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.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

Can someone please tell me the counter argument to the conservative view that a successful yes vote will simply be creating more division in Australian society and also enshrining in our constitution the status of indigenous Australians as eternal victims who are incapable of helping themselves?

There are some indigenous people who feel this way too. Not just rednecks, racists, and "charitable Christians" like Andrew Bolt

Don't get pissed off at me. I'm just repeating verbatim the arguments I've heard put forth which I don't have an easy answer for.

I fall back on the position of: "Europeans came here... took their land... gave them nothing... It's time we righted the wrongs."
I'm not even sure The Voice will help in this respect. Like many others, I'm just going along with the "general vibe of it".
Is it just a meaningless exercise? A useless gesture that won't achieve much?

This is how I see it;

Indigenous Australians were here first. It wasn't called Australia and to my mind it doesn't matter if there was an existing political construct or not. They were here before any other ethnic group.

I think that means something.

Historically indigenous people had no written language. Pictographs were used to convey ideas but largely they were storytelling peoples and their history was spoken down through the generations.

In oral tradition wrongdoing looms larger than it does on the written page. What this means is you can always put a book away and once it is shut that's usually it. When a story is told out loud it is lived by the teller and re-lived by the listener, even if only in the imagination. That oral history stays strong with each telling. In this sense what was done to indigenous Australians and what was lost has never gone away. In the oral tradition of their people it is still an open wound.

I've come to understand what Voice means to a storytelling people. Without a Voice speaking to and bridging gaps between 'their' world and 'ours' they feel that there is a disconnect.

They still don't all feel like a proper (and properly understood) part of this nation. They need to. These wounds should heal.

The Voice is how they can share and discuss and propose future ideas to Federal Parliament and presumably all State and Territorial governments too. A liason office. A bridge between.

 

[Carringbush2010]

@Carringbush2010 said he put me on ignore when I had called @Skeppersap for what I thought was a racist point of view, one that hurt Indegenous Australians. But Carringbush came to the defence is Skepp.

No I did not put you on ignore in regards to this conversation, If you've read the last few pages of this forum I haven't defended Skeppersap in any way shape or form.

You have me confused with another poster.

I'll kindly ask you retract this part of your post.

 

[Roby]

Think y'all need to accept its not going to happen and move on, let's just be one country, much easier, right?

Not going to happen

 

[South of the Yarra]

Incorrect..... 100% incorrect.

The referendum is about the establishment of an ATSI voice. ATSI refers to indigenous Australians. Indigenous Australians are defined by heritage and ancestry. Heritage and ancestry are linked with skin colour, not culture.

I could immerse myself in indigenous culture my whole life, and never be ATSI, because I am white. An indigenous Australian could ignore their culture, live in Potts Point and be a supporter of Pauline Hanson. They will forever be able to be involved in The Voice. I wont!

Are we reduced to just being an acronym now? It is culture that links not skin colour. It was the difference in skin colour in different Aboriginal people that saw the systematic destruction of families.

 

[Roby]

Probably yes, but probably unintentionally, sometimes not, I'll agree.

You have to remember everyone has different world views and reasonable questioning / discussion that is not aligned in their view maybe viewed as disingenuous and so the allegations ensue.

All I'm saying, as hard as it might be, if they are in your view being unreasonable then call it out in a civil manner. (especially against mods who disagree with you)

Attacking with accusations of (rightly or wrongly) 'toxic bs' will just give those you oppose unwarranted ammunition against you.

The most racist people I know personally, are the most civil people in public.

 

[Roby]

It intrigues me that people who have never experienced racism are experts on racism.

There's if you believe that they've never seen it. But an excellent point none the less.

 

[evolved2]

Oh pull out the old straw man. What is this the ‘Wizard of Oz’?

A straw man fallacy (sometimes written as strawman) is the informal fallacy of refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion, while not recognizing or acknowledging the distinction.[1] One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man".

Straw man - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I would suggest there have been several posters claiming to be experts in racism. Go back read the entire thread. Check out the banned and suspended posters first.

Did they actually claim to be experts in the topic? I'm not going back through 314 pages looking for evidence.

If they merely shared an opinion on the topic without claiming expertise, isn't that what is commonly done on every thread here?

 

[freddy mercury]

Freddy I think that is a simplistic view, some label others as racist or stupid without warrant, not all and sundry.

I just can't fathom how the previous poster said that everyone who votes no is either racist, stupid or I assume both? I'm voting no, I don't consider myself racist, I'm not stupid, it's extremely offensive.

People need to respect your decision in a democratic society, it's why we are offered a vote.

 

[Roby]

Have all oncologists suffered from cancer previously? If not, are their opinions any less valid?

You fail at comprehension. Back school please.

 

[adogsfan5]

The most racist people I know personally, are the most civil people in public.

What are you trying to achieve by posting this?

 

[evolved2]

This is how I see it;

Indigenous Australians were here first. It wasn't called Australia and to my mind it doesn't matter if there was an existing political construct or not. They were here before any other ethnic group.

I think that means something.

Historically indigenous people had no written language. Pictographs were used to convey ideas but largely they were storytelling peoples and their history was spoken down through the generations.

In oral tradition wrongdoing looms larger than it does on the written page. What this means is you can always put a book away and once it is shut that's usually it. When a story is told out loud it is lived by the teller and re-lived by the listener, even if only in the imagination. That oral history stays strong with each telling. In this sense what was done to indigenous Australians and what was lost has never gone away. In the oral tradition of their people it is still an open wound.

I've come to understand what Voice means to a storytelling people. Without a Voice speaking to and bridging gaps between 'their' world and 'ours' they feel that there is a disconnect.

They still don't all feel like a proper (and properly understood) part of this nation. They need to. These wounds should heal.

The Voice is how they can share and discuss and propose future ideas to Federal Parliament and presumably all State and Territorial governments too. A liason office. A bridge between.

Some good points there.

Do you think the voice would produce much measurable positive change for First Nations people?

 

[Roby]

I would suggest an oncologist who has suffered from cancer would have a greater understanding of the physical and emotional impact of the disease, would understand a patient better and would have a far better sense of empathy.

But your point, I interpreted broadly, whether you're the victim of racism, or an observer of racism, you have experienced it to a certain degree.

An oncologist would be well versed to talk about the experience of cancer having seen many cancer survivors and victims in their lifetime.

 

[Carringbush2010]

I just can't fathom how the previous poster said that everyone who votes no is either racist, stupid or I assume both? I'm voting no, I don't consider myself racist, I'm not stupid, it's extremely offensive.

People need to respect your decision in a democratic society, it's why we are offered a vote.

Oh I don't disagree.

You have your right to your vote.

Could I kindly ask why you're voting no?

I'll kindly give my respectful answers to sway your vote, if you don't I'll not label you and respect your decline.

And I'll put forward my reasons to vote yes.

 

[freddy mercury]

I know a guy who is voting no purely because he thinks Lydia Thorpe is a tool. He said he'd immediately vote yes if she would remove herself from parliament.

That can be twisted by you lot as racist, when it isn't, he doesn't like her because of her personality, but that is deemed racist. A perfect example of how easily and quickly people are accused of being a racist because they don't like somebody's personality because they are black or white.

 

[South of the Yarra]

A straw man fallacy (sometimes written as strawman) is the informal fallacy of refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion, while not recognizing or acknowledging the distinction.[1] One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man".

Straw man - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Did they actually claim to be experts in the topic? I'm not going back through 314 pages looking for evidence.

If they merely shared an opinion on the topic without claiming expertise, isn't that what is commonly done on every thread here?

I think I know what a straw man is but thanks for the explanation.

 

[freddy mercury]

Oh I don't disagree.

You have your right to your vote.

Could I kindly ask why you're voting no?

I'll kindly give my respectful answers to sway your vote, if you don't I'll not label you and respect your decline.

And I'll put forward my reasons to vote yes.

I won't reveal my reasoning, people closest to me know, they don't have to agree or disagree, but some reactions were definitely different.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

Some good points there.

Do you think the voice would produce much measurable positive change for First Nations people?

I think that if they feel like a greater part of this nation's political machinery the mindset would become a positive one. Hope and belief become net positives.

I imagine there would be a great deal of cultural understanding that can't be conveyed in a conventional parliamentary sitting (question time, etc) and the Voice, as proposed, would act as a translation body between indigenous Australia (all the Nations included, so with quite different cultures and practices I'd imagine) and Parliament.

I myself know next to nothing of indigenous Australia, which is why I write "I think" and "I imagine" so often.

 

[Roby]

What are you trying to achieve by posting this?

Exactly what it says.

I believe that people need to know that they the most articulate, so called civil speaking, the kind that sound like an English Aristocrat, are the most racist people that I personally know.

These people I know, have huge wealth, are government representatives, justices of peace, judges, lawyers, law enforcement, property investors, company owners, employers and so on.

None of these people are Aboriginal, and they all hate Aboriginals.

 

[GreyWind]

I know a guy who is voting no purely because he thinks Lydia Thorpe is a tool. He said he'd immediately vote yes if she would remove herself from parliament.

That can be twisted by you lot as racist, when it isn't, he doesn't like her because of her personality, but that is deemed racist. A perfect example of how easily and quickly people are accused of being a racist because they don't like somebody's personality because they are black or white.

Is he aware that Thorpe is against the Voice?

 

[evolved2]

I know a guy who is voting no purely because he thinks Lydia Thorpe is a tool. He said he'd immediately vote yes if she would remove herself from parliament.

That can be twisted by you lot as racist, when it isn't, he doesn't like her because of her personality, but that is deemed racist. A perfect example of how easily and quickly people are accused of being a racist because they don't like somebody's personality because they are black or white.

Lidia Thorpe is against the voice IIRC.

 

[Roby]

I know a guy who is voting no purely because he thinks Lydia Thorpe is a tool. He said he'd immediately vote yes if she would remove herself from parliament.

That can be twisted by you lot as racist, when it isn't, he doesn't like her because of her personality, but that is deemed racist. A perfect example of how easily and quickly people are accused of being a racist because they don't like somebody's personality because they are black or white.

Sounds worse than simple racism.

 

[CM86]

I know a guy who is voting no purely because he thinks Lydia Thorpe is a tool. He said he'd immediately vote yes if she would remove herself from parliament.

That can be twisted by you lot as racist, when it isn't, he doesn't like her because of her personality, but that is deemed racist. A perfect example of how easily and quickly people are accused of being a racist because they don't like somebody's personality because they are black or white.

As far as I'm aware, Thorpe is supporting the 'No' vote.

So the 'guy you know', who is voting against The Indigenous Voice to Parliament... Is doing so purely because Thorpe is Indigenous.

So, opposing a positive change for Indigenous people of Australia, because there's an Indigenous woman in Parliament, who's supporting the 'no' vote... Strikes me as racist.


Also, Thorpe is under a magnifying glass. Anything she does is mass reported by the media. Even going so far as getting her estranged father to attack her and spread that on all media.
If the same thing were done to other members of Parliament, you'd see much worse.
Anyone who believes Thorpe is 'worse' than Joyce, has no idea.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

I know a guy who is voting no purely because he thinks Lydia Thorpe is a tool. He said he'd immediately vote yes if she would remove herself from parliament.

That can be twisted by you lot as racist, when it isn't, he doesn't like her because of her personality, but that is deemed racist. A perfect example of how easily and quickly people are accused of being a racist because they don't like somebody's personality because they are black or white.

Writing off an entire people because of ONE individual seems a bit small-minded to me.

 

[MP_]

That does not have any impact on knowing the correct treatment. Knowing how much a victim is suffering might even lead to a reluctance to prescribe any effective treatment at all.

But more to the point, you don't leave justice in the hands of those who were victims. An emotional stake in the matter does not lead to positive outcomes. That's a primary reason the justice system at present is left to the state.

A more pragmatic approach to problem solving is something this country is in dire need of right now.

Which is why the voice is important as the group affected can provide their thoughts on matters to be determined by parliament.

 

[evolved2]

I think that if they feel like a greater part of this nation's political machinery the mindset would become a positive one. Hope and belief become net positives.

I imagine there would be a great deal of cultural understanding that can't be conveyed in a conventional parliamentary sitting (question time, etc) and the Voice, as proposed, would act as a translation body between indigenous Australia (all the Nations included, so with quite different cultures and practices I'd imagine) and Parliament.

I myself know next to nothing of indigenous Australia, which is why I write "I think" and "I imagine" so often.

While it can't hurt, I question how much change will be enacted because of the voice. The voice can be ignored by pollies just as much as Aboriginal groups have been ignored previously, right?