Opinion Domestic Politics BF style

Remove this Banner Ad

Econopower said:
The reality is that ATSI people will likely face discrimination and disadvantage for centuries. And the Voice isn’t only about addressing material disadvantage anyway. It is an acknowledgment of a special right to consultation on the basis that they were the original ‘owners’ of the land…
Click to expand...

Yeah well that second bit is racism and if put to the electorate directly would be voted down in a landslide.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

TeeKray said:
I actually believe that the voice SHOULD be able to be taken away by a future government because I don't see why Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people necessarily need to be disadvantaged forever. Surely the aim of the voice and other related policies would be for the disadvantage faced by these people to no longer exist in the future? In that instance what we'd be left with is a constitutionally enshrined voice advocating on behalf of a small number of Australians who qualify for special representation based on their race - which is justifiable on some level now but in a future where that disadvantage no longer exists actually becomes an abhorrent thing.
Click to expand...

The eradication of disadvantage against Aboriginal people would take a minimum of 4 generations of everything being done right.
 
Papa G said:
I reckon if you think Piers Morgan is "the most vicious, vitriolic and cruel commentator" you need to wash out your vagina.
Click to expand...
This is true, but it says more about the absolute filth who somehow crawl under the low bar that Morgan sets than it does about Morgan himself.
 
South of the Yarra said:
The eradication of disadvantage against Aboriginal people would take a minimum of 4 generations of everything being done right.
Click to expand...

It could take 44 generations and the constitution will still be the constitution.

Anyway, it's not really relevant as we have already established the belief that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people deserve special representation by virtue of their racial background, regardless of advantage or disadvantage.

I could not disagree with this proposition any more as I prefer to view people as humans rather than sort them by race. But rest assured I've been told enough times by 'white' Australians to "f*ck off back to where you came from" to know that plenty of people do see the world like that.
 
TeeKray said:
It could take 44 generations and the constitution will still be the constitution.

Anyway, it's not really relevant as we have already established the belief that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people deserve special representation by virtue of their racial background, regardless of advantage or disadvantage.

I could not disagree with this proposition any more as I prefer to view people as humans rather than sort them by race. But rest assured I've been told enough times by 'white' Australians to "f*ck off back to where you came from" to know that plenty of people do see the world like that.
Click to expand...

And in an ideal world wouldn't that be wonderful that we can view people as humans rather than race. Unfortunately, many Aboriginal people are still seen and treated as a sub race as subhuman. Trust me, I know the damage caused by systematic racism as well as anyone.
 
South of the Yarra said:
And in an ideal world wouldn't that be wonderful that we can view people as humans rather than race. Unfortunately, many Aboriginal people are still seen and treated as a sub race as subhuman. Trust me, I know the damage caused by systematic racism as well as anyone.
Click to expand...

That we can agree on.

For the record, I think the voice itself is a good idea, I just don't think it belongs in the constitution. The argument that it needs to be in the constitution so it doesn't get taken away by a (presumably conservative) future government is a very sad reflection on the state of our politics.
 
Ah yes- the sanctity of the Constitution.

Which expressly prohibited the Commonwealth Government from making laws in respect of ‘people of any race, other than the Aboriginal race' and declared that 'aboriginal natives shall not be counted’ in referendums.

Until a referendum changed it.

TeeKray said:
The argument that it needs to be in the constitution so it doesn't get taken away by a (presumably conservative) future government is a very sad reflection on the state of our politics.
Click to expand...

The fact is that enshrining (or denying) rights and responsibilities to particular groups so that they can't be changed at the whim of future governments has ALWAYS been one of the functions of the Australian constitution.

Similarly, race related politics (however defined) has ALWAYS been a feature of the Australian political scene. Heck some political parties have made it a core feature of their political campaigning and rhetoric.

So let's not be so incredibly naive to think that, once established, an organisation like the Voice would be a high priority target for abolition by some politicians in the future. No doubt using some of the arguments that have surfaced in recent months by those strongly opposed to its establishment.

So IF the concept of the Indigenous Voice is supported then making its existence a formal part of the Constitution, with its funding, functions and composition always subject to agreement and change of future democratically elected governments makes absolute sense and is entirely consistent with what the Australian Constitution was and is meant to be.

And on the subject of the Constitution and Referendums this made me laugh...

 
Last edited:

(Log in to remove this ad.)

If having an interview with a well known TV Host who's unsavoury is the most 'disgusting' thing Albo does, it could be worse.

EDIT: just remembered he went to Kyle Sandiland's wedding, so no, it isn't the most disgusting thing. It was worse.
 
Last edited:
edgie said:
If having an interview with a well known TV Host who's unsavoury is the most 'disgusting' thing Albo does, it could be worse.

EDIT: just remembered he went to Kyle Sandiland's wedding, so no, it isn't the most disgusting thing. It was worse.
Click to expand...
Who said…MOST disgusting?
He has met with Murdoch too. Quite a track record already.
 
What exactly does he have to lose by meeting with Murdoch?

Should he purposely put the chief architect of propaganda offside so we get another scare campaign resulting in another one term Labor government?
 
Papa G said:
Do the rest of us get triggered when Albo gets interviewed by Laura Tingle or Waleed Ali? Buch of soft little whiny Losers.
Click to expand...

You're wrong here.

Waleed ******* tried his best to grill Albo over the years, but acted all chummy with Morison. It may as well have been a Sky hit piece whenever Anto was on the project.
 
Econopower said:
Here is the rub.

If Albo were to come out and say - we think this is the right thing to do but there are risks that will have to be managed over time - the risks become the story. They get exaggerated and misconstrued by bad faith actors,
making it less likely the amendment is successful.

I would like nothing more than detailed and nuanced public debates about important matters such as this. But the reality is it won’t occur, which is why politicians present positions in such a black and white manner.

It is also why Albo has refused to go into any real detail about how the Voice will be implemented or he and the government would like it implemented - they know that the bigger the target the harder to win.
Click to expand...
No, here is another 'rub'. No matter what the intentions are here realpolitik will out. Ignoring the nuance just because you want a particular outcome is literally the definition of reckless.

Lets run another scenario:

The indigenous community will have leaders elected by themselves to act as a voice to parliament, effectively they will be THE voice of the indigenous community. The same way the government are THE international voice of the Australian people.

So let's look at a scenario that can harm the community itself.

Now, I'm a Liberal politician and we have just regained power nationally, there are elections coming up for the Voice during my tenure. I have access to plenty of funds via the lobby groups that have got me in.

Do I go out to the community and find someone who is sympathetic to my lobby groups plans to mine a certain area?

Do I then pump plenty of cash and pork barreling in to ensure my preferred representative gets voted in? A representative who will 'black wash' the decision?

Of course I do. It'll happen. It happens in the US with the reservations already.
 
The Victorian Liberal Party RWNJs vs the rest clusterfeck continues.

Suspended Far Right Lib Moira Deeming gave Liberal leader John Pesutto till 2:00PM yesterday to DENY she is a “Nazi sympathiser” or risk the prospect of “legal action”

FvRcHGUaEAUjCHU



Deeming says she has advised her “lawyers to prepare a legal challenge” against Pesutto & the Liberal Party, & believes she can force her boss to publicly deny she’s a Nazi sympathiser via court action or have her suspension removed.

This morning Federal Liberal leader Peter Dutton says he has not ruled out “intervening” to resolve the dispute.

www.theage.com.au

Pesutto to lead new push to eject Deeming as her allies face sanction

Several MPs who were reluctant to back an earlier push to oust Moira Deeming have told colleagues they are furious with her threats to launch legal action against the opposition leader.
www.theage.com.au www.theage.com.au


This should be good. I wonder which side he'll take - the moderates or the RWNJs? :think::drunk:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

GremioPower
Opinion Education BF-style
Replies
0
Views
121
GremioPower
GremioPower

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top