Play Nice Derailed, (The Place to Continue Off-Topic Discussion)

[NMBB]

Craven, who helped draft the Uluru Statement of the Heart, has nailed it. Especially this bit.

Refreshing to read analysis instead of name calling and abuse

 

[petrie pie]

I believe he will further alienate the traditional Liberal voters who deserted the party in the last election. Appealing to crack pots won’t win him the election.

I think he is definitely marginalising the Liberal party further he may win votes in WA and QLD he puts as many people offside as he appeals to Trump politics all the way.

 

[WalterBlaknWhte]

My partner's place of birth - a European passport.

Depending upon the country associated with the European passport, you may have equivalent contemporary ethical disappointment and unresolved historical wrongs

My partner is Spanish

We might contend, Spain has a colonial brutality that rivals and potentially exceeds the British without leaving the legacy infrastructure and governance

There is no ethical purity in any European nation

 

[NMBB]

Depending upon the country associated with the European passport, you may have equivalent contemporary ethical disappointment and unresolved historical wrongs

My partner is Spanish

We might contend, Spain has a colonial brutality that rivals and potentially exceeds the British without leaving the legacy infrastructure and governance

There is no ethical purity in any European nation

Balkan states anyone?
Roman empire?
Contemporary Russia?

 

[doofdoof]

Refreshing to read analysis instead of name calling and abuse

Especially refreshing to have this sort of transparency from an insider, instead of political spin or the vitriol from journos and social media.

 

[Maggie5]

Refreshing to read analysis instead of name calling and abuse

Read it but some parts factually incorrect.

The most glaring was that Dutton was invited to meetings but choose to not attend.

 

[Maggie5]

“we’re a nation of racists” is such a reductive piece of stupidity.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

It was Dutton and others on the NO side that brought 'race' into the discussion. Many believed them.

The Voice, he says, “will permanently divide us by race” and “re-racialise” the Constitution. In Dutton’s argument, the 1967 referendum, which removed a number of racist provisions, had been a “great step towards equality” which the “Orwellian” Voice proposal undermined. All this was “sadly a symptom of the madness of identity politics which has infected the 21st century”.

At the heart of the Liberal Party’s opposition to the Indigenous Voice is the notion that it divides Australia rather than uniting it because it gives Aboriginal people rights or privileges that others do not enjoy.

Opposition Indigenous Australians spokeswoman Jacinta Nampijinpa Price, a Warlpiri-Celtic woman, earlier claimed the "elite proposal" would "divide our country along the lines of race".

"If you don't know, say NO". "Say NO to division" were their two mantras.

 

[sideswipe]

It was Dutton and others on the NO side that brought 'race' into the discussion. Many believed them.

The Voice, he says, “will permanently divide us by race” and “re-racialise” the Constitution. In Dutton’s argument, the 1967 referendum, which removed a number of racist provisions, had been a “great step towards equality” which the “Orwellian” Voice proposal undermined. All this was “sadly a symptom of the madness of identity politics which has infected the 21st century”.

At the heart of the Liberal Party’s opposition to the Indigenous Voice is the notion that it divides Australia rather than uniting it because it gives Aboriginal people rights or privileges that others do not enjoy.

Opposition Indigenous Australians spokeswoman Jacinta Nampijinpa Price, a Warlpiri-Celtic woman, earlier claimed the "elite proposal" would "divide our country along the lines of race".

"If you don't know, say NO". "Say NO to division" were their two mantras.

Your copy and paste skills are better employed elsewhere.

 

[RobJD]

It was Dutton and others on the NO side that brought 'race' into the discussion. Many believed them.

The Voice, he says, “will permanently divide us by race” and “re-racialise” the Constitution. In Dutton’s argument, the 1967 referendum, which removed a number of racist provisions, had been a “great step towards equality” which the “Orwellian” Voice proposal undermined. All this was “sadly a symptom of the madness of identity politics which has infected the 21st century”.

At the heart of the Liberal Party’s opposition to the Indigenous Voice is the notion that it divides Australia rather than uniting it because it gives Aboriginal people rights or privileges that others do not enjoy.

Opposition Indigenous Australians spokeswoman Jacinta Nampijinpa Price, a Warlpiri-Celtic woman, earlier claimed the "elite proposal" would "divide our country along the lines of race".

"If you don't know, say NO". "Say NO to division" were their two mantras.

The unusual thing about this referendum was that at the time the Referendum was called, the Government didn't need to convince any more people to vote Yes - polling suggests that it would have been accepted at that time.

There was something in the No proposition that changed people's minds.

I feel that comments from Price regarding "Colonisation has not had a lasting negative impact on the aboriginal people" and "Aboriginal people in remote areas don't want the Voice" (a statement that subsequent analysis of Referendum booth counting has shown was dramatically incorrect) coupled with Dutton's pledge to have another Referendum and No support by leaders like Thorpe and Mansell may have awoken an emotional response to the Referendum, rather than a response based on logic.

Some of the responses to adopting a No position include: "I'm confused about whether I'm voting for a Voice or a Treaty", "I don't want to lose my family home", "I don't want to have to pay more tax", "I want the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders to have all the elements of the Uluru Statement from the Heart, not just a Voice".

 

[NMBB]

Read it but some parts factually incorrect.

The most glaring was that Dutton was invited to meetings but choose to not attend.

Was he invited from the outset or when the process was underway?

 

[RobJD]

Was he invited from the outset or when the process was underway?

Interesting that when Dutton spoke on Saturday night, he stated that the first thing that the Opposition would be calling was a Senate Enquiry into Aboriginal and Torres Straight Islander funding and establish where the money goes - a reporter quizzed Dutton about the fact that he was part of the Government for the vast majority of the past 10 years and why he didn't already know that - Dutton ended the conference without acknowledging the question.

 

[Maggie5]

Was he invited from the outset or when the process was underway?

Not sure. I would have to look back but know that it was very early in the process and before the constitutional lawyers and solicitor general approved wording.

 

[NMBB]

.......Aboriginal and Torres Straight Islander....

Let's be straight here - it's Torres Strait

Please don't remind me of fishmongers at Camberwell and Sth Melbourne markets who proudly sell "Bass Straight" scallops

 

[sr36]

It was Dutton and others on the NO side that brought 'race' into the discussion. Many believed them.

The Voice, he says, “will permanently divide us by race” and “re-racialise” the Constitution. In Dutton’s argument, the 1967 referendum, which removed a number of racist provisions, had been a “great step towards equality” which the “Orwellian” Voice proposal undermined. All this was “sadly a symptom of the madness of identity politics which has infected the 21st century”.

At the heart of the Liberal Party’s opposition to the Indigenous Voice is the notion that it divides Australia rather than uniting it because it gives Aboriginal people rights or privileges that others do not enjoy.

Opposition Indigenous Australians spokeswoman Jacinta Nampijinpa Price, a Warlpiri-Celtic woman, earlier claimed the "elite proposal" would "divide our country along the lines of race".

"If you don't know, say NO". "Say NO to division" were their two mantras.

The whole division/unity thing was disinformation from both sides.

A 'yes' vote was - or at least should have been - about acknowledging division. Acknowledging divisions within the country that already exist - both physical and cultural.

Here's a map of the country. The red is where Aboriginal communities have exclusive rights over that land. We're a country that is both physically and culturally divided:

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Distribution-of-Indigenous-population-in-Australia-and-exclusive-native-title-and-land_fig3_320881904

Trying to sell the yes vote as unity was a howler, as it's illogical to claim that inserting a constitutional division between different cultures wasn't about division but about unity. It's just a really confusing message.

 

[Maggie5]

The whole division/unity thing was disinformation from both sides.

A 'yes' vote was - or at least should have been - about acknowledging division. Acknowledging divisions within the country that already exist - both physical and cultural.

Here's a map of the country. The red is where Aboriginal communities have exclusive rights over that land. We're a country that is both physically and culturally divided:

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Distribution-of-Indigenous-population-in-Australia-and-exclusive-native-title-and-land_fig3_320881904

Trying to sell the yes vote as unity was a howler, as it's illogical to claim that inserting a constitutional division between different cultures wasn't about division but about unity. It's just a really confusing message.

Don't think I have posted that the YES group was clear with their information, nor with their responses to the 'NO' group.

Think they saw it as a 'no brainer' (arrogance?) which it could have been if clearly explained.

The real winner here was misinformation, and sadly few do their own research.

 

[RobJD]

The whole division/unity thing was disinformation from both sides.

A 'yes' vote was - or at least should have been - about acknowledging division. Acknowledging divisions within the country that already exist - both physical and cultural.

Here's a map of the country. The red is where Aboriginal communities have exclusive rights over that land. We're a country that is both physically and culturally divided:

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Distribution-of-Indigenous-population-in-Australia-and-exclusive-native-title-and-land_fig3_320881904

Trying to sell the yes vote as unity was a howler, as it's illogical to claim that inserting a constitutional division between different cultures wasn't about division but about unity. It's just a really confusing message.

There was no need to discuss division other than to point out that it's already in the Constitution. Sadly, most Australian's didn't realize that and couldn't be bothered to check. There could have been more discussion regarding the Gap and how the Voice could be used to close the gap, but all that seems a bit more than most Australians could (or were prepared) to comprehend.

 

[doofdoof]

Read it but some parts factually incorrect.

The most glaring was that Dutton was invited to meetings but choose to not attend.

No offense, but I'm more inclined to believe Greg Craven on this.

He was actually in the room quite often

 

[sideswipe]

There was no need to discuss division other than to point out that it's already in the Constitution. Sadly, most Australian's didn't realize that and couldn't be bothered to check. There could have been more discussion regarding the Gap and how the Voice could be used to close the gap, but all that seems a bit more than most Australians could (or were prepared) to comprehend.

Here's a tip for you and for politicians. Don't expect your electorate to do homework.

 

[sr36]

There was no need to discuss division other than to point out that it's already in the Constitution. Sadly, most Australian's didn't realize that and couldn't be bothered to check. There could have been more discussion regarding the Gap and how the Voice could be used to close the gap, but all that seems a bit more than most Australians could (or were prepared) to comprehend.

There was a need to discuss division - it was a key argument of the No campaign. But they decided to back away from it with a disingenous catchcry of unity, which doesn't stack up under the reality of adding a line into the constitution that points out a distinct and clear division. So there's a swag of votes gone - because the Yes mesage on the matter of division was a load of nonsense.

 

[NMBB]

Has the referendum been "lost" or "decided"?

 

[sideswipe]

Has the referendum been "lost" or "decided"?

It's actually "carried" or "not carried". DYOR.

 

[Maggie5]

No offense, but I'm more inclined to believe Greg Craven on this.

He was actually in the room quite often

Not at all offended, no problem with your disagreeing.

 

[Maggie5]

Has the referendum been "lost" or "decided"?

Done and dusted, now to move on to the next?

 

[noideaatall]

Don't think I have posted that the YES group was clear with their information, nor with their responses to the 'NO' group.

Think they saw it as a 'no brainer' (arrogance?) which it could have been if clearly explained.

The real winner here was misinformation, and sadly few do their own research.

I have a t.shirt with voice treaty truth on it. I value all three but believe we need to start with truth first. No is disappointing but understandable & clear indication the majority of Australians are not yet ready to listen. It is not a step on the wrong direction but a different route to the right place.

 

[Maggie5]

I have a t.shirt with voice treaty truth on it. I value all three but believe we need to start with truth first. No is disappointing but understandable & clear indication the majority of Australians are not yet ready to listen. It is not a step on the wrong direction but a different route to the right place.

Sadly I think it will be a long time before anything is put again to the voting public.