Play Nice Referendum - Indigenous Voice in Parliament - Part 2

[Gethelred]

Link to the proposed Referendum, from the Referendum Working Group:

(Edited 6 April 2023)

These are the words that will be put to the Australian people in the upcoming referendum as agreed by the Referendum Working Group (made up of representatives of First Nations communities from around Australia):

"A Proposed Law: to alter the Constitution to recognise the First Peoples of Australia by establishing an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice. Do you approve this proposed alteration?"

As well as that, it will be put to Australians that the constitution be amended to include a new chapter titled "Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples".

The details would be:


View attachment 1636890

The Prime Minister has committed to the government introducing legislation with this wording to parliament on 30 March 2023 and to establishing a joint parliamentary committee to consider it and receive submissions on the wording, providing ALL members of Parliament with the opportunity to consider and debate the full details of the proposal.

Parliament will then vote on the wording in June in the lead up to a National Referendum.

The ANU has issued a paper responding to common public concerns expressed in relation to the proposed Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice here:

Indigenous Voice to Parliament | Australian National University

Responding to common concerns about an aboriginal and torres strait islander voice First Nations portfolio Background

www.anu.edu.au

Summary details of the key points from this paper may be found in Chief post here:

The Uluru Statement from the Heart:

Not specifically No. In any case it does not form part of the Referendum proposal.

View attachment 1769742

Seeing as things have gotten a bit toxic in here, let's try to return things to a more civil tone.

The following will result in warnings to begin with, and if said behaviour continues will be escalated:

• referring to another poster as racist without direct provocation.
• dismissing or deriding another poster's lived experience.
• personal attacks or one line posts designed solely to insult or deride.

You might notice that the final rule is from the board rules. Thought we should probably remember that this is against the rules in case it's been forgotten.

Let's play nicely from here, people.

 

[Rob]

Brilliant post, thank you.

Dan26's post was such a scatter-gun of regurgitated talking points, that most people either couldn't be bothered engaging, or didn't know where to start.

But it's so important for certain posters - they know who they are - to see the pushback to this and such clear and concise refutations.

Dan26 and whoever supports his position, has the view that we have equality in Australia. And that all of the disparate outcomes for Indigenous people, is their fault.
They believe it's a genetic/racial/cultural/etc thing. Rather than even considering the possibility that it could be related to generational trauma, systemic racism, and just general racism.

They live by the idea that 'If it isn't an obvious barrier, or specific law, then racism isn't real'.
Because it supports their hateful view of Indigenous people.

Fair play for the tag, but its a bullshit response, as is yours.

I haven't heard anyone suggest everyone is equal. I'll let Dan26 speak for himself, but that's not how I read his post.

Modern leftism is all about equality of outcome, and for you to dispute that is bizarre. It's based on identity politics where everyone gets split into their own unique group and compared, and if there are any discrepancies then the conclusion must be discrimination that's the problem.

Society shouldn't be about finding fault, it should be about finding solutions. And before all of that you need to identify the problem.

 

[CM86]

Fair play for the tag, but its a bullshit response, as is yours.

I haven't heard anyone suggest everyone is equal. I'll let Dan26 speak for himself, but that's not how I read his post.

Modern leftism is all about equality of outcome, and for you to dispute that is bizarre. It's based on identity politics where everyone gets split into their own unique group and compared, and if there are any discrepancies then the conclusion must be discrimination that's the problem.

Society shouldn't be about finding fault, it should be about finding solutions. And before all of that you need to identify the problem.

The problem the deliberate reframing of "equality of outcome".
Yes, 'the left' want equality of outcomes... but they want it based on the equality of opportunity.
Because 'the left' actually view people as equal, they also expect relatively equal outcomes for people.



So yes... The view is, that if there isn't relatively equal outcomes, there must be some reason for it.

So 'the left' fights for equality of opportunity, to create more equal outcomes.

Dan's position is that we have equality of opportunity, therefore the outcomes are fair.
Which means, that the overly negative outcomes for Indigenous people all across Australia... is some fault of being INDIGENOUS...
My position is that being Indigenous is not a cause for the outcomes, but that there are many inequalities of opportunity, that impact Indigenous people, causing these disparate outcomes.


What is your position on why Indigenous people (from remote communities to major cities) are so over represented in negative outcomes?!???

 

[the_interloper]

Do you think it's possible that your view of this situation, might taint your expectation from a Global perspective?


In the same way you're assuming these poster's views are tainting their expectations?

What “view” specifically are you referring to, do you mean my stance on the Voice in terms of yes/no?

 

[Gethelred]

Fair play for the tag, but its a bullshit response, as is yours.

I haven't heard anyone suggest everyone is equal. I'll let Dan26 speak for himself, but that's not how I read his post.

Modern leftism is all about equality of outcome, and for you to dispute that is bizarre. It's based on identity politics where everyone gets split into their own unique group and compared, and if there are any discrepancies then the conclusion must be discrimination that's the problem.

Reframing the debate into the excessively simple 'equality of outcome vs equality of opportunity' is almost always done to make the left look ignorant of reality. It's done to assert that there will always be differences between individuals as though implying the left doesn't know that.

You're also making the classic conflation that progressivism equals left wing. They're not the same thing, and they're most certainly not the same thing in Australia: the Liberal party ended the White Australia policy, legalised gay marriage, gave first nations the vote, and championed refugee rights from Vietnam. Left wing politics concern hierarchies, economics and organisation; progressivism new ideas and beliefs around change.

Modern progressivism - which is hardly any single ideology - isn't about finding equality of outcome at all, but examining ourselves. You might - if you pay attention - observe how the modern progressives tend to be more critical of themselves than conservatives; this is largely due to the reality that past revolutions/progressive movements have not truly helped those at the intersections, despite a lot of those movements being started at the margins.

Society shouldn't be about finding fault, it should be about finding solutions. And before all of that you need to identify the problem.

It certainly makes sense if you have a fire to put it out instead of finding out who started it.

But not all problems are fires, and if you never take care of the tinder or ignition sources you're going to be putting them out forever.

 

[Gralin]

Why do we have any racist laws you can name?
You're being pretty silly.

Wait do you think we don't currently have any racist laws in this place?
You're being pretty silly.

 

[the_interloper]

What “view” specifically are you referring to, do you mean my stance on the Voice in terms of yes/no?

And CM86 im actually voting yes, sounds like you’re assuming I was a no voter.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Wait do you think we don't currently have any racist laws in this place?
You're being pretty silly.

Show me a law which is racist, that i can be prosecuted against for acting in a non-racist manner.
Seriously.

Here is apartheid .

Apartheid - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Now you can go around pretending we are as racist as the South Africans were ( i was responding to someone's post that South Africa should boycott Australia ) but it won't win you a yes vote, because , like i said ....SILLY.

A tell the biggest lie contest won't get the yes vote up.

We don't have Apartheid , we don't have Nazi's in parliament.

 

[CM86]

I'm going to try and reply to you, with my post that you're 'replying' to...

We do, have total equality according to the law as there is not a single law that discriminates against anyone due to their race. Not one. What we don't have is equality of outcome. But equality of outcome is not desirable because it is unachievable. Your worldview, as a leftist revolves around equality of outcome. It's how you see the world and all it's problems. My view, and the view of normal people is to strive for equality of opportunity.

They live by the idea that 'If it isn't an obvious barrier, or specific law, then racism isn't real'.
Because it supports their hateful view of Indigenous people.

I never said it was their fault. Not once. Where did I say that? My view is that equality of outcome is unachievable and only socialists strive for this. I stated that even in the same family, first born kids do better than 5th born kids. So if you can't achieve equality of outcome in the same family with the same parents and upbringing, how can it be achieved in different geographical areas and with different cultures? It's impossible. Yes lots of Indigenous people fare worse because of their remote location, and consequent lack of education. But that's got nothing to do with skin color. There are white people in remote communities who don't fare well for the same reasons.

They believe it's a genetic/racial/cultural/etc thing. Rather than even considering the possibility that it could be related to generational trauma, systemic racism, and just general racism.

They live by the idea that 'If it isn't an obvious barrier, or specific law, then racism isn't real'.
Because it supports their hateful view of Indigenous people.

it's been found that one of the biggest contributors to poverty is fatherlessness. Now the Aboriginals that grow up in stable families with two parents do very well. The problem is there aren't many such families because the fatherless rate is astronomical. When you account for this variable the rate of poverty declines immensely. Are we meant to believe that they are having children out of wedlock because of their skin colour? How insane.

Dan26 and whoever supports his position, has the view that we have equality in Australia. And that all of the disparate outcomes for Indigenous people, is their fault.

 

[Gralin]

Show me a law which is racist, that i can be prosecuted against for acting in a non-racist manner.
Seriously.

Here is apartheid .

Apartheid - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Now you can go around pretending we are as racist as the South Africans were ( i was responding to someone's post that South Africa should boycott Australia ) but it won't win you a yes vote, because , like i said ....SILLY.

A tell the biggest lie contest won't get the yes vote up.

We don't have Apartheid , we don't have Nazi's in parliament.

NT Intervention required the suspension of the racial discrimination act
cashless welfare is not optional in many communities, can you guess specifically which communities though?

We don't have South Africa's Apartheid specifically but if you think we don't have racist laws that target Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders, that we don't have a disproportionate number of them in jails, that education and health gaps aren't real

that on top of that our health system is racist, our welfare system is racist, our legal system, the list goes on and on

as to Nazi's in parliament, there are quite a few current and former members of parliament with very close ties to nazis in this country so yeah wouldn't be so sure about that last one either king

 

[SaintsSeptember]

NT Intervention required the suspension of the racial discrimination act
cashless welfare is not optional in many communities, can you guess specifically which communities though?

We don't have South Africa's Apartheid specifically but if you think we don't have racist laws that target Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders, that we don't have a disproportionate number of them in jails, that education and health gaps aren't real

that on top of that our health system is racist, our welfare system is racist, our legal system, the list goes on and on

as to Nazi's in parliament, there are quite a few current and former members of parliament with very close ties to nazis in this country so yeah wouldn't be so sure about that last one either king

Ok , Sure , whatever.

I don't expect you will convince anyone to vote yes, which is supposedly what we want.

 

[Gralin]

Ok , Sure , whatever.

I don't expect you will convince anyone to vote yes, which is supposedly what we want.

I accept your gracious defeat

 

[_Mike_]

Why do we have any racist laws you can name?

Considering there are no "racist laws"..

Racial Discrimination Act 1975​

The Racial Discrimination Act 1975 promotes equality before the law for all people regardless of race, colour or national or ethnic origin. It is unlawful to discrimination against people on the basis of race, colour, descent or national or ethnic origin.

 

[CM86]

Racial Discrimination Act 1975​

The Racial Discrimination Act 1975 promotes equality before the law for all people regardless of race, colour or national or ethnic origin. It is unlawful to discrimination against people on the basis of race, colour, descent or national or ethnic origin.

?

 

[YeoShuey]

This referendum can’t come around fast enough.

 

[CM86]

And CM86 im actually voting yes, sounds like you’re assuming I was a no voter.

I mean, you'll probably vote no, but that's besides the point.

My 'assumption' is that you don't think it's that important or meaningful.
So your view is that other nations won't view it as important or meaningful.


Whereas people from the 'other side' view it as important and meaningful, and therefore believe other nations will view it the same.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

OK.

I'll try to break it down more.

Do you believe that a homeless person has a higher chance of receiving a charge for being "drunk and disorderly", than a non-homeless person?

So what's your moral to the story? Don't be homeless else you might get refused purchase of alcohol?. Ok got it

 

[CM86]

So what's your moral to the story? Don't be homeless else you might get refused purchase of alcohol?. Ok got it

Nope.

Was just attempting to get you to engage with the position you were pushing.
I believe positions/views/ideologies should be able to be supported past a surface level talking point.

Sorry.

 

[HirdsTheWord]

Racial Discrimination Act 1975​

The Racial Discrimination Act 1975 promotes equality before the law for all people regardless of race, colour or national or ethnic origin. It is unlawful to discrimination against people on the basis of race, colour, descent or national or ethnic origin.

ummm i dont think thats what they meant....

 

[SaintsSeptember]

ummm i dont think thats what they meant....

Its exactly what i meant.
Apartheid South Africa had racism embedded in its laws.
Australia doesn't.
Incomparable.

The racism in Australia is illegal.

 

[the_interloper]

I mean, you'll probably vote no, but that's besides the point.

My 'assumption' is that you don't think it's that important or meaningful.
So your view is that other nations won't view it as important or meaningful.


Whereas people from the 'other side' view it as important and meaningful, and therefore believe other nations will view it the same.

What the hell? So you assume I'm a no voter, I tell you I'm voting yes and now you don't believe me?

And you might be placing too much significance on this country in a world sense. I reckon a shitload of Americans couldn't point out Australia on a map, and their knowledge about us would extend to Crocodile Dundee and Steve Irwin.

 

[YeoShuey]

What the hell? So you assume I'm a no voter, I tell you I'm voting yes and now you don't believe me?

It's no ones business other than your own who you vote for.

 

[the_interloper]

It's no ones business other than your own who you vote for.

I agree man, it's just a bit weird that I volunteered it and CM86 thought I was lying. I've been on BF a while and I reckon I come across as pretty transparent. Then again I've argued with CM before and, well, you don't really get anywhere.

 

[CM86]

What the hell? So you assume I'm a no voter, I tell you I'm voting yes and now you don't believe me?

And you might be placing too much significance on this country in a world sense. I reckon a shitload of Americans couldn't point out Australia on a map, and their knowledge about us would extend to Crocodile Dundee and Steve Irwin.

Yeah, I assume you'll vote no.

It's a logical position based on the polling, right?

I also specifically said that it was beside the point, because that wasn't what I was inferring. I just responded to your question, honestly.

My 'assumption' is that you don't think it's that important or meaningful.
So your view is that other nations won't view it as important or meaningful.


Whereas people from the 'other side' view it as important and meaningful, and therefore believe other nations will view it the same.

My original comment had nothing to do with your position of how you'd vote. It was asking you if it's possible that you view the Global response in a different way to others, due to your view on it in general.

 

[CM86]

It's no ones business other than your own who you vote for.

Good work in filling the gaps and pulling people to your side.

But he's more than intelligent enough to understand that that isn't what I'm doing.

 

[CM86]

I agree man, it's just a bit weird that I volunteered it and CM86 thought I was lying. I've been on BF a while and I reckon I come across as pretty transparent. Then again I've argued with CM before and, well, you don't really get anywhere.

Ok.

Yep sure, fair enough.

I'll accept that, and keep trying to engage in good faith.

I'm sure that you and YeoShuey have enough history to understand each other.