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.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

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.



View attachment 1814549

The question was posed whether there were laws that prompted a supplier of alcohol to refuse supply. I outlined them to the best of my knowledge. You want to conflate my comments past that by posing a hypothetical question about homeless people. Why?

 

[YeoShuey]

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.

Huh what? I assume you are just trolling at this point.

 

[CM86]

The question was posed whether there were laws that prompted a supplier of alcohol to refuse supply. I outlined them to the best of my knowledge. You want to conflate my comments past that by posing a hypothetical question about homeless people. Why?

Yes.

I'm trying to point out to you, and people like you, that even if laws don't explicitly state that they are targeting a specific group... that if the outcome of the laws/rules etc do 'incidentally' target specific groups, due to underlying reasons for those groups to exist in that area... that it is an example of systemic discrimination, impacting a group...

And that we should attempt to reduce the reasons for a specific group to be over represented in a specific area, rather than punishing that group for the outcome, which will lead to an increase in legal repercussions.

 

[YeoShuey]

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.

Don't even know the user. He just doesn't need to justify his vote to anyone, especially you.

 

[the_interloper]

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 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.

Fair enough, no worries then. I thought you were asking if my views were coloured by being a No voter which I'm not. (I'm not one of the t-shirt wearing ones though)

 

[CM86]

Fair enough, no worries then. I thought you were asking if my views were coloured by being a No voter which I'm not. (I'm not one of the t-shirt wearing ones though)

100% that's my point.


You view the people arguing that it will impact global relations as the hyper-Yes, t-shirt wearing marches, kind of thing.
So you naturally think they are biased in their view of possible repercussions.


I was just asking you if you though it was possible that your view of this might bias your view of global repercussions.


My position is, that it alone won't have much impact. But that it is part of a cumulative view that we are becoming more like America, and the NZ is becoming the new AUS, in terms of a 'fake representation of a holiday retreat'.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

Yes.

I'm trying to point out to you, and people like you, that even if laws don't explicitly state that they are targeting a specific group... that if the outcome of the laws/rules etc do 'incidentally' target specific groups, due to underlying reasons for those groups to exist in that area... that it is an example of systemic discrimination, impacting a group...

And that we should attempt to reduce the reasons for a specific group to be over represented in a specific area, rather than punishing that group for the outcome, which will lead to an increase in legal repercussions.

"People like me " you mean those that know the rules regarding responsible service of alcohol?

Those rules are law. Their application are to factual circumstances that meet the criteria. Drunk and disorderly people are not permitted on licenced premises. Law.There is no discrimination if the facts apply. Clear?

 

[CM86]

"People like me " you mean those that know the rules regarding responsible service of alcohol?

Those rules are law. Their application are to factual circumstances that meet the criteria. Drunk and disorderly people are not permitted on licenced premises. Law.There is no discrimination if the facts apply. Clear?

I've been incredibly clear with every single reply to you.

You've actively avoided the main point every time.

There's no point in me squeezing water from a rock.
No one can force you to engage.

The fact you've missed the point every time, is like someone getting 0% on a multiple choice test... It's deliberate.
The points I've made are clear. You're faux ignorance compounds them.

Be well.

 

[Gethelred]

"People like me " you mean those that know the rules regarding responsible service of alcohol?

Those rules are law. Their application are to factual circumstances that meet the criteria. Drunk and disorderly people are not permitted on licenced premises. Law.There is no discrimination if the facts apply. Clear?

The problem comes when a law or set of laws relies on police (or other person's) discretion, because when you take in long term statistics around discretion you wind up confirming racist (or at the very least, racially bigotted) outcomes occur.

While the law itself is not bigoted, the society around it can absolutely be bigoted.

Remove it from Australia to a hypothetical. Say, Nation X has from inception had people in charge who favoured one race over another. Say, after significant campaigning and protesting, the wider society chose to eliminate explicitly racist/discriminatory laws, but that does nothing to break up:

• the slums in which the perceived lesser group live in.
• the reduced access to services, including to lawyers and education regarding the law.
• the significant difference in financial power.
• the opportunity to lobby the government, over the entire time between nation inception to the point the laws changed.

Go with the hypothetical. Do you think that the above described Nation X is free of racism, yes or no?

I'd also like to note that our discussion of discretion - which is not included in our discussion of Nation X - doesn't only happen when discussing law enforcement. It happens when considering people for jobs, when choosing who to elect or vote for, when thinking of who to make an example of. It happens when you're selected at random for literally anything.

 

[phantom13]

Just shorten it up, are RSA rules racist? of course not. Are a stack of people applying them in a discretionary manner targeting certain races? you bet your ass they are.

Seems weird to hang on “institutional racism isn’t literally written into the rule” as an example of why it’s all good but to each their own.

 

[Northalives]

The filthy piece of shit Mundine says that the Voice is a declaration of war and in the crowd, a beaming Tony Abbott, the latest Fox News lying c*** loving the bull shit.

If Australians vote for No at the forthcoming referendum and it is defeat, then we must stop laughing at the Americans and Trump because that far right conspiracy laden crap has won the day in Australia.

 

[Northalives]

Just shorten it up, are RSA rules racist? of course not. Are a stack of people applying them in a discretionary manner targeting certain races? you bet your ass they are.

Seems weird to hang on “institutional racism isn’t literally written into the rule” as an example of why it’s all good but to each their own.

People should stop talking about the Constitution and actually read it paying particular attention to Section 51, the "race powers", which states clearly that the Commonwealth is solely responsible for making "special laws" FOR the Natives and all such laws made by the Commonwealth override any and all laws made by all States and Territories of the Commonwealth.

The Indigenous peoples are the only race that is singled out by the Constitution and are subject to the whims and machinations of Federal Governments. Section 51 is intrinsically racist and that is what the Voice will end, that is recognition of Indigenous people through a Voice to Parliament will, for all intents and purposes, change Section 51 so even thought he Commonwealth will still have sole responsibility for making laws for the "Natives", the Natives will have the legal right to give advice to the Commonwealth and thereby, laws will be made WITH Indigenous people instead of For Indigenous people.

That is all the Voice is and the hysterical clap trap that the anti-voice NO campaigners have been spewing is mired in self interest (Mundine etc holding on to their status), prejudice, ignorance and just plain old racism.

At present, the highest law in the land, the Constitution, effectively says "you black fellas, go over there, shut your gobs and do what we tell you; no ifs or buts." The Constitution currently divides us along racial lines and grubby, lying politicians like Dutton saying that the Voice will re-racialise Australia completely ignores the fact that the constitution right now divides us by race.

 

[South of the Yarra]

Sorry had a bad day.
I was abused by a patient for being who I was, saying I get too much, as I am Indigenous.
I should be thankful for everything I have as we were savages before white man came.
He was vile and nasty.

I am sick of being racially abused because of this yes and no vote.

I thought we as a nation were better than this, but alas.

Nothings changed if you were born on the wrong side of what is acceptable to most.
I am sick of being classed as a free loader.


When I work hard, and worked hard to get where I am. No handouts or anything for me and my mob.

but, still we get chastised.

Stay strong sis. Always here for you

 

[Northalives]

Sorry had a bad day.
I was abused by a patient for being who I was, saying I get too much, as I am Indigenous.
I should be thankful for everything I have as we were savages before white man came.
He was vile and nasty.

I am sick of being racially abused because of this yes and no vote.

I thought we as a nation were better than this, but alas.

Nothings changed if you were born on the wrong side of what is acceptable to most.
I am sick of being classed as a free loader.


When I work hard, and worked hard to get where I am. No handouts or anything for me and my mob.

but, still we get chastised.

The patient was right campbell You blackfellas don't know how luck you are to have been colonised by white fellas. We gave you diseases, grog, took your children away, continue to destroy the land of your ancestors .... you just don't know how lucky you are!

The situation that we now have in Australia because of the far right, conspiracy laden racist politics, is exactly the same as when the gutless c*** Turnbull foisted a plebiscite on the Australian public to sure up his support from the Advance Australia/IPA c**** and which was nothing more than a no holds bared p****a bashing exercise.

Advance Australia, the IPA, the Australian Christian Lobby etc who laid into our gay community are doing the same now to 3% of the population. The collaborators Mundine and Price are IPA/Pentecostal financed scum.

Older people from Europe have told me stories about how, at the end of the war, they used to tie collaborators up by their toes and hang them in the town squares where the locals would go past and spit and bash them. I DO NOT advocate this type of thing but it does make one wonder how that retribution is seen as barbaric but the current barbarism of Dutton, Mundine, Price etc is still acceptable in this day and age.

Stay strong!

 

[Roby]

What did you steal?

Air.

 

[Roby]

The Aldi i go to has mostly people of Asian and Indian appearance working there.
Sometimes they check my bag, sometimes they don't bother. It seems to be at the discretion of the worker.
I used to cycle home with a backpack and stop in on the way. If i left it on my back they never checked it.

I've noticed you are likely to get a bag check if you leave any supermarket without purchasing anything.

This is the point.

There are no racist policies there, but because it comes down to discretion it inherently becomes biased and racist, and this is due to the society we live in.

 

[Roby]

This referendum can’t come around fast enough.

Well, over 10 years ago, Indegenous Australians and First Nations were saying the same thing.

At least they'll know where they'll stand after this.

 

[Roby]

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.

Wait, most people critical of the Yes campaign like yourself are voting Yes?

There would be hardly any No voters if that's the case.

 

[Roby]

The filthy piece of s*t Mundine says that the Voice is a declaration of war and in the crowd, a beaming Tony Abbott, the latest Fox News lying c** loving the bull s**t.

If Australians vote for No at the forthcoming referendum and it is defeat, then we must stop laughing at the Americans and Trump because that far right conspiracy laden crap has won the day in Australia.

I'd say a lot of the No voters, are just the same one's that were against the Vaccines and the Lockdowns.

They are probably thinking that they're voting against the same thing, it's all under the same umbrella for them, they're voting No against everything.

Think about it.

Are Vaccines useful? Will lockdowns make a difference? If you don't know, vote No.

 

[ferball]

People should stop talking about the Constitution and actually read it paying particular attention to Section 51, the "race powers", which states clearly that the Commonwealth is solely responsible for making "special laws" FOR the Natives and all such laws made by the Commonwealth override any and all laws made by all States and Territories of the Commonwealth.

The Indigenous peoples are the only race that is singled out by the Constitution and are subject to the whims and machinations of Federal Governments. Section 51 is intrinsically racist and that is what the Voice will end, that is recognition of Indigenous people through a Voice to Parliament will, for all intents and purposes, change Section 51 so even thought he Commonwealth will still have sole responsibility for making laws for the "Natives", the Natives will have the legal right to give advice to the Commonwealth and thereby, laws will be made WITH Indigenous people instead of For Indigenous people.

That is all the Voice is and the hysterical clap trap that the anti-voice NO campaigners have been spewing is mired in self interest (Mundine etc holding on to their status), prejudice, ignorance and just plain old racism.

At present, the highest law in the land, the Constitution, effectively says "you black fellas, go over there, shut your gobs and do what we tell you; no ifs or buts." The Constitution currently divides us along racial lines and grubby, lying politicians like Dutton saying that the Voice will re-racialise Australia completely ignores the fact that the constitution right now divides us by race.

Mate according to Mabo v Qld 2 the Constitution isn't even valid.

Its based on the false doctrine of Terra Nullius applying to Australia. So the voice actually undermines the rights of indigenous people even more. Not in Australia, cos who gives a shit about an illegitimate constitution here. Its just an illegal occupation really. But in the eyes of the rest of the world it could be seen as a form of cessation by stealth.

The Voice is an attempt to legitimise and legalise that occupation but you can't really blame white Australia cos even tho its trying not to be racist it doesn't really know any better.

If the Voice were legit it would only be voted on by blackfellas. The question of whether they want to submit to Federal Parliament and engage with it could then be asked of them.

If yes then Post-invasion people - Australians basically - could have a seperate referendum on whether they agree with it or not. Pretty half arsed way to go about getting a treaty without using the word treaty (which is what this is really about imo) if you ask me but it will satisfy all those people who think their country is legitimate...

 

[CM86]

Wait, most people critical of the Yes campaign like yourself are voting Yes?

There would be hardly any No voters if that's the case.

I wish more of the 'no' voters were honest about their voting intentions, and their reasons for it. Because then we'd have the chance to educated them on it, and change most of their positions.

Instead, it's been treated as a dangerous, toxic, political position. So instead of open discussion, it's viewed as 'yes' vs 'no'... Instead of 'information' vs 'misinformation'.

And people who have been tricked into the 'no' position, are now too embarrassed to change their position.

 

[CM86]

Mate according to Mabo v Qld 2 the Constitution isn't even valid.

Its based on the false doctrine of Terra Nullius applying to Australia. So the voice actually undermines the rights of indigenous people even more. Not in Australia, cos who gives a s**t about an illegitimate constitution here. Its just an illegal occupation really. But in the eyes of the rest of the world it could be seen as a form of cessation by stealth.

The Voice is an attempt to legitimise and legalise that occupation but you can't really blame white Australia cos even tho its trying not to be racist it doesn't really know any better.

If the Voice were legit it would only be voted on by blackfellas. The question of whether they want to submit to Federal Parliament and engage with it could then be asked of them.

If yes then Post-invasion people - Australians basically - could have a seperate referendum on whether they agree with it or not. Pretty half arsed way to go about getting a treaty without using the word treaty (which is what this is really about imo) if you ask me but it will satisfy all those people who think their country is legitimate...

I saw this argument in November of last year.

I'll ask you the same unanswered question that I've asked since then...

What does voting 'no' accomplish??

 

[ferball]

I saw this argument in November of last year.

I'll ask you the same unanswered question that I've asked since then...

What does voting 'no' accomplish??

Depends who is voting no.

 

[CM86]

Depends who is voting no.

Shouldn't you have a basic idea of that, if you're pushing such a strong support for voting against The Indigenous Voice to Parliament???

 

[ferball]

Shouldn't you have a basic idea of that, if you're pushing such a strong support for voting against The Indigenous Voice to Parliament???

I dunno what you think I'm pushing.

I'm just pointing out the Federal Australian State and its constitution are illegitimate and whatever the outcome of the referendum they'll still be illegitimate, along with the outcome of the referendum. Whatever it is.

But seeing as you can't comprehend the implications I'll spell them out for you.

Indigenous Australians who vote no are defending their sovereignty under occupation. This is a white fella process after all. Others might vote yes because they're happy to identify with the Australian State and their original nations. That's fair enough too.

Non indigenous Australians who vote no...

Well if they've been asked by indigenous people they know well and trust to vote no that's probably fair enough. The rest of them are just being campaigners.

But yes or no it doesn't change the fact that its an illegitimate process being carried out by an illegitimate state trying to weasel its way around signing proper treaties and paying up for stolen resources and all the human rights stuff like loss of wages, compo for stealing children etc etc.