you’ll have to be more specific than that BA, so much waffle that the ignore function has been used gratuitously
1 Like
Wot?
‘To play the devil’s advocate, the Minerals Council isn’t enshrined in legislation ‘
I’m glad you have pointed that out thank you ……But who cares ? That’s an irrelevant point ……the real point is - the Minerals Council is not a body enshrined in the constitution the same way the Voice will be
There are a lot of threads and posters right now that trigger this for me:
So much self-love.
3 Likes
The difficulty is that the 25 page document includes proposals that are not shared and which would in some cases would go beyond the authority of an advisory body. It has been selectively quoted from to argue that a Constitutional Advisory Body would dictate to the Parliament, that all the proposals in the document have been endorsed and adopted by the Government.
1 Like
You’ve obviously read it @bigallan …….what is the significance of pages 2-25 ? Why were they written and what is their intention?
Ok. I’ll read it again.
I was thinking of examples like those below (and others). They clearly show that people claiming to want a YES outcome would prefer people who don’t agree with them to vote NO than to persuade them to not vote NO. They know they are losing and appear to be looking for an opportunity to denounce the majority of the people of this country as racists and stupid for not agreeing with them. I assume they are losers and enjoy it. But why are there so many in this thread?
In reply to this:
In reply to this:
Here is a reminder to @Lawry that I responded to his puzzlement about @wimmera1 denouncing his posts on covid inquiry by ranting about the voice, suggesting a public discussion about WHY people who claim to be supporting the YES campaign here work so hard to discredit it.
@fire_and_irons clicked like on that and I would encourage any others to join in, preferably ignoring any background noise from the usual suspects.
It is clearly established that they are, and will remain aggressively hostile not only to NO voters, but also to YES voters like @Lawry who suggest possible measures to win over “soft” NO voters to the YES side and also to informal voters who they explicitly say should cast a valid NO vote instead of refraining from doing so. It is the sheer emptiness of the official campaigns on both sides that makes me against both, not the fact that either side includes noisy clowns.
I don’t think the behaviour of some YES campaigners is grounds for voting NO, nor that the behaviour of some NO campaigners is grounds for voting YES.
There can be reasonable arguments on both sides which could be discussed here a lot more productively without the noisy clowns - whether they are genuinely YES campaigners or just pretending.
My suggestions is that a first step away from the way serious discussion is actively being prevented in this thread would be to reverse the initial poll results showing 77% of 13 people voting here consider the Aboriginal Senator leading the NO campaign to be stupid or racist to 23% saying she is neither.
Both people who want to win “soft” NO voters to YES and people who want to persuade them to vote informal instead of NO should be able to isolate the obstacles here.
That exercise here won’t make much difference to the outcome of the referendum but the discussion could be valuable experience for figuring out how to have productive policy discussions after the referendum result.
1 Like
It’s part of the 120 page document going back to 2017, the 120 page document that Albanese said he hadn’t read.
The Australian Human Rights Commission has a resource kit on its site, addressing issues from a human rights perspective. It includes notes on symbolic change and substantive reform. It considers the Voice proposal to be substantive reform, listing reasons.
Appreciate your contributions.
1 Like
I keep reading your output…
Thanks. I have downloaded the 55 page “kit” and read pp31-32 on “symbolic change and substantive reform”, which says that it is a substantive reform because it is not just a preamble but creates a Voice.
That is not “reasons” to consider it a “substantive reform”.
But “wait there’s more…” for a free set of steak knives the final paragraph provides a link to pp23-31 on:
“…long history of First Nations people advocating for the right to
representation and participation in decisions that affect them…”
I think it is worth reading and whatever its faults, does confirm the obvious fact that there is a long history of indigenous people fighting for substantive reform.
It ends with the Uluru statement but does not provide any explanation of why or how the proposed Voice would or could be a substantial reform.
One event in the history that I am familiar with was the “Freedom Rides”, which one of my friends helped organize. It did produce substantial reforms by actively challenging segregation and racial discrimination in a way that directly involved a lot of people and helped create the basis for subsequent organizing.
But it sheds no light on why the Voice would or could lead to anything more than what Gary Foley said and what the advocates fairly openly admit. A gesture of reconciliation for good vibes.
There is even a link in the section on the Freedom Ride to useful web site about that event:
It was NOT a gesture of reconciliation. Nor was it a good vibe. It did compel real and substantive changes.
The rejection of this good vibes campaign will not be a gesture of reconciliation and will not produce good vibes. It won’t be as positive as the Freedom Ride but it will at least make some people actually think about WHY.
They won’t all be satisfied with the explanation offered here - that it was lost because of Coalition appeals to racism and stupidity.
Some will start discussing what kind of substantive reforms are still needed to close the gap and what can be done to compel governments that have not listened to start listening and acting.
Discussion and action to close the gap has been occurring in my experience from 1972 and most probably well before. Most discussion and planning for actions was taken in a room of older white males, and people like Perkins and Foley were never really given a seat at the table, except for token jobs to shut them up.
This is a prime reason why although $Billions has gone into Indigenous Support, it has mostly failed. This is WHY a VOICE has a better chance of making substantial change and may close the gap.
Encouraging anyone to vote WHY helps ensure the YES vote is lost and is pushed as part of the NO campaign.
2 Likes
I don’t care how you vote. I just want you to admit the obvious.
2 Likes
From following Kos Samaras on what used to be twitter and all the responses, I have decided that it’s all a cynical plot by Albanese.
The outcome of the referendum isn’t important. It’s the Dutton lies and dog whistling to racism that will further alienate voters in those former blue ribbon seats won by the Independents. The inherent racist appeal might even scare some ethnics into voting Yes, including those that were discriminated against in NSW in Covid measures. The seats the Coalition needs to regain to get back into power. Pot calling the kettle black on absence of detail.
1 Like
I know you are not being serious, but I hope Albo is as clever as that.
What on earth are you on about. Just becuase I’ve called out your BS doesn’t make me a Yes campaigner, I haven’t tried to change anyone’s vote and certainly not wasting any time trying to change yours. I couldn’t care less how you vote, just that you should have the guts to own your vote and your opinion, rather than blame it on a strawman
4 Likes
I actually care how everyone votes.
While obviously not everyone agrees with my views, I hope that they think about the decision and take actions to get the answers they need to make an informed vote.
1 Like
To be fair, @ArthurD has a long history of advocating improper votes at elections/referendums. Tigers/stripes, and all that.
Luckily for him, no one reads Blitz.
3 Likes
putting out some serious sovcit contrarian vibes
1 Like