Play Nice Referendum - Indigenous Voice in Parliament - Part 2

[Gethelred]

Link to the proposed Referendum, from the Referendum Working Group:

(Edited 6 April 2023)

These are the words that will be put to the Australian people in the upcoming referendum as agreed by the Referendum Working Group (made up of representatives of First Nations communities from around Australia):

"A Proposed Law: to alter the Constitution to recognise the First Peoples of Australia by establishing an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice. Do you approve this proposed alteration?"

As well as that, it will be put to Australians that the constitution be amended to include a new chapter titled "Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples".

The details would be:


View attachment 1636890

The Prime Minister has committed to the government introducing legislation with this wording to parliament on 30 March 2023 and to establishing a joint parliamentary committee to consider it and receive submissions on the wording, providing ALL members of Parliament with the opportunity to consider and debate the full details of the proposal.

Parliament will then vote on the wording in June in the lead up to a National Referendum.

The ANU has issued a paper responding to common public concerns expressed in relation to the proposed Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice here:

Indigenous Voice to Parliament | Australian National University

Responding to common concerns about an aboriginal and torres strait islander voice First Nations portfolio Background

www.anu.edu.au

Summary details of the key points from this paper may be found in Chief post here:

The Uluru Statement from the Heart:

Not specifically No. In any case it does not form part of the Referendum proposal.

View attachment 1769742

Seeing as things have gotten a bit toxic in here, let's try to return things to a more civil tone.

The following will result in warnings to begin with, and if said behaviour continues will be escalated:

• referring to another poster as racist without direct provocation.
• dismissing or deriding another poster's lived experience.
• personal attacks or one line posts designed solely to insult or deride.

You might notice that the final rule is from the board rules. Thought we should probably remember that this is against the rules in case it's been forgotten.

Let's play nicely from here, people.

 

[Ghost Patrol]

You were confident in labeling Australia a racist country. Which countries were you comparing us to?

You self identified as a racist. Do you live in Australia?

 

[SaintsSeptember]

So if a country isn't racist, does that mean there are no racists there at all?

If you invent thought police you can do it.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

If someone on this thread is stupid, does that mean that Big Footy or the internet is stupid?..... wait let me think about it.

 

[Home Alone]

People have said that voting "yes" would be giving support to one race ahead of others and is therefore racist.
The fact that it is more than one race, suggests that it is "anyone who was an inhabitant prior to colonisation" who is affected by the proposed Voice. Therefore, not racist.

( Interestingly the British pretty much gave Pitcairn Island to the inhabitants after a mere 50 years or so ).

I don't understand what you are getting at.

I am getting the impression of who can call who what, whether you are looking at The Voice from top down or bottom up approach.
Both are 'racist' for the purposes of this argument. The level of 'racism' is defined by the representation component or potential outcomes of The Voice

 

[Sun Ra]

If every country is racist that implies that everyone in every country is racist.

Australia has been and is a racist country to the extent that enough people haven't been in the majority or motivated to
the point to stop historical and current built-in injustices and discrimination perpetuated upon the Aboriginal population by governments and police, etc. here since day dot. It continues. Not everyone is racist but enough are to maintain the status quo.

 

[Home Alone]

You seem to preference equity over equality. I agree with that when it comes to First Nations people groups.

View attachment 1801134

Missing the relevance.

You will need to explain how my view is asking someone to give up something they already had access to?

 

[Carringbush2010]

Australia has been and is a racist country to the extent that enough people haven't been in the majority or motivated to
the point to stop historical and current built-in injustices and discrimination perpetuated upon the Aboriginal population by governments and police, etc. here since day dot. It continues. Not everyone is racist but enough are to maintain the status quo.

These two statements are in opposition to each other.

Australia has been and is a racist country < this implies everyone in Australia is racist, which is inconsistent with your last sentence in your post.

Not everyone is racist

No one is denying the inbuilt injustices, but it's ridiculous to claim that every individual has in part contributed to them i:e 'the country'

I know I didn't and I'm part of 'the country' so I know it can't be everyone in the country, what was your contribution?

 

[Gough]

It wasn't really. Terra Nullius wasn't really a concept at the time Australia was Colonised.
Back then if you could move in, you did.
Look at what they did in Africa ( Clearly not Terra Nullius ).

If we accept colonisation as being of it's time we also have to accept the extreme brutality towards Indigenous Australians by colonisers because that was also the done thing back then and we have to look to how we as a country who chose in 1999 to be still beholden to the people directly responsible for that brutality can look to remedy all of that. I would argue the Voice is a good start.

 

[Sun Ra]

These two statements are in opposition to each other.

Australia has been and is a racist country < this implies everyone in Australia is racist, which is inconsistent with your last sentence in your post.

Not everyone is racist

No one is denying the inbuilt injustices, but it's ridiculous to claim that every individual has in part contributed to them i:e 'the country'

I know I didn't and I'm part of 'the country' so I know it can't be everyone in the country, what was your contribution?

Not everyone is racist but enough are to maintain the status quo.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Not everyone is racist but enough are to maintain the status quo.

I'm not disputing that.

You are though, you said so yourself that Australia is a racist country, that implies every citizen and or resident in the country is racist.

There is a distinct difference between 'Australia is racist' and 'there are some racists in Australia'

 

[Sun Ra]

I'm not disputing that.

You are though, you said so yourself that Australia is a racist country, that implies every citizen and or resident in the country is racist.

There is a distinct difference between 'Australia is racist' and 'there are some racists in Australia'

Racist country = Not everyone is racist but enough are to maintain the status quo.

THIS - is MY definition of a racist country. Yours is different and stupid.

Now do you get what I am trying to say you dill ?

 

[TheEscapeClub]

Would be interesting to hear Sttew Carringbush2010 MrKK TheEscapeClub SaintsSeptember Skeppersap response to this video.

Is there anything you don't agree with here?

It didn't tell me anything I didn't already know and that I had already known for ages with regards to what it's about and what we are voting on.

Your problem and others like you in this thread have is that you lump everyone in together who doesn't agree with you.

I haven't looked at any Yes or No pamphlets, I don't watch Sky News, I haven't listened to a word that Dutton has had to say on the matter except for his stupid idea to have another referendum if he's voted in. I've barely listened to a word that Albo has said on the matter.

It's not about them, they both have one vote each like you do and I do, I don't give a flying * what either of them thinks or says.

I'm voting no because of them, I do not trust any of them. That entire 18 mins and 24 secs that I just watched was almost entirely devoted to what politicians and lawyers think. It just reinforced my decision to vote no.

Now that might be s**t reason to you, but it's my vote and not yours, so I don't particularly care.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Racist country = Not everyone is racist but enough are to maintain the status quo.

THIS - is MY definition of a racist country. Yours is different and stupid.

Now do you get what I am trying to say you dill ?

No need to get personal Sun Ra.

'Racist country' < that implies everyone in the country, completely different to 'Not everyone is racist '

It's basic language, the definition of the 'country' implies everyone in it, that's not up for debate.

Now do you get what I'm trying to say?

 

[Carringbush2010]

It didn't tell me anything I didn't already know and that I had already known for ages with regards to what it's about and what we are voting on.

Your problem and others like you in this thread have is that you lump everyone in together who doesn't agree with you.

I haven't looked at any Yes or No pamphlets, I don't watch Sky News, I haven't listened to a word that Dutton has had to say on the matter except for his stupid idea to have another referendum if he's voted in. I've barely listened to a word that Albo has said on the matter.

It's not about them, they both have one vote each like you do and I do, I don't give a flying * what either of them thinks or says.

I'm voting no because of them, I do not trust any of them. That entire 18 mins and 24 secs that I just watched was almost entirely devoted to what politicians and lawyers think. It just reinforced my decision to vote no.

Now that might be s**t reason to you, but it's my vote and not yours, so I don't particularly care.

But that's voting no on protest, not for rational opposition.

 

[Skeppersap]

If we accept colonisation as being of it's time we also have to accept the extreme brutality towards Indigenous Australians by colonisers because that was also the done thing back then and we have to look to how we as a country who chose in 1999 to be still beholden to the people directly responsible for that brutality can look to remedy all of that. I would argue the Voice is a good sta

 

[Sun Ra]

No need to get personal Sun Ra.

'Racist country' < that implies everyone in the country, completely different to 'Not everyone is racist '

It's basic language, the definition of the 'country' implies everyone in it, that's not up for debate.

Now do you get what I'm trying to say?

I get what you are trying to say but disagree with the concept. It is a flawed and over invested needless argument imo.

If I say that America is a racist country - no sane person would take that I meant every single person
in that country is racist but more than enough are to comfortably say that country could be considered by a
reasonable person to be largely and correctly classified as a racist country. You are splitting semantics and
hairs as well. What's the point ? I can't see one.

 

[evolved2]

I get what you are trying to say but disagree with the concept. It is a flawed and over invested needless argument imo.

If I say that America is a racist country - no sane person would take that I meant every single person
in that country is racist but more than enough are to comfortably say that country could be considered by a
reasonable person to be largely and correctly classified as a racist country. You are splitting semantics and
hairs as well. What's the point ? I can't see one.

Which nations aren't racist?

 

[Carringbush2010]

I get what you are trying to say but disagree with the concept.

It's not a concept

needless argument imo.

Well I don't like being called racist when I'm not racist.

If I say that America is a racist country - no sane person would take that I meant every single person

That's what is says though, 'America is racist' - as you've conceded not everyone is

What's the point ?

So people who are not racist don't get called racist.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Which nations aren't racist?

Every nation has racists, obviously not everyone and obviously a minority, stating a nation is racist implies everyone is racist.

 

[Ghost Patrol]

No need to get personal Sun Ra.

'Racist country' < that implies everyone in the country, completely different to 'Not everyone is racist '

It's basic language, the definition of the 'country' implies everyone in it, that's not up for debate.

Now do you get what I'm trying to say?

When people call Australia the lucky country, do you think all Australians are lucky?

 

[evolved2]

Missing the relevance.

You will need to explain how my view is asking someone to give up something they already had access to?

I'm not sure what you mean or why you're asking that question. Would you like to elaborate?

 

[Nuggs Bunny]

It's no wonder that so many of the good SRP posters of the last ten years have either left or just can't be assed wading into this forum anymore when the discussion around the biggest political vote of the last thirty years in this country is actually about -----> are countries racist.

 

[evolved2]

You self identified as a racist. Do you live in Australia?

If you intend to vote yes, you're also a racist according to my definition. Welcome to the club.

 

[Carringbush2010]

When people call Australia the lucky country, do you think all Australians are lucky?

It's a flawed statement, just like 'Australia is a racist country'

 

[evolved2]

It's no wonder that so many of the good SRP posters of the last ten years have either left or just can't be assed wading into this forum anymore when the discussion around the biggest political vote of the last thirty years in this country is actually about -----> are countries racist.

Why do you think it's our biggest political vote of the last thirty years?