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.

 

[CM86]

Can someone please tell me the counter argument to the conservative view that a successful yes vote will simply be creating more division in Australian society and also enshrining in our constitution the status of indigenous Australians as eternal victims who are incapable of helping themselves?

Well, the counter argument is that it isn't true.

But it's very difficult to prove a negative, especially in this case.
Because 'your' problem isn't with The Indigenous Voice to Parliament... So explaining The Voice more clearly to you, won't help.

It stems from the view that we already have equality in Australia, (or even that Indigenous people already have more rights/advantages etc).
And a belief that the reasons Indigenous people are still, on average, so over-represented in negative outcomes all across Australia (Including major cities), isn't due to inequality... but something specific to Indigenous people.
'Genetic, lazy, culture, parents, etc'.

So it doesn't matter how well The Indigenous Voice to parliament is explained to 'you' because 'you' won't accept it. Because 'your' underlying ideology can't accept that Indigenous outcomes are mainly due to generational inequality.

 

[Carringbush2010]

It’s not their first time singling me out for no reason. They do it for a very specific reason to troll.

Probably yes, but probably unintentionally, sometimes not, I'll agree.

You have to remember everyone has different world views and reasonable questioning / discussion that is not aligned in their view maybe viewed as disingenuous and so the allegations ensue.

All I'm saying, as hard as it might be, if they are in your view being unreasonable then call it out in a civil manner. (especially against mods who disagree with you)

Attacking with accusations of (rightly or wrongly) 'toxic bs' will just give those you oppose unwarranted ammunition against you.

 

[Sun Ra]

Well, the counter argument is that it isn't true.

But it's very difficult to prove a negative, especially in this case.
Because 'your' problem isn't with The Indigenous Voice to Parliament... So explaining The Voice more clearly to you, won't help.

It stems from the view that we already have equality in Australia, (or even that Indigenous people already have more rights/advantages etc).
And a belief that the reasons Indigenous people are still, on average, so over-represented in negative outcomes all across Australia (Including major cities), isn't due to inequality... but something specific to Indigenous people.
'Genetic, lazy, culture, parents, etc'.

So it doesn't matter how well The Indigenous Voice to parliament is explained to 'you' because 'you' won't accept it. Because 'your' underlying ideology can't accept that Indigenous outcomes are mainly due to generational inequality.

Applause !

 

[Ghost Patrol]

A good one to mute, trust me. Trolls and attempts to suspend others.

It's certainly an interesting button to press, isn't it?

 

[CM86]

I haven’t posted any opinions on this thread or have had any differing opinions to other posters.

Thanks for dropping by though, for more of your toxic and irrelevant bull*hit.

Contesting differing opinions does not equate to 'can't handle', it's merely contesting differing opinions.

Not sure why claiming labeling a whole country as racist by 'racist country' is such a sky fall.

That is not 'dishonest' it is merely my observation, are others allowed to contest my view in that? Sure, but I'm also allowed in my view.

It's a discussion forum remember, not a one way street.

I won't belabour the point.

This is an important topic. This forum is more than capable of clear and direct discussion of facts and evidence.

I'd really like this thread to be an area where misinformation is corrected or removed.

And for it to be a thread people want to read.

You're free to post however you like.

I just asked, politely, if you could ease up.

All the best.

 

[South of the Yarra]

It intrigues me that people who have never experienced racism are experts on racism.

 

[Carringbush2010]

I just asked, politely, if you could ease up.

All the best.

I could ask the same of those who've piled onto me for a simple comment they don't agree with.

Two way street, remember that.

Thanks for your civil discussion.

 

[adogsfan5]

Probably yes, but probably unintentionally, sometimes not, I'll agree.

You have to remember everyone has different world views and reasonable questioning / discussion that is not aligned in their view maybe viewed as disingenuous and so the allegations ensue.

All I'm saying, as hard as it might be, if they are in your view being unreasonable then call it out in a civil manner.

Attacking with accusations of (rightly or wrongly) will just give those you oppose unwarranted ammunition against you.

Look at what I was linked to:

-Can’t handle differing opinions (haven’t had any disagreements with anyone on here)
-dishonest meta conversation (huh?)
-diminishing racism and the actions of many 'No' supporters. (Never have).

See what I mean?

Where have I posted anything related to the above? Haven’t and won’t.

But they do it because they know they can get away with it and they want to try and discredit other posters.

It’s lazy and occurs far too often with that poster.

 

[augie]

Looks like more than 50% of us are racist, news to me

Some racist, some just stupid.

 

[Skeppersap]

It intrigues me that people who have never experienced racism are experts on racism.

Have all oncologists suffered from cancer previously? If not, are their opinions any less valid?

 

[Sun Ra]

It intrigues me that people who have never experienced racism are experts on racism.

Also they are self appointed experts in definitions that would never label them as racist.

 

[South of the Yarra]

Have all oncologists suffered from cancer previously? If not, are their opinions any less valid?

I would suggest an oncologist who has suffered from cancer would have a greater understanding of the physical and emotional impact of the disease, would understand a patient better and would have a far better sense of empathy.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Look at what I was linked to:

-Can’t handle differing opinions (haven’t had any disagreements with anyone on here)
-dishonest meta conversation (huh?)
-diminishing racism and the actions of many 'No' supporters. (Never have).

See what I mean?

Where have I posted anything related to the above?
Haven’t and won’t.

But they do it because they know they can get away with it and they want to try and discredit another poster.

It’s lazy and occurs far too often with that poster.

Obviously I've been unfairly accused of the same, those who have accused us of such obviously believe we're being disingenuous, or worse have an axe to grind.

None the less, that doesn't give you or me licence to come out swinging in the same manner of those that accuse.

It is BF remember, just be civil in your opposition and you shouldn't get infracted, if you do then that's a reflection on those that infract you.

Is what it is bruh.

Any way vote yes, that's more important.

 

[adogsfan5]

Obviously I've been unfairly accused of the same, those who have accused us of such obviously believe we're being disingenuous, or worse have an axe to grind.

None the less, that doesn't give you or me licence to come out swinging in the same manner of those that accuse.

It is BF remember, just be civil in your opposition and you shouldn't get infracted, if you do then that's a reflection on those that infract you.

Is what it is bruh.

Any way vote yes, that's more important.

Good point, well said.

 

[Episode IV]

I would suggest an oncologist who has suffered from cancer would have a greater understanding of the physical and emotional impact of the disease, would understand a patient better and would have a far better sense of empathy.

That does not have any impact on knowing the correct treatment. Knowing how much a victim is suffering might even lead to a reluctance to prescribe any effective treatment at all.

But more to the point, you don't leave justice in the hands of those who were victims. An emotional stake in the matter does not lead to positive outcomes. That's a primary reason the justice system at present is left to the state.

A more pragmatic approach to problem solving is something this country is in dire need of right now.

 

[evolved2]

It intrigues me that people who have never experienced racism are experts on racism.

I don't see many people claiming to be experts on racism. I think you've hit on a strawman there.

 

[South of the Yarra]

That does not have any impact on knowing the correct treatment. Knowing how much a victim is suffering might even lead to a reluctance to prescribe any effective treatment at all.

But more to the point, you don't leave justice in the hands of those who were victims. An emotional stake in the matter does not lead to positive outcomes. That's a primary reason the justice system at present is left to the state.

A more pragmatic approach to problem solving is something this country is in dire need of right now.

Firstly the original oncologist comparison to racism was ridiculous. An oncologist spends approximately 13 years of study preparing to be an oncologist and then has hands on practice daily. Secondly I would suggest the majority of people who have not experienced racism would spend 13 years studying it to become an expert.
No one mentioned justice. I mentioned understanding. Most don’t see themselves as victims, they see themselves as survivors. How can you possibly solve a problem you don’t understand if you are not willing to listen to those who have lived it. Just like a lot of the Stolen Generation ‘experts’ who have their opinions when they really have no idea. Listen and then you will learn. Had the most beautiful lunch with Elsa an Auschwitz survivor a few years back. I learnt more in an hour than I could read in a lifetime because I was willing to stop, listen and learn.

 

[Carringbush2010]

That does not have any impact on knowing the correct treatment. Knowing how much a victim is suffering might even lead to a reluctance to prescribe any effective treatment at all.

But more to the point, you don't leave justice in the hands of those who were victims. An emotional stake in the matter does not lead to positive outcomes. That's a primary reason the justice system at present is left to the state.

A more pragmatic approach to problem solving is something this country is in dire need of right now.

And what is that pragmatic approach?

I'd argue that an advisory body that knows full the best ways to positive outcome is the pragmatic approach we're all looking for.

Do you agree?

 

[South of the Yarra]

I don't see many people claiming to be experts on racism. I think you've hit on a strawman there.

Oh pull out the old straw man. What is this the ‘Wizard of Oz’? I would suggest there have been several posters claiming to be experts in racism. Go back read the entire thread. Check out the banned and suspended posters first.

 

[freddy mercury]

Some racist, some just stupid.

Some stupid? Why? Because they don't agree with what you want?

 

[freddy mercury]

Thanks adogs, I think it's futile though, as my centred position obviously comes across as extreme right wing to the mods and others in this forum.

How can you disagree here without being labelled a racist or stupid? W

 

[Ghost Patrol]

How can you disagree here without being labelled a racist or stupid? W

Those aren't mutually exclusive terms. And some doesn't mean all.

 

[Carringbush2010]

How can you disagree here without being labelled a racist or stupid? W

Freddy I think that is a simplistic view, some label others as racist or stupid without warrant, not all and sundry.

 

[Roby]

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.

Carringbush2010 said they put me on ignore when I had called Skeppersap for what I thought was a racist point of view, one that hurt Indegenous Australians. But Carringbush came to the defence of Skepp.

I see Skepp still saying things like that the Voice is about skin colour and not culture. Even after they edited their post.

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 culture.

 

[Roby]

I thought you said your goodbyes pal. See ya.

Don't trust them. Told me I was on ignore, then I get a reply today.