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.

 

[phantom13]

That's actually a good story for not having the voice. The Tiwi Islanders are where they are without one, it demonstrates great leadership.

Seriously did you read the article?

This is from the article you posted

“This is one reason why I will vote yes at the 14 October“

From the author…

 

[TheEscapeClub]

Seriously did you read the article?

This is from the article you posted

“This is one reason why I will vote yes at the 14 October“

From the author…

I read it in it's entirety.

I don't care why she's voting yes, the story itself highlighted the success of a community without needing a Voice such as what is being proposed.

 

[phantom13]

I read it in it's entirety.

I don't care why she's voting yes, the story itself highlighted the success of a community without needing a Voice such as what is being proposed.

I also read it in full and to say you need to be Simone Biles in the mental gymnastics department to come to the conclusion this is a great example of why you shouldn’t have a voice is an understatement, unless you’re pro indigenous self governing.

Obviously you’d know better than the actual author of the article.

 

[CM86]

Really simple, that opinion supports my post as you requested.

You continue to put to try to put your words in my mouth.
'That you are also claiming that The Indigenous Voice to Parliament is comparable to "South Africa’s apartheid era and it still blights Malaysia, where citizens of Indian and Chinese descent are deprived of educational and employment opportunities that are available to Malays"?
Is that your claim????'

You made up/constructed that claim, not me.
By all means post my words that express my opinion, not 1 +1 equalling what you want it to be.

It was a hallmark of South Africa’s apartheid era and it still blights Malaysia, where citizens of Indian and Chinese descent are deprived of educational and employment opportunities that are available to Malays.

OK.

So you can't support your claim. And in fact, you don't even support the opinion piece you shared!

Pointing out that you just repeated a lie someone else told, isn't supporting a claim.
It's just repeating a lie.

So...
As you can't support your claim that The Indigenous Voice to Parliament would create a racial divide in Australian citizenship... can you please delete that claim?

 

[TheEscapeClub]

I also read it in full and to say you need to be Simone Biles in the mental gymnastics department to come to the conclusion this is a great example of why you shouldn’t have a voice is an understatement, unless you’re pro indigenous self governing.

Obviously you’d know better than the actual author of the article.

It's nothing to do with whether I think I know better than the author or not, it's my interpretation of how I read it.

I've got no dramas with a legislated Voice, in fact if No gets up on Saturday, I think that's what Albo should do. He's completely cocked this up.

 

[CM86]

Albo has been telling us it's the right thing to do, outside of that I couldn't tell you if he's said anything more substantive on it.

Langton says we're racist idiots, Ray Martin says we're dinosaurs and I can't remember what the * Stan Grant said but I know he'd be having a sook about it.

You're a deliberately ignorant, and hateful person.

You're literally using the internet at the moment. You could take 5 minutes to verify any of that, and you choose not to.
You have no excuses.
Instead, you just spread hateful misinformation on issues you refuse to understand.

 

[South of the Yarra]

Exactly, it is your value judgement.

No it’s my knowledge of facts.

 

[phantom13]

It's nothing to do with whether I think I know better than the author or not, it's my interpretation of how I read it.

I've got no dramas with a legislated Voice, in fact if No gets up on Saturday, I think that's what Albo should do. He's completely cocked this up.

Hot tip, you don’t need to interpret the author when they literally give you their summation. This isn’t classic literature comprehension.

Again.

 

[HurleyHepsHird]

So now Dutton is lying openly and blatantly and saying Albo never mentioned the Voice pre-election?

There really are no depths this dickhead won't plumb.

 

[Ghost Patrol]

I read it in it's entirety.

I don't care why she's voting yes, the story itself highlighted the success of a community without needing a Voice such as what is being proposed.

So if we removed your voice, this community would be deemed a success?

 

[TheEscapeClub]

You're a deliberately ignorant, and hateful person.

You're literally using the internet at the moment. You could take 5 minutes to verify any of that, and you choose not to.
You have no excuses.
Instead, you just spread hateful misinformation on issues you refuse to understand.

According to you. Which bits aren't correct?

It's none of Martin's business how people are voting and why they are voting that way. If they are in the, 'if you don't know, then vote no', camp then that's their prerogative, for Martin to them label them dinosaurs or dickheads for it is his prerogative, but he still said it.

Langton said base racism and sheer stupidity, or have I just watched a body and voice double?

 

[phantom13]

According to you. Which bits aren't correct?

It's none of Martin's business how people are voting and why they are voting that way. If they are in the, 'if you don't know, then vote no', camp then that's their prerogative, for Martin to them label them dinosaurs or dickheads for it is his prerogative, but he still said it.

Langton said base racism and sheer stupidity, or have I just watched a body and voice double?

Your track record on literal interpretation isn’t great to be fair

 

[TheEscapeClub]

Your track record on literal interpretation isn’t great to be fair

No, you just don't like my take on things. I interpretate things based on my life experience, which is no doubt substantially different to yours.

 

[Carringbush2010]

I suspect there might be a handful (and i do mean a handful) who ask stuff like 'who will decide who will be on the board?' in good faith.

I think the VAST majority arent doing that and more so if this was answered and was part of the referendum question then those same people would say "well what if that doesnt work, then its in the constitution and cant change, thats bad, im voting no".

Ultimately well never know.

Agreed, and if one thinks it is in bad faith, fair enough call it out, but do so in a civil manner.

Don't think that's much to ask.

 

[Rob R]

I work for the state government and no one in the office wants to discuss this, at all.

Federal govt and noone will say how they vote, the only time it is mentioned is if people say thank God it will be done after Saturday

Most people would never talk politics at work, but the few moderates (on both sides) who have polite debates occasionally over major issues are not discussing this one.

On SM-A125F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[CM86]

Albo has been telling us it's the right thing to do, outside of that I couldn't tell you if he's said anything more substantive on it.

Langton says we're racist idiots, Ray Martin says we're dinosaurs and I can't remember what the * Stan Grant said but I know he'd be having a sook about it.

According to you. Which bits aren't correct?

It's none of Martin's business how people are voting and why they are voting that way. If they are in the, 'if you don't know, then vote no', camp then that's their prerogative, for Martin to them label them dinosaurs or dickheads for it is his prerogative, but he still said it.

Langton said base racism and sheer stupidity, or have I just watched a body and voice double?

You've already changed what you originally stated, which shows you already know you're spreading misinformation.


Why don't you quote what they actually said, if you really believe it's what you're saying it is?
Quote them.


Here is a link for Ray Martin's actual quote.
Daily Mail misconstrues Ray Martin’s contempt for ‘nonsensical’ no slogan and Ampol fuels Walkley scholarship | Weekly Beast

Here is a link for Marcia Langton's actual quote.
Some Australians seem more outraged by accusations of racism than by racism itself | Katharine Murphy on politics

There is no link to Stan Grant's quote... Because you just stated "I can't remember what the * Stan Grant said but I know he'd be having a sook about it"...




Quote what they actually said.
Then compare that to what YOU posted.


You won't. In fact, you won't even change your mind about this. You won't pause to reconsider where you get your information from, or how you form your opinions.
You'll go on to make the same comments about Langton and Martin to other people.
Because you don't care about the truth.
Because you're just a deliberately ignorant and hateful person.

 

[phantom13]

No, you just don't like my take on things. I interpretate things based on my life experience, which is no doubt substantially different to yours.

Much like how you don’t like how an article you think supports no quite clearly says they support yes.

Like that?

Couldn’t script this level of stupidity

 

[phantom13]

Agreed, and if one thinks it is in bad faith, fair enough call it out, but do so in a civil manner.

Don't think that's much to ask.

I try to but as you can see in this thread alone some people just dig into their bullshit.

Im also absolutely not going to police yes campaigners, especially indigenous ones, who have had to deal with this bullshit for a very very long time if they don’t want to engage politely.

 

[Carringbush2010]

I try to but as you can see in this thread alone some people just dig into their bullshit.

Im also absolutely not going to police yes campaigners, especially indigenous ones, who have had to deal with this bullshit for a very very long time if they don’t want to engage politely.

In a conversation I had with Gethy, I extrapolated on why as much you and I think some of the no posters here is bullshit, those no posters aren't voting no to oppose - they actually believe the reasons they're voting no, they think they're right.

Everyone has to respect opposing views, regardless of how ridiculous it may seem to you and I. Debate in a civil manner, so we don't push the undecided to no.

INB4 'That'd be sooky la la from that undecided voter' - yep it would, who gives a sh*t, we need all the yes votes we can get. Don't give em a reason to vote no.

So if you're going to police no voters then you have to equally police yes voters - otherwise you'd be viewed as biased.^ Even more reason to police the yes campaigners that claim they're going to polling booths to give no voters mouthfuls.

I'm starting to sound like a mod now, so I'll leave out kinda off topic discussion there.

 

[Gralin]

In a conversation I had with Gethy, I extrapolated on why as much you and I think some of the no posters here is bullshit, those no posters aren't voting no to oppose - they actually believe the reasons they're voting no, they think they're right.

Everyone has to respect opposing views, regardless of how ridiculous it may seem to you and I.

No, you do not have to respect opposing views no matter how ridiculous they are, that's bullshit.

Of course its great for muddying the waters, treating everything said as of equal value, its been used very successfully to spread misinformation

why would you support that?

Debate in a civil manner, so we don't push the undecided to no.

again why is it always the idea that if you aren't polite enough people will side with facsism and racsim

like they people whose ideals are anything but civil, if a few swear words gets you to vote with them then you were always going to vote with them

civility is another tool used to tone police and censor discussion and again it serves the purposes of one group

INB4 'That'd be sooky la la from that undecided voter' - yep it would, who gives a sh*t, we need all the yes votes we can get. Don't give em a reason to vote no.

if someone is going to vote no on the referendum because of an anonymous post on an internet forum (hint they aren't) what does that say about what kind of world you think we live in

you really think the No campaign is polite and civil and that's why people vote no?

So if you're going to police no voters then you have to equally police yes voters - otherwise you'd be viewed as biased.^ Even more reason to police the yes campaigners that claim they're going to polling booths to give no voters mouthfuls.

I'm starting to sound like a mod now, so I'll leave out kinda off topic discussion there.

bloody both siding

this warped lens of how politics should work, again it serves one group very well, but its not the group that would be voting to make the wold a better place so why do you keep insisting on doing their work for them?

 

[phantom13]

In a conversation I had with Gethy, I extrapolated on why as much you and I think some of the no posters here is bullshit, those no posters aren't voting no to oppose - they actually believe the reasons they're voting no, they think they're right.

Everyone has to respect opposing views, regardless of how ridiculous it may seem to you and I. Debate in a civil manner, so we don't push the undecided to no.

INB4 'That'd be sooky la la from that undecided voter' - yep it would, who gives a sh*t, we need all the yes votes we can get. Don't give em a reason to vote no.

So if you're going to police no voters then you have to equally police yes voters - otherwise you'd be viewed as biased.^ Even more reason to police the yes campaigners that claim they're going to polling booths to give no voters mouthfuls.

I'm starting to sound like a mod now, so I'll leave out kinda off topic discussion there.

To be clear, I’m not policing anyone but I’m yet to see any yes voter spouting the sort of ridiculous misinformation the no side is.

The last page had someone posting an article claiming it was a great support of the no vote when the authors explicit position was to vote yes. That sort of stuff doesn’t warrant civil discourse and engagement.

 

[Dogs_R_Us]

“Those with the right genetic inheritance – and their descendants for all time – would gain an additional method of influencing politicians and officials that would surpass the normal rights of citizenship.”

Every generation since 1788 has resulted in an increase in the number of people who are able to claim indigenous heritage. With continual intermarriage, one day in the distant future, if the planet survives, everyone will have an indigenous ancestor.

 

[Kwality]

OK.

So you can't support your claim. And in fact, you don't even support the opinion piece you shared!

Pointing out that you just repeated a lie someone else told, isn't supporting a claim.
It's just repeating a lie.

So...
As you can't support your claim that The Indigenous Voice to Parliament would create a racial divide in Australian citizenship... can you please delete that claim?

No chance I cave to your blustering attempt to cancel opinion that you dont agree with.

 

[The Kipster]

sometimes i think the no voters or the undecided saying they don't know what they are voting for are just playing dumb. the information is out there ffs.

Why would I vote for something that I am unwillingly funding? The YES campaign gets all of my tax dollars but the NO gets nothing, it is not a democracy without fairness and debate.

With so many questions left unanswered.

 

[Ghost Patrol]

Every generation since 1788 has resulted in an increase in the number of people who are able to claim indigenous heritage. With continual intermarriage, one day in the distant future, if the planet survives, everyone will have an indigenous ancestor.

You seem to have erased the Frontier Wars (among other things), where the indigenous numbers went down significantly.

Did you do this deliberately?