If Yes get the vote clarification question

Select to expand quote

cammd said..
.... with the young boy asking if he will live as long as others or get an education, "Yes makes it possible" F%&cken Horse S&^t, that lad needs to be told its up him, his life is in his hands.

Clearly you don't understand the problem, let alone any solution. Some people will not just be able to get out of such a situation, no matter how bright they are or deserving they may be.

Select to expand quote

cammd said..

Clearly you don't understand that problem is not unique to Indigenous people. Watch Jacinta Price's press club address, she argues we should address need not race. I agree with her 100%. Not all Indigenous people are disadvantaged, its racist to argue they are.

btw I think telling a kid, any kid regardless of their ancestory, that despite them being bright and deserving they will never succeed or be able to have a better life, is a nasty ugly thing to do. I think its an ugly belief to have.

Hang on, you were just saying that this hypothetical kid needs to be told 'its up to him and his life is in his hands'.... and then you say that this problem is not unique to indigenous people.

Who was saying it was unique to aboriginals. I wasn't. I don't know where you pulled that nugget from. Your comment about 'clearly you don't understand that problem...' was just an attempt to deflect and ignore that you don't accept what the problem really is.

But you were effectively saying that wasn't even a problem as its up to the kid to ignore people telling him his limits.

Okay, you seem to be acknowledging there is a problem, but then blowing it off as if its up to the kid to ignore negative influences and get on with life. If only children were capable of ignoring their reality and doing something completely different to their peers. Children are molded by their parents and people around them.

From what you have replied above, you agree there is a problem with some aboriginal people, but not unique to them. Why does including aborginal people in the constitution and acknowledging them become a problem for you then?

Select to expand quote

cammd said..
Aboriginal people are Australian citizens, they are included in the constitution already, why do you say they are not.

I didn't say they weren't already included. Was there a typo somewhere that I missed? A simple recognition may go someway to helping some people get over hurt from generations.

Select to expand quote

If the vote was to recognize formally, Indigenous peoples were here for 60000 years the referendum would succeed.

No it wouldn't. You would still have the usual characters arguing over whether they have been here 60k years or 2k years or they are different people or whatever. We have already seen this on this thread. The response will be the same, the justification wouldn't be.

Select to expand quote

Bolting the Voice onto the recognition referendum is the problem, There is no evidence to show it will make any difference to marginalised people. The Voice is step one of a three step activist agenda "called The Uluru Statement from the Heart" to seek a treaty that will seek reparations, control of resources, transfer of power and Aboriginal soveriegnty.

Well, that's an assumption. If the detail in what is being suggested did actually say that, I would vote no too.

Select to expand quote

I don't have a problem with recognising our Indigenous history, I do have a problem with dividing the nation down race lines.

If the referendum to recogise Indigenous history in the constitution fails blame the PM, he is the one that bolted the Voice onto it.

I think the PM did it as a bit of a feel-good thing (for him or others in the marketing department somewhere). The (lack of) wording seems to be an issue for some people and the detail of the wording seems to be an issue for others and both the lack of detail and the provided details seem to be an issue for a few. You can never win a yes vote with that sort of contrariness.

Select to expand quote

FormulaNova said..

Bolting the Voice onto the recognition referendum is the problem, There is no evidence to show it will make any difference to marginalised people. The Voice is step one of a three step activist agenda "called The Uluru Statement from the Heart" to seek a treaty that will seek reparations, control of resources, transfer of power and Aboriginal soveriegnty.

Well, that's an assumption. If the detail in what is being suggested did actually say that, I would vote no too.

Sorry to delete your other responses, just wanted to deal with this one atm.

Voice, Treaty, Truth - its in the Uluru Statement, the PM has committed to it in full over 30 times. He's got the t-shirt and all.

The government has a budget for the Makarrata Commission, its happening now.

The main architects of the Voice are on the public record talking about what a treaty will mean (see above). The No campaign did not make that stuff up, to pretend those goals are not real is willful blindness. Changing the constitution is step 1 of 3

If you don't agree with that stuff you better vote No

Select to expand quote

FormulaNova said..

cammd said..

FormulaNova said..

Bolting the Voice onto the recognition referendum is the problem, There is no evidence to show it will make any difference to marginalised people. The Voice is step one of a three step activist agenda "called The Uluru Statement from the Heart" to seek a treaty that will seek reparations, control of resources, transfer of power and Aboriginal soveriegnty.

Well, that's an assumption. If the detail in what is being suggested did actually say that, I would vote no too.

Sorry to delete your other responses, just wanted to deal with this one atm.

Voice, Treaty, Truth - its in the Uluru Statement, the PM has committed to it in full over 30 times. He's got the t-shirt and all.

The government has a budget for the Makarrata Commission, its happening now.

The main architects of the Voice are on the public record talking about what a treaty will mean (see above). The No campaign did not make that stuff up, to pretend those goals are not real is willful blindness. Changing the constitution is step 1 of 3

If you don't agree with that stuff you better vote No

I have read no mention on an Uluru statement in the wording being added to the constitution. We are being asked strictly if we vote yes or no to have those statements added to the constitution. No mention of a treaty or anything else.

The PM can commit to anything he wants but it doesn't make it law and it wouldn't get voted in if the majority of the parliament don't want it. Unless we are now in a dictatorship, these sorts of changes need to be enabled by parliament. If the recent discussion about the voice is anything to use as a litmus test, it wouldn't make it.

I personally would never vote for it and wouldn't vote for a politician that said they would. But its not in this referendum.

I agree we are not voting on a treaty, we are voting to create a Body called the Voice, enshrined in the constitution (exclusive to Indigenous people) that can make representation to parliament and government. That's more of less the words right

The voice will enable the negotiations for a treaty much easier, one body to negotiate on behalf of all the individual clans. The current government supports this goal to the extent that they have already created the Makaratta commission




What will the Makarrata Commission have the power to do?

Makarrata is a Yolgnu word meaning 'a coming together after a struggle'. A Makarrata Commission would have two roles: supervising a process of agreement-making, and overseeing a process of truth-telling. Steps 2 & 3 of the Uluru statement

If the government had no interest in a treaty, if it was very unpopular with the electorate that may not matter. It is very concievable that a challenge in the High Court by the Voice could force the government to make a Treaty. The High Court could over rule the Government,

It is a transfer of power to one select group of Australians based on their race. That's what it is, the Voice has a say over and above what every other Australian individual or organisation has.

So no, your not voting on a treaty your voting on creating the mechanisms needed to bring one about.

Select to expand quote

cisco said..

No surprise a conservative doesn't know what "Truth telling" means.

Select to expand quote

cammd said..

We don't know how many genders there are either.

I can help with that, "Gender refers to the socially constructed roles, behaviours, expressions and identities of girls, women, boys, men, and gender diverse people."

The science is settled, as is spelling, grammar, and punctuation.

Select to expand quote

snoidberg said..
This might help.

You seem uncomfortable with your sexuality and those around you. But that's ok.

I have lived on the edge of a desert. I have seen the true nomadic bush people. They are not like us. They don't have the same expectations as us. I wonder if cannibalism and infanticide is still a thing... It's not "our" thing, but it is a part of the indigenous culture, so do we allow it to continue? At what point do we say, "Your culture is too abhorrent"?
We know there has to be change, but Yes would be a massive mistake inflicting financial and spiritual pain on pretty much every non-indigenous Aussie while doing little/nothing to achieve the positive outcomes that any right minded Aussie wants.

Select to expand quote

snoidberg said..
Thanks dr remery, are you offering to cut my bits off and help my with my pronoun selections?
You seem to be an expert at queer pedo ****.

Projection.

Select to expand quote

Buster fin said..
I have lived on the edge of a desert. I have seen the true nomadic bush people. They are not like us. They don't have the same expectations as us. I wonder if cannibalism and infanticide is still a thing... It's not "our" thing, but it is a part of the indigenous culture, so do we allow it to continue? At what point do we say, "Your culture is too abhorrent"?
We know there has to be change, but Yes would be a massive mistake inflicting financial and spiritual pain on pretty much every non-indigenous Aussie while doing little/nothing to achieve the positive outcomes that any right minded Aussie wants.

One of my friends worked on cattle stations during the 60's. He told me the station owners regularly culled the local aborigines. Is your culture too abhorrent?

This thread seems to have become decidedly political, clarification has been asked for and given.

The amendment adds an indigenous committee to the law making process. A positive response to the referendum would mean all federal Acts of Parliament must give a consideration to indigenous peoples, but the law makers would in no way be required to amend Acts based on the advice of said committee.

Explaining the process of making laws would have been a good place to start.

Pretty sure if you had a referendum on whether the parliament should be able to make laws the Qanon bull**** machine would say no way hozay and approx. 50% would jump on the bandwagon.

Select to expand quote

cammd said..

Chris 249 said..

cammd said..


So back to point 3 (can only deal with one at a time)

Firstly apologies for the misunderstanding, when I asked you for evidence I was calling for evidence that the Voice would provide different outcomes. I have seen no actual evidence to support that claim.

Secondly the evidence of disadvantage you provide is well documented, no arguments from either side about that. The "No" side is very much committed to addressing that disadvantage "based on need not race" by starting with a genuine review/audit into what is and what is not working. I don't believe "disadvantage" is inherent to Indigenous people in terms of genetics or some other permanent state that would see them unable to overcome it without special rights. I actually think that argument is racist it assumes a permanent deficiency in some way.

If you want to see a real change then vote No because The "Voice" will most likely just be the same people we have now who have failed to "close the gap" over the last 30 or 40 years. We need change we don't need to enshrine the failure in the constitution.

I've got no issues with "based on need but race" and similar concepts.

It's not racist to say that a group could be at such a disadvantage because of temporary factors that they need special rights until that disadvantage is erased. We say similar things about other groups; we give temporary assistance to farmers, exporters, and big business when they suffer periods of disadvantage.

Heck, Barnaby Joyce has been calling for a change to allow regions special senators to give country people and indigenous people better representation - Barnaby certainly isn't racist towards country people so when he calls for extra representation for them it shows that you do NOT have to feel that people are inferior to claim they need special representation.

To use an analogy from the Constitution, Qld used to get "special rights" because it had the same number of Senate seats as NSW, which had eight times the population when the Constitution was written. Tasmania, WA and SA still get such "special rights". Does that mean we're being racist towards people from those states? Nope, it means that we can see that they need a Constitutional structure to get over the fact that they are a minority. So the fact that a minority gets special allowance in the Constitution certainly doesn't mean that they are seen as inferior.

Indigenous people from many countries, including NZ, Canada, Taiwan, Malaysia, South Africa and the USA suffer severe disadvantage. When the prevalence of disadvantage is so widespread it's pretty easy to say that the process of having another group come into your country and becomes dominant it leads to major problems for those who were there first.

Is the Voice the best mechanism? I'm not enchanted with the way the Voice has been run but many of the claims from the No side are BS.

Once again the Yes case cannot provide evidence that special rights will erase disadvantage. This is your third opportunity to present the evidence from the Yes campaign. I haven't seen any argument other than it will help us listen betterer FFS. That's kindergarten level stuff and people are not buying it.

Also enshrinement in the constitution is not temporary, you can argue that it can be changed so it may not be permanent but no one, absolutley no one is suggesting the Voice should be temporary. It would be a very weak/borderline false argument to suggest the Voice will only be a temporary measure.

Your examples of special rights above are not based on race or ancestory, basing special rights on race is racist. Spin it ten different ways or twenty or as many as you want the fact remains putting special rights into the constitution based on race means those rights are race based duh. Your an intelligent guy, see it for what it is.

All people in every country throughout the entire history of the world suffer when another group comes in a dominants, that's the History of the world, it cannot be changed. What can be changed is the message that you are defined by your ancestory, you are a victim of colonisation, you live in a racist society and you have no agency to help yourself. That is the message from the Yes side, it is clearly demonstrated by the add on TV with the young boy asking if he will live as long as others or get an education, "Yes makes it possible" F%&cken Horse S&^t, that lad needs to be told its up him, his life is in his hands.

"It matters not how strait the gate, How charged with punishments the scroll, I am the master of my fate: I am the captain of my soul."

Its easy to say many claims from the No side as BS, which ones and why are they BS.

1- You haven't asked me to present the case for the Yes campaign, since you can do that yourself. Other people have spent more time putting the Yes case than I can. However I can address the arguments that people give here.

I've spent more time and space writing here than anyone else so asking me to do more isn't really on.


2- You ask me to point out which claims from the No side are BS but I've already pointed to a bunch in earlier posts. For example, I've said that the claims that the Voice will definitely allow more court challenges are BS. I've pointed out that the claims that the main Voice proponents are communists are BS.

As I write this a former conservative deputy PM John Anderson is saying other BS. He's just said that the Constitution treats all Australians equally, but it doesn't. There ARE special cases in our system, or proposed by the Right, where one person effectively gets far more votes than other Australians. The point is that to say "other Australians don't get special treatment under the Constitution therefore the indigenous shouldn't" is simply incorrect. People who don't want the Constitution to change are NOT saying "all Australians are equal under the Constitution"*; what they are effectively saying is "special rights are OK for some people but not for other people".

One fascinating point about equality under the Constitution is that it's denied to those of the ACT and NT; one of them will almost certainly vote Yes and the other is likely. So it's ironic that the No vote is saying we should all be equal under the Constitution when the No vote benefits from the fact that we are NOT all equal under the Consitution.


3- I know my examples of special rights aren't based on race. I never said they were, so you can put your "duh" where it fits. However they show that "we are all currently equal under the Constitution" is simply untrue as the difference in representation in the Senate shows.

Equality is not just treating everyone in exactly the same way; it's treating people differently when they need to be. It's well accepted that, for example, it's not equality to the blind to ignore the fact that they can't see. It's not equality to treat

The Constitution is designed around that concept - it is designed to treat people from different states differently in order to create effective equality. Arguably the Voice would follow that same general approach.


4- Can I ask whether you have ever sat back of Bourke with indigenous people or done something similar? Have you been in the Riverina working with indigenous organisations? Do you know anyone who has worked in the Outback for indigenous people or the wider community?

I'm not sure about your background but have you come from a position of disadvantage of the type that many indigenous people suffer? Do you have experience about how hard it is to be inspired by poetry when you are living in a place like Goodooga (makes Wilcannia look nice in my very limited experience)?

I understand about the message of telling people they are disadvantaged, and agree with the downsides. But when the disadvantage is as real as it is in many cases we can't just tell people "lift yourself above it".


5- What is being called for is a way to cut through the fact that indigenous people are a tiny part of our nation and have a voice that is largely drowned out. You can't just ignore as you want us to do, and the fact is that indigenous people have suffered huge social disadvantage in the past. That sort of social disadvantage and the CONTINUED racism they suffer have severe effects like learned helplessness, welfare dependency, etc. There is also a major disconnect between indigenous people on the ground and those making the decisions.

It's not "kindergarten stuff" to say that having a direct voice to government helps - that's why industrial groups spend big dollars on lobbyists. I run a sporting group in regional Australia, and I have a direct voice to the Mayor and state representatives (the conservative Federal rep doesn't answer calls probably because he's pissed as usual). I've worked for 18 months in federal government in Canberra and can see how out of touch it is. I was designing a policy for a major employment sector and wasn't allowed to talk to industry at all. That's crap. I've got first hand experience in how much it changes things to have a direct voice in government (just as industry groups do) and how out of touch government is now.

I'm not a great fan of the Voice or the way the campaign has been run but I do think that it can change one of the biggest problems in Australia for the better, and at a fairly low cost.


6- You say (and I agree) that you want to see indigenous disadvantage wiped out - but even today Dutton, a leader of the No side, has got no new strategy for achieving that in interviews. I don't think anyone doubts that Howard, for example, wanted to close the gap - but it's still there. There's not much use saying "let's not change anything but let's expect a new result that will change indigenous disadvantage" so why follow that line of thinking? Are we willing to ignore a good chance of making things better in order to defend a false claim that people are equal under the Constitution?

Select to expand quote

remery said..

Tequila ! said..

What is a woman?

You'll know when/if you grow up and get a girlfriend.

Girlfriend? What if I want a boyfriend?

Are you assuming my gender?