Select to expand quotecammd said..Chris 249 said..cammd said..
Why would anyone vote for race based inequality. I can only think of two reasons
1. You think one race deserves greater rights than all others.
Or
2 You think that one race is inferior in some way and cannot survive and prosper without special rights.
It's dead easy to think of other reasons, like these;
3. The fact that only one race has the same level of disadvantage, and that special rights are the best way to fix that;
4. The historical fact that only one race has suffered the same sort of government-sponsored and effectively government-approved unlawful killing; unlawful deprivation of land; and unique race-based treatment under the Constitution, and special rights may be an appropriate way to make up for that special disadvantage;
5. The fact that only one race that was here did NOT get to have a say in the drafting of and voting for the Constitution. We whites have the Constitution we wanted; indigenous people have the Constitution we told them to take without asking them what they wanted and special rights may be a perfectly logical way of redressing that.
When a nation specifically excludes one group from the creation of its most powerful document, surely it's reasonable to give that same group special rights later.
We do have special rights for certain groups in the Constitution. Each person in the smaller states effectively has the rights to a more powerful vote than each person in the more populous states, for example. That is because of a bargaining process between groups when the Constitution was granted. The same bargaining process
6. The fact that the principle "first person to get something gets to keep it" is widely applied among humans, and the indigenous people were the first people here.
There's no flies on you, it seems hard to believe that you couldn't have thought up more valid reasons.
Point 3 - Any actual evidence to support that claim, your normally pretty big on evidence
Point 4 - Pretty much every race in the history of the world has suffered unlawful killing, stealing of land etc etc, its not unique, my ancestors suffered it, probably yours too. Actually name some that haven't
Point 5 - Many if not all immigrant groups since WW2 in Australia did not have a say in our constitution, do you support special rights for all peoples that did not have a say in the constitution.
Were there no other races here when the constitution was drafted, ie Chinese or Polynesians or none at all. I find that hard to believe.
Point 6 - "first person to get something gets to keep it" Right right ok, that's why the Romans gave back all of Europe when they remembered the "finders keepers" principle, The Mongals did the same in China, oh and Russia will remember it soon and move out of Ukraine.
Such valid reason, why didn't I think of them.
Maybe you didn't think of them because of where you live, who you know and where you work, and also because you're one your side of this debate. Everyone can think of different approaches for different issues based on their own background.
Point 3 - evidence of the disadvantage indigenous people have;
* statistically, they have inferior health and die about 10 years earlier on average - and no, it's NOT all down to their behaviour. See the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare's reports.
* apocryphally, they still suffer regular racism. It's a fact. I live near a town that is actually very welcome to refugees (there's studies on it) and yet people like the captain of my bush fire brigade will still talk cheerily about a fire being in "boong town" and use insults against indigenous persons regularly. That attitude does actually harm people; there are instances where one kid looks indigenous and their sibling doesn't and despite the fact that they are so similar, one of them suffers racism and the other doesn't. I've already been warned that one of my grandkids, who has no indigenous heritage but has a dark complexion, is going to be the target of racism.
A best mate worked with the Aborginal Legal Service in outback NSW and WA. One of the groups where he worked had barely had any history of contact with whites and yet within a few years no less than a quarter of the entire group was in jail. This wasn't a case where they had learned criminal behaviour; they were targeted by the cops and encountered the huge difficulty in changing to fit our society.
Oh, and I'm NOT saying that all cops target indigenous people; in my town they seem to be good, for example.
Down where my boat is moored there's an indigenous guy who is trying to kick off a rowing club. We talk about the issues of running small clubs; he's a good guy with a solid history owning his own farm. I've also heard (not from him) that he's been the subject of action just because he's black. It's just endemic attacks based on race.
* analytically, the effect of kids being removed still changes life even for the next generation. For evidence, see the work of Prof. Marc de Rosnay. Marc (and yes he is related to the windsurfers) has done analytical studies that show that just about the worst thing you can do to a kid's psyche is to take them away from their family history. That was done to many thousands of indigenous kids.
* Also analytically, American studies show that racism is a problem even for those who are successful or Asian rather than black. There have been several studies where identical job applications are sent in, with only the names changed to indicate either European, black or Asian heritage. The people who had European names got 50% more invitations for an interview even when they had exactly the same qualifications and experience as the people with Asian or black names. See for example the US NBER's working paper 9873 doi 10.3386/w9873.
That's just some of the evidence for #3.
Point 4 - Yes, my ancestors suffered unlawful killing and taking of land too. And when Celtic and Anglo people suffered from them, as with the Irish and Highland Scots, it caused them to suffer great disadvantage. Highland Scots were called "uncivilized", suffering economic disadvantage, living shorter and poorer lives, and becoming known as violent drunks. Medical historian Robert Matheson notes that those who were moved from the Highlands suffered poverty and disease as a result - the London Times reports that even today their ancestors suffer poor health as a result. Other studies note that the clearances crushed the self-respect and self-reliance of the Highlanders who remained. Some say that it created a deep culture of dependencu on the state.
So when our ancestors suffered killing and the taking of land, it had huge effects on them and on many of their descendants. If the Scots, Celts and Irish suffered then, and some of their descendants still suffer now, then surely it's proof that the indigenous Australians suffered and still suffer now. So why not try to fix that?
Point 5- People who moved here after the Constitution was written did it with their eyes open, out of their own choice. Aborigines didn't do that - they had the Constitution imposed on them. The situations are very different.
Point 6 - I specifically said "widely applied" not "universally applied". I agree that the historical fact that wave after wave of peoples moving out of the steppes means that we can't say that everyone should go back to where their ancestors came from. However, "we were here first" is still a common way of giving priority to one group over another.
I don't really think "we were here first" is a particularly good reason but the point is that there are reasonable approaches apart from the ones you brought up.
Let's also look back at the discussion. I didn't say these were all perfectly good reasons. They are just reasonable ways of looking at the issue. I've said before I think that reasonable people can have different views on this question.
Select to expand quotecammd said..Chris 249 said..cammd said..
Why would anyone vote for race based inequality. I can only think of two reasons
1. You think one race deserves greater rights than all others.
Or
2 You think that one race is inferior in some way and cannot survive and prosper without special rights.
It's dead easy to think of other reasons, like these;
3. The fact that only one race has the same level of disadvantage, and that special rights are the best way to fix that;
4. The historical fact that only one race has suffered the same sort of government-sponsored and effectively government-approved unlawful killing; unlawful deprivation of land; and unique race-based treatment under the Constitution, and special rights may be an appropriate way to make up for that special disadvantage;
5. The fact that only one race that was here did NOT get to have a say in the drafting of and voting for the Constitution. We whites have the Constitution we wanted; indigenous people have the Constitution we told them to take without asking them what they wanted and special rights may be a perfectly logical way of redressing that.
When a nation specifically excludes one group from the creation of its most powerful document, surely it's reasonable to give that same group special rights later.
We do have special rights for certain groups in the Constitution. Each person in the smaller states effectively has the rights to a more powerful vote than each person in the more populous states, for example. That is because of a bargaining process between groups when the Constitution was granted. The same bargaining process
6. The fact that the principle "first person to get something gets to keep it" is widely applied among humans, and the indigenous people were the first people here.
There's no flies on you, it seems hard to believe that you couldn't have thought up more valid reasons.
Point 3 - Any actual evidence to support that claim, your normally pretty big on evidence
Point 4 - Pretty much every race in the history of the world has suffered unlawful killing, stealing of land etc etc, its not unique, my ancestors suffered it, probably yours too. Actually name some that haven't
Point 5 - Many if not all immigrant groups since WW2 in Australia did not have a say in our constitution, do you support special rights for all peoples that did not have a say in the constitution.
Were there no other races here when the constitution was drafted, ie Chinese or Polynesians or none at all. I find that hard to believe.
Point 6 - "first person to get something gets to keep it" Right right ok, that's why the Romans gave back all of Europe when they remembered the "finders keepers" principle, The Mongals did the same in China, oh and Russia will remember it soon and move out of Ukraine.
Such valid reason, why didn't I think of them.
Maybe you didn't think of them because we've lived in different places, done different work, and are on different sides of the question. Everyone can think of different approaches for different issues based on their own background. You and I can think of different reasons to sail different boats or boards. The idea that one of us can think of different approaches to a question doesn't mean that our reasons are crap.
So for evidence;
Point 3 - evidence of the disadvantage indigenous people have;
* statistically, they have inferior health and die about 10 years earlier on average - and no, it's NOT all down to their behaviour. See the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare's reports.
* They still suffer regular racism. I live near a town that is actually very welcome to refugees (there's studies on it) and yet people like the captain of my bush fire brigade - a good guy generally - will still talk cheerily about a fire being in "boong town" and use insults against indigenous persons regularly. That attitude does actually harm people; there are instances where one kid looks indigenous and their sibling doesn't and despite the fact that they are so similar, one of them suffers racism and the other doesn't. I've already been warned that one of my grandkids, who has no indigenous heritage but has a dark complexion, is going to be the target of racism.
A best mate worked with the Aborginal Legal Service in outback NSW and WA. One of the groups where he worked had barely had any history of contact with whites and yet within a few years of starting to come to town, no less than a quarter of the entire group was in jail. This wasn't a case where they had learned criminal behaviour; they were targeted by the cops and encountered the huge difficulty in changing to fit our society. Oh, and I'm NOT saying that all cops target indigenous people; in my town they seem to be good, for example.
Down where my boat is moored there's an indigenous guy who is trying to kick off a rowing club. We talk about the issues of running small clubs; he's a good guy with a solid history owning his own farm. I've also heard (not from him) that he's been the subject of action just because he's black. It's just endemic attacks based on race.
* analytically, the effect of kids being removed still changes life even for the next generation. For evidence, see the work of Prof. Marc de Rosnay. Marc (and yes he is related to the windsurfers) has done analytical studies that show that just about the worst thing you can do to a kid's psyche is to take them away from their family history. That was done to many thousands of indigenous kids.
* Also analytically, American studies show that racism is a problem even for those who are successful or Asian rather than black. There have been several studies where identical job applications are sent in, with only the names changed to indicate either European, black or Asian heritage. The people who had European names got 50% more invitations for an interview even when they had exactly the same qualifications and experience as the people with Asian or black names. See for example the US NBER's working paper 9873 doi 10.3386/w9873.
That's just some of the evidence for #3.
Point 4 - Yes, my ancestors and probably your ancestors suffered unlawful killing and taking of land too and many of them suffered generations of health, economic and social disadvantage as a result. Highland Scots and Irish were called "uncivilized", suffered economic disadvantage, living shorter and poorer lives, and becoming known as violent drunks. Medical historian Robert Matheson notes that those who were moved from the Highlands in the Clearances suffered poverty and disease as a result - the London Times reports that even today their ancestors suffer poor health as a result. Other studies note that the clearances crushed the self-respect and self-reliance of the Highlanders who remained. Some say that it created a deep culture of dependency on the state.
So when our ancestors suffered killing and the taking of land, it had huge effects on them and on many of their descendants. When the Scots, Celts and Irish suffered, and some of their descendants still suffer now, then surely it's proof that the indigenous Australians suffered and still suffer now. Having your ancestors killed and your land taken hurts whites and blacks alike, so why not try to fix the results?
Point 5- People who moved here after the Constitution was written did it with their eyes open, out of their own choice. Aborigines didn't do that - they had the Constitution imposed on them. The situations are very different.
Point 6 - I specifically said "widely applied" not "universally applied". I agree that the historical fact that wave after wave of peoples moving out of the steppes means that we can't say that everyone should go back to where their ancestors came from. However, "we were here first" is still a common way of giving priority to one group over another.
I don't really think "we were here first" is a particularly good reason but the point is that there are reasonable approaches apart from the ones you brought up.
Let's also look back at the discussion. I didn't say these were all perfectly good reasons. They are just reasonable ways of looking at the issue. I've said before I think that reasonable people can have different views on this question.
Point 3. The health.
Remote communities dont help. Theres no economic reason for them to be there. Everything is trucked in. Good food is very expensive. I suggest the figures are strongly skewed by remote communities.
And the health care is limited. The loony left would argue every community needs a full service hospital. Like it or not funds have to be limited.
Where does it end. As our poulation grows in 50 years time will a white appearing person with 1/16 aboriginal blood be putting their hand out.
The voice will be comprehensively rejected because most Australians simply won't accept that one group of citizens, defined by ancestry, is different from the rest of us, and always will be.
We're all different for all sorts of reasons and in a successful multicultural democracy like Australia, your ancestry is not seen as an important feature of your identity.
Ironically, if any good comes out of the referendum, it's the rise of a person who might go on to become our first partly-indigenous prime minister.
Select to expand quotesnoidberg said..
Yep trust the experts...
Where have I heard this recently before.
Didn't work out well for people that trusted the experts last time.
You're talking about the latest Nobel Prize winners right?
Select to expand quotemyusernam said..
Point 3. The health.
Remote communities dont help. Theres no economic reason for them to be there. Everything is trucked in. Good food is very expensive. I suggest the figures are strongly skewed by remote communities.
And the health care is limited. The loony left would argue every community needs a full service hospital. Like it or not funds have to be limited.
Where do you draw that line? Do you turn around and say that any rural communities are not economically justified and close them down? Do you then turn around and say that the roads in those areas are also not economic so must be funded by the users?
Do you then turn around and say that only high-rise parts of cities are justified on an economic basis?
When you start down the slope of comparing the economics of things, lots of things can't be justified.
Funny, I expect everyone thinks that 'their' particular environment is justified, but if you want to turn your back on your house and backyard and go and live in a dogbox in Sydney, then only then can you really tell everyone your lifestyle is 'economically justfied'. I don't know where you would get your food from though.
Select to expand quoteAUS1111 said..
Ironically, if any good comes out of the referendum, it's the rise of a person who might go on to become our first partly-indigenous prime minister.
She is impressive and was on that trajectory before the referendum was announced, but this has elevated her to the national stage for sure.
Many had never heard of her before this. I just hope they don't elevate her too soon. She needs time.
Select to expand quoteremery said..snoidberg said..
Yep trust the experts...
Where have I heard this recently before.
Didn't work out well for people that trusted the experts last time.
You're talking about the latest Nobel Prize winners right?
Hahah funny how the nobel prize winners didn't even invent MRNA Robert Malone invented MRNA. The noble prize winners just figured out a way to shut down the immune system to prevent our body's from destroying the MRNA delivery.
I don't think they deserve a Nobel Prize for shutting down people immune systems because our immune system don't just fight bacteria or virus infections, it destroys mutated cells and prevents cancer.
Now I wonder what could possibly be causing all these turbo cancers everywhere all of a sudden.
Doctors are baffled one again.
Select to expand quotesnoidberg said..
Hahah funny how the nobel prize winners didn't even invent MRNA Robert Malone invented MRNA. The noble prize winners just figured out a way to shut down the immune system to prevent our body's from destroying the MRNA delivery.
I don't think they deserve a Nobel Prize for shutting down people immune systems because our immune system don't just fight bacteria or virus infections, it destroys mutated cells and prevents cancer.
Now I wonder what could possibly be causing all these turbo cancers everywhere all of a sudden.
Doctors are baffled one again.
Messenger RNA can't be"invented", it was "identified" in the early 1960's.
If you are referring to mRNA vaccines... Malone would have won't the Nobel Prize if he was the inventor. But he didn't, because he wasn't.
Select to expand quotemyusernam said..
Point 3. The health.
Remote communities dont help. Theres no economic reason for them to be there. Everything is trucked in. Good food is very expensive. I suggest the figures are strongly skewed by remote communities.
And the health care is limited. The loony left would argue every community needs a full service hospital. Like it or not funds have to be limited.
Where does it end. As our poulation grows in 50 years time will a white appearing person with 1/16 aboriginal blood be putting their hand out.
Yep, the figures are skewed by remote communities but they are also bad elsewhere.
I agree we need a rethink of remote communities and the people who haven't suffered any real disadvantage because of their indigenous heritage but who still get benefits from it.
Select to expand quoteParadox said..AUS1111 said..
Ironically, if any good comes out of the referendum, it's the rise of a person who might go on to become our first partly-indigenous prime minister.
She is impressive and was on that trajectory before the referendum was announced, but this has elevated her to the national stage for sure.
Many had never heard of her before this. I just hope they don't elevate her too soon. She needs time.
Ahhh, Paradox, you're back. Can I ask why you don't answer polite and relevant questions?
You seem to want to show yourself as a pretty reasonable person so why not actually carry out a reasoned discussion by giving answers? It seems like the only reason you don't is because you don't have reasonable answers.
And what on earth did you mean by "a representation in a legal sense is a challenge"? You make out that you're an expert on this subject but then say stuff like that. If you get such simple things wrong then why do you think you're so right?
Select to expand quoteChris 249 said..
Ahhh, Paradox, you're back. Can I ask why you don't answer polite and relevant questions?
You seem to want to show yourself as a pretty reasonable person so why not actually carry out a reasoned discussion by giving answers? It seems like the only reason you don't is because you don't have reasonable answers.
And what on earth did you mean by "a representation in a legal sense is a challenge"? You make out that you're an expert on this subject but then say stuff like that. If you get such simple things wrong then why do you think you're so right?
Wow, give a dog a bone hey? sorry, I don't monitor this site hourly and things can get burried....
I have not made out I am an expert on anything.
What I meant by that statement was that the constitutional wording allowing the Voice to "make representations" to Executive Government gives it a constitutionally backed ability to challenge any aspect of decisions made (at any level or by any individual in any part of Government, state, Federal or Local), in the High Court.
There is rightly some concern that the Voice will devolve into endless legal challenges at all levels of government. Whether the challenges are baseless or not, they can be used to slow down and disrupt decisions they don't like. Often delays will kill an initiative just as effectively as a successful challenge. I see significant scope in this area on climate related claims stopping or interfering in mining and resource approvals. Activists are doing enough damage in this area as it is.
As stated by Megan Davis and as clearly stated in the Uluru Statement From the Heart, the intention is that representations made by the Voice should be able to be challenged in the High court if Ignored.
"Uluru Dialogue co-chairwoman Megan Davis has argued that a possible High Court challenge, including over whether Voice representations must be considered by administrative decision-makers, would be a straightforward part of Australia's system of law"
Select to expand quoteParadox said..
Wow, give a dog a bone hey? sorry, I don't monitor this site hourly and things can get burried....
I have not made out I am an expert on anything.
What I meant by that statement was that the constitutional wording allowing the Voice to "make representations" to Executive Government gives it a constitutionally backed ability to challenge any aspect of decisions made (at any level or by any individual in any part of Government, state, Federal or Local), in the High Court.
There is rightly some concern that the Voice will devolve into endless legal challenges at all levels of government. Whether the challenges are baseless or not, they can be used to slow down and disrupt decisions they don't like. Often delays will kill an initiative just as effectively as a successful challenge. I see significant scope in this area on climate related claims stopping or interfering in mining and resource approvals. Activists are doing enough damage in this area as it is.
As stated by Megan Davis and as clearly stated in the Uluru Statement From the Heart, the intention is that representations made by the Voice should be able to be challenged in the High court if Ignored.
"Uluru Dialogue co-chairwoman Megan Davis has argued that a possible High Court challenge, including over whether Voice representations must be considered by administrative decision-makers, would be a straightforward part of Australia's system of law"
Show me where the Uluru Statement from the Heart clearly states, "the intention is that representations made by the Voice should be able to be challenged in the High court if Ignored."
I'll help, here is the statement for you to actually read.
Select to expand quoteremery said..
Show me where the Uluru Statement from the Heart clearly states, "the intention is that representations made by the Voice should be able to be challenged in the High court if Ignored."
It's on the same line that clearly states representations from the Voice won't be challenged in the High Court if they are ignored.
Select to expand quoteChris 249 said..cammd said..Chris 249 said..cammd said..
Why would anyone vote for race based inequality. I can only think of two reasons
1. You think one race deserves greater rights than all others.
Or
2 You think that one race is inferior in some way and cannot survive and prosper without special rights.
3. The fact that only one race has the same level of disadvantage, and that special rights are the best way to fix that;
Point 3 - Any actual evidence to support that claim, your normally pretty big on evidence
So for evidence;
Point 3 - evidence of the disadvantage indigenous people have;
* statistically, they have inferior health and die about 10 years earlier on average - and no, it's NOT all down to their behaviour. See the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare's reports.
* They still suffer regular racism. I live near a town that is actually very welcome to refugees (there's studies on it) and yet people like the captain of my bush fire brigade - a good guy generally - will still talk cheerily about a fire being in "boong town" and use insults against indigenous persons regularly. That attitude does actually harm people; there are instances where one kid looks indigenous and their sibling doesn't and despite the fact that they are so similar, one of them suffers racism and the other doesn't. I've already been warned that one of my grandkids, who has no indigenous heritage but has a dark complexion, is going to be the target of racism.
A best mate worked with the Aborginal Legal Service in outback NSW and WA. One of the groups where he worked had barely had any history of contact with whites and yet within a few years of starting to come to town, no less than a quarter of the entire group was in jail. This wasn't a case where they had learned criminal behaviour; they were targeted by the cops and encountered the huge difficulty in changing to fit our society. Oh, and I'm NOT saying that all cops target indigenous people; in my town they seem to be good, for example.
Down where my boat is moored there's an indigenous guy who is trying to kick off a rowing club. We talk about the issues of running small clubs; he's a good guy with a solid history owning his own farm. I've also heard (not from him) that he's been the subject of action just because he's black. It's just endemic attacks based on race.
* analytically, the effect of kids being removed still changes life even for the next generation. For evidence, see the work of Prof. Marc de Rosnay. Marc (and yes he is related to the windsurfers) has done analytical studies that show that just about the worst thing you can do to a kid's psyche is to take them away from their family history. That was done to many thousands of indigenous kids.
* Also analytically, American studies show that racism is a problem even for those who are successful or Asian rather than black. There have been several studies where identical job applications are sent in, with only the names changed to indicate either European, black or Asian heritage. The people who had European names got 50% more invitations for an interview even when they had exactly the same qualifications and experience as the people with Asian or black names. See for example the US NBER's working paper 9873 doi 10.3386/w9873.
That's just some of the evidence for #3.
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.
Select to expand quotecammd said..
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.
Ahh, I get it. Vote NO so that nothing changes, but it will be a 'real change' at the same time.
We need "change' by voting no to change. Yeah, that makes perfect sense, not.
Select to expand quoteFormulaNova said..cammd said..
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.
Ahh, I get it. Vote NO so that nothing changes, but it will be a 'real change' at the same time.
We need "change' by voting no to change. Yeah, that makes perfect sense, not.
That's because your blinded by idealogy, the people who have designed the Voice are the same people who have been running all the land councils and aboriginal affairs for the last 30 years, tell me I am wrong if you can. The Voice just entrenches them.
For example: Noel Pearson (Leader of the Yes campaign) co founded the Cape York Land Council, that has reportedly received $550M in government funds over I don't know how many years. $550M is a lot of money, I haven't seen anything from the Yes campaign saying how good the outcomes up there have been, the opposite, all we hear is how we are failing to close the gap.
We are told a Voice will make the difference, how so, because the corruption or waste is now enshrined in the constitution. I call BS, so does Jacinta Price and Warren Mundine and other Indigenous leaders who see and have lived it. Fingers crossed the majority of the good people of Australia see it to come Saturday.
Open your eyes, open your mind
Select to expand quoteFormulaNova said..Ahh, I get it. Vote NO so that nothing changes, but it will be a 'real change' at the same time.
We need "change' by voting no to change. Yeah, that makes perfect sense, not.
On the contrary, I think No changes a lot.
The great hope from a resounding No vote is that it will greatly diminish the power and influence of the indigenous activist left, pushing their profoundly damaging narrative of "You have been dispossessed, invaded, you are a victim, racism is everywhere", and that this will be replaced by a new generation of positive indigenous leadership such as that of Jacinta Price with her message that "You are an individual, you're not defined by your ancestry. You live in one of the world's great, safe, welcoming, multicultural democracies. There are wonderful opportunities for you which don't exist in most of the world - take them."
Select to expand quoteAUS1111 said..FormulaNova said..Ahh, I get it. Vote NO so that nothing changes, but it will be a 'real change' at the same time.
We need "change' by voting no to change. Yeah, that makes perfect sense, not.
On the contrary, I think No changes a lot.
The great hope from a resounding No vote is that it will greatly diminish the power and influence of the indigenous activist left, pushing their profoundly damaging narrative of "You have been dispossessed, invaded, you are a victim, racism is everywhere", and that this will be replaced by a new generation of positive indigenous leadership such as that of Jacinta Price with her message that "You are an individual, you're not defined by your ancestry. You live in one of the world's great, safe, welcoming, multicultural democracies. There are wonderful opportunities for you which don't exist in most of the world - take them."
If only human nature were like that. A NO result will not change those vocal activists. If anything it will make them even angrier about what they perceive as not getting what they want. Voices of reason will often be drowned out by vocal people whether there is merit or not.
I was hoping that 'The Voice' allows input to be gotten directly from people in those communities that are suffering, and not just from the vocal minority living as activists.
I do worry about someone's (Jacinta Price's ?) claim that there are 'wonderful opportunities'. These are just hollow words, with no substance. It is a white-man's view, and I can understand why you seem to think that. I was hoping that the voice would allow groups to address these problems in a better way than currently done.
It bothers me that so many people cannot see that aboriginals are not just white people with darker skin. The issues that they face seem to be cultural and telling them to just get over it and embrace wonderful opportunities is just ignorant of the issues.
Select to expand quoteFormulaNova said..AUS1111 said..FormulaNova said..Ahh, I get it. Vote NO so that nothing changes, but it will be a 'real change' at the same time.
We need "change' by voting no to change. Yeah, that makes perfect sense, not.
On the contrary, I think No changes a lot.
The great hope from a resounding No vote is that it will greatly diminish the power and influence of the indigenous activist left, pushing their profoundly damaging narrative of "You have been dispossessed, invaded, you are a victim, racism is everywhere", and that this will be replaced by a new generation of positive indigenous leadership such as that of Jacinta Price with her message that "You are an individual, you're not defined by your ancestry. You live in one of the world's great, safe, welcoming, multicultural democracies. There are wonderful opportunities for you which don't exist in most of the world - take them."
If only human nature were like that. A NO result will not change those vocal activists. If anything it will make them even angrier about what they perceive as not getting what they want. Voices of reason will often be drowned out by vocal people whether there is merit or not.
I was hoping that 'The Voice' allows input to be gotten directly from people in those communities that are suffering, and not just from the vocal minority living as activists.
I do worry about someone's (Jacinta Price's ?) claim that there are 'wonderful opportunities'. These are just hollow words, with no substance. It is a white-man's view, and I can understand why you seem to think that. I was hoping that the voice would allow groups to address these problems in a better way than currently done.
It bothers me that so many people cannot see that aboriginals are not just white people with darker skin. The issues that they face seem to be cultural and telling them to just get over it and embrace wonderful opportunities is just ignorant of the issues.
Well Jacinta Price (not a white man) and Warren Mundine seem to think Indigenous people can participate and flourish in a modern multicultural society, I agree. They have outlined a plan, have a read.
Or maybe you understand the issues better than them, but I doubt it.
Select to expand quotecammd said..
Or maybe you understand the issues better than them, but I doubt it.
That sort of assumption is what has the vocal activists thinking they have the answer... but you think it's not right?
Can you have it both ways? Discrediting the opinion of one group you don't agree with and highlighting one you do agree with, for the exact same reason; that they must know as they are aboriginal?
Do you have a good pointer to their ideas as it would be interesting to read them. Maybe I do agree with them, but I don't know what they are.
Select to expand quotecammd said..FormulaNova said..AUS1111 said..FormulaNova said..Ahh, I get it. Vote NO so that nothing changes, but it will be a 'real change' at the same time.
We need "change' by voting no to change. Yeah, that makes perfect sense, not.
On the contrary, I think No changes a lot.
The great hope from a resounding No vote is that it will greatly diminish the power and influence of the indigenous activist left, pushing their profoundly damaging narrative of "You have been dispossessed, invaded, you are a victim, racism is everywhere", and that this will be replaced by a new generation of positive indigenous leadership such as that of Jacinta Price with her message that "You are an individual, you're not defined by your ancestry. You live in one of the world's great, safe, welcoming, multicultural democracies. There are wonderful opportunities for you which don't exist in most of the world - take them."
If only human nature were like that. A NO result will not change those vocal activists. If anything it will make them even angrier about what they perceive as not getting what they want. Voices of reason will often be drowned out by vocal people whether there is merit or not.
I was hoping that 'The Voice' allows input to be gotten directly from people in those communities that are suffering, and not just from the vocal minority living as activists.
I do worry about someone's (Jacinta Price's ?) claim that there are 'wonderful opportunities'. These are just hollow words, with no substance. It is a white-man's view, and I can understand why you seem to think that. I was hoping that the voice would allow groups to address these problems in a better way than currently done.
It bothers me that so many people cannot see that aboriginals are not just white people with darker skin. The issues that they face seem to be cultural and telling them to just get over it and embrace wonderful opportunities is just ignorant of the issues.
Well Jacinta Price (not a white man) and Warren Mundine seem to think Indigenous people can participate and flourish in a modern multicultural society, I agree. They have outlined a plan, have a read.
Or maybe you understand the issues better than them, but I doubt it.
Oh, after a quick Google, here is an opinion against Warren Mundine's own opinion. From his daughter no-less, which says that she was brought up to be in favor of 'helping themselves' and she seems to think having a voice is part of this.
www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/oct/02/warren-mundines-daughter-says-his-opposition-to-voice-not-morally-right
..and he seems to want a treaty as well.. I thought that's what people were scared of?
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12527633/Warren-Mundines-breaks-ranks-No-campaigners-Indigenous-Voice-Parliament.html
Mehh, the more I read of this stuff, the more discouraged I am. I don't think we will end up with a yes vote anyway, but I worry that in reading this that WM wants to get on 'the voice' committee if it happens. I worry it could be like a terrible manager insisting that they are part of a specific project and then complaining if/when it fails. I was hoping that 'the voice' would bypass this sort of cronyism and consult direct with the people. Maybe this is why some people are campaigning for 'No' as it doesn't put them in power and that's the only thing that they really care about?
Select to expand quoteFormulaNova said..cammd said..FormulaNova said..AUS1111 said..FormulaNova said..Ahh, I get it. Vote NO so that nothing changes, but it will be a 'real change' at the same time.
We need "change' by voting no to change. Yeah, that makes perfect sense, not.
On the contrary, I think No changes a lot.
The great hope from a resounding No vote is that it will greatly diminish the power and influence of the indigenous activist left, pushing their profoundly damaging narrative of "You have been dispossessed, invaded, you are a victim, racism is everywhere", and that this will be replaced by a new generation of positive indigenous leadership such as that of Jacinta Price with her message that "You are an individual, you're not defined by your ancestry. You live in one of the world's great, safe, welcoming, multicultural democracies. There are wonderful opportunities for you which don't exist in most of the world - take them."
If only human nature were like that. A NO result will not change those vocal activists. If anything it will make them even angrier about what they perceive as not getting what they want. Voices of reason will often be drowned out by vocal people whether there is merit or not.
I was hoping that 'The Voice' allows input to be gotten directly from people in those communities that are suffering, and not just from the vocal minority living as activists.
I do worry about someone's (Jacinta Price's ?) claim that there are 'wonderful opportunities'. These are just hollow words, with no substance. It is a white-man's view, and I can understand why you seem to think that. I was hoping that the voice would allow groups to address these problems in a better way than currently done.
It bothers me that so many people cannot see that aboriginals are not just white people with darker skin. The issues that they face seem to be cultural and telling them to just get over it and embrace wonderful opportunities is just ignorant of the issues.
Well Jacinta Price (not a white man) and Warren Mundine seem to think Indigenous people can participate and flourish in a modern multicultural society, I agree. They have outlined a plan, have a read.
Or maybe you understand the issues better than them, but I doubt it.
Oh, after a quick Google, here is an opinion against Warren Mundine's own opinion. From his daughter no-less, which says that she was brought up to be in favor of 'helping themselves' and she seems to think having a voice is part of this.
www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/oct/02/warren-mundines-daughter-says-his-opposition-to-voice-not-morally-right
..and he seems to want a treaty as well.. I thought that's what people were scared of?
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12527633/Warren-Mundines-breaks-ranks-No-campaigners-Indigenous-Voice-Parliament.html
Mehh, the more I read of this stuff, the more discouraged I am. I don't think we will end up with a yes vote anyway, but I worry that in reading this that WM wants to get on 'the voice' committee if it happens. I worry it could be like a terrible manager insisting that they are part of a specific project and then complaining if/when it fails. I was hoping that 'the voice' would bypass this sort of cronyism and consult direct with the people. Maybe this is why some people are campaigning for 'No' as it doesn't put them in power and that's the only thing that they really care about?
Show you could have at least some inherited FIBER from your watersports gear...
ARTLINE 70 already procured for Saturday...
Select to expand quoteParadox said..Chris 249 said..
Ahhh, Paradox, you're back. Can I ask why you don't answer polite and relevant questions?
You seem to want to show yourself as a pretty reasonable person so why not actually carry out a reasoned discussion by giving answers? It seems like the only reason you don't is because you don't have reasonable answers.
And what on earth did you mean by "a representation in a legal sense is a challenge"? You make out that you're an expert on this subject but then say stuff like that. If you get such simple things wrong then why do you think you're so right?
Wow, give a dog a bone hey? sorry, I don't monitor this site hourly and things can get burried....
I have not made out I am an expert on anything.
What I meant by that statement was that the constitutional wording allowing the Voice to "make representations" to Executive Government gives it a constitutionally backed ability to challenge any aspect of decisions made (at any level or by any individual in any part of Government, state, Federal or Local), in the High Court.
There is rightly some concern that the Voice will devolve into endless legal challenges at all levels of government. Whether the challenges are baseless or not, they can be used to slow down and disrupt decisions they don't like. Often delays will kill an initiative just as effectively as a successful challenge. I see significant scope in this area on climate related claims stopping or interfering in mining and resource approvals. Activists are doing enough damage in this area as it is.
As stated by Megan Davis and as clearly stated in the Uluru Statement From the Heart, the intention is that representations made by the Voice should be able to be challenged in the High court if Ignored.
"Uluru Dialogue co-chairwoman Megan Davis has argued that a possible High Court challenge, including over whether Voice representations must be considered by administrative decision-makers, would be a straightforward part of Australia's system of law"
The thing is that you keep on saying that the Voice WILL allow representations when the sources you rely on say that it's just POSSIBLE.
Aronsay, the constitutional law expert you quoted earlier, said that "it's arguable" that the Voice will be able to challenge. He didn't say it would. Davis in your quote refers to a POSSIBLE challenge. So neither of the sources you quote say what you claim they say. They speak of possibilities whereas you make it out as if they say it's definite.
There's a huge difference between something being "arguable" and "possible" as the experts say and something being a fact as you say.
You also completely ignored the other issue, which is that people and groups of all types can already frequently get standing for court challenges over administrative and other decisions. So you're wrong when you say that the Voice will definitely allow for court challenges, and you're wrong when you imply this will definitely be significantly different to the current situation where such challenges are already allowed.
By the way the constitutional law expert you and Sky are using as support also believes we should allow sharia law in Australia, which is ironic considering I bet you and Sky would be very much against that idea.
Select to expand quoteParadox said..Chris 249 said..
Ahhh, Paradox, you're back. Can I ask why you don't answer polite and relevant questions?
You seem to want to show yourself as a pretty reasonable person so why not actually carry out a reasoned discussion by giving answers? It seems like the only reason you don't is because you don't have reasonable answers.
And what on earth did you mean by "a representation in a legal sense is a challenge"? You make out that you're an expert on this subject but then say stuff like that. If you get such simple things wrong then why do you think you're so right?
Wow, give a dog a bone hey? sorry, I don't monitor this site hourly and things can get burried....
I have not made out I am an expert on anything.
What I meant by that statement was that the constitutional wording allowing the Voice to "make representations" to Executive Government gives it a constitutionally backed ability to challenge any aspect of decisions made (at any level or by any individual in any part of Government, state, Federal or Local), in the High Court.
There is rightly some concern that the Voice will devolve into endless legal challenges at all levels of government. Whether the challenges are baseless or not, they can be used to slow down and disrupt decisions they don't like. Often delays will kill an initiative just as effectively as a successful challenge. I see significant scope in this area on climate related claims stopping or interfering in mining and resource approvals. Activists are doing enough damage in this area as it is.
As stated by Megan Davis and as clearly stated in the Uluru Statement From the Heart, the intention is that representations made by the Voice should be able to be challenged in the High court if Ignored.
"Uluru Dialogue co-chairwoman Megan Davis has argued that a possible High Court challenge, including over whether Voice representations must be considered by administrative decision-makers, would be a straightforward part of Australia's system of law"
The thing is that you keep on saying that the Voice WILL allow representations when the sources you rely on say that it's just POSSIBLE.
Aronsay, the constitutional law expert you quoted earlier, said that "it's arguable" that the Voice will be able to challenge. He didn't say it would. Davis in your quote refers to a POSSIBLE challenge. So neither of the sources you quote say what you claim they say. They speak of possibilities whereas you make it out as if they say it's definite.
There's a huge difference between something being "arguable" and "possible" as the experts say and something being a fact as you say.
You also completely ignored the other issue, which is that people and groups of all types can already frequently get standing for court challenges over administrative and other decisions. So you're wrong when you say that the Voice will definitely allow for court challenges, and you're wrong when you imply this will definitely be significantly different to the current situation where such challenges are already allowed.
By the way the constitutional law expert you and Sky are using as support also believes we should allow sharia law in Australia, which is ironic considering I bet you and Sky would be very much against that idea.
Select to expand quotecammd 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.
Gee Chris. I didn't read all your stuff but a cursory glance suggests it's all to proclaim you're unfamiliar with Murphy's Law
Select to expand quoteFormulaNova said..cammd said..
Or maybe you understand the issues better than them, but I doubt it.
That sort of assumption is what has the vocal activists thinking they have the answer... but you think it's not right?
Can you have it both ways? Discrediting the opinion of one group you don't agree with and highlighting one you do agree with, for the exact same reason; that they must know as they are aboriginal?
Do you have a good pointer to their ideas as it would be interesting to read them. Maybe I do agree with them, but I don't know what they are.
Seeking information about the "No" case from the Guardian is akin to asking Karl Marx to explain the benefits of capitalism. Probably not going to get the full story.
If you genuinely want to hear the arguments for "No" then jump on Youtube and watch Jacinta Price's address to the press club.
Select to expand quoteChris 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.
Select to expand quotecammd said..
If you genuinely want to hear the arguments for "No" then jump on Youtube and watch Jacinta Price's address to the press club.
No. Like everyone else here I have already decided which way I am going to vote and the alternative doesn't interest me. This is just conversation. If something significant jumped out, I might change my mind, but so far I haven't heard of ANYONE having a solution to the problem.
