We are not the USA. The Australian Constitution creates the Parliament and it's powers, establishes the division of power between the Commonwealth and States and the roles of the executive and the High Court. The only rights it confers are the right to a trial by jury for federal offences (s80), the right to vote (s41), freedom of religion (s116), and protections against unjust property acquisition (s51(xxxi) and discrimination on the basis of State of residency (s117).
There is no 'bill of rights', no 'civic or political' rights other than those mentioned above. There is no mention of equal rights and whilst in theory all Australians have equal rights under law, anyone paying attention would realise that's not how it plays out in reality, like Orwell's Animal Farm, some are more equal than others.
And with regard to the Warren Mundine tweet, he repeats the lie that the Voice is 'race based' when it is based on indigeneity.
This shit is never-ending.

indo-dreaming wrote:

southernraw wrote:

Indo i'm not going over same old ground with you.

There's banging a head against a wall.

You have your blinkers set in a certain direction and no amount of what you term, 'debate' will change your mindset.

I noticed you completely bypassed the post from WH.

For someone as vocal as you on this subject, and one that seems to want to jump in on every single post that doesn't align with your way of thinking, i'm surprised you didn't have a crack at that.

If you are going to claim our constitution or political system & representation is unequal, you need to back it up with something.

You are saying things that are completely factually incorrect based on nothing more than emotion, and as ive shown can be busted with real facts and figures.

If you had said this at various periods in Australia's history you would have been correct, but not today.

That's the problem with people like you, you dont acknowledge all the positive progress thats been made

We all now have the same rights under the constitution and law the only fuzzy area is race laws that can be used in regard to any one ethic group like indigenous people and IMHO should be removed.

Anyway this post sums it up pretty good

View this post on Instagram

In regard to WH, we all know who he is, I havent and wont interact with him in any manner no matter the subject or post, as he has proven time and time again under literally more than half a dozen handles that he isnt here to have any genuine meaningful discussion or even debate, while a whole host of others including yourself i rarely agree with but at least are here for the right reasons and generally up for a proper conversation.

Indo, these here were your words a couple of months ago...
"@southernraw
Do you honestly want to go over that whole issue again???
I honestly dont think it's going to do anyone any good rehashing that old ground as we both know we strongly disagree with each other in these areas, i disagree strongly about your views and also believe they are extremely damaging to Indigenous people who believe them, and i know the views that i hold you dont agree with at all and probably feel they are damaging to Indigenous people, so unless we can really bring something new to the discussion(which i highly doubt) is it really worth it?

We both know it's just going to end up getting heated and a little ugly, just seems a little pointless to do it again when its all been said before, maybe if i had read a book on it recently i might have motivation to do it again, but i kind of lack the motivation at the moment..
Also i think it would get pretty old very quick for everyone who has read it all before."

Comments that came after i'd patiently replied and mounted a good argument backing up my claims.
So you see, i refuse to engage with you on this topic, as the problem is once i have a strong point you either disappear and don't reply or pull out something like the above.

Honestly Indo, i just wish people wouldn't try to patiently educate you and engage with you on here because it wastes a valuable platform to discuss things freely.

Java?

It's easy to spell.
Might have got it right on his tattoo.

southernraw wrote:

indo-dreaming wrote:

southernraw wrote:

Indo i'm not going over same old ground with you.

There's banging a head against a wall.

You have your blinkers set in a certain direction and no amount of what you term, 'debate' will change your mindset.

I noticed you completely bypassed the post from WH.

For someone as vocal as you on this subject, and one that seems to want to jump in on every single post that doesn't align with your way of thinking, i'm surprised you didn't have a crack at that.

If you are going to claim our constitution or political system & representation is unequal, you need to back it up with something.

You are saying things that are completely factually incorrect based on nothing more than emotion, and as ive shown can be busted with real facts and figures.

If you had said this at various periods in Australia's history you would have been correct, but not today.

That's the problem with people like you, you dont acknowledge all the positive progress thats been made

We all now have the same rights under the constitution and law the only fuzzy area is race laws that can be used in regard to any one ethic group like indigenous people and IMHO should be removed.

Anyway this post sums it up pretty good

View this post on Instagram

In regard to WH, we all know who he is, I havent and wont interact with him in any manner no matter the subject or post, as he has proven time and time again under literally more than half a dozen handles that he isnt here to have any genuine meaningful discussion or even debate, while a whole host of others including yourself i rarely agree with but at least are here for the right reasons and generally up for a proper conversation.

Indo, these here were your words a couple of months ago...

"@southernraw

Do you honestly want to go over that whole issue again???

I honestly dont think it's going to do anyone any good rehashing that old ground as we both know we strongly disagree with each other in these areas, i disagree strongly about your views and also believe they are extremely damaging to Indigenous people who believe them, and i know the views that i hold you dont agree with at all and probably feel they are damaging to Indigenous people, so unless we can really bring something new to the discussion(which i highly doubt) is it really worth it?

We both know it's just going to end up getting heated and a little ugly, just seems a little pointless to do it again when its all been said before, maybe if i had read a book on it recently i might have motivation to do it again, but i kind of lack the motivation at the moment..

Also i think it would get pretty old very quick for everyone who has read it all before."

Comments that came after i'd patiently replied and mounted a good argument backing up my claims.

So you see, i refuse to engage with you on this topic, as the problem is once i have a strong point you either disappear and don't reply or pull out something like the above.

Mate it's not old ground, you have never claimed before that

"our constitution or political system & representation is unequal"

And ive never been through this before and never seen anyone else here go through it.

You just know that you are wrong, you said something you cant back up and are in a corner, so looking at other ways to worm out of it.

It's not something that is a fuzzy area where you can have an opinion on and neither of us be exactly right or wrong or just not able top be proven either way, or variation from community to community.

It's something thats concrete and solid that can be show is true or not true.

And i can prove with facts its not true.

The constitution currently treats all Australian's equally it doesn't discriminate against indigenous people, again race laws are the closest we come but it doesn't mention one race and again i believe it should be removed.

The voting right's of all Australians are also equal and have been since 1965 when the last state abolished any law/regulation that discriminates. (1962 was the year when the Commonwealth Electoral Act was changed, and 1967 referendum wasn't about voting rights)

In 1984 it also become compulsory for indigenous people like non indigenous to vote, so the last fuzzy area removed and become truly equal.

And again as we can see official stats show indigenous people are involved in politics at a level equal and higher than

So both your points are proven completely untrue.

southernraw wrote:

Honestly Indo, i just wish people wouldn't try to patiently educate you and engage with you on here because it wastes a valuable platform to discuss things freely.

Educate me?

God hows the irony in that (see post above)

Look you might want an echo chamber and have your views confirmed by others, but im sorry im not letting this place be an echo chamber.

seeds wrote:

Java?

yes that's correct.

mattlock wrote:

It's easy to spell.

Might have got it right on his tattoo.

Sorry despite wanting and planning various tats during my younger years, im a clean skin and very happy to be so, its scary to think id have to live with the tats i drew or wanted at various times in my life.

And no offence to those with tats, but they are not like they once were 20+ years ago where it was a type of statement to have one or unique in someway, now tats are super mainstream and dare i say kind of cringey. (personal opinion only and there is exceptions)

indo-dreaming wrote:

southernraw wrote:

Honestly Indo, i just wish people wouldn't try to patiently educate you and engage with you on here because it wastes a valuable platform to discuss things freely.

Educate me?

God hows the irony in that (see post above)

Look you might want an echo chamber and have your views confirmed by others, but im sorry im not letting this place be an echo chamber.

haha. Ok 'boss'. You do your thing.
I'm outta here.
Dominate away colonialist.

indo-dreaming wrote:

southernraw wrote:

Honestly Indo, i just wish people wouldn't try to patiently educate you and engage with you on here because it wastes a valuable platform to discuss things freely.

Educate me?

God hows the irony in that (see post above)

but im sorry im not letting this place be an echo chamber.

hahaha!!

Indo says "The constitution currently treats all Australian's equally it doesn't discriminate against indigenous people, again race laws are the closest we come but it doesn't mention one race and again i believe it should be removed."

So it treats all Australians equally, except for the part where it doesn't, (s51(xxvi)the Race Power) but that doesn't matter because you think that should be removed, except it isn't being removed.
Great logic.
The Commonwealth can make laws for any race it is deemed necessary to make special laws for under s51(xxvi). It has been used to fund national organisations specific to Indigenous Australians in medical and legal services and was used to create ATSIC. It was also used by the federal government to create laws to implement the NT Intervention in 2007. The High Court left open whether the race power could be used to make laws for the benefit or detriment of any race (the Hindmarsh Island Bridge Case 1998). As it stands, the Constitution could be used make laws to provide benefit to or discriminate against Indigenous Australians, or any other specific race, so it doesn't treat all Australians equally.
The race power was introduced in 1901 as a means of controlling migration of Chinese and other Asians in the post gold rush period, it originally excluded Indigenous Australians but that exclusion was removed in the 1967 Referendum. It is no doubt racist and has been subject to inquiries recommending it be repealed and replaced by new provisions allowing laws to be made for ATSI people that recognised their particular place as first peoples. No such change has taken place but if it did the Constitution would still not be treating all people equally.
The argument put by the No side that the Voice will create inequality in the Constitution (it already exists) and that the Constitution treats all Australians equally (it doesn't) is more bullshit. The Constitution still allows racial discrimination against ATSI people or people of any race.
But Indo don't need no education.

Wonder what the chances are of Indo reading and understanding the above post?

AndyM wrote:

Wonder what the chances are of Indo reading and understanding the above post?

AndyM . Zero

well now I have a constitution question that hopefully someone (maybe adam12) could answer.

Section 51 of the constitution is:

51. Legislative powers of the Parliament
The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to:
...
(xxvi) the people of any race for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws;
...

Does this not already give Parliament the power to create a Voice body? If so then why are we voting for a change of the constitution? Is it just to make such a body permanent?

Apologies if this has already been addressed somewhere in here or the media.

Of course, this is what we will be voting on:

thermalben's post 7th from bottom is a quick summary gsco
https://www.swellnet.com/forums/wax/521681?page=46

adam12 wrote:

Indo says "The constitution currently treats all Australian's equally it doesn't discriminate against indigenous people, again race laws are the closest we come but it doesn't mention one race and again i believe it should be removed."

So it treats all Australians equally, except for the part where it doesn't, (s51(xxvi)the Race Power) but that doesn't matter because you think that should be removed, except it isn't being removed.

Great logic.

The Commonwealth can make laws for any race it is deemed necessary to make special laws for under s51(xxvi). It has been used to fund national organisations specific to Indigenous Australians in medical and legal services and was used to create ATSIC. It was also used by the federal government to create laws to implement the NT Intervention in 2007. The High Court left open whether the race power could be used to make laws for the benefit or detriment of any race (the Hindmarsh Island Bridge Case 1998). As it stands, the Constitution could be used make laws to provide benefit to or discriminate against Indigenous Australians, or any other specific race, so it doesn't treat all Australians equally.

The race power was introduced in 1901 as a means of controlling migration of Chinese and other Asians in the post gold rush period, it originally excluded Indigenous Australians but that exclusion was removed in the 1967 Referendum. It is no doubt racist and has been subject to inquiries recommending it be repealed and replaced by new provisions allowing laws to be made for ATSI people that recognised their particular place as first peoples. No such change has taken place but if it did the Constitution would still not be treating all people equally.

The argument put by the No side that the Voice will create inequality in the Constitution (it already exists) and that the Constitution treats all Australians equally (it doesn't) is more bullshit. The Constitution still allows racial discrimination against ATSI people or people of any race.

But Indo don't need no education.

Ive been talking about the race power act for a few pages now and how it should be removed, i even provided an old ABC article on it a few pages back and argument for it to removed.

While i dont like it, it still treats all groups within the constitution equally, you even admitted this when you said

"The Constitution still allows racial discrimination against ATSI people or people of any race."

It's only when its used that it becomes unequal because to use it you must single one group out, but the act itself is not unequal because it can be used on any racial group

Now thats been explained im sure you understand the difference?

I first mentioned it back on Page 50 on THURSDAY, 25 MAY 2023 at 2:22PM
Here is a link to the article

"Does the races power still have a place in the Australian constitution?"

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-06-04/races-power-in-constitution-shou…

yep makes sense basesix, was what I thought, thanks.

So the constitution already gives Parliament the power to make racially discriminatory laws, and the Voice doesn't really change that.

" .... but I'm sorry, I'm not letting this place be an echo chamber."

Not ever, not with: Tony Abbott's idea of getting mobs off country which @info has trotted out here recently as part of his ordained solution; not with his defence of Andrew Bolt's 18c court loss leading to his repeated grubby milk in coffee comments; not with his criticism of the need for a national apology; nor his attacks on Adam Goodes for calling out racism. Look, I've likely forgotten some hot indigenous issues forcing @info to spread his foul sewer farm mist over these forums over the last decade, nothing ever changes, nothing so why bother?

Wilhelm Scream wrote:

GuySmiley wrote:

I have a question.

How long are you lot going to give air to this oxygen thief before you release you're flogging a dead horse?

This scenario has played out many times in the past decade with our @info not persuaded a bee's dick from his (self) obsessed status of SN's resident expert all things indigenous. It's just another feather in his cap along with his breadth (not depth) of knowledge in economics, climate science and politics... bless his little white ankle socks.

#One For The SN (Relative) Newbies

#Millionth Times A Charm

Below post is an outstanding; its worth bring it forward to the top of the page.

Wilhelm Scream wrote:

A certain type of white resentment, zero-sum games and the populist politics of Voice opponents (Pauline Dutton for The Australian*)

"At the core of populism is the belief that someone, somewhere, is getting more than you. It's also at the heart of the No campaign.

Victimhood and grievance are at the core of populism, and are the primary means by which populism is exploited by the media and political figures. The populist politician and the clever media mogul sell the same thing: a belief that their target audiences are victims of “others” outside that audience, that those “others” are seeking to illegitimately take what belongs to the group, or even supplant that group.

That this isn’t necessarily true is irrelevant; indeed, in some ways the less true it is, the less the target audience are actual victims, the more successful it can be.

That white Americans, particularly affluent white Americans, continue to enjoy economic and health outcomes far in advance of those of Black or Hispanic Americans, along with privileged status in criminal justice systems and in influencing governments, has not prevented a long succession of populist politicians and right-wing media figures, culminating in Donald Trump and the Murdochs, from successfully marketing the belief that white Americans are being torn down and replaced by minority groups as the result of a liberal/woke/communist/Muslim/Jewish/UN/maybe-all-of-them conspiracy.

Selling victimhood, however, requires the identification of some loss that the target audience has suffered — necessarily hard when you’re selling to the most affluent segment of the population. Right-wing media and politicians thus focus on arguing that “other” groups are being given something affluent white people aren’t: “favoured treatment”.

This always takes place in a zero-sum context: any effort to improve the lives of “others” must be framed as inevitably damaging to the interests of the in-group, even if no damage actually results, or even if the whole community benefits — as is the case for improving the health, educational, economic and criminal justice outcomes for minority groups.

The alternative is to obsess about culture wars. Unable to point to material reduction in living standards or favoured treatment, populists argue a more nebulous loss to, say, “freedom” — freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom to use toilets, freedom to infect others by not wearing masks, to make cakes, use stoves, etc. The ill-defined nature of these losses makes them all the more valuable in convincing people they’re losing out.

The right-wing campaign against the Voice to Parliament fits perfectly into this pattern: faced with the problem that the Voice won’t actually deprive non-Indigenous Australians of anything, opponents must either argue that Indigenous peoples are being given something non-Indigenous people aren’t, or that some vague non-material loss is being inflicted or could be inflicted on non-Indigenous people.

Racist groups such as the Institute of Public Affairs that are opposed to any form of recognition of Indigenous peoples have long tried the “they’re getting favoured treatment” by arguing Indigenous peoples are just another minority group like, say, Greek Australians, redheads and the left-handed, so why should they receive specific recognition — an effective restatement of the terra nullius fiction, since it rejects the fact that Indigenous peoples were here before invasion, were dispossessed of their land, and were systematically deprived of human rights by white Australians.

Proponents try to hide the racist nature of this argument by claiming they wish to thwart racism — in this case, in the words of the extreme right “Rule of Law Education Centre”, by “injecting a permanent element of racial privilege” into the constitution.

That argument also lay behind the now-abandoned “third chamber” argument, with the suggestion that Indigenous peoples were being given some sort of additional democratic rights the rest of us didn’t have — though the privilege of having extra politicians might seem dubious at best. Arguments that a Voice would lead to a “lawyers’ picnic”, activist judges (a favourite of conservative lawyers) or excessive appeals to the High Court similarly fall into a category of threats that sound good on 2GB but may not exactly strike terror into the hearts of Australians.

The effort to find some sort of damage to non-Indigenous Australians, or at least something they would miss out on, took a culture war turn when the opposition began warning that a Voice body could veto Anzac Day, and Opposition Leader Peter Dutton warned that it could seek to dictate Reserve Bank decisions, raising the frightening prospect that a successful referendum might lead to a significantly less stupid monetary policy. While the Indigenous threat to cancel Christmas never quite made it into the Liberals’ talking points, reactionaries like Murdoch’s bloviator-at-large Paul Kelly are still obsessed with Invasion Day being moved (yet again) by the Voice.

The only coherent argument for damage from the Voice has come from Indigenous sovereignty advocates, who argue it would simply further entrench colonial control over Indigenous peoples as part of a fundamentally illegitimate framework of occupation and dispossession — although, again, identifying the specific harms that would further be inflicted on First Nations peoples even within the logic of that argument is difficult.

None of this has stopped opponents from simultaneously maintaining that a Voice would be merely symbolic, and not deliver any practical benefits — leading to the ABC, with its obsession with false balance, carrying warnings that the Voice would do both too much and not do enough.

The lack of coherence and evidence around the arguments of harm and unfairness, however, is hardly fatal — and may not even be inconvenient to the No case. In selling grievance and victimhood, all you need is to convince your marks that they are somehow, in some way, missing out, or even might miss out, at the hands of an “other” group, even when that group dies younger, lives poorer, suffers more ill health and more discrimination that the rest of us. For the populists, it must always be a zero-sum game."

*Verification needed

Guy your entitled to your opinion, you're entitled as a weird washed up old man to play up to your Incel mate, but im going to call you out when you lie through your arse about me.

I addressed your lies last time, and here it is again.

indo-dreaming wrote:

GuySmiley wrote:

Still flogging the relocation of mobs offcountry after all these years @info?

So you’re advocating a return to a practice used by every land thief and murdering spiv since the first fleet then …. Not going to happen, ever again.

Actually forced relocation has never been an angle ive taken, ive even avoided suggesting relocation, but 100% its very hard to see how you can fix the key issues without encouraging people to where these top three important aspects can be fulfilled.

Thats why ive always said nothing will ever change, because i cant see how the three important key aspects will ever be solved.

The other problem is most of the land these indigenous people live on is not privately owned and is often locked up by land council's because there was never any individual traditional ownership, so while almost half of Australia is controlled by indigenous interest, the benefit for Indigenous individuals is close to zero.

Say if it was Indonesia and land had traditionally been owned by individuals and then taken, it could then at-least be reverted back to individual families who then can benefit from it in some way and have more of a chance of breaking the cycle of intergenerational poverty. (a very real thing)

BTW. The offer of a bottle of booze to who this troll is, is still on offer, just remember to not name on the forum as breaks forum rules, so private message only.

Threats eh Indo?
You really are a quality individual.

AndyM wrote:

Threats eh Indo?

You really are a quality individual.

We have been through this before, it's not a threat and there is no talk of any violence, etc but this guy apparently surfs down my way and it does my head in that my own pet troll, could be the guy im chatting to in the car park or calling into waves,

If i knew who he was i could avoid this and yeah id also have a few words with him.

Thats the problem with the internet and sites where people are anonymous, even grown men can become trolls and say and act in ways they never would to others in real life.

Does that include you?
So much of what you say you could never say to the face of, say, an Indigenous Australian.
Seriously mate, you'd get punched out.

My memory is slightly off tonight it seems .... Bruce Pascoe's Dark Emu had @info triggered here for weeks perhaps longer!

Not sure how factually reminding you of your own past statements is trolling but each to their own I guess. Perhaps you can enlighten me as to why your past strident statements on indigenous issues is NOT on topic. By the way I very sure I have never accused you, or Abbott for that matter, of wanting to force mobs off their country although I'm pretty sure Abbott at least talked about not wanting to fund vital health services remotely.

Now quit the vailed threats @info and stick to the topic. "a few words" not sure that's the way to go as a toothless Collingwood supporter and all.

@ Andy Theres a whole host of opinions here that would cause issues with people if you said it to their faces, be it indigenous, be it conservative's, be it people with certain religious beliefs etc

But thats not what we are talking about, we are talking about direct comments aimed at individuals purely with the intention to insult them, demonise them and just try to evoke a negative reaction.

And these people almost always have no interest or intention in discussing the topic on hand, so it's not insults that thrown about in the heat of the argument, but rather just true random trolling

The way they act is basically just a spoilt brat type syndrome and very fascist like i dont agree with you and i dont like what you have to say so instead of actually giving a rebuttal or just ignoring the conversation they need to jump in and give insult's or demonise them.

Its pointless and boring and the fact 60+ year old men are doing this is sad.

Anyway id rather just get back to the topic than talk about these people and their BS

Indo "While i dont like it, it still treats all groups within the constitution equally, you even admitted this when you said

"The Constitution still allows racial discrimination against ATSI people or people of any race."

It's only when its used that it becomes unequal because to use it you must single one group out, but the act itself is not unequal because it can be used on any racial group

Now thats been explained im sure you understand the difference? "

In rebuttal.
Nah, equal opportunity to be discriminated against or have special laws enacted is not equality before the law. If there was equality there would be no provision enabling special laws for any group, there would be no need for special laws, just laws that apply to all groups.
The Voice proposal legislation and the race power both create inequality under the Constitution as a matter of law.
The Voice is seen as desirable because of the unique position of Indigenous Australians since colonisation, the race power is seen as undesirable because it is based on race alone, not indigeneity.

adam12 wrote:

equal opportunity to be discriminated against or have special laws enacted is not equality

Lets see if you can get a trifecta.

GuySmiley wrote:

My memory is slightly off tonight it seems .... Bruce Pascoe's Dark Emu had @info triggered here for weeks perhaps longer!

Not sure how factually reminding you of your own past statements is trolling but each to their own I guess. Perhaps you can enlighten me as to why your past strident statements on indigenous issues is NOT on topic. By the way I very sure I have never accused you, or Abbott for that matter, of wanting to force mobs off their country although I'm pretty sure Abbott at least talked about not wanting to fund vital health services remotely.

Now quit the vailed threats @info and stick to the topic. "a few words" not sure that's the way to go as a toothless Collingwood supporter and all.

"Trolling – (verb), as it relates to internet, is the deliberate act, (by a Troll – noun or adjective), of making random unsolicited comments on various internet forums with the intent to provoke an emotional knee jerk reaction from unsuspecting readers to engage in a fight or argument."

You have no interest in discussing this topic here with me or giving a rebuttal to my comments, you havent even been engaging in the conversation with others, its just the same old same random personal attacks towards me, purely because you dont like my opinion or position.

Dont get me wrong i dont have much interest in hearing your views as i can just read some Crikey article instead, but if you arent going to engage in the conversation, just dont comment, its not that hard, i dont bother with a whole heap of threads.

Yes Dark Emu was a topic of discussion here and yes i called out the main points as fiction, and since then Peter Sutton one of the most respected Anthropologist on all things Indigenous has literally said the same even writing a book debunking the books main points, his co author even said it should be removed from school libraries .

"Dr Walshe told 2GB she was concerned about Dark Emu being in school libraries.

“Yes, I am – I think it shouldn’t have that status,” she said.

“It doesn’t need to be in the school curriculum and in fact it shouldn’t be in the school curriculum, because of the errors and the incorrectness of the entire work. It’s not about a different interpretation (of history), it’s about misuse of the archival sources, the actual primary sources. It’s a matter of looking at those sources and using them in the correct manner with integrity and reliability, and that is not what Dark Emu reflects.”

https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/parenting/school-life/academics-behin…{campaign}&gclid=CjwKCAjwhdWkBhBZEiwA1ibLmN-cPLiZNfc-N5Um3LqbmHaWyzspZPMxEpjF1HDzsR80XL9aolDWERoCVCEQAvD_BwE

"Lets see if you can get a trifecta."
Equality at law means no discrimination, no special laws based on race.
For anyone.
Not a difficult concept to understand.
See if you can get the quaddie.

I dont agree and i doubt experts would, but for argument's sake as we could go back and forth forever, lets just say you are right does that give some reason to create even more un equality in the constitution???

Obviously not, if we really believe the constitution didn't treat people equally we should be talking about fixing it.

If i had a wart on my arse i dont want more, im going to get it burnt off.

Give it a rest.

“ ….. You have no interest in discussing this topic here with me or giving a rebuttal to my comments,…”.

Wrong again @info

Your memory has never been good but recently it has served you very poorly …. on this very topic I “attempted” to explain to you why the Voice was unlike anything that came before it e.g. the funding body ATSIC. But same same as it ever was/is.

Indo "I dont agree and i doubt experts would, but for argument's sake as we could go back and forth forever, lets just say you are right does that give some reason to create even more un equality in the constitution???"

Dunno what "un equality" is, did you mean 'inequality'?
As I said above "The Voice proposal legislation and the race power both create inequality under the Constitution as a matter of law.
The Voice is seen as desirable because of the unique position of Indigenous Australians since colonisation, the race power is seen as undesirable because it is based on race alone, not indigeneity"

So the answer is they both create inequality in the Constitution, whether you agree the Voice is desirable or not. The Yes vote is about creating a special place for recognition and representation in the Constitution for Indigenous Australians, the race power is about making special laws based on race.
Capiche?

blackers wrote:

Give it a rest.

Started at 9:42 this morning and still going... How's the stamina on it.

goofyfoot wrote:

blackers wrote:

Give it a rest.

Started at 9:42 this morning and still going... How's the stamina on it.

Hard to know what to say. There were waves so no excuses there. How was Fiji?

blackers wrote:

goofyfoot wrote:

blackers wrote:

Give it a rest.

Started at 9:42 this morning and still going... How's the stamina on it.

Hard to know what to say. There were waves so no excuses there. How was Fiji?

Don’t want to derail the thread but it was fantastic. Really good family holiday.

GuySmiley wrote:

“ ….. You have no interest in discussing this topic here with me or giving a rebuttal to my comments,…”.

Wrong again @info

Your memory has never been good but recently it has served you very poorly …. on this very topic I “attempted” to explain to you why the Voice was unlike anything that came before it e.g. the funding body ATSIC. But same same as it ever was/is.

Ha ha one post literally months ago

BTW. its kind of irrelevant but i did provide links providing evidence you were wrong and that we already have a history of indigenous advisory bodies on a state level and a federal level, the voice is just a restructuring of things and people like me dont even oppose giving another a go, we oppose it being cemented in the constitution.

Looking back through the last few pages you have two post that are kind of on topic, that everybody ignored and a number of post aimed at attacking me.

Basically stay on topic and play ball and not the man or just don't post at all.

BTW. At Blackers, if your not interested in all this pointless back and forth BS just ignore the thread or post something of substance and sway the conversation in a different direction.

@ Adam.
Whatever dude we could go around in circle's forever, but you are wrong.

Everyone's wrong and this is an echo chamber eh?
Seems you're not making a critical connection Indo.

southernraw wrote:

Everyone's wrong and this is an echo chamber eh?

Seems you're not making a critical connection Indo.

Woke left mind virus ... :)

southernraw wrote:

Everyone's wrong and this is an echo chamber eh?

Seems you're not making a critical connection Indo.

If i wasnt here it would be an echo chamber and you might think things would be great but lets be real it would get boring very quickly.

Although this new poster Michael Jardine has also provided some balance and in my view he is very correct about many things.

Yes in some cases's you can be clearly right or wrong like on say voting rights whee it is not up for dispute and can be proven with hard evidence.

Other times its always going to come down to a difference of opinion that's really hard to prove if one side is correct or not.

And then there are case's where opposing views can both be correct, because they are based purely on a persons experience or area where things can be different.

Indo Dreaming. . You seriously need to check the sources of your information.
I read all your garbage, of which I no longer respond to in a meaningful way , it’s mostly inaccurate, contains so many errors that if you were being assessed in say a scholastic manner, you’d fail the grade for sure and would be coming back to repeat class year after year.

What is your beef with Australian Indigenous people ? Can you simply answer my question please ?

See, I find this difficult to understand, because if you are telling the truth, you’re married to an Indonesian national and not some Anglo, so I’d of thought that you would at least have some kind of cultural understanding or connection to people from neighbouring countries where it’s assumed some type of ancestry may exist. You know the story, you’re not that daft.

I happen to know Bruce Pascoe, your attack on him and his writing is highly offensive. How many books have you ever written or how often are you compelled to write about the plight of people who have had their whole bloody country ripped off them ?

He should never have needed to write Dark Emu, but he did, because he was sick to death of the myths and inaccuracies applied to Aboriginal existence and their cultural ways of life. They were doing very well without us and simply didn’t roam aimlessly ( an Anglo/European preconceived notion) as today’s society thinks they did. They were the best land managers known, let’s call them farmers.

Historical views and thoughts in Australians minds today, sadly come from a past which lacked any substantial understanding or education about the existence of its original inhabitants. I’d say a deliberate ploy by early colonists and resultant governments.

So I say to you Indo. What would you do today if Indonesia was about to have a referendum about having a Voice to parliament or changes to its constitution, would you be proud and back your wife the whole way for a YES vote ?

I’ll leave that up to you to ponder my question.AW.

AlfredWallace: It will be a firm No for me. Indigenous people already catered for in Australia's constitution. It covers ALL people not just some.

We’ll said,solution difficult but improving First Nations outcomes is what we all need. Off topic but how can the wsl continue comps in shit surf?

off topic: wavepools may be wsl's answer to a wsl-created question that should never have needed to be asked.

on topic: insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

(sam: indigeneity is not catered for in the constitution, race is, which is madness. It would be a tolerable anachronism of a colonialist document, if first-Australians were thriving in the society that has been set up on their home.)

Indo says "@ Adam.
Whatever dude we could go around in circle's forever, but you are wrong."

Great response.
"Whatever...but you are wrong"
The difference between us Indo is that I've actually read the Australian Constitution, studied it at law school, been examined on it and passed. Your knowledge of it has been gleaned from Sky News and other right wing news sources pushing an unsophisticated misinformation campaign. I would be prepared to accept another qualified opinion that I was 'wrong' on a my interpretation of these matters but not from you, having read voluminous streams of your thinking expressed in these pages, you simply come across as a low rent wanna be Andrew Bolt, armed with nothing but hubris, racism and ignorance, and an over inflated sense of self importance. "I will not allow these pages to become an echo chamber". GFY.
You didn't know the race power even existed until I pointed it out to you a few weeks ago after you posted some bullshit opinion piece from some equally ignorant author you'd found that repeated the lie that the Voice was inserting race into the Constitution, when it had already been there since 1901, and now you are an expert?
When pressed you simply run away with a "whatever...you're wrong" response. OK, fine, ditto to you "dude".

That's worthy of a standing ovation @Adam12
Well articulated.

OK, can some of you address this? Is this where the Voice vote actually comes from?

"At an event celebrating 100 years of communist activism in Australia, he said “there is nothing that we can do that is more powerful than building a first nations' Voice, a black institution, a black political force to be reckoned with”.

In another speech, he describes the Voice as being a tool to punish politicians.

“The power in the Voice is that it creates the ability for First Nations to come together through representatives that they choose … and then be able to campaign for that and punish politicians that ignore our advice,” Mr Mayo said.

At an Invasion Day rally, he said “we need the power of the constitution behind us so we can organise like we've never organised before”.

“I tell you what, the government said no .. we’re sick of governments not listening to our Voice. We are going to use the rulebook of the nation to force them.” "

https://www.skynews.com.au/insights-and-analysis/albaneses-failure-to-d…

So yes, that's Sky News. And yes, they are organised against a 'Yes' vote. But is this how we will be modifying our Constitution, and will the actions quoted above be a result of it?

It’s another trap.
We know how it goes: Divide and then…
Snap out of it men!

sam_2 wrote:

AlfredWallace: It will be a firm No for me. Indigenous people already catered for in Australia's constitution. It covers ALL people not just some.

Sam-2. . Hi, really, you believe it caters for Aboriginal people , what rubbish, your opinion fine. Indo- Dreaming and yourself will have to live with that shallow mindset.

Wow. What part of “they had it stolen off them, they had it nicked off them “ (Progress, Scream in Blue album, Midnight Oil) do you guys not understand.

This long running discussion is about the ‘Necessity of Reparation for Historic Injustices’.

Don’t you think that the proposed referendum and the possibility of giving a Voice to parliament for all aboriginal people is huge and just one of many steps to repairing the enormous damage that Anglo/European folk has inflicted upon them. We have barely touched on the broad scale massacres that were perpetrated by some of our so called past Great Australians of names like Kennedy, Palmerston, Batman, Gardiner, i could fill a voluminous album. For those who are genuinely interested, make the time to read ‘Blood On The Wattle’, if you are not in tears by chapter two, you’re not human, the macabre, senseless slaughter of innocent people.
I know neither of you would read that book, simply because it would fall outside your own little comfortable bubble of a minute knowledge base, just the way most Australians like it, nothing to see or hear here, forget the past.

How’d you like it if your descendants were persecuted in such a manner ?

Decent Australians will vote YES at the upcoming referendum to give Indigenous people a rightful Voice, because to date, they’ve had nothing really.
Hope you guys can lie straight in your beds. AW

AW asks @info " .... What is your beef with Australian Indigenous people ? .....". Great question I hope you get an answer. It is also a question I've pondered over the years given the certainty in which any argument will land with @info dealing with FNP.

An observation: Of all the people I know in my circle (family, friends, neighbours and work colleagues) the only people that are passionately opposed (on the race/constitution argument) to the Voice are 1st or 2nd generation children or grandchildren of immigrants to Australia. Italians, Greeks, Turks, Arabs etc. Further, while all are highly successful in their chosen careers they all like telling of their humble and impoverished starts or that of their parents or grandparents and how they had to fight Aussie racism in the school yard, at work pretty much everywhere. The inference in their argument is well if we started with nothing and had to deal with racism and we’ve made it why can’t aboriginals do the same.

These mean spirited conversations are always one way as I'm not interested in giving them any oxygen or energy but I wonder if others here have also noticed this or is it just the dodgy people I mix with?

Po-jama people!
Po-jama people, people!
They sure do make you sleepy
With the things they might say
Po-jama people!
Po-jama people, people!
Mother Mary 'n Jozuf, I wish they'd all go away!
.