The Necessity of Reparation for Historic Injustices
udo wrote:https://www.news.com.au/national/nsw-act/politics/senator-lidia-thorpe-t...
Thats weird, i think she has every right to wear that T-shirt its not like its openly offensive, honestly, i didn't even know this word or meaning until i just googled it.
While i think its good that there is a very diverse range of indigenous people from left to right in the No camp, i do find her stance weird, the voice is clearly the first step to the things she always bangs on about like a treaty.
She might not be in the Greens anymore, but she still has that Greens mentality of wanting every single aspect their way with no room for compromise and if i don't get it all my way im going to oppose it, its such a self destructive mentality
Lydia Thorpe may have her detractors but the reasoning behind her No vote is sound. I have a Palawa mate on twitter who argues similarly and their viewpoint is the only reasonable argument I have heard on the No side. They argue that sovereignty was never ceded under international law and that treaty and self determination should come first, that the Voice and constitutional recognition makes colonisation an agreed occupancy and not the result of dispossession, genocide and war. They want guaranteed representation not an advisory body that can be ignored, and that the referendum is about white guilt not blak rights and that if the Yes vote succeeds nothing will ever happen on treaty, self determination and representation.
In terms of international law they are right. Pre colonial Australia was a sovereign state of FNP with the right of self determination that was never ceded by treaty. It was stolen by the British. This has always been the problem and that injustice will not be overcome by the Voice.
But international law is different to domestic law, it is fluid, it often doesn't exist in reality unless and until it is enforceable. History and circumstance overtake it. I argue to my Palawa mate that we can't go back to 1788 and do it over properly and that the reality of modern Australia is that the Voice is as positive a progression as we could expect and we should take what we can get now and try to build on that, or at least see what comes of it. He disagrees and says that after many community meetings this is the stance of Tasmania's Aboriginal community, to reject the Voice proposal until the sovereignty issue, treaty and representation are settled first. That is never going to happen. Modern Australia is not capable of correcting that injustice. Although I agree with the reasoning of this No argument I will still be voting Yes, because a No vote will be seen as a victory for racism and the ridiculous misinformation campaign rather than a rejection of historical injustice under international law. I'll take the achievable good over the impossibly perfect, but I'm not FNP. It's a dilemma, at least this whole debate is bringing all the divergent views out into the open and they are being discussed and hopefully we are all learning something about ourselves and our country.
now that was easily one of the best comments so far
I had tried to read about it before but credit to Adam he did explain it better than id read elsewhere.
I do wish you would hit the enter key every now and then though, im putting off reading glasses as long as i can, but your not making things easy.
Such a weird mix, both sides think and claim the other is racist, both sides see the other as being full of misinformation, and then this sovereign stuff i think most see as a type of conspiracy theory.
adam12 wrote:Lydia Thorpe may have her detractors but the reasoning behind her No vote is sound. I have a Palawa mate on twitter who argues similarly and their viewpoint is the only reasonable argument I have heard on the No side. They argue that sovereignty was never ceded under international law and that treaty and self determination should come first, that the Voice and constitutional recognition makes colonisation an agreed occupancy and not the result of dispossession, genocide and war. They want guaranteed representation not an advisory body that can be ignored, and that the referendum is about white guilt not blak rights and that if the Yes vote succeeds nothing will ever happen on treaty, self determination and representation.
In terms of international law they are right. Pre colonial Australia was a sovereign state of FNP with the right of self determination that was never ceded by treaty. It was stolen by the British. This has always been the problem and that injustice will not be overcome by the Voice.
But international law is different to domestic law, it is fluid, it often doesn't exist in reality unless and until it is enforceable. History and circumstance overtake it. I argue to my Palawa mate that we can't go back to 1788 and do it over properly and that the reality of modern Australia is that the Voice is as positive a progression as we could expect and we should take what we can get now and try to build on that, or at least see what comes of it. He disagrees and says that after many community meetings this is the stance of Tasmania's Aboriginal community, to reject the Voice proposal until the sovereignty issue, treaty and representation are settled first. That is never going to happen. Modern Australia is not capable of correcting that injustice. Although I agree with the reasoning of this No argument I will still be voting Yes, because a No vote will be seen as a victory for racism and the ridiculous misinformation campaign rather than a rejection of historical injustice under international law. I'll take the achievable good over the impossibly perfect, but I'm not FNP. It's a dilemma, at least this whole debate is bringing all the divergent views out into the open and they are being discussed and hopefully we are all learning something about ourselves and our country.
Good comment and I understand the reasoning.
My concern if the No vote gets up, the chances of even the start of a discussion for a treaty will be put back a generation. Or it will never happen, period. Australia is by nature a conservative country and the Voice 'could' be the start of a process.
If the No vote gets up, forget it, there will be no chance of a treaty no matter what Lidia says. Right or wrong....
All,
Coming to this late so apologies for any double ups.
My take on the Voice is you either support the notion of equal civic rights (irrespective of race), or you don't. If in the former camp, as I am, then voting No is the only possible answer consistent with that view. If the latter then voting Yes will be easy, in the anticipation that the expected net societal gains are worth the carving up of Constitutional rights based on race.
For that is in form and intent what the proposed amendment is meant to achieve; to enshrine forever the right of only one subset of the population to make representations to government (in all its forms) on any matters they feel affect them. Surely such a right should be available to all, as we currently express at the ballot box, or none?
To address the infamous Section 51 or 'Race Powers' clause of the Constitution. s51 makes no reference to any one race therefore could be argued to be blind in its drafting, i.e. all races have the potential to be equally discriminated against. In practice this Section has been relied upon by various governments to enact laws that apply only to Indigenous Australians and dealing with s51 presents I think the best possibility for finding a middle ground in this debate (or did, probably too late now):
- should s51 be removed from the Constitution? I think yes myself.
- or if s51 is retained, should the Voice only be able to make representations to Government if laws are passed pursuant to s51 that only affect Indigenous Australians? I would argue this would be much more likely to get up as a proposition and mitigates against my 'no extra Constitutional rights' argument.
Of course no new options are going to be presented to the people and the absence of a Referendum Convention to workshop such alternatives is absolutely a failure of process attributable to PM Albanese. There was admittedly a long consultation & drafting process undertaken by various governments but from what I can tell they effectively surveyed the Collingwood membership to understand which AFL team was the most popular and made a decision based on the answer they got. Classic sampling error.
I'm sure someone else has said this too but I think it's a real shame Albanese has elected to staple together Recognition (potentially symbolic) and the Voice (definitely comes with rights attached) into one amendment, however obvious the reasons, as I think a Recognition only amendment would achieve huge bipartisan and general support from the population.
And yes I understand the Voice is how certain indigenous Australians that are advocating for the Yes vote want 'Recognition', i.e. in a way that provides for power > symbolism. In effect they ain't building house but chasing tens...their call, I just happen to disagree with the approach.
Anyway, the lines are drawn and it's going to be divisive, least we can all agree on that. Hopefully the country can metaphorically shake hands and move on whatever the result as ultimately that's how democracy works.
Good luck all.
Cheers,
MJ
indo-dreaming][quote=I focus wrote:indo-dreaming wrote:Indo you are keep talking the same stuff that's been talked about for 50 plus years in regards to ATSI people its not the answer time to move on and actually recognize reality that the constitution reflects the original inhabitants not just us and include their advice in matters concerning them a small incremental step forward.
If you mean the same stuff as in education, employment and cultural change, then yes because without these thing's no matter your view nothing will ever change, its just not possible
It does my head in how people like you who aren't stupid, can be so ignorant or maybe just so brain washed by ideology that they throw all common sense and reason out the window. (the gender/trans issue/debate is another example of this)
I mean seriously what magic solutions do you think a voice is going to come up with?
Aliens coming down from far away to sprinkle magic dust over everything?
Again ive said the constitution should acknowledge indigenous people in the preamble, but from that point onwards should be completely free of ethnicity and see and treat all people as Australians only no matter their ethnic backgrounds, skin colour, or if there family arrived here last year of 50,000 years ago, this is not only the right thing morally but also has great symbolistic value of being one.
While adding further ethnic based policy further cementing and us and them mentality is a form of segregation.
By all means have another shot at another federal advisory body but just leave it out of the constitution.
And no sorry the idea that indigenous people and communities are not consulted is hogwash Warren Mundine has spoken in depth about how governments work with and already advised by a whole host of Indigenous bodies.
On the road indo so answer truncated some where my opinion on the Voice comes from is a life long lived experience plus I have a family member who is fully initiated I know a large number of people working with Aboriginals including child protection etc nothing to do with ideology nada zero.
I have long thought about all the issues and given my experience the complexity is mind boggling your answers don’t even scratch the surface seriously not ment to be a put down just reality for the vast majority of Australians including Mundine who contradicts himself every time he speaks.
More later
Well, it’s happening. For those who keep on keeping on about the negativity of a voice for indigenous Australians, how do you sleep while our beds are burning. One country right or wrong. Can’t wait to cast my vote.AW
@Michael Jardine
When you talk about the “carving up of Constitutional rights based on race” I’m not sure what you mean.
Could you elaborate?
As in, what constitutional rights are non- indigenous people losing?
Thorpe on fire today in the Senate today calling Hanson a white supremacist. Man, did Paulini look real cranky being out "human headlined" like that ..... the polar opposites sit next to each other, amazing!
AndyM wrote:@Michael Jardine
When you talk about the “carving up of Constitutional rights based on race” I’m not sure what you mean.
Could you elaborate?
As in, what constitutional rights are non- indigenous people losing?
Sure no problem, and the short answer is no existing rights will be lost.
However there will be a new right created - the constitutionally protected right to make representations to government in all its forms on whatever matters the holders of this right deem material to them - that will not be available to all Australians. And the yes/no gateway to determine access to this right, which is deliberately very broad, in this instance will be based on membership of a certain [racial / lineage / heritage] group.
Today we all enjoy equal rights under the Constitution, which I happen to believe is absolutely fundamental to how a democracy should function. That certainly won't be the case post referendum if the proposed amendment is carried in its current form.
More than happy to hear an opposing view, thanks.
Hey MJ,
As a life long Collingwood supporter I take umbrage in your sampling comments ;-)
However I completely concur with your succinct summation.
Thanks!
@I Focus
Could you have a shot at answering this question?
Nobody else has even attempted to yet
I thought somebody might have a go claiming a focus on relearning positive traditional aspects of culture (not a bad thing in itself) is the answer, but nobody even tried that one.
indo-dreaming wrote:Okay then, lets make this thread discussion go in a positive direction and throw out some possible solution's that the voice might suggest, that dont include or based on the five important points that you guys seem to think aren't important.
-Education
-Employment
- Access to services like health care etc
-And break the negative cultural cycles.And dont be lazy and be a cop out and say its not my place to say, it up to them to decided etc
This is a forum its a place for discussion, your not enforcing your views on indigenous people.
.
Michael Jardine wrote:All,
Coming to this late so apologies for any double ups.
My take on the Voice is you either support the notion of equal civic rights (irrespective of race), or you don't. If in the former camp, as I am, then voting No is the only possible answer consistent with that view. If the latter then voting Yes will be easy, in the anticipation that the expected net societal gains are worth the carving up of Constitutional rights based on race.
For that is in form and intent what the proposed amendment is meant to achieve; to enshrine forever the right of only one subset of the population to make representations to government (in all its forms) on any matters they feel affect them. Surely such a right should be available to all, as we currently express at the ballot box, or none?
To address the infamous Section 51 or 'Race Powers' clause of the Constitution. s51 makes no reference to any one race therefore could be argued to be blind in its drafting, i.e. all races have the potential to be equally discriminated against. In practice this Section has been relied upon by various governments to enact laws that apply only to Indigenous Australians and dealing with s51 presents I think the best possibility for finding a middle ground in this debate (or did, probably too late now):
- should s51 be removed from the Constitution? I think yes myself.
- or if s51 is retained, should the Voice only be able to make representations to Government if laws are passed pursuant to s51 that only affect Indigenous Australians? I would argue this would be much more likely to get up as a proposition and mitigates against my 'no extra Constitutional rights' argument.Of course no new options are going to be presented to the people and the absence of a Referendum Convention to workshop such alternatives is absolutely a failure of process attributable to PM Albanese. There was admittedly a long consultation & drafting process undertaken by various governments but from what I can tell they effectively surveyed the Collingwood membership to understand which AFL team was the most popular and made a decision based on the answer they got. Classic sampling error.
I'm sure someone else has said this too but I think it's a real shame Albanese has elected to staple together Recognition (potentially symbolic) and the Voice (definitely comes with rights attached) into one amendment, however obvious the reasons, as I think a Recognition only amendment would achieve huge bipartisan and general support from the population.
And yes I understand the Voice is how certain indigenous Australians that are advocating for the Yes vote want 'Recognition', i.e. in a way that provides for power > symbolism. In effect they ain't building house but chasing tens...their call, I just happen to disagree with the approach.
Anyway, the lines are drawn and it's going to be divisive, least we can all agree on that. Hopefully the country can metaphorically shake hands and move on whatever the result as ultimately that's how democracy works.
Good luck all.
Cheers,
MJ
This for me is the best post on the voice here and one of the best summaries ive seen anywhere, it covers every aspect needed and often not mentioned and i totally agree with it all.
Almost everything here ive been saying or trying to say but im just not very good at putting things in words, while you are clearly very good at doing so, putting it all together in a very clear and concise manner with the minimum amount of words possible.
BTW. I totally got the Collingwood thing i hadn't mentioned this aspect as didn't know how to explain it properly, but that did it perfectly and as another life long Collingwood supporter, i didn't take it personally :P
Maybe the only aspect missing is the problem with how those on the voice are also actually chosen, the only way you can do it properly from a democratic point of view is by a proper democratic process like we do with anyone else that is in a position of power as part of the government process.
So either the public vote on who is put there, or all indigenous people do, which then is very problematic because there is not even any proper way to decide who is indigenous.
At the very minimum those indigenous people already in parliament elected should be on the voice to provide some ensured diversity, and probably should hold more weight actually being democratically elected.
Jeez, Indo, when do you reckon tradies and surfers headed alt-right? I guess it must have been when the left started eating itself. I’m truly sorry there is not an engaging centre-left (or even centre-right) for you atm Indo.
Seems there’s an increasing number of snowflakes and bozos where once stood role-models and men with generous spirits, even in lean times. When did we become greedy burbs nerds wanting to prove we are ‘right’ by quibbling through technical-details, and opinionated ideological meanness, instead of chucking a baked grin and a ‘fer sure, mate!’ when someone asks for something?
It’s not a weird request, it’s referendum-able. Totally get those who wish it never got up as a referendum, but now it has, voting No would be unconscionable.
It surprised me, Indo, how keen you were to read the Australian article.. an article that you hoped would speak to beliefs you already hold. I have been calmly talking with and listening to No voters as much as I can, to make sure I understand all of their arguments, and I get what they are saying, and I agree with their points, and then I look at my life and those around me and how easy it will be to just say Yes. So easy.
We’ve all lived with or worked for people who love saying No. They suck. Find a reason to just say Yes when someone asks for something. It feels really good. And it was once the Aussie way. Wish this referendum was held some time circa 1978 – 1996. Pre phones/socials/polarisation. Would’a been a no-brainer.
Most people haven’t thought about the constitution since they saw The Castle last century. Suddenly carrying on about it is just fucking embarrassing. I admit, I held back a bit until the Solicitor General gave the nod, because I am not a constitutional expert and don’t plan on becoming one. Once he said it would ‘enhance’ rather than ‘pose any threat to' our system of government, it was off to the races for an easy Yes.
If you wanna say No, there’s good reasons.. well done. If you wanna say Yes, there’s good reasons... well done. As southernraw said, what kinda person you wanna be?
The constitution is only on our minds when its up to be changed thats completely natural.
This really isnt about left or right as we have seen with sections of both sides opposing and both sides agreeing and even the Greens token indgenous person leaving the party because she felt so strongly about the issue.
As for what sort of person do you want to be?
I want to be a person who sees race/ethnicity not dividing us in the constitution and all Australians coming together and being seen as one.
basesix wrote:Jeez, Indo, when do you reckon tradies and surfers headed alt-right? I guess it must have been when the left started eating itself. I’m truly sorry there is not an engaging centre-left (or even centre-right) for you atm Indo.
Seems there’s an increasing number of snowflakes and bozos where once stood role-models and men with generous spirits, even in lean times. When did we become greedy burbs nerds wanting to prove we are ‘right’ by quibbling through technical-details, and opinionated ideological meanness, instead of chucking a baked grin and a ‘fer sure, mate!’ when someone asks for something?
It’s not a weird request, it’s referendum-able. Totally get those who wish it never got up as a referendum, but now it has, voting No would be unconscionable.
It surprised me, Indo, how keen you were to read the Australian article.. an article that you hoped would speak to beliefs you already hold. I have been calmly talking with and listening to No voters as much as I can, to make sure I understand all of their arguments, and I get what they are saying, and I agree with their points, and then I look at my life and those around me and how easy it will be to just say Yes. So easy.
We’ve all lived with or worked for people who love saying No. They suck. Find a reason to just say Yes when someone asks for something. It feels really good. And it was once the Aussie way. Wish this referendum was held some time circa 1978 – 1996. Pre phones/socials/polarisation. Would’a been a no-brainer.
Most people haven’t thought about the constitution since they saw The Castle last century. Suddenly carrying on about it is just fucking embarrassing. I admit, I held back a bit until the Solicitor General gave the nod, because I am not a constitutional expert and don’t plan on becoming one. Once he said it would ‘enhance’ rather than ‘pose any threat to' our system of government, it was off to the races for an easy Yes.
If you wanna say No, there’s good reasons.. well done. If you wanna say Yes, there’s good reasons... well done. As southernraw said, what kinda person you wanna be?
It's amazing how quickly people become constitutional experts. Sigh.
" want to be a person who sees race/ethnicity not dividing us in the constitution and all Australians coming together and being seen as one."
In that case, you need to do what you can to lift certain sections of out society up out of entrenched disadvantage.
Surely you can see that by any measure of wellbeing, "race/ethnicity" is currently dividing us?
Michael Jardine wrote:AndyM wrote:@Michael Jardine
When you talk about the “carving up of Constitutional rights based on race” I’m not sure what you mean.
Could you elaborate?
As in, what constitutional rights are non- indigenous people losing?Sure no problem, and the short answer is no existing rights will be lost.
However there will be a new right created - the constitutionally protected right to make representations to government in all its forms on whatever matters the holders of this right deem material to them - that will not be available to all Australians. And the yes/no gateway to determine access to this right, which is deliberately very broad, in this instance will be based on membership of a certain [racial / lineage / heritage] group.
Today we all enjoy equal rights under the Constitution, which I happen to believe is absolutely fundamental to how a democracy should function. That certainly won't be the case post referendum if the proposed amendment is carried in its current form.
More than happy to hear an opposing view, thanks.
Hi Michael, you talk about equal rights under the Constitution.
Here's something that gave me a bit to think about.
Australia is a party to seven core international human rights treaties. The right to health is contained in article 12(1) of the International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR).
Clearly, Australia as a nation is failing its Indigenous Australians with regards to facilitating the "right to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health" as defined in the Attorney-General's document below.
In other words, talk of equal rights in Australia is purely theoretical.
So I really do believe that formalising and enshrining a method to address this clear lack of equal rights in Australia is not only a good idea, but essential for the wellbeing and progress of the country as a whole.
https://www.ag.gov.au/rights-and-protections/human-rights-and-anti-discr...
indo-dreaming wrote:@I Focus
Could you have a shot at answering this question?
Nobody else has even attempted to yet
I thought somebody might have a go claiming a focus on relearning positive traditional aspects of culture (not a bad thing in itself) is the answer, but nobody even tried that one.
indo-dreaming wrote:Okay then, lets make this thread discussion go in a positive direction and throw out some possible solution's that the voice might suggest, that dont include or based on the five important points that you guys seem to think aren't important.
-Education
-Employment
- Access to services like health care etc
-And break the negative cultural cycles.And dont be lazy and be a cop out and say its not my place to say, it up to them to decided etc
This is a forum its a place for discussion, your not enforcing your views on indigenous people.
.
If only it was so simple it isn’t none of this stuff is easy there a lot of mountains to climb long before you can get to the basics and it will vary depending on the area mob family’s clans
AndyM wrote:" want to be a person who sees race/ethnicity not dividing us in the constitution and all Australians coming together and being seen as one."
In that case, you need to do what you can to lift certain sections of out society up out of entrenched disadvantage.
Surely you can see that by any measure of wellbeing, "race/ethnicity" is currently dividing us?
Very well said Andy M.
And something to ponder, in a quote used from the original post that started this thread,
, “Continuity gives rise to responsibility on part of present generations of Australians for our history”.(McKenzie,2013)
AndyM wrote:Michael Jardine wrote:AndyM wrote:@Michael Jardine
When you talk about the “carving up of Constitutional rights based on race” I’m not sure what you mean.
Could you elaborate?
As in, what constitutional rights are non- indigenous people losing?Sure no problem, and the short answer is no existing rights will be lost.
However there will be a new right created - the constitutionally protected right to make representations to government in all its forms on whatever matters the holders of this right deem material to them - that will not be available to all Australians. And the yes/no gateway to determine access to this right, which is deliberately very broad, in this instance will be based on membership of a certain [racial / lineage / heritage] group.
Today we all enjoy equal rights under the Constitution, which I happen to believe is absolutely fundamental to how a democracy should function. That certainly won't be the case post referendum if the proposed amendment is carried in its current form.
More than happy to hear an opposing view, thanks.
Hi Michael, you talk about equal rights under the Constitution.
Here's something that gave me a bit to think about.
Australia is a party to seven core international human rights treaties. The right to health is contained in article 12(1) of the International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR).
Clearly, Australia as a nation is failing its Indigenous Australians with regards to facilitating the "right to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health" as defined in the Attorney-General's document below.
In other words, talk of equal rights in Australia is purely theoretical.
So I really do believe that formalising and enshrining a method to address this clear lack of equal rights in Australia is not only a good idea, but essential for the wellbeing and progress of the country as a whole.https://www.ag.gov.au/rights-and-protections/human-rights-and-anti-discr...
Hi Andy,
I think, with all due respect, you're conflating rights and outcomes. There are no discriminatory sections in the Constitution with respect to a right to Health, but there are clearly gaps at the outcomes level.
This is the guts of the proposition though right?
The Yes camp believes the outcome gaps regarding life expectancy, health, education, incarceration/recidivism and so on, which have been very long-term issues but are potentially temporal in nature, will be addressed by enshrining the Voice forever in the Constitution. And they're happy to sacrifice civic equality in the very long term on the chance that they're right.
I happen to disagree and think the principle of equal rights irrespective of [race, colour, creed et al] - and the Voice as drafted is a thumping big, broad new right that will only be available to a certain few - should be fundamental to the document that underpins our country. And to be completely honest I find it genuinely perplexing that civic equality, long understood to be a good thing, is now seen as eminently disposable.
Appreciate the engagement.
Cheers,
MJ
Civic equality V reparations for past injustices.
That's it simplified and 'the voice' as far as i can see is another part of long overdue reparations.
A small step but a step in the right direction none the less.
indo-dreaming wrote:The constitution is only on our minds when its up to be changed thats completely natural.
This really isnt about left or right as we have seen with sections of both sides opposing and both sides agreeing and even the Greens token indgenous person leaving the party because she felt so strongly about the issue.
As for what sort of person do you want to be?
I want to be a person who sees race/ethnicity not dividing us in the constitution and all Australians coming together and being seen as one.
Yep. Same as virology was on all our minds not long ago. But I'd still trust my GP over burls. And I agree, of course there's a case for No. Possibly half of the country I love currently thinks so. And half thinks Yes. Anyone who doesn't think there is a case for either Yes or No, should go live somewhere else, because they must believe half of Australia is stupid.
The left/right thing is getting sooo tragic.. the polarisation has bent around in a loop and the mad left & mad right now sit comically side by side. Hating each other, but finding unity in a common enemy, the centre.
southernraw wrote:Civic equality V reparations for past injustices.
That's it simplified and 'the voice' as far as i can see is another part of long overdue reparations.
A small step but a step in the right direction none the less.
Yep. Where everything has failed, lets take this small step to help some people who are still asking for help.
#principlesorpeople?
@Michael Jardine.
Here are a couple of quotes from a post I made the other day that provide a different view for you. First from The Australian Human Rights Commission;
"Equality does not mean that everyone should be treated exactly the same. It has always been true that in order to be “free and equal in dignity and rights”, marginalised or disadvantaged groups sometimes require unique representation or assistance. This is particularly so with indigenous peoples, which is why the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples bestows unique rights to the original inhabitants of countries that have been colonised."
https://itstopswithme.humanrights.gov.au/news/voice-parliament-will-lead...
And one of mine;
"The Voice is not about race or ethnicity, it is about indigeneity, big difference."
It has long been recognised in international human rights law that the principle of equal rights takes into account the special position of indigenous populations in colonised countries.
Again from the Aust. HRC;
"There is clear international guidance that establishing representative structures to ensure that Indigenous people are able to participate in decisions that affect them is not only consistent with international law and non-discriminatory, but is in fact necessary to prevent and overcome racism and discrimination."
Whilst we all agree in the principle of equal rights, "civic equality" as you put it, as a fundamental pillar of any social democracy, it's meaning with respect to indigenous populations of colonised countries should be interpreted in it's unique historical context. That has been the approach taken by human rights jurists and organisations internationally and in Australia. Whether you agree or not is your decision, which it goes without saying, you are entitled to. It is nuanced and open to interpretation as to where the line of equality is and whether it has been overstepped by measures like the Voice, my own view is that your correctly held views of "civic equality" are not threatened by the Voice but enhanced, but we all see things differently.
Glad you are adding to the conversation here.
adam12 wrote:@Michael Jardine.
Here are a couple of quotes from a post I made the other day that provide a different view for you. First from The Australian Human Rights Commission;
"Equality does not mean that everyone should be treated exactly the same. It has always been true that in order to be “free and equal in dignity and rights”, marginalised or disadvantaged groups sometimes require unique representation or assistance. This is particularly so with indigenous peoples, which is why the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples bestows unique rights to the original inhabitants of countries that have been colonised."
https://itstopswithme.humanrights.gov.au/news/voice-parliament-will-lead...
And one of mine;
"The Voice is not about race or ethnicity, it is about indigeneity, big difference."It has long been recognised in international human rights law that the principle of equal rights takes into account the special position of indigenous populations in colonised countries.
Again from the Aust. HRC;
"There is clear international guidance that establishing representative structures to ensure that Indigenous people are able to participate in decisions that affect them is not only consistent with international law and non-discriminatory, but is in fact necessary to prevent and overcome racism and discrimination."Whilst we all agree in the principle of equal rights, "civic equality" as you put it, as a fundamental pillar of any social democracy, it's meaning with respect to indigenous populations of colonised countries should be interpreted in it's unique historical context. That has been the approach taken by human rights jurists and organisations internationally and in Australia. Whether you agree or not is your decision, which it goes without saying, you are entitled to. It is nuanced and open to interpretation as to where the line of equality is and whether it has been overstepped by measures like the Voice, my own view is that your correctly held views of "civic equality" are not threatened by the Voice but enhanced, but we all see things differently.
Glad you are adding to the conversation here.
Thanks Adam and appreciate the comments.
I don't see the Voice as a threat or enhancement per se, they are both subjective descriptors and open to events yet to happen, on which none of us can be definitive. But I am focused on the inarguable fact that what is currently a Constitution that allows all Australians to wander freely through its metaphorical hall of rights will, post referendum, have a door that only opens to a few. And not only do I fundamentally disagree with that proposition, I also don't think you can claim to both value civic equality - defined as equal rights for all - and vote for the Voice in its current form. They are mutually exclusive given the wording of the proposed amendment.
I genuinely believe a successful compromise position on enshrinement was possible - where perhaps nobody got everything they wanted, be it proponents (in accepting a Voice with a more limited scope) or opponents (in having to swallow a less purist Constitution) - but Albanese adopted the maximalist road early on and the window to explore alternatives at scale never really opened.
Binary it is.
Cheers,
MJ
My understanding is that the Voice is about political rights and democratic representation and participation, not civic rights.
Even with fair and democratic elections, political representatives tend to be from the more elite levels of society and there is significant under representation, participation and influence of indigenous, ethnic and other minorities and groups in parliaments and hence the democratic deliberation and decision-making process.
This is true even if as in the case of Australia the actual “proportion” of elected indigenous Australians into parliament is greater than the “proportion” in the population. Anyway, elected indigenous representatives are also not necessarily reflective of their peoples of same ethnicity due to having different educational levels and overall life experiences, nor are they necessarily always even there to represent their own peoples.
Parliaments are never microcosms of a nation. Political rights in theory or on paper rarely if ever translate into practice or reality.
My understanding is The Voice is a mechanism, in the context of ideas surrounding the notions of deliberative and consultative democracy, to try to address this problem and enhance the political rights, representation and participation in the democratic process and decisions of indigenous Australians.
Many countries have adopted measures intended to improve political rights, representation and participation, some more or less similar to The Voice.
The link Udo posted of Thorpe which a lot will find perhaps uncomfortable its really the truth of the whole matter the Voice fundamentally is what the political hard heads judged to be what the Australian people might accept sadly current polling says no
The link Udo posted of Thorpe which a lot will find perhaps uncomfortable its really the truth of the whole matter the Voice fundamentally is what the political hard heads judged to be what the Australian people might accept sadly current polling says no
#cutandpasteopinionhere
Great post above W.H.
The funniest one i've read on here of late is that we'll lose our civic equality. hahaha! Fark me!
southernraw wrote:Great post above W.H.
The funniest one i've read on here of late is that we'll lose our civic equality. hahaha! Fark me!
He might technically be wrong on the wording, my understanding is its not really a lost of civic equality, but the correct wording i think is loss of political equality.
Because constitution becomes unequal and political representation becomes unequal.
Indo, you're saying that it's equal to begin with.
The unintended irony of that statement is baffling.
The "loss of civic equality" argument is absolutely ridiculous.
It says a lot about the person using it.
southernraw wrote:Indo, you're saying that it's equal to begin with.
The unintended irony of that statement is baffling.
So you dont think the constitution is CURRENTLY equal and discriminates against a certain group?
Which group and how?
I dont think it mentions race other than race laws, that i personally think should be removed.
Or you dont think our political system is currently structured in an equal manner?
How is it not?
If you want to look at who is being elected and representing the people, its currently producing a very good number of indigenous politicians
Federally- there are 227 MP's with 11 being indigenous, the indigenous pop is 3.2% while indigenous MPs= 4.8% (so over representation of 1.6%)
Australia wide- There is 837 MP's with 26 being indigenous so 3.1% (so under representation of 0.1%)
So as you can see federally indigenous people are actually over represented and Australia wide it's only very slightly under.(0.1%) which is rreally pretty much an equal representation based on pop, obviously you would also expect a small over or under and not always going to be bang on 3.1%
This is quite amazing really when you consider that as a group indigenous people are not highly educated or have incomes.
Also i dont think anyone could argue there is an imbalance in type of representation you have a very diverse and healthy representation from conservatives like Jacinta Price, to the polar opposite in Lidia Thorpe, you have indigenous people in both major parties plus fairly central independents like Jaquie Lambie
Stats from:
https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_departments/Parlia...
...as a group what???
Indo i'm not going over same old ground with you.
There's banging a head against a wall.
You have your blinkers set in a certain direction and no amount of what you term, 'debate' will change your mindset.
I noticed you completely bypassed the post from WH.
For someone as vocal as you on this subject, and one that seems to want to jump in on every single post that doesn't align with your way of thinking, i'm surprised you didn't have a crack at that.
basesix wrote:...as a group what???
As an ethinc group obviously
indo-dreaming wrote:This is quite amazing really when you consider that as a group indigenous people are not highly educated or have incomes.
Not going to jump on you for this Indo, but do you want to maybe rephrase it?
haha, yup, I'm out : )
basesix wrote:indo-dreaming wrote:This is quite amazing really when you consider that as a group indigenous people are not highly educated or have incomes.
Not going to jump on you for this Indo, but do you want to maybe rephrase it?
Okay it wasnt worded great, dinner was on the table, so didn't have time to complete/edit things as i normally do.
The point is overall the indigenous population doesn't have the same number of highly educated people or those from families with high incomes.
Both of which provide a much easier door way to getting in politics, so the pool even from that 1.3% of the population is smaller, so its surprising that we have so many indigenous people in politics.
It actually shows that our political system despite many negatives is healthy in some ways, same deal in how the representation of indigenous politicians is so diverse.
Anyway will reply to Souternraw when get a chance, but right now ive got to get my boy Java to mandi(wash)
Ha ha yes i called my kid after the Indonesian Island :P
"The point is overall the indigenous population doesn't have the same number of highly educated people or those from families with high incomes."
Why is that you reckon?
See, Guy straight off the bat. Totally misinterpreting my question.
Onya Benny.
AndyM wrote:The "loss of civic equality" argument is absolutely ridiculous.
It says a lot about the person using it.
Hey @AndyM,
I think the person you're referring to is me.
I see that particular statement as relatively uncontroversial tbh (and yes happy to use 'civic' or 'political' rights or whatever is most accurate) in that it's grounded using a pretty measurable test. Today, all rights derived from the Constitution are open to all Australians, whereas if the proposed Amendment is carried that will - inarguably and by design - no longer be the case.
I don't think even the most vocal pro Voice supporters would argue that point, however defined. It's the whole point of the exercise after all (I make no comment on how this new right may be applied in practice, simply that it will exist).
Fully accept there are diverse opinions as to the merits of that change, whether or not 'civic/political' rights even matter or should be literally equal, but as a point of fact regarding the intention of proposed amendment I think the statement stands up as being grounded in reality.
As before, more than happy to entertain and consider alternative views along the way; we don't vote for a few months yet. All the best in the meantime.
Cheers,
MJ
southernraw wrote:Indo i'm not going over same old ground with you.
There's banging a head against a wall.
You have your blinkers set in a certain direction and no amount of what you term, 'debate' will change your mindset.
I noticed you completely bypassed the post from WH.
For someone as vocal as you on this subject, and one that seems to want to jump in on every single post that doesn't align with your way of thinking, i'm surprised you didn't have a crack at that.
If you are going to claim our constitution or political system & representation is unequal, you need to back it up with something.
You are saying things that are completely factually incorrect based on nothing more than emotion, and as ive shown can be busted with real facts and figures.
If you had said this at various periods in Australia's history you would have been correct, but not today.
That's the problem with people like you, you dont acknowledge all the positive progress thats been made
We all now have the same rights under the constitution and law the only fuzzy area is race laws that can be used in regard to any one ethic group like indigenous people and IMHO should be removed.
Anyway this post sums it up pretty good
In regard to WH, we all know who he is, I havent and wont interact with him in any manner no matter the subject or post, as he has proven time and time again under literally more than half a dozen handles that he isnt here to have any genuine meaningful discussion or even debate, while a whole host of others including yourself i rarely agree with but at least are here for the right reasons and generally up for a proper conversation.
zenagain wrote:"The point is overall the indigenous population doesn't have the same number of highly educated people or those from families with high incomes."
Why is that you reckon?
Expect a whole host of reasons, just a few.
- Historic aspects
- Geographical aspects
- Cultural aspects
70% of Aussie's live in major cities but only 35% of indigenous people live in major cities, this alone put them at a disadvantage for both income and education level
As just looking at the general Australian population we see:
Those in cities have bachelor degrees or above at a rate of 36.4% of the population and regional 21.1% and remote/very remote 18%.
https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/education/education-and-work-au...
Income as we know is similar, those in urban areas generally have much higher incomes than those in country or regional areas, mining in remote areas distorts things though for remote regions, take away mining and things would look very different. (as you can see if you look at a visual map of Australia for income's and see in remote areas with mining incomes are super high, but no mining and they are super low)
Anyway again the level of political representation from indigenous people is impressive and again shows we dont have a problem in this area of our political system and something is working.
With all the negativity about politics and our system etc, i do think in many regards we do have a very good system, just learning more about the constitution and how hard it is to change (from memory tried to be changed 44 times but only successful 8 times) shows that here too we have a very good system compared to many other countries.
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