".
no bull i am not makeing this up.
i am all for ularu statement, truthtelling etc not another beaurocracy controlled by nepotism and cronyism and secrecy.

You got a context for that alleged statement sameaswas?

Only a couple of months ago she said this -

"It would be tragic if the referendum were voted down because of the relentless scare campaign from people."

My understanding of the requirement for the Voice to be a part of the constitution is that any future government cannot just simply cancel it at their whim as Howard did with ATSIC. See below.
Anyway, not going to change anyone's mind, but Australia will be in a sad place if the 'No' vote gets up in my opinion. Not everyone who votes No is necessarily a racist, but it will definitely be a win for the bigots.
End of the day, it will not affect me in any way, but it could have a positive impact on Indigenous Australians so I'm for it.

https://www.sbs.com.au/nitv/the-point/article/7-legacies-of-john-howards...

stunet wrote:

Mabo 2.0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djEL0eZGzyI

Howard had plenty to say as well as did whoever was the nationals leader at the time

GuySmiley wrote:

stunet wrote:

Mabo 2.0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djEL0eZGzyI

Howard had plenty to say as well as did whoever was the nationals leader at the time

Hewson was leader; called it a "day of shame for Australia."

andy-mac wrote:

My understanding of the requirement for the Voice to be a part of the constitution is that any future government cannot just simply cancel it at their whim as Howard did with ATSIC. See below.
Anyway, not going to change anyone's mind, but Australia will be in a sad place if the 'No' vote gets up in my opinion. Not everyone who votes No is necessarily a racist, but it will definitely be a win for the bigots.
End of the day, it will not affect me in any way, but it could have a positive impact on Indigenous Australians so I'm for it.

https://www.sbs.com.au/nitv/the-point/article/7-legacies-of-john-howards...

bigot (oxford dictionary) "an obstinate and intolerant believer in a religion, political theory, etc.
bigoted: unreasonably prejudiced and intolerant.

sameaswas wrote:

andy-mac wrote:

My understanding of the requirement for the Voice to be a part of the constitution is that any future government cannot just simply cancel it at their whim as Howard did with ATSIC. See below.
Anyway, not going to change anyone's mind, but Australia will be in a sad place if the 'No' vote gets up in my opinion. Not everyone who votes No is necessarily a racist, but it will definitely be a win for the bigots.
End of the day, it will not affect me in any way, but it could have a positive impact on Indigenous Australians so I'm for it.

https://www.sbs.com.au/nitv/the-point/article/7-legacies-of-john-howards...

bigot (oxford dictionary) "an obstinate and intolerant believer in a religion, political theory, etc.
bigoted: unreasonably prejudiced and intolerant.

Thanks for grammar lesson. :)
Win for bigoted.

stunet wrote:

GuySmiley wrote:

stunet wrote:

Mabo 2.0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djEL0eZGzyI

Howard had plenty to say as well as did whoever was the nationals leader at the time

Hewson was leader; called it a "day of shame for Australia."

The Wik decision established Mabo in law

https://amp.smh.com.au/politics/federal/it-unnerved-us-john-howard-admit...

“ The divisive voice to parliament “ I’m trying to remember the grubs name that runs channel 9 , Peter someone.

This is such a perfect example of how media bias really works. It is deeply built into the entire professional model of this sort of reporting--from the preference for conflict to racist norms--and it comes out effortlessly and unexamined in framing like this. https://t.co/yKwbLCrOzQ

— timdunlop (@timdunlop) May 29, 2023

If/when the Voice Referendum fails it won't be the racists, or the LNP or the right wing owners of the media that I will hold responsible. I will lay that squarely at the feet of Anthony Albanese and the ALP.
It will be a failure of strategy and hubris on their part that causes it. The Voice proposal, in spite of all the bullshit being peddled at the moment, is such a gentle, benign thing of so little consequence to the vast majority of us that it should never have been allowed to morph into something that brings out the worst in us.
Something happens to politicians that become prime minister in this country. They turn into show ponies and grandstanders absorbed and obsessed with performative gesture and self importance at the expense of pragmatism and moving the country to better days. It is a feature common to both sides. The Voice is Albanese's example. He made it a Labor policy, a flagship for his and the ALP's self aggrandisement before bringing his political opponents onboard, denying the LNP any opportunity to take any ownership, to join in taking the Voice to the people because it is the right and proper thing to do. Albanese made it his and then challenged his opponents to agree with him. To my mind that was a fundamental strategic error. What did he expect them to do? Does he, after all the years he has known these people, expect them to just go along with the hero narrative he was creating for himself? They are opposition, they do what oppositions do, and in doing this Albanese has unleashed the racist dogs of war on our gentle, beautiful Indigenous Australians who want and deserve nothing more than the right to have a say on the things that impact them.
Things should never have gotten to this, where this issue is dividing us instead of uniting us, where more cruelty is being inflicted on Indigenous Australia, where their right to speak about their own future has become a plaything for ugly politics and a licence for racism. It should have been handled better from the beginning, it should have been bipartisan at the outset, Albanese and the ALP should have given ownership equality to their opponents or not proceeded unless they did. They should have known what would happen if the LNP opposed it. Like the marriage equality debate that unleashed homophobia on a grand scale and left our bewildered gay Australians questioning their worth, that others decide their rights and value, the Voice debate seems to be inflicting pain on Indigenous Australia that is unnecessary and uncalled for because certain politicians make it about them and not those it is supposed to be helping.
I will blame Albanese if the Voice doesn't get up. He should have known better, he should have done better, or he should not have done it at all. Australia has serious economic and social challenges at present, impacting far more people than The Voice ever will. He seems timid and unwilling to 'rock the boat' to solve any of them, yet more than willing to put Indigenous Australians to the sword to satisfy his hubris and legacy. I think it's cruel and a failure of leadership.

adam12 wrote:

If/when the Voice Referendum fails it won't be the racists, or the LNP or the right wing owners of the media that I will hold responsible. I will lay that squarely at the feet of Anthony Albanese and the ALP.
It will be a failure of strategy and hubris on their part that causes it. The Voice proposal, in spite of all the bullshit being peddled at the moment, is such a gentle, benign thing of so little consequence to the vast majority of us that it should never have been allowed to morph into something that brings out the worst in us.
Something happens to politicians that become prime minister in this country. They turn into show ponies and grandstanders absorbed and obsessed with performative gesture and self importance at the expense of pragmatism and moving the country to better days. It is a feature common to both sides. The Voice is Albanese's example. He made it a Labor policy, a flagship for his and the ALP's self aggrandisement before bringing his political opponents onboard, denying the LNP any opportunity to take any ownership, to join in taking the Voice to the people because it is the right and proper thing to do. Albanese made it his and then challenged his opponents to agree with him. To my mind that was a fundamental strategic error. What did he expect them to do? Does he, after all the years he has known these people, expect them to just go along with the hero narrative he was creating for himself? They are opposition, they do what oppositions do, and in doing this Albanese has unleashed the racist dogs of war on our gentle, beautiful Indigenous Australians who want and deserve nothing more than the right to have a say on the things that impact them.
Things should never have gotten to this, where this issue is dividing us instead of uniting us, where more cruelty is being inflicted on Indigenous Australia, where their right to speak about their own future has become a plaything for ugly politics and a licence for racism. It should have been handled better from the beginning, it should have been bipartisan at the outset, Albanese and the ALP should have given ownership equality to their opponents or not proceeded unless they did. They should have known what would happen if the LNP opposed it. Like the marriage equality debate that unleashed homophobia on a grand scale and left our bewildered gay Australians questioning their worth, that others decide their rights and value, the Voice debate seems to be inflicting pain on Indigenous Australia that is unnecessary and uncalled for because certain politicians make it about them and not those it is supposed to be helping.
I will blame Albanese if the Voice doesn't get up. He should have known better, he should have done better, or he should not have done it at all. Australia has serious economic and social challenges at present, impacting far more people than The Voice ever will. He seems timid and unwilling to 'rock the boat' to solve any of them, yet more than willing to put Indigenous Australians to the sword to satisfy his hubris and legacy. I think it's cruel and a failure of leadership.

"Albanese and the ALP should have given ownership equality to their opponents or not proceeded unless they did."

Fuck mate, it's the LNP. You're in lala land if you think that's ever happening.

adam12 wrote:

If/when the Voice Referendum fails it won't be the racists, or the LNP or the right wing owners of the media that I will hold responsible. I will lay that squarely at the feet of Anthony Albanese and the ALP.
It will be a failure of strategy and hubris on their part that causes it. The Voice proposal, in spite of all the bullshit being peddled at the moment, is such a gentle, benign thing of so little consequence to the vast majority of us that it should never have been allowed to morph into something that brings out the worst in us.
Something happens to politicians that become prime minister in this country. They turn into show ponies and grandstanders absorbed and obsessed with performative gesture and self importance at the expense of pragmatism and moving the country to better days. It is a feature common to both sides. The Voice is Albanese's example. He made it a Labor policy, a flagship for his and the ALP's self aggrandisement before bringing his political opponents onboard, denying the LNP any opportunity to take any ownership, to join in taking the Voice to the people because it is the right and proper thing to do. Albanese made it his and then challenged his opponents to agree with him. To my mind that was a fundamental strategic error. What did he expect them to do? Does he, after all the years he has known these people, expect them to just go along with the hero narrative he was creating for himself? They are opposition, they do what oppositions do, and in doing this Albanese has unleashed the racist dogs of war on our gentle, beautiful Indigenous Australians who want and deserve nothing more than the right to have a say on the things that impact them.
Things should never have gotten to this, where this issue is dividing us instead of uniting us, where more cruelty is being inflicted on Indigenous Australia, where their right to speak about their own future has become a plaything for ugly politics and a licence for racism. It should have been handled better from the beginning, it should have been bipartisan at the outset, Albanese and the ALP should have given ownership equality to their opponents or not proceeded unless they did. They should have known what would happen if the LNP opposed it. Like the marriage equality debate that unleashed homophobia on a grand scale and left our bewildered gay Australians questioning their worth, that others decide their rights and value, the Voice debate seems to be inflicting pain on Indigenous Australia that is unnecessary and uncalled for because certain politicians make it about them and not those it is supposed to be helping.
I will blame Albanese if the Voice doesn't get up. He should have known better, he should have done better, or he should not have done it at all. Australia has serious economic and social challenges at present, impacting far more people than The Voice ever will. He seems timid and unwilling to 'rock the boat' to solve any of them, yet more than willing to put Indigenous Australians to the sword to satisfy his hubris and legacy. I think it's cruel and a failure of leadership.

So if I'm a carnt, it's your fault???

When/If it doesn't get up I'll be blaming our biased media for not calling out the bullshit being pedalled by Dutton and his corrupt LNP sock puppets and holding them to account.
He really is a nasty piece of work.

I hope it gets up, I support it and will vote for it, and I hope adam12 is proven wrong.

But I agree with adam12 that, in my view, it's a poorly timed and directed waste of time, money and resources relative to, and is large scale (I'd say intentional) distraction away from, the major issues Australia is currently facing. Now is not the time and place for it.

It's just nowhere near the top of Australia's list of current priorities, particularly when I walk down the beach before sunrise each morning to check the surf and see homeless people camping in tents in the sand dunes along Kawana, who are packing up and heading off for the day before the sun comes up.