Opinion AUSTRALIAN Politics: Adelaide Board Discussion Part 5

[MrKK]

Cap

Anyone and any organisation can also make representations to parliament and the executive. This often happens when parliamentary committees examine bills, or governments consult stakeholders on proposed policy changes, or when bodies (such as business organisations, unions, industry groups, community groups and charities) lobby the government.

None of those groups are guaranteed by the Constitution and funded by the government. Indigenous people will retain access to those avenues as well as access to the Voice.

The constitutionally implied freedom of political communication ensures individuals and groups within Australia remain free to make representations to parliament and the government on political matters. The expert panel noted the establishment of the Voice would not “change or take away any right, power or privilege of anyone who is not Indigenous”.

Strawman - the argument is not that it will “change or take away any right, power or privilege of anyone who is not Indigenous”.

The proposed constitutional amendment does not confer special rights upon people to participate in, or choose the membership of, the Voice. It leaves for parliament the power to decide the composition of the Voice.

They seem to assume that there will be no race-based requirement to participate in, or choose the membership of, the Voice. I'll be staggered if that is the case. The whole point is that it is supposed to be indigenous people speaking for themselves on issues that affect them.

 

[Slippery Pete]

The response to 'Myth 4' is ridiculous. The Voice will be a Constitutionally-guaranteed, government funded lobby group for ATSI people to raise issues direct to executive government, and almost certainly will only be open to ATSI people to join (as it should be).

No other racial group will have this. You can argue it's a good thing to have those extra rights to undo centuries of disadvantage, but to argue they don't exist is just dumb.

The sky is green…

 

[Cap]

Cap

None of those groups are guaranteed by the Constitution and funded by the government. Indigenous people will retain access to those avenues as well as access to the Voice.

And? They still have the same access, which is guaranteed under our constitution. I don't see the mining lobby complaining about lack of access.

Strawman - the argument is not that it will “change or take away any right, power or privilege of anyone who is not Indigenous”.

It's addressing the fears of people who aren't you.

They seem to assume that there will be no race-based requirement to participate in, or choose the membership of, the Voice. I'll be staggered if that is the case. The whole point is that it is supposed to be indigenous people speaking for themselves on issues that affect them.

The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, including its composition, functions, powers and procedures

there doesn't appear to be any reason why a non indegenous person be a representative if the have a skill set and a expertise that the indigenous community are comfortable with. I'd expect the majority to be, but that doesn't exclude anyone.

 

[Slippery Pete]

Right on

 

[arrowman]

I'm not sure you or I are the right person to explicitly state what is or what is not enhancing rights

Maybe, but I don't see why that should stop us from arguing about it on the internet

Anyway, my point is that - IMO anyway - statements about "enhancing gender quality" will be at best, platitudes designed to tick a box, and at worst, will hinder the provision of aid for genuinely valuable projects that just don't happen to tick the "gender equality" box.

It's one thing to favour / encourage things that enhance gender equality, it's another to make that an absolute condition of funding.

However I would suggest the provision of aid falls under diplomacy , so we seem in agreement here that it's fine.

Yeah maybe. But I wasn't referring to aid programs, as I'm sure you understand, so no, we don't agree.

Could be argued either way. I would be a definite as you as it really is in the eye of the person responding.

I expect the prospective aid recipients would see it as a tiresome condition that they have to find a way of complying with, at the very least - "lecturing" at worst.

I guess mocking things you ideologically oppose is easier than addressing the issue.

I think I was addressing the issue, finishing with a joke. But there was a point to that joke. This (the joke) is how people often deal with box-ticking exercises.

I'd like to see closer ties with Indonesia to be honest, seems like a useful ally to have

Very much so. And the small island nations, for different reasons - especially when it comes to Chinese influence.

Those small island nations aren't going to be fussed about geopolitics or whether China gets more influence in their region, they don't have the same concerns that we might (even though you could argue that they should); they just want / need aid / money / assistance.

Now, I think that given the choice between aid from Australia that directs funding (where possible) to local businesses / skill development, and aid from China that doesn't, they're more likely to favour Australia, and they'll just tick the box on "gender equality". I don't see that we should be requiring them to tick that box, though.

 

[MsTopG]

Right on

I nominate Dr Peter McCullough to run it. An unbiased professional who is the world's leading cardiologist. The first thing they should focus on is the dismantling of the TGA to be replaced a truly independent authority that works for the people instead of big pharma and Bill Gates.

 

[Slippery Pete]

I nominate Dr Peter McCullough to run it. An unbiased professional who is the world's leading cardiologist. The first thing they should focus on is the dismantling of the TGA to be replaced a truly independent authority that works for the people instead of big pharma and Bill Gates.

Dr McCullough is an anti-vaxxer conspiracy theorist cooker. Do you even know what he did?

He carefully and systematically planned to be one of the most published and highly decorated medical professionals in the US for the first 35 years of his career, all the while keeping quiet waiting for the moment he could pop up and promote vaccine conspiracy theories starting in 2020/2021.

That was his plan all along, and I for one question the character of someone who has this in the back of his mind for nearly four decades and then finally acts on it when he’s 60 years old.

It’s disgraceful and we shouldn’t listen to a word this guy says.

 

[Cap]

Looks like we need learn a new word posts even in this thread

Definition of UNBIASED

free from bias; especially : free from all prejudice and favoritism : eminently fair; having an expected value equal to a population parameter being estimated… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

: free from bias
especially : free from all prejudice and favoritism : eminently fair
an unbiased opinion
2
: having an expected value equal to a population parameter being estimated
an unbiased estimate of the population mean
unbiased

I would suggest even if appropriately qualified even the biggest cookers in the world could see he is indeed has or could be considered biased (Edit- dumbshit me)

I notice he has a health store, in an area with little oversight)

Marketplace

Own Your Health

www.twc.health

unfortunately no weight loss pills for those over weight cookers.

 

[BRL121]

Looks like we need learn a new word posts even in this thread

Definition of UNBIASED

free from bias; especially : free from all prejudice and favoritism : eminently fair; having an expected value equal to a population parameter being estimated… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

I would suggest even if appropriately qualified even the biggest cookers in the world could see he is indeed has or could be considered bias.

I notice he has a health store

Marketplace

Own Your Health

www.twc.health

unfortunately no weight loss pills for those over weight cookers.

It looks like even you need to learn a new word. It is "biased", not "bias". Have they stopped teaching grammar recently?

 

[Cap]

It looks like even you need to learn a new word. It is "biased", not "bias". Have they stopped teaching grammar recently?

To right they have ,can I claim typo

 

[Cap]

It's interesting even Chris Kenny is supportive of the voice.



Old video, he's done more since. But really shows it's not a Labor v Liberal thing

 

[Cap]

'If you spend a day in the Shire, people look at you a little different': For some, racism is part of everyday life

Most of us believe there's a lot of racism these days. But with around three in four Australians with non-European ancestry reporting discrimination, experts say recognition is just the beginning.

www.google.com

The Australia Talks survey also found 64 per cent of us believe most Australians are prejudiced against Indigenous peoples, whether or not they realise it.

Munanjahli woman and University of Queensland academic Chelsea Watego said she was surprised to see recognition of racism is prevalent.

"We live in a society where for too long [we've insisted] that racism isn't real, so it is surprising to see increasingly Australians are recognising that it does exist," she said.

I think we have good people on this board willing to engage in discussions about the Voice and legitimate concerns about it.

Then we have people who are against it for obvious reasons, but are too scared to put it into words.

 

[arrowman]

I think we have good people on this board willing to engage in discussions about the Voice and legitimate concerns about it.

This is what I want to say - not just about this board, but in the community in general.

I believe it is possible for reasonable people, who have researched the subject, to have legitimate concerns about the Voice as it is being proposed - and those concerns should be debated without accusing people of being uneducated / unintelligent / "Duttonites" / racists etc.

I know the few times I have expressed any doubt or scepticism about the Voice proposal, there's been immediate, vociferous pushback that's borderline (if not outright) accusing me of being in one of the above categories of sub-humans. It's pretty much impossible to have reasoned discussion / debate without that taking over. I'm not going to bother.

 

[Cap]

This is what I want to say - not just about this board, but in the community in general.

I believe it is possible for reasonable people, who have researched the subject, to have legitimate concerns about the Voice as it is being proposed - and those concerns should be debated without accusing people of being uneducated / unintelligent / "Duttonites" / racists etc.

I know the few times I have expressed any doubt or scepticism about the Voice proposal, there's been immediate, vociferous pushback that's borderline (if not outright) accusing me of being in one of the above categories of sub-humans. It's pretty much impossible to have reasoned discussion / debate without that taking over. I'm not going to bother.

I think the problem sits with the people pushing the misinformation.

We all know a lot of the No push comes from racism, so when someone believes the misinformation people may confuse that with them being racist, rather than them just not understanding the topic, and that's not great either.

It's a difficult one as well as No benefits from no being the default position for the electorate on things. People who don't understand or don't want to understand just vote no. Which makes sense.

I'm hoping the Minister for the Republic is watching this to avoid the pitfalls the Voice has had.

 

[relapse]

I think the problem sits with the people pushing the misinformation.

We all know a lot of the No push comes from racism, so when someone believes the misinformation people may confuse that with them being racist, rather than them just not understanding the topic, and that's not great either.

It's a difficult one as well as No benefits from no being the default position for the electorate on things. People who don't understand or don't want to understand just vote no. Which makes sense.

I'm hoping the Minister for the Republic is watching this to avoid the pitfalls the Voice has had.

At this present stage I have no idea what I am actually voting YES or NO to and for me that's a huge issue.

The default position most people have with things things like this is to vote NO, the onus is on the YES campaign to explain and convince people as to why people should vote YES and to explain what they're actually voting YES to.

If the vote was held today I would most probably vote NO on the basis that I have absolutely no idea what I am voting for, however that could change once I have access to far more information to make an informed choice, I am still very much on the fence at the moment.

 

[Cap]

At this present stage I have no idea what I am actually voting YES or NO to and for me that's a huge issue.

The default position most people have with things things like this is to vote NO, the onus is on the YES campaign to explain and convince people as to why people should vote YES and to explain what they're actually voting YES to.

If the vote was held today I would most probably vote NO on the basis that I have absolutely no idea what I am voting for, however that could change once I have access to far more information to make an informed choice.

I am still very much on the fence at the moment.

Absolutely, No is default and if there is a reason you dont agree with you vote no.

That's the challenge for anyone trying to change something, you need to address so much, when you have opposition happy to push the no vote you are in trouble.

Once Dutton (who walked out on the stolen generation apology and made up stuff about African Gangs) opposed it, it was dead in the water.

Edit - which is why I hope by the time we get to become a Republic people like Dutton are consigned to the history books

 

[adelaidecrows]

After the way Scott Morrison hid behind covid protocols when prime minister, not to mention how state premiers hid behind the doctors, i developed a huge distrust of government.

The Voice to me is purely going to be like the Covid Committee in South Australia and The ALP are setting themselves up for a massive fail as they look destined to end up like Marshall in peak Covid.

What will happen is in an attempt to gain the wider support of all Indigenous communities the public pressure placed on the government to do the voices bidding will become immense. Why? Well they will simply run to the media over every issue and cry racism. Indigenous groups do it now, so the logical conclusion is this will simply be the same but on steroids.

What will happen?

The voice leaders will become the unelected leaders of Australia as politicians run and hide from racist accusations in attempts to save votes and indigenous politicians are forced into siding with the voice. It wont stop there. The power will seep into state issues and the voice will control elections.

I have said before the premise of the Voice is a good one. However, history dictates how this will play out and everything gets abused. Thats why contingencies are in place in the constitution to control elections and the amount of time governments can legally spend in office. If you put in place a body above that that isnt accountable to the people....thats just asking for trouble.

 

[Cap]

After the way Scott Morrison hid behind covid protocols when prime minister, not to mention how state premiers hid behind the doctors, i developed a huge distrust of government.

The Voice to me is purely going to be like the Covid Committee in South Australia and The ALP are setting themselves up for a massive fail as they look destined to end up like Marshall in peak Covid.

What will happen is in an attempt to gain the wider support of all Indigenous communities the public pressure placed on the government to do the voices bidding will become immense. Why? Well they will simply run to the media over every issue and cry racism. Indigenous groups do it now, so the logical conclusion is this will simply be the same but on steroids.

What will happen?

The voice leaders will become the unelected leaders of Australia as politicians run and hide from racist accusations in attempts to save votes and indigenous politicians are forced into siding with the voice. It wont stop there. The power will seep into state issues and the voice will control elections.

I have said before the premise of the Voice is a good one. However, history dictates how this will play out and everything gets abused. Thats why contingencies are in place in the constitution to control elections and the amount of time governments can legally spend in office. If you put in place a body above that that isnt accountable to the people....thats just asking for trouble.

That reads like something straight out of a conspiracy theorists Facebook post.

 

[Slippery Pete]

Elon Musk's brutal message to the ABC

The tech mogul has reacted to news the ABC will keep just four accounts on the social media platform: ABC News, ABC Sport, ABC Chinese and ABC Australia.

www.dailymail.co.uk

‘Well of course they prefer censorship-friendly social media,' he wrote.

'The Australian public does not.'

 

[Cap]

I'm not sure Australia needs a lecture from a guy suing an anti hate speech for sharing statistics

X Corp Is Suing an Anti-Hate-Speech Group

“It’s an unprecedented and shocking escalation in the war [X Corp] is waging with transparency."

time.com

I think Musk can probably keep to himself

 

[MsTopG]

I'm not sure Australia needs a lecture from a guy suing an anti hate speech for sharing statistics

X Corp Is Suing an Anti-Hate-Speech Group

“It’s an unprecedented and shocking escalation in the war [X Corp] is waging with transparency."

time.com

I think Musk can probably keep to himself

"Time" the bastion of truth. Lol

 

[MsTopG]

Good to see some of our politicians doing their job.

 

[Cap]

"Time" the bastion of truth. Lol

You could , if it isn't too Marxist, google search for other sources

 

[Cap]

So given we got some Cultural Marxist conspiracy theorists on here is it able to be discussed in this forum or the international one ?

For the unaware the anti Semitic Cultural Marxist conspiracy is basically a conspiracy theory that suggest Jews from Frankfurt Uni are behind things like political correctness to try and undermine Western Society.

It's essentially Nazi propaganda rehashed for the alt right.

 

[Cap]

Um , okay

Unofficial Indigenous voice no campaigner defends use of AI-generated ads on Facebook

A Melbourne cryptocurrency trader says he did not intend the ads to depict an Indigenous person

www.theguardian.com