Opinion Commentary & Media VI

[Zondor]

That line gets trotted out a lot.

If the club kept out of politics we would not have our new facilities and planned upgrade.

Didn't hear anyone complain about that.

So you are telling us that this is all a work? :stern look

 

[Mav]

So you are telling us that this is all a work? :stern look

What do you mean by "a work"? If you don't play the political game you just let the other clubs have a free ride to money that could come our way. Ignoring the political game is ignorant, and it's the same for every sporting club, from Wagga's bowls club to Manchester United. Whether its Local Council, State or National Governments, there's money and favors for the taking, so take them.

And it takes a very good administration to enhance our own reputation with in the community while doing this, by aligning our cultural traits with the political positions that will serve us best.

 

[sutcliffe's hotel]

Our entire history as a football club is influenced by politics.

 

[Sphynx]

I'm sure that Nuffy on Twitter will tell you all about how the real racists vote yes, something something.

Well I hope I'm not a nuffy...... yet I vote to plan No.

I can't consciously vote for a constitutional amendment in a modern democracy that intentionally separates it's citizens and their rights by race.

Whilst that might be the social reality of first nations people in this country at the moment, most modern societies have strived to eradicate such political legal framework in the last 70 years.

Just because this is in favour of a marginal group doesn't make it any better than other such historical laws that worked the opposite way.

An exploitation of "aboriginalism" has gone into turbo drive by a lot of companies in the last 5 years, when there's constitutional legal framework surrounding it, it will only get worse. Some of the worst profiteers of it at the moment are ex-aboriginal athletes, particularly ex-AFL footballers.

I don't want Australia to turn into South Africa and Zimbabwe with huge racial divides through all level of society, state and federal government.

 

[r00boy96]

If you don't play the political game you just let the other clubs have a free ride to money that could come our way. Ignoring the political game is ignorant, and it's the same for every sporting club, from Wagga's bowls club

Daryl Maguire can tell you all about this

 

[r00boy96]

Look at the stadium in Tassie for example, sports and politics are inseparable due to the power sporting organisations have

 

[Gumble Frankieton]

View attachment 1696674

Um

Hmm, .. “ex-skipper Ben Cunnington”?
I guess we should be grateful that they didn’t go with Adrian Corr for the double.

 

[koshari]

Daryl Maguire can tell you all about this

looks squeaky clean,

Former MP Daryl Maguire faces court for alleged visa scheme

www.9news.com.au

 

[koshari]

Well I hope I'm not a nuffy...... yet I vote to plan No.

I can't consciously vote for a constitutional amendment in a modern democracy that intentionally separates it's citizens and their rights by race.

Whilst that might be the social reality of first nations people in this country at the moment, most modern societies have strived to eradicate such political legal framework in the last 70 years.

Just because this is in favour of a marginal group doesn't make it any better than other such historical laws that worked the opposite way.

An exploitation of "aboriginalism" has gone into turbo drive by a lot of companies in the last 5 years, when there's constitutional legal framework surrounding it, it will only get worse. Some of the worst profiteers of it at the moment are ex-aboriginal athletes, particularly ex-AFL footballers.

I don't want Australia to turn into South Africa and Zimbabwe.

from a practical perspective, look at how badly ATSIC was run, cant see the voice being any better?

 

[Twangler]

Well I hope I'm not a nuffy...... yet I vote to plan No.

I can't consciously vote for a constitutional amendment in a modern democracy that intentionally separates it's citizens and their rights by race.

Whilst that might be the social reality of first nations people in this country at the moment, most modern societies have strived to eradicate such political legal framework in the last 70 years.

Just because this is in favour of a marginal group doesn't make it any better than other such historical laws that worked the opposite way.

An exploitation of "aboriginalism" has gone into turbo drive by companies in the last 5 years, when there's legal framework surrounding it, it will only get worse.

So in your eyes, legislation designed to facilitate participation and better decision making for the interests of the original custodians of a land, is no better than historical apartheid type legislation that deliberately excludes or enables institutionalised disadvantages to a group of people based on their race?

Sure you can be against it but to equate the two is a bit of a stretch

 

[Sphynx]

So in your eyes, legislation designed to facilitate participation and better decision making for the interests of the original custodians of a land, is no better than historical apartheid type legislation that deliberately excludes or enables institutionalised disadvantages to a group of people based on their race?

Sure you can be against it but to equate the two is a bit of a stretch

They both intentionally empower one section of their countries population over another, by way of race.

The intent is irrelevant.

If you think the Voice will not be immediately exploited, I'd love to have what your having.


It's already happening in private business to a massive extent.


We are already heading down the way of South Africa with some of their overcorrections post apartheid imo.


Western democracy is not having legislation regarding racial quotas in workforces, it's not favouritism in a fair society for government contracts based on the race of a company director, it's not favouritism for University placements because of your race etc etc.

Sound at all familiar?

 

[Mav]

Well I hope I'm not a nuffy...... yet I vote to plan No.

I can't consciously vote for a constitutional amendment in a modern democracy that intentionally separates it's citizens and their rights by race.

Whilst that might be the social reality of first nations people in this country at the moment, most modern societies have strived to eradicate such political legal framework in the last 70 years.

Just because this is in favour of a marginal group doesn't make it any better than other such historical laws that worked the opposite way.

An exploitation of "aboriginalism" has gone into turbo drive by a lot of companies in the last 5 years, when there's constitutional legal framework surrounding it, it will only get worse. Some of the worst profiteers of it at the moment are ex-aboriginal athletes, particularly ex-AFL footballers.

I don't want Australia to turn into South Africa and Zimbabwe with huge racial divides through all level of society, state and federal government.

All I know is that I've got a couple of indigenous lads that work for me and they couldn't care less about it. I've also got a mate that has spent most of his life working with communities in the APY Lands and he reckons most of them up there think it will have zero impact on whats good for them. They see it as city brothers looking after themselves.

But hey, city hipsters will call me a nuffy if I say anything.

 

[koshari]

They both intentionally empower one section of their countries population over another, by way of race.

The intent is irrelevant.

If you think the Voice will not be immediately exploited, I'd love to have what your having.


It's already happening in private business to a massive extent.


We are already heading down the way of South Africa with some of their overcorrections post apartheid imo.


Democracy is not having legislation regarding racial quotas in workforces, it's not favouritism in a fair society for government contracts based the race of a company director, it's not favouritism for University placements because of your race etc etc.

Sound at all familiar?

Sadly iam seeing a lot of signs of what you describe, and not just with aboriginal affairs, 2 recent appointments where i work were "trophy" appointments, pretty sad as one of them likely could have got the role on merit.

 

[Sphynx]

All I know is that I've got a couple of indigenous lads that work for me and they couldn't care less about it. I've also got a mate that has spent most of his life working with communities in the APY Lands and he reckons most of them up there think it will have zero impact on whats good for them. They see it as city brothers looking after themselves.

But hey, city hipsters will call me a nuffy if I say anything.

I've currently got 35 first nations employees. The vast majority of them are absolutely hopeless out of a workforce of over 300, which has nothing to do with race, but more to do with how they have been trained to enter the workforce, absolutely everything has been spoonfed to them, they have been advanced in every aspect of their training and schooling. Even the job I gave to most of them was unearned over other applications of merit, purely because I needed to meet required race quotas.

I need a mandated workforce % of first nations people for government tender applications.

I have to spend a % of turnover on first nations registered companies, regardless of price. Of which price gouging is absolutely rife.

To become a first nation registered company a first nations director has to own a 51% share of said company.

There's certain high profile first nations ex-athletes and ex-AFL footballers who are currently silent partners in dozens of private companies to enable this registration.

They almost run themselves as a registration ATM at the moment, requesting massive lump sum upfront payments to facilitate it.


This is pre The Voice and is only growing exponentially at the moment.


It's sickening to most of us who already encounter it and have to tow the line because we are trying to keep buisness' afloat and keep employees in work, let alone actually enshrining this inequality in our constitution......

 

[desie]

The bit that confounds me is how the same people who railed against a same sex marriage plebiscite and thought it should just be legislated on the grounds that it would encourage vilification of gay people now think it’s a good idea to hold a referendum, where voting is compulsory, on a matter pertaining to race.

 

[Mav]

I've currently got 35 first nations employees. The vast majority of them are absolutely hopeless out of a workforce of over 300, which has nothing to do with race, but more to do with how they have been trained to enter the workforce, absolutely everything has been spoonfed to them, they have been advanced in every aspect of their training and schooling. Even the job I gave to most of them was unearned over other applications of merit, purely because I needed to meet required race quotas.

I need a mandated workforce % of first nations people for government tender applications.

I have to spend a % of turnover on first nations registered companies, regardless of price. Of which price gouging is absolutely rife.

To become a first nation registered company a first nations director has to own a 51% share of said company.

There's certain high profile first nations ex-athletes and ex-AFL footballers who are currently silent partners in dozens of private companies to enable this registration.

They almost run themselves as a registration ATM at the moment, requesting massive lump sum upfront payments to facilitate it.


This is pre The Voice and is only growing exponentially at the moment.


It's sickening to most of us who already encounter it and have to tow the line because we are trying to keep buisness' afloat and keep employees in work, let alone actually enshrining this inequality in our constitution......

Na, don't give me any real life examples ya nuffy. I want to hear from career bureaucrats that think they know what's best.

I'm a small business and of the 5 first nations that have worked for me, 4 have been brilliant and 1 has been a ****ed up ice head.

 

[r00boy96]

looks squeaky clean,

Former MP Daryl Maguire faces court for alleged visa scheme

www.9news.com.au

I loved watching his state ICAC sessions, incredible how politicians have such poor memories under oath

 

[Carey4life]

The bit that confounds me is how the same people who railed against a same sex marriage plebiscite and thought it should just be legislated on the grounds that it would encourage vilification of gay people now think it’s a good idea to hold a referendum, where voting is compulsory, on a matter pertaining to race.

This is a constitutional referendum, so it's required by law.

The same sex marriage vote was a plebiscite, so there was no legal requirement. It was an expensive survey.

I don't think there's any hypocrisy given that detail.

Footnote: There's a chance I'm wrong, as I'm not a lawyer, although I don't think I am.

 

[Devington]

I'm not the most social person but even I know a few first nation people between some of the extended friend groups I'm in. Unless some are staying silent, I can't say any of them are strongly for it. Lukewarm at best, for a few (including opposing) reasons, and one definitely against it. Not sure what hope I have of coming to the 'right' decision when the few people I know who are most directly impacted and involved in it can't form something close to consensus. At this stage I don't know what to do. Go with my gut which says this is the wrong method to 'recognize' First Nation people? Vote yes in the hope that after all is said and done it turns out for the best? Or just to void my vote?

 

[Zondor]

What do you mean by "a work"? If you don't play the political game you just let the other clubs have a free ride to money that could come our way. Ignoring the political game is ignorant, and it's the same for every sporting club, from Wagga's bowls club to Manchester United. Whether its Local Council, State or National Governments, there's money and favors for the taking, so take them.

And it takes a very good administration to enhance our own reputation with in the community while doing this, by aligning our cultural traits with the political positions that will serve us best.

There you go. You didn't need me to answer your question. :stern look

But anyway it is fair to say that our club is being inclusive and doing the right thing by all in Sunbury. Or are they? Maybe they are doing the right thing by those who hold power so we get some Pat Cash? :stern look

 

[desie]

This is a constitutional referendum, so it's required by law.

The same sex marriage vote was a plebiscite, so there was no legal requirement. It was an expensive survey.

I don't think there's any hypocrisy given that detail.

Footnote: There's a chance I'm wrong, as I'm not a lawyer, although I don't think I am.

Yes that’s right, but a Voice to parliament could be legislated without the need for a referendum based on race, which will be way more divisive and harmful than a non-compulsory plebiscite based on marriage equality.

I accept that that’s not what the Uluru Statement calls for.

 

[Mav]

There you go. You didn't need me to answer your question. :stern look

But anyway it is fair to say that our club is being inclusive and doing the right thing by all in Sunbury. Or are they? Maybe they are doing the right thing by those who hold power so we get some Pat Cash? :stern look

Or maybe they are doing the right thing by the players and staff.

I'm yet to decided which way to vote, still listening to both arguments. But I certainly don't have an issue with the stand the Club has taken, as I don't doubt for a minute that they consulted our first nation players before deciding on a stance.

Thing is Zondor, you being a smart man know full well the club can have a view point and then look for ways to use it to leverage for some Pat Cash. It doesn't have to be "let's take this view point cause it will get us some dosh".

 

[Mav]

This is a constitutional referendum, so it's required by law.

The same sex marriage vote was a plebiscite, so there was no legal requirement. It was an expensive survey.

I don't think there's any hypocrisy given that detail.

Footnote: There's a chance I'm wrong, as I'm not a lawyer, although I don't think I am.

Don't think you're a lawyer? Answering this question will tell you. Are you a w***er?

 

[Colby Cheer Squad]

Our entire history as a football club is influenced by politics.

It's hilarious to me that people are happy to throw around the Shinboner moniker without appreciating the working-class basis of that term. North Melbourne was very much a Catholic, working-class club with strong leanings towards the Labor Party.

 

[Colby Cheer Squad]

The bit that confounds me is how the same people who railed against a same sex marriage plebiscite and thought it should just be legislated on the grounds that it would encourage vilification of gay people now think it’s a good idea to hold a referendum, where voting is compulsory, on a matter pertaining to race.

I'm no constitutional expert but as I understand it, marriage equality did not require a constitutional amendment and therefore, did not require a referendum. The law was able to be changed by a simple act of parliament passing legislation - politicians having the courage to do their job.

The Voice, on the other hand, requires a constitutional amendment and therefore must be voted on in a referendum.