Steps towards Treaty: the Uluru Statement and Referendum Council Report

[Gethelred]

Alright.

We've had the Referendum into the Indigenous Voice to Parliament, and the public rejected it.

From the notes to the Referendum Committee:

The Dialogues discussed who would be the parties to Treaty, as well as the process, content and enforcement questions that pursuing Treaty raises. In relation to process, these questions included whether a Treaty should be negotiated first as a national framework agreement under which regional and local treaties are made. In relation to content, the Dialogues discussed that a Treaty could include a proper say in decision-making, the establishment of a truth commission, reparations, a financial settlement (such as seeking a percentage of GDP), the resolution of land, water and resources issues, recognition of authority and customary law, and guarantees of respect for the rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples.

Would you be okay with any or all of the above? What do you think would be a reasonable means of reparations, or do you think reparations are not required at all?

Try and keep it civil from here. The last few pages have been as base as anywhere else on this forum.

 

[DaBarz]

I think there's something distinctly interesting in how you attempt to shift the conversation sometimes.

How have I shifted anything ?

My very first post was have a look and decide for yourself.

I’ve posed questions to which I’m yet to see an answer.

 

[Gethelred]

How have I shifted anything ?

You started off implying that the excerpt from the statement was part of the referendum. When informed that it wasn't, you said that you wanted clarity. When provided clarity, you then changed the conversation again.

My very first post was have a look and decide for yourself.

Which is the only reason this thread is still open.

I’ve posed questions to which I’m yet to see an answer.

People have posted answers to the questions you've asked. Just because you've neglected to acknowledge them does not mean they don't exist.

Now, I've seen you play this particular trick before, Darth. You frustrate the hell out of the posters who try to argue with you until they leave fed up, upon which you claim victory. I'd love to dance with you - anything you can do, I can do backwards wearing heels - but I'm rather busy at present, so you're just going to have to continue without me.

Have fun.

 

[DaBarz]

You started off implying that the excerpt from the statement was part of the referendum. When informed that it wasn't, you said that you wanted clarity. When provided clarity, you then changed the conversation again.

Which is the only reason this thread is still open.

People have posted answers to the questions you've asked. Just because you've neglected to acknowledge them does not mean they don't exist.

Now, I've seen you play this particular trick before, Darth. You frustrate the hell out of the posters who try to argue with you until they leave fed up, upon which you claim victory. I'd love to dance with you - anything you can do, I can do backwards wearing heels - but I'm rather busy at present, so you're just going to have to continue without me.

Have fun.

“Implying it was part of the referendum” was an implication made by you. I never said anything of the sort.

My basic questions have been why wouldn’t you read the document - that the referendum question was based on - that being the Dialogues?
“Consult and Educate” being the exact quote.



A fair enough proposal.

I’ve quoted and linked the fact that the referendum committee - who composed the Dialogues - have included those same Dialogues on their own Uluru Statement website. Which again - I’ve linked.

If this creates angst or
distress I apologize however it may be an idea to not shoot the messenger.!

 

[carltonchelsea]

lol

 

[DaBarz]

lol

Outstanding contribution

 

[QuietB]

DaBarz how good is this bloke? Only the best people on your side. Did you go to CPAC? Must have been a hoot? You conservatives are so witty

 

[Gethelred]

I think we need a change of tack.

The Uluru Statement from the Heart:

View The Statement - Uluru Statement from the Heart

ulurustatement.org

The Referendum Council report:

https://ulurustatemdev.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Referendum_Council_Final_Report.pdf

To distinguish this thread from the Referendum thread, let's use this opportunity to discuss the Referendum Council report, and what the next steps towards Treaty might be.

Standard board rules apply.

 

[Gethelred]

That should give you a more reasonable basis to argue, DaBarz.

You can now openly disapprove of things, instead of relying on implication to do the heavy lifting.

 

[Gough]

DaBarz how good is this bloke? Only the best people on your side. Did you go to CPAC? Must have been a hoot? You conservatives are so witty

Not exactly Oscar Wilde is it?

 

[DaBarz]

Hahahahaha
Excellent
Exactly what I would expect from the “hurt feelinged lefties” on here.
Is this “inferring” that the majority of people polled over this would agree with that?

And the problem of unintended consequences because there still is no real detail from the Yes campaign leads to things like this

WA government's backflip on Aboriginal Cultural Heritage laws divides opinion

amp.9news.com.au

Again - for the 4th time
I’m advocating people just get informed.

What is there to fear from reading the words directly from the referendum council as they discussed ?

 

[QuietB]

Not exactly Oscar Wilde is it?
View attachment 1781985

Oh dear. Is CPAC a serious organisation?

 

[DaBarz]

Oh dear. Is CPAC a serious organisation?

About as serious as the Greens

 

[mcnulty]

99% of Australians wouldn’t know what CPAC is. Most don’t watch Sky News and Peter Dutton remains unpopular.

And yet if the polls are to be believed a plurality of people intend to vote No. Continuing to try to lump these people in with the aforementioned is just silly.

 

[Gough]

99% of Australians wouldn’t know what CPAC is. Most don’t watch Sky News and Peter Dutton remains unpopular.

And yet if the polls are to be believed a plurality of people intend to vote No. Continuing to try to lump these people in with the aforementioned is just silly.

Almost all of the leading No proponents where key note speakers and it was a recurring theme of the conference. This is who they are.

 

[mcnulty]

Almost all of the leading No proponents were key note speakers and it was a recurring theme of the conference. This is who they are.

You seriously think these people speak for all No voters?

 

[Gough]

You seriously think these people speak for all No voters?

They appear to think they do.

 

[QuietB]

Almost all of the leading No proponents where key note speakers and it was a recurring theme of the conference. This is who they are.

And that needs to be highlighted and amplified.

Tsibos is saying the quiet bits out loud - put in on an add and ask Australians "Is this who you are?".

 

[mcnulty]

They appear to think they do.

No, they’re opportunists who think they can raise money and or their profile. They’re completely irrelevant to most voters, particularly undecideds. To say nothing of Labor voters who intend to vote No.

Just ridiculous straw man stuff.

 

[QuietB]

No, they’re opportunists who think they can raise money and or their profile. They’re completely irrelevant to most voters, particularly undecideds. To say nothing of Labor voters who intend to vote No.

Just ridiculous straw man stuff.

Actually it is not a straw man at all.

Howard was the master at this. He never said the quiet bits out loud but normalised racism and xenophobia just enough to make it ok for old racist ways not only to resurface but to recharge. And then social media made all these cowards anonymous and here we are.

What the No campaigners like Abbott and Tsibo are promoting is white supremacy.

It needs to be called out.

If you are voting No for another reason then state what that reason is? I have not heard a coherent argument for voting no yet.

 

[mcnulty]

Actually it is not a straw man at all.

Howard was the master at this. He never said the quiet bits out loud but normalised racism and xenophobia just enough to make it ok for old racist ways not only to resurface but to recharge. And then social media made all these cowards anonymous and here we are.

What the No campaigners like Abbott and Tsibo are promoting is white supremacy.

It needs to be called out.

If you are voting No for another reason then state what that reason is? I have not heard a coherent argument for voting no yet.

I’m a Yes voter but I can see reasonable arguments for voting No- that is, it gives one group of people additional constitutional representation over all other Australians and there is deep scepticism that it will do any good.

People I’ve spoken to intend to vote No who are not racist, loathe Dutton and are Labor voters. Even prominent proponents have admitted to having misgivings.

Seriously, this has all been outlined in the other thread but people prefer to stick their fingers in their ears and pretend that everyone who disagrees with them is racist, or being led around by the nose ring by racists.

And continue to assume they know why everyone else is voting the way they are. It might make you feel better about yourself, but its not particularly helpful.

 

[Gough]

 

[DaBarz]

They appear to think they do.

Does Thomas Mayo speak for you ?

 

[QuietB]

I’m a Yes voter but I can see reasonable arguments for voting No- that is, it gives one group of people additional constitutional representation over all other Australians and there is deep scepticism that it will do any good.

People I’ve spoken to intend to vote No who are not racist, loathe Dutton and are Labor voters. Even prominent proponents have admitted to having misgivings.

Seriously, this has all been outlined in the other thread but people prefer to stick their fingers in their ears and pretend that everyone who disagrees with them is racist, or being led around by the nose ring by racists.

And continue to assume they know why everyone else is voting the way they are. It might make you feel better about yourself, but its not particularly helpful.

People you have spoke to who are voting No may well not be racist, but what is their reason for voting No?

"it gives one group of people additional constitutional representation over all other Australians" is actually the whole point. First Nations people do hold a unique place in our history. After everything a bit over 2 centuries of colonisation has done to First Nations people I do not accept that they should just assimilate like we expect immigrants to do is an acceptable outcome.

Their history is unique, their culture is unique, and it needs to be accepted, acknowledged, protected and encouraged.

And taking the side of a few disgruntled miners, pastoralists and elites who have way too much influence in this country is Australians being good little quiet Australians all over again. It is pathetic.

 

[DaBarz]

People you have spoke to who are voting No may well not be racist, but what is their reason for voting No?

"it gives one group of people additional constitutional representation over all other Australians" is actually the whole point. First Nations people do hold a unique place in our history. After everything a bit over 2 centuries of colonisation has done to First Nations people I do not accept that they should just assimilate like we expect immigrants to do is an acceptable outcome.

Their history is unique, their culture is unique, and it needs to be accepted, acknowledged, protected and encouraged.

And taking the side of a few disgruntled miners, pastoralists and elites who have way too much influence in this country is Australians being good little quiet Australians all over again. It is pathetic.

Distrust of this government and unintended consequences perhaps.

 

[carltonchelsea]

Outstanding contribution

All this thread is worth!