Steps towards Treaty: the Uluru Statement and Referendum Council Report

[Gethelred]

Alright.

We've had the Referendum into the Indigenous Voice to Parliament, and the public rejected it.

From the notes to the Referendum Committee:

The Dialogues discussed who would be the parties to Treaty, as well as the process, content and enforcement questions that pursuing Treaty raises. In relation to process, these questions included whether a Treaty should be negotiated first as a national framework agreement under which regional and local treaties are made. In relation to content, the Dialogues discussed that a Treaty could include a proper say in decision-making, the establishment of a truth commission, reparations, a financial settlement (such as seeking a percentage of GDP), the resolution of land, water and resources issues, recognition of authority and customary law, and guarantees of respect for the rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples.

Would you be okay with any or all of the above? What do you think would be a reasonable means of reparations, or do you think reparations are not required at all?

Try and keep it civil from here. The last few pages have been as base as anywhere else on this forum.

 

[Cap]

Well, as the forums biggest troll I would like to lean on your expertise. But that’s a stretch. Floundering…trolling…don‘t look like the same thing to me.

You are a troll.

Just not a good one.

 

[mcnulty]

Behind? You

You've stated it's not 1 page, it is, you can't explain why it can't be one page and you can't even get your quote right.

You remind me of the MAGA faithful still out there supporting trump.

What are the 120 pages Albo is referring to??

And then you went Trump…do you have the slightest notion how thoroughly you’re beclowning yourself here?

 

[Cap]

What are the 120 pages Albo is referring to??

And then you went Trump…do you have the slightest notion how thoroughly you’re beclowning yourself here?

I literally provided you the quote you misused and it's context and the answer to that question.

Of course I went trump, he attracts stupid.

do you have the slightest notion how thoroughly you’re beclowning yourself here?

 

[mcnulty]

I literally provided you the quote you misused and it's context and the answer to that question.

Of course I went trump, he attracts stupid.

do you have the slightest notion how thoroughly you’re beclowning yourself here?

lol no you didn’t. And Trump attracting stupid seems prescient right now, seeing you’re the only one doing it.

Please stop, my sides are SPLIT

 

[Cap]

lol no you didn’t. And Trump attracting stupid seems prescient right now, seeing you’re the only one doing it.

Please stop, my sides are SPLIT

Yeah I did.

And don't worry, I've dealt with enough of your type to see the projection, you guys are all the same.

It's all good though, If you stop now, you can go off and get something else wrong and I won't be there to laugh at you.

 

[mcnulty]

Yeah I did.

And don't worry, I've dealt with enough of your type to see the projection, you guys are all the same.

It's all good though, If you stop now, you can go off and get something else wrong and I won't be there to laugh at you.

That’s the lamest attempt I’ve seen from anyone at rationalizing the pasting you’ve received here.

”I‘ve dealt with enough of your type”. Just hilarious.

Tell me, how well does that work for you in real life?

 

[Cap]

That’s the lamest attempt I’ve seen from anyone at rationalizing the pasting you’ve received here.

”I‘ve dealt with enough of your type”. Just hilarious.

Tell me, how well does that work for you in real life?

Ah we are at claiming the victory stage,

Any way, I'll wait for you to tell us why it's not one page and let you scroll up to see what Albo was referring to.

 

[mcnulty]

Ah we are at claiming the victory stage,

So tell me again my even thought it's one page it can't be

Although that last sentence could well have been written in Sanskrit, I’ll try an answer: You’d have to ask Albo.

 

[Cap]

Although that last sentence could well have been written in Sanskrit, I’ll try an answer: You’d have to ask Albo.

As I've already shown you, Albo was referring to meeting notes.

So on your own words will be nice.

Assuming you can. What time is Credlins show? Maybe she'll give you something to say?

 

[Cap]

Just so I can't be accused of making fun of you.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.news.com.au/finance/economy/australian-economy/why-would-i-anthony-albanese-hasnt-read-additional-25-pages-of-uluru-statement-material/news-story/dc24efdd1546b9c7183418f82d3bf553%3famp

But what are the other 25 pages? I’ve read them, what are they?” Mitchell said.

“What they are is a record of meetings … they’re records of the big lead-up that happened, in the lead-up to, ironically … the Uluru Statement from the Heart,” the PM said.

“Do you agree with most of what is said in those 25 pages?” Mitchell said.

“I haven’t read it,” Mr Albanese said.

“You haven’t read it?” Mitchell said.

“There’s 120 pages — why would I?” the PM said.

The quote you misquoted, in its full with the answer as to what he was talking about.

 

[mcnulty]

As I've already shown you, Albo was referring to meeting notes.

Meeting notes!!! It gets funnier still…

 

[Cap]

Meeting notes!!! It gets funnier still…

Yes, you are really embarrassing yourself.

 

[Kwality]

Only to people who choose not not understand it.

Same people at any referendum.

 

[Kwality]

Yes, you are really embarrassing yourself.

So what was Megan Davis on about?

 

[Cap]

So what was Megan Davis on about?

You tell me.

 

[Cap]

Same people at any referendum.

Yeah, but it's pretty consistent here

 

[Ghost Patrol]

Same people at any referendum.

If my calculation is correct, anyone aged below 42 have never participated in a referendum.

So no, it's not the same people.

 

[Kwality]

If my calculation is correct, anyone aged below 42 have never participated in a referendum.

So no, it's not the same people.

the voting public every time.

 

[CM86]

Of course it does..... To say any different is delusional.

And why do you write 'Australians' instead of Australians?

In the context that I used it.

It's because far too many Australians don't view Indigenous people as Australian.

And they simultaneously don't view Indigenous as legitimate.

That's why you see so many people, like you, and many others on this forum, refer to Indigenous people as "Identifying as Indigenous", etc.
And also, why you see racists claiming that Indigenous will be given "representations over all Australians".
Indigenous people are Australian.
We can respect all Australians, while also recognising the existence and harm done to a specific demographic of fellow Australians.


Some people are so hateful and racist, that they just cannot imagine the idea that Indigenous people are their equal.

 

[CM86]

And this is around the fifth time I’ve answered it- you can’t possibly be this stupid…


“In combination, the practical effect of the above is that Indigenous Australians will thereby have two formal constitutional methods of influencing Federal Government laws and policies:

1. voting at federal elections (a right already held), and
2. representations made by the Voice to government between elections.

The method in 2 is not available to other Australians. They have a single constitutional method of influence, namely the right to vote in federal elections. There is no proposal to establish a taxpayer funded, representative, constitutional body to advocate for the interests of other Australians to government.”

You've repeatedly quoted a statement from some random, from some random article... And given power to it.
Which means you've searched for something that supports your beliefs.
That's on you.


I've explain why you're wrong.

And I regret this entire conversation... Because all I've done is give legitimacy to this hateful thread.

I thought I was in the single thread discussing the referendum.
Instead, I'm in the BigFooty thread of spreading misinformation, and disproving a negative.

I see from the mod title that it's been updated.
Unfortunately it still isn't being moderated in that form.


As we've seen during any period of actual progressive growth, there has been an influx of anti-moderation, pro-misinformation posters.
And the squeaky wheel gets the oil.
So the more that extremists demand what they want, the more that even the best moderators will eventually bend to them.


This thread should be merged or deleted.
It exists purely to muddy water and spread misinformation.

 

[killtaker1993]

We can respect all Australians, while also recognising the existence and harm done to a specific demographic of fellow Australians.
Some people are so hateful and racist, that they just cannot imagine the idea that Indigenous people are their equal.

100%. This should be in the Yes campaign information guide. Couldn't have written it better myself

 

[Northalives]

When board members sit at their meetings, when company directors sit down and discuss things and bring up discussion points, just like Business Councils do, the AMA does, Pensioner groups, football selectors (this is called Big Footy after all): when any group discuss a particular matter(s), they bring up discussion points and when all is said and done, they settle on a conclusion which is their agreed position.

That is what the so called "unabridged" version of the Uluru Statement is, discussion points and points of interest. The final conclusion of these discussions is the single A4 page Uluru Statement from the Heart, to say otherwise is a complete and utter misrepresentation of the truth.

 

[Northalives]

In the context that I used it.

It's because far too many Australians don't view Indigenous people as Australian.

And they simultaneously don't view Indigenous as legitimate.

That's why you see so many people, like you, and many others on this forum, refer to Indigenous people as "Identifying as Indigenous", etc.
And also, why you see racists claiming that Indigenous will be given "representations over all Australians".
Indigenous people are Australian.
We can respect all Australians, while also recognising the existence and harm done to a specific demographic of fellow Australians.


Some people are so hateful and racist, that they just cannot imagine the idea that Indigenous people are their equal.

The other thing that some have no idea about is the Constitution of Australia and how, under section 51 of the Constitution, the "Native" race are singled out as having "special laws" made FOR them by the Commonwealth. Indigenous people are the only race to be subject to the whims and machinations of the Federal Parliament. So to say that the Voice will divide Australia along racial lines is hilarious when you know that the highest law in the land, the Constitution, already divides Indigenous people from the rest of the population by race!

Recognising Torres Strait Islander People through a Voice to Parliament will bridge the divide that is currently in place via our Constitution by allowing Indigenous people the legal right to make non-binding representations, to the Parliament of Australia for consideration by the Parliament on proposed laws that effect them, thereby, bridging the divide as prescribed in the Constitution so that when "special laws" are enacted by the Parliament, they will be made WITH and not FOR the "natives". This will close the racial divide that now separates the Indigenous races from the non indigenous races. Section 51 is commonly known as the "race powers".

The other thing about the Voice to Parliament is that it will probably negate the need for a formal treaty in the long run because having a permanent Voice to Parliament along with the ongoing process of granting Native Title and with the Commonwealth Parliament working with Indigenous people instead of the Commonwealth telling black fellas what to do, then that's a Treaty Australian style, ain't it? The Voice will also make it starkly known as to what the conditions are like for Indigenous people and the reasons for these conditions to exist and that is part of "truth telling".

We have already seen an apology given to the Stolen Generation by the Parliament of Australia even though Sophie Mirabella, Alby Schultz, Dennis Jensen, Luke Simpkins, Wilson Tuckey, Don Randall and Peter Dutton walked out when the apology was being read and we also saw, Paul Keating's Redfern speech where Her Majesty's Prime Minister Of Australia acknowledged in no uncertain terms the barbarity of colonisation upon the Indigenous people, (even though the collaborator Price reckons that Aboriginals benefited from colonisation and that there were no wars as if black fellas just put out the welcome mat!). This is also part of Truth Telling and it has been happening all to slowly.

The Voice to Parliament will complete us as a Nation and we can then get down to working with each other for each other, something that the NO campaigners cannot countenance.

 

[Todman]

Recognising Torres Strait Islander People through a Voice to Parliament will bridge the divide that is currently in place via our Constitution by allowing Indigenous people the legal right to make non-binding representations, to the Parliament of Australia for consideration by the Parliament on proposed laws that effect them, thereby, bridging the divide as prescribed in the Constitution so that when "special laws" are enacted by the Parliament, they will be made WITH and not FOR the "natives". This will close the racial divide that now separates the Indigenous races from the non indigenous races. Section 51 is commonly known as the "race powers".

All laws the Federal Government will enact will effect Indigenous people.

 

[burge13]

All laws the Federal Government will enact will effect Indigenous people.

Like they do everybody else. How odd