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]

Incorrect..... 100% incorrect.

The referendum is about the establishment of an ATSI voice. ATSI refers to indigenous Australians. Indigenous Australians are defined by heritage and ancestry. Heritage and ancestry are linked with skin colour, not heritage.

I could immerse myself in indigenous culture my whole life, and never be ATSI, because I am white. An indigenous Australian could ignore their culture, live in Potts Point and be a supporter of Pauline Hanson. They will forever be able to be involved in The Voice. I wont!

If you embraced Indigenous Australians, they could accept you into their culture.

It goes much deeper than meat pies and football.

 

[Skeppersap]

If you embraced Indigenous Australians, they could accept you into their culture.

But that will never, ever, make me an ATSI person. Therefore, the voice would not be for me.

A racist amendment to the core.

 

[Ghost Patrol]

But that will never, ever, make me an ATSI person. Therefore, the voice would not be for me.

A racist amendment to the core.

The current constitution was written by racists and contains racist elements.

That's the status quo that you are supporting.

 

[QuietB]

Heritage and ancestry are linked with skin colour, not heritage.

I have idea what you are saying

 

[Skeppersap]

I have idea what you are saying

I'm glad you have an idea what I am saying.

Amended that post.... The last 'heritage' should have been 'culture'.

 

[adogsfan5]

So basically shut up even though my intent is not what you and others paint it as. Even though clearly from the start I've stated that I believe the labeling the whole country as racist by 'racist country' - I've said that from the start.

If you and others honestly believe I'm here to undermine the calling out of casual racism / racism then that's on you and others who have an incorrect assumption of my thoughts.

I'm still voting yes btw, not that that will change your bitter view of me.

So I'll kindly ask again, please cease your discussion with me and quoting me in posts in an attempt to raise me.

If you don't then that's a reflection on you.

Have a nice day Grales.

Have you only just noticed that this isn’t a thread for debate?

 

[Carringbush2010]

But that will never, ever, make me an ATSI person. Therefore, the voice would not be for me.

A racist amendment to the core.

Sorry but I just can't agree with this, all forms of minorities have 'extra' attention.

The argument that the voice is 'only' for one minority group is simplistic. (which I assume is what you're getting at)

All forms of Fed and State governments have been throwing billions of dollars at the issues indigenous people face for decades and no tangible positive outcomes.

Voting yes will give recognition in the constitution for indigenous people, it will also provide an advisory board giving advice to the parliament of the day.

That means people who are at the fore front of the issues, coz they live it.

Also be aware it is advisory only, so there'll be no legislation passed that would be deemed an impediment to the rest of the population. If any parliament DID actually pass legislation that is a disadvantage to the other 97% of the population then that'd be political suicide.

Nothing to worry about, vote yes.

 

[Gralin]

So basically shut up even though my intent is not what you and others paint it as. Even though clearly from the start I've stated that I believe the labeling the whole country as racist by 'racist country' - I've said that from the start.

And all those people you're telling are wrong have explained what they mean and you've refused to accept it and now complain that you're being misrepresented.

If you and others honestly believe I'm here to undermine the calling out of casual racism / racism then that's on you and others who have an incorrect assumption of my thoughts.

Yes it's got nothing to do with how you conduct yourself that multiple other people think this about you, clearly you in no way could be responsible for this with how you post

I'm still voting yes btw, not that that will change your bitter view of me.

Don't care you spend your time pretending that racism doesn't exist

So I'll kindly ask again, please cease your discussion with me and quoting me in posts in an attempt to raise me.

I'll stop if you do

If you don't then that's a reflection on you.

Yep, I'm not willing to let you post your views unchallenged on this

Have a nice day Grales.

I will

 

[Gralin]

Have you only just noticed that this isn’t a thread for debate?

Have you only just noticed that Carringbush2010 tries to avoid discussion by telling people to stop talking to them?

 

[Skeppersap]

Sorry but I just can't agree with this, all forms of minorities have 'extra' attention.

The argument that the voice is 'only' for one minority group is simplistic. (which I assume is what you're getting at)

All forms of Fed and State governments have been throwing billions of dollars at the issues indigenous people face for decades and no tangible positive outcomes.

Voting yes will give recognition in the constitution for indigenous people, it will also provide an advisory board giving advice to the parliament of the day.

That means people who are at the fore front of the issues, coz they live it.

Also be aware it is advisory only, so there'll be no legislation passed that would be deemed an impediment to the rest of the population. If any parliament DID actually pass legislation that is a disadvantage to the other 97% of the population then that'd be political suicide.

Nothing to worry about, vote yes.

Not sure why you highlighted 'advisory only', when it isn't true.

The voice will make representations, not give advice.

Who knows what representations actually means in the long run? You would be fooling yourselves if you didn't truely believe that the architects of the voice didn't deliberately choose 'representations'. Why not just use the word advice, if they are advisory only?

 

[Gralin]

Here's some more or that not racism for you Carringbush2010

 

[adogsfan5]

Have you only just noticed that Carringbush2010 tries to avoid discussion by telling people to stop talking to them?

I think they are one of the more respectful posters you’ll come across when it comes to disagreements.
Never goes the personal route.

They end up asking to stop being quoted when they’ve had enough - what’s wrong with that? Isn’t that better than pages and pages of bickering? They aren’t avoiding discussion, the discussion has occurred and it’s probably gone on long enough. Then it’s a pile on.

This thread is becoming more and more cooked each day. May as well have closed it off at page 1 or banned no voters.

 

[Ghost Patrol]

Not sure why you highlighted 'advisory only', when it isn't true.

The voice will make representations, not give advice.

Who knows what representations actually means in the long run? You would be fooling yourselves if you didn't truely believe that the architects of the voice didn't deliberately choose 'representations'. Why not just use the word advice, if they are advisory only?

Whats this nonsense you are dribbling?

 

[Carringbush2010]

And all those people you're telling are wrong have explained what they mean and you've refused to accept it and now complain that you're being misrepresented.

I'm allowed disagree with them or you as you are me, calling a whole country racist is just that IMO. If you don't like that view then move on.

Yes it's got nothing to do with how you conduct yourself that multiple other people think this about you, clearly you in no way could be responsible for this with how you post

Others can think of me what they wish, I'm allowed to call it out as incorrect though.

Don't care you spend your time pretending that racism doesn't exist

This is what I'm calling out, I don't pretend racism doesn't exist, I've clearly stated this to you - yet you and others think I do, still. I'm free to call you and others out as incorrect in your view of me.

I'll stop if you do

Yeah nah you won't not until you get your last word

Yep, I'm not willing to let you post your views unchallenged on this

Two way street mate, if you wanna incorrectly accuse me of something I'm gonna call you out on it.

 

[Skeppersap]

Whats this nonsense you are dribbling?

View attachment 1802238

So not advice?

 

[Ghost Patrol]

I think they are one of the more respectful posters you’ll come across when it comes to disagreements.
Never goes the personal route.

They end up asking to stop being quoted when they’ve had enough - what’s wrong with that? Isn’t that better than pages and pages of bickering? They aren’t avoiding discussion, the discussion has occurred and it’s probably gone on long enough. Then it’s a pile on.

This thread is becoming more and more cooked each day. May as well have closed it off at page 1 or banned no voters.

What you are witnessing is a debate.

 

[Gralin]

I think they are one of the more respectful posters you’ll come across when it comes to disagreements.
Never goes the personal route.

They end up asking to stop being quoted when they’ve had enough - what’s wrong with that? Isn’t that better than pages and pages of bickering?

This thread is becoming more and more cooked each day. May as well have closed it off at page 1 or banned no voters.

I'll let you in on a little secret about politeness.

Whej you're posting trash opinions I don't care how politely you phrase it.

If you're being racist or downplaying racism or other bigotry the politeness is a mask.

Don't worry though because old mate has already once again asserted that saying a country is racist has to mean every single person in that country is racist or it can't be true.

 

[Ghost Patrol]

So not advice?

I'd advise you to stop with this semantic nonsense.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Here's some more or that not racism for you Carringbush2010
View attachment 1802234

Would never have thought that you'd watch that muppet show called sky news, I don't, apparently it's right wing biased, so not my go.

Why do you watch it?

Hopefully they don't change your mind to no.

 

[Gralin]

Would never have thought that you'd watch that muppet show called sky news, I don't, apparently it's right wing biased, so not my go.

Why do you watch it?

Hopefully they don't change your mind to no.

I see you also don't understand how screenshots of tweets work

 

[adogsfan5]

I'll let you in on a little secret about politeness.

Whej you're posting trash opinions I don't care how politely you phrase it.

If you're being racist or downplaying racism or other bigotry the politeness is a mask.

Don't worry though because old mate has already once again asserted that saying a country is racist has to mean every single person in that country is racist or it can't be true.

And yet they have constantly stated that they think racism occurs in this country.

Seems to be an argument that is really scraping the barrel.

What would you like them to do to avoid a pile on?

 

[Gralin]

And yet they have constantly stated that they think racism occurs in this country.

Seems to be an argument that is really scraping the barrel.

What would you like them to do to avoid a pile on from the same posters?

When presented with any examples they also go no not that.

Not just this thread either.

It's always just a few people, it's never widespread or state sanctioned or systemic.

It's a repeated pattern of behaviour that constantly seeks to downplay, minimise or dismiss racism and especially structural racism from discussion

 

[Sun Ra]

Would never have thought that you'd watch that muppet show called sky news, I don't, apparently it's right wing biased, so not my go.

Why do you watch it?

Hopefully they don't change your mind to no.

I thought you said your goodbyes pal. See ya.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Not sure why you highlighted 'advisory only', when it isn't true.

The voice will make representations, not give advice.

Who knows what representations actually means in the long run? You would be fooling yourselves if you didn't truely believe that the architects of the voice didn't deliberately choose 'representations'. Why not just use the word advice, if they are advisory only?

Do you have evidence that is not advisory only?

Representation means representation to advise only, nothing more nothing less.

 

[Carringbush2010]

I thought you said your goodbyes pal. See ya.

Huh?