The Voice. An Australian referendum

[Se7en]

Seriously.
So you think that the statements politicians make under parliamentary privilege are well informed and researched fact? So much so, that they can be relied upon to make policy etc on a whole group of people comprising hundreds of different cultural mobs spread over eight thousand million square kilometres?

That's what we've been doing for 120 years . Look how well that's worked.
It's inefficient, paternalistic and tainted with white political motives.
It changes with change of government for white political ideology wasting funds spent by previous governments. It's inconsistent.
Still, if that's your serious belief, there's no point arguing.

So how will the constitution change proposed help with this?
How does it help 200 mobs of people speak with one voice?
How does it ensure that the politicains, who are still responsible for both the makeup of 'the voice', and for deciding which bits of feedback they listen too, are better informed than now?
How does it ensure any consistancy from one government to the next?

 

[Recidivist]

Seriously.
So you think that the statements politicians make under parliamentary privilege are well informed and researched fact? So much so, that they can be relied upon to make policy etc on a whole group of people comprising hundreds of different cultural mobs spread over eight thousand million square kilometres?

That's what we've been doing for 120 years . Look how well that's worked.
It's inefficient, paternalistic and tainted with white political motives.
It changes with change of government for white political ideology wasting funds spent by previous governments. It's inconsistent.
Still, if that's your serious belief, there's no point arguing.

There you go again. Could you please try reading and comprehending the words I have written, and stop attributing your warped interpretation as my opinion.

You even highlighted my reference to people's personal experience and then asked if I believed those to be well informed and researched fact. And WTF has Parliamentary privilege got to do with anything I said? And if you intended to reference the land area of Australia, you overstated it slightly (a thousandfold, actually).

Why do you embarrass yourself so? (That's a rhetorical question, no need to respond.)

 

[Ease the sheet.]

It was a hypothetical to illistrate the question I am asking. It serves the purpose.
I could have equally used a hypothetical where Albo puts all his mates up as the body, and pays them a few $100k a year each. And they still do nothing.

Do you have an answer, or just a criticism?

It serves the purpose of wrecking.
Well done.

 

[Ease the sheet.]

That article is way beyond their ability to comprehend. By reading it and accepting the point of it, it would call into question their beliefs in Albos handling of the voice debate and thus his leadership credentials.

This is never going to happen because unlike the rest of us on this thread, they have no ability or question or criticise their side of politics because they are just blind LWNJs

"Yet both have the same ultimate objective: the better inclusion of a hitherto marginalised group."

If we all assimilated with First Nations culture we’d be sitting around waiting for the bottle shop to open after trashing what’s left of our house and after having sex with our own children.

The only failure of comprehension is yours.

 

[Ease the sheet.]

Maybe I'm just thick, but you will have to point out to me what it is that you consider to be the "correct fact", because I can't identify it.

Of course the Constitution was written in another era, but it does not follow that it "needs to be updated". If that were indisputably the case, there would be universal support for amendment - but there is not, so your argument has fallen at the first post.

And, even though Alhadder has shown the falseness of the "native fauna" myth, you were prepared to rely on it before the falseness was pointed out, apparently in order to score cheap points. In my opinion, that was reprehensible.

Terra nullius..


Relying on "universal support" to indicate anything is rather unwise. After all, the earth was flat for a while....

I have acknowledged alhadder's post and acknowledged the falseness of the "fauna myth"

 

[ShortForBob]

So how will the constitution change proposed help with this?
How does it help 200 mobs of people speak with one voice?
How does it ensure that the politicains, who are still responsible for both the makeup of 'the voice', and for deciding which bits of feedback they listen too, are better informed than now?
How does it ensure any consistancy from one government to the next?

Right.
The government has listened to the voices from all them mobs.
i posted this report . I think there were 200 communities involved and there were reports from all those communities there for you to read.
Then there's the statement from the heart.
The current government is driving this and will through legislation, form the first consultative under the constitutional amendments.

Of course after all this, the gov will simply appoint their white mates and ignore all this work.

It does not ensure consistency, it is not intended to ensure consistency because if it did, you might get stuck with a "dud" body like the ATSIC that you are all constantly whinging about.

Current and future governments may well change the format, which is what you say you want.
It may change for the better, it may change for the worse. BUT THERE WILL ALWAYS BE A VOICE THAT RECOGNISES AND REPRESENTS THE 60,000,000 year old cultures and is there to protect the culture and needs of the decendants of that culture.

It is not empty symbolism, it's a tool.

And I won't be drawn into this disingenuous on your part conversation any more.
Vote as you will.

 

[Recidivist]

So you're happy with terra nullius?

I still don't get it. You accused me of being "happy with terra nullius". I refuted that, now you are saying that something about terra nullius is a correct fact. Which? Are you saying that it is a correct fact that I am "happy with terra nullius", despite my refutation?
Or are you saying that the concept of "terra nullius" was correct? Or are you obliquely alluding to some other aspect? Help me out here ...

 

[ShortForBob]

There you go again. Could you please try reading and comprehending the words I have written, and stop attributing your warped interpretation as my opinion.

You even highlighted my reference to people's personal experience and then asked if I believed those to be well informed and researched fact. And WTF has Parliamentary privilege got to do with anything I said? And if you intended to reference the land area of Australia, you overstated it slightly (a thousandfold, actually).

Why do you embarrass yourself so? (That's a rhetorical question, no need to respond.)

Well do you?
This may come as a shock to you, but people lie about their personal experience, people distort their "personal experience" Politicians even plant their staff on TV to falsely represent themselves as knowledgeable social workers to further their agenda's
example.
"the whistleblower presented by the program as an anonymous youth worker was actually the senior public servant advising Mal Brough on violence and sexual abuse."

Mal Brough may lose his job over Ashbygate. He should have lost it over the intervention | Jeff Sparrow

Why has Mal Brough never been forced to answer questions about his disastrous intervention into Indigenous communities policy?

www.theguardian.com

That little stunt turned every Aboriginal man in the communities into an alcoholic pedo in the eyes of the stupid, and caused untold pain and suffering.
And people question their wish to have a representative body enshrined in the constitution.

 

[Fah Kiew Tu]

I still don't get it. You accused me of being "happy with terra nullius". I refuted that, now you are saying that something about terra nullius is a correct fact. Which? Are you saying that it is a correct fact that I am "happy with terra nullius", despite my refutation?
Or are you saying that the concept of "terra nullius" was correct? Or are you obliquely alluding to some other aspect? Help me out here ...

Good luck with that. My previous experience with exchanges with ETS is, there's a lot of shit flinging by him and a lot of straw-man erecting, but damn few facts.

So far nobody has answered any of those questions Dutton asked. Hey, it's highly likely I can claim to be a voting member of any new Voice type assembly which would be a farce IMO.

I stated my minimum position earlier.

1/16 genetic Aboriginal ancestry verified by DNA analysis to qualify to vote or be elected ELSE both parents born & raised in a community of less than 1000 people.

Elected representatives to by 67% genetic XX, 33% XY and anyone neither (about 0.03% of the population) can nominate which group they want to be in. Because the males are overwhelmingly the abusers and need to be out-represented by the women they abuse.

Followed by 80% born in a place with a population of less than 1000 people resident as another criterion.

With those restrictions in place it's *possible* that the people elected might actually have a fucking clue about the needs of remote area communities.

Of course this is not going to ever happen because there's no gravy train for the urban/suburban people who've already had access to a First World standard of living and education while growing up.

FKT

 

[The Dark Knight]

Good luck with that. My previous experience with exchanges with ETS is, there's a lot of shit flinging by him and a lot of straw-man erecting, but damn few facts.

@Recidivist does not understand trying to have an discussion with Easy is just like having one with Random, but without the memes.

A complete wast of time expecting some thought being given about any point being raised unless it come from Labor party propaganda.

 

[Ease the sheet.]

I still don't get it. You accused me of being "happy with terra nullius". I refuted that, now you are saying that something about terra nullius is a correct fact. Which? Are you saying that it is a correct fact that I am "happy with terra nullius", despite my refutation?
Or are you saying that the concept of "terra nullius" was correct? Or are you obliquely alluding to some other aspect? Help me out here ...

The constitution was written when the concept of terra nullius was alive and well.

The constitution should recognise the previous "owners" of this country. I see the voice as part of that recognition.

 

[The Dark Knight]

Bikie Mole quits Greens over divisions on Voice to Parliament​

Senator Lidia Thorpe quits Greens over divisions on Voice to Parliament

Senator Lidia Thorpe, the Indigenous spokesperson for the Greens and a vocal opponent of the Voice to Parliament, will quit the party after failing to find common ground with her colleagues.

www.abc.net.au

Senator Lidia Thorpe has quit the federal Greens after failing to find common ground with her party on a Voice to Parliament.

"This country has a strong grassroots black sovereign movement, full of staunch and committed warriors, and I want to represent that movement fully," Senator Thorpe said.

"It has become clear to me that I can't do that within the Greens.

"Now I will be able to speak freely on all issues from a sovereign perspective, without being constrained by portfolios and agreed party positions."

Senator Thorpe has been a vocal opponent of the proposed Voice, and was one of the Indigenous representatives to walk out of talks that led to the Uluru Statement from the Heart.

But while the federal Greens are yet to formally commit to supporting the Voice in a referendum, disagreement between Senator Thorpe and the party on how to respond has been publicly acknowledged.

Senator Thorpe announced her resignation on the first day of the parliamentary year, as the Greens prepare to declare their position on the Voice.

While she did not take questions from reporters, Senator Thorpe flagged she would still vote with the Greens on climate change.

Last year, Senator Thorpe was stripped of her position as deputy leader in the senate by Greens leader Adam Bandt after the ABC revealed she had been in an undisclosed relationship with an ex-bikie boss while serving on a parliamentary committee that dealt with organised crime.

Senator Thorpe's term ends in 2028, and she will sit as an independent on the crossbench.

With a minority in the Senate, the government will now need the support of the Greens plus two other crossbenchers on votes opposed by the Coalition.


Time to end this 8 year senate bullshit...

 

[LB 15]

Someone has explained how the constitutional change being proposed will actually make a meaningful difference?

Meaningful change? What are you talking about. This isn’t about change it is about virtue signaling, woke stupidity and chanting at rallies. The trouble with these leftist cunts is they believe that society can only move as fast as its slowest members. And with abo’s and book stackers who smoke, that is farking slow.
Fuck the voice and fuck the woke cocksuckers.

 

[LB 15]

Having lived in Scandi land and having spent plenty of time in the UK, I'd say tjat ion terms of looks, the lucky Brits are the ones are those who had their gene pool updated with some Vikinng DNA

Having seen photos of Meli which I can not burn from my memory, her ancestors probably missed out on som Viking improvements.

Meli was not just hit with the ugly stick- she was thrashed with it. What she will never understand is that as much as she wants to play the intellectual, she can’t because she is an uneducated working class nobody, she has a head like a dropped pie and she is dumb as a box of rocks.
I bet she never got the tyre makes off the driveway from the day her husband left.

Poor cunt.

 

[Ease the sheet.]

Time to end this 8 year senate bullshit...

Lol...

 

[Se7en]

BUT THERE WILL ALWAYS BE A VOICE THAT RECOGNISES AND REPRESENTS THE 60,000,000 year old cultures

I'm no longer sure if you are actually stupid, too lazy to think about what you write, or deliberately trolling.
60 million year old culture? Maybe primates were just starting to emerge back then. Or are you claiming that aborigional culture is at the level of the earliest primates? That seems a bit racist.

Oh, and when you say "I posted this report", it's generally considered good form to provide a link to the report.

There is certainly a whole lot of vitriol, now with a dose of taking one's bat and ball and going home, in response to the simple question of "how does the constitutional change actually achieve the outcome?"

 

[Recidivist]

The constitution was written when the concept of terra nullius was alive and well.

The constitution should recognise the previous "owners" of this country. I see the voice as part of that recognition.

OK, thanks, I get it now. You are right, the concept of terra nullius was still accepted at the time the Consitution was written, but the "damage" (if you want to look at it that way) was done 120 years before, when the First Fleet set sail from England in reliance on the doctrine. But the Constitution did not address terra nullius, or invoke it. It is neutral in that regard, and there is no deficiency that needs to be rectified in that respect. Indeed, no such amendment is proposed.

I actually do not object to Constitutional recognition of indigenous prior occupancy of the land. If the question was "do you agree that there should be a preamble to the Constitution that says "This Constitution recognises the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people as the original occupants of the land before British settlement"?" I could probably support that. But we disagree in relation to the "Voice".

 

[Se7en]

1/16 genetic Aboriginal ancestry verified by DNA analysis to qualify to vote or be elected ELSE both parents born & raised in a community of less than 1000 people.

Not sure that they need to be from a small community, a rider that they must actually be representative of the people they are speaking for would be good enough for me.

Rather than the "the voice may make suggestions, and the government of the day may listen", I'd rather see something along the lines that 'the Voice' (and that is a stupid name for a body of people!) must produce an annual report on the state of aborigional people, and the government must table a response to that report.

At the moment, the proposed change is a bit like how we negotiate what's for dinner with the kids. Sometimes they come and put forward an argument for icecream cake for dinner. We pretend to listen, and then cook the stirfry we were always going to have. The kids may petition, and we may listen.

 

[LB 15]

This thread shows exactly why this is just whitey tokenism by the uninvolved. Look how bent out of shape fucktard meli is about it and she has never met an Abo in her life. As a soap dodger she probably has some guilt about the way her people treated them. As an Australian I have nothing to feel guilty about.
Maybe we should do the right thing by the Blackfellas and throw all the pommy cunts out.

 

[LB 15]

Hey, LB. I take back my post where I said "I hope the poor cunt is OK.", after that post.

IN the meantime, I have something for you, given that you are still smarting from SCOMO getting booted. I'm sure it helped last time I sent you some.

You have been sending me anal cream?

Creeeee peeeeee.