Australian "The Voice" referendum gets a solid no vote to allow further indigenous representations.

sigma said:
Blah, blah, blah
Click to expand...

Yeah you're not so clever when confronted with some facts are you....
Sankari said:
Australian here. Let's clear a few things up.
Click to expand...
Let's buckle up
Sankari said:
Wrong.

The referendum was about establishing an Indigenous body called the Voice to Parliament, which would make representations on the behalf of all Indigenous people nationwide. This was to be an advisory body—not an executive or legislative body—aiming to cut through the usual red tape and ensure a more streamlined process.
Click to expand...

You don't need to hold a country wide referendum to set up a body to make representations to the goverment on behalf of a group of people!

There are multiple examples of this from trade unions to all sorts of groups based on racial groups and religions etc.....

There's nothing stopping aboriginal people from getting together and organising their own body to make representations, collecticely, on their behalf.

It really is astounding that you think you can gaslight people like this...


Sankari said:
80% of Indigenous Australians supported the Voice. My wife and I also voted in support of it.
Click to expand...

Is there evidence that circa 80% of aboriginals who voted actually did vote 'yes' or are you just regurgitating pre vote 'yes' propoganda?

Because such 'yes' propganda is based on small sample set of polls. And you should know by now that the answers people give to people conducting such polls and how they vote don't always align, especially on emotive/ controversial votes.

Sankari said:
Unfortunately the No campaign had the power of the Murdoch media behind it, along with a tidal wave of money from billionaires and millionaires with industry connections and other special ininteress
Click to expand...

And the yes campaign was led by a bunch of open communists/ Marxists who often let slip about what their real intentions were.

Basically operation "let them speak" was all that was needed to torpedo 'yes'.

Sankari said:
The results of the referendum showed that the Yes vote was strongest in capital cities, while the No vote was strongest in urban and regional areas.

Screenshot-2023-10-15-193854.png


(Source).
Click to expand...

So the places with the fewest aboriginals voted against it and the predominantly white cities voted more for it right.....

Like I guess its possible that pretty much all of the NT Aboriginals voted for the yes vote and everyone else voted "no" but then you have to consider the places like the ACT that have low single digit numbers of people claiming to be aboriginals but yet had the highest amount of "yes" voters.


Sankari said:
There was also strong opposition from Australia's immigrant community. Greater Western Sydney (home to home to 2.5 million Australians, comprising 60% of Australia's total immigrant population, and 35% of whom were born overseas) overwhelmingly voted No.
Click to expand...

Strangely they to were not keen on voting to become second class citizens of the country they had moved to with only one group of people needing a sprecial provision in the constituion...
Sankari said:
I was surprised by the strength of the No vote here in South Australia, which is typically regarded as a progressive state.
Click to expand...

Kind of puts your faith on the 80% claims given above in context doesn't it....


You've been lied and propagandised to and are now you're 'surprised' that reality has given you a smack of truth.
 
Last edited:
Sankari said:
The Voice was not about guaranteeing a position at the front of the queue. It was about giving Indigenous people a single representative body that could take a place in the queue.

Screenshot-2023-10-15-201056.png


Culture and Empowering Communities | NIAA

Strengthening of Indigenous cultural expression and conservation and working with communities to set priorities and greater influence over decisions that affect them.
voice.gov.au voice.gov.au
Click to expand...

repeat after me ...

None of the above requires permission from other groups of people or a change to a countries constituion....


So why did they need a vote?

If its just about 'taking a place in a queue' can you point out the constitutional provisions/ changes that were needed for all the other groups supposedly afforded the same priority in this mythical queue?
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
n111ck said:
Well that Aussie mask has well and truly slipped with this one..

If it was to be an advisory body why did it even need a referendum?
Click to expand...

Indeed it's schrodinger referendum....

On one hand it's not going to change anything to the detriment of other groups...

But on the other hand....

Apparently it's effects would be serious enough that it requires a constitutional change!
 
Last edited:
As an outsider looking in it is difficult to understand the purpose of this referendum given that these groups of people have the right to vote and appear to be recognised as citizens?


Is it because they are not allowed to run for parliament? In which case that does make more sense.
 
Voltar said:
As an outsider looking in it is difficult to understand the purpose of this referendum given that these groups of people have the right to vote and appear to be recognised as citizens?


Is it because they are not allowed to run for parliament? In which case that does make more sense.
Click to expand...

Yes, they can run for parliament, they just need to be voted in like everyone else.

There are and have been lots of indigenous MPs:

en.wikipedia.org

List of Indigenous Australian politicians - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
 
Si. said:
I'm not an expert, but wouldn't the Gypsy, Roma and Irish Traveller group count as the same or similar? I appreciate it not exactly the same, but there are several similarities.

www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk

Gypsy, Roma and Irish Traveller ethnicity summary

www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk
Click to expand...


They have the same rights and are subject to the same laws as anyone else in the UK..

If I was aboriginal I'm not sure I'd appreciate the comparison though lol.. :D
 
Si. said:
So do the Aboriginals.
Click to expand...


Not true aboriginals already have special exceptions to laws that apply to everyone else.

Indigenous Australians may legally undertake traditional hunting practices in Australia. Sections 223(1) and (2) of the Native Title Act of 1993 (Cth) recognise traditional indigenous hunting rights, while Section 211 exempts native title holders from prohibitions on hunting and fishing activities contained in other laws. Further, in Yanner v. Eaton (1999), the High Court of Australia confirmed that traditional hunting and fishing activities are included within the native title rights protected by the Native Title Act of 1993 (Cth). A number of Australian states and territories also protect indigenous hunting rights via legislation. For example, in South Australia, under the National Parks and Wildlife Act of 1972 (SA), Aboriginal people are exempt from holding hunting permits to hunt animals that are later used as food—for the hunters or the hunters’ dependents—or for cultural purposes.
Click to expand...

Such exceptions already cause controversy....

"Hunting from tinnies with rifles is not traditional."

"There are certain ways that animals have to be hunted and then killed and their carcasses distributed through the family network," he said.

Mr Beatty said the RSPCA wanted a review of traditional hunting practices to take place, which Mr Watson said the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community would welcome.
Click to expand...

www.smh.com.au

RSPCA slams indigenous hunting cruelty

Video of mutilation of a 'live' turtle posted on YouTube sparks outrage from RSPCA.
www.smh.com.au www.smh.com.au

 
Chris Wilson said:
Saying that in reply to a post stating the opposition leader Peter Dutton remarking that it's "good for our country" suggests you believe the aborigines have more of a right to claiming Australia as "their country" than do those who have been born there but have not got the same depth of heredity as the aborigines.

I find that surprising from you of all people, as one has to assume you feel the same way about, for example, multi generation English having a greater claim to being English and on England than the children of those more recently arrived and given British nationality.

I suspect it's an opinion commonly held, but less frequently publicly stated.
Click to expand...

They shouldn’t have less of a right to the country should they?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom