Do you think people should accept being lied to?
Last edited:
Australian "The Voice" referendum gets a solid no vote to allow further indigenous representations.
- Thread starter Chris Wilson
- Start date
If they've fallen for it, yes. That's kind of the point of lies isn't it?
You then have to learn from it, not get all stroppy, that doesn't change a damn thing. Only way to stop the power of lies is to learn to spot them, call them out in a manner that doesn't alienate the other side and entice people to you're point of view.
That's kind of my point.
It's the 'othering' of people that vote a different way to what ever way you've decided to vote. The most constructive discussions I've had post 2016 has been with people that haven't done this and have taken it upon themselves to understand why people felt certain ways and were sympathetic to the culture of lies* and how that may influence people. Ha, good luck having those conversations online where "everyone that didn't vote this way is an idiot" mentality reigns supreme.
*I'd call them misrepresentations or distortions of issues with some vague connection with reality.
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Jun 2005
- Posts
- 3,277
- Location
- The South
When you were a wee lad in the early 1900's
Edit - Seems 'racist' was added to the dictionary 1919 to be exact ('racism' was 1903) - https://www.theatlantic.com/culture...s-way-into-dictionary-merriam-webster/615334/
Last edited:
I saw an exhibition about this Swedish Eugenics chaps
It was hosted in a local military museum, very interesting very "disturbing" Can definitely understand why the term racism and racist was born around that time period.
It was hosted in a local military museum, very interesting very "disturbing" Can definitely understand why the term racism and racist was born around that time period.
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 10,695
- Location
- Shropshire
When you were a wee lad in the early 1900's
Edit - Seems 'racist' was added to the dictionary 1919 to be exact ('racism' was 1903) - https://www.theatlantic.com/culture...s-way-into-dictionary-merriam-webster/615334/
Thanks, and appreciated. Although when the adjective was added interests me.
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 10,695
- Location
- Shropshire
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 10,695
- Location
- Shropshire
Speaking generally. The seemingly sad thing about modern youth is they see very few shades of grey. Whether that's because they have little concept of being told they are abjectly wrong or mistaken, with discipline to back it up, whether at home, at school, or even at university, (safe spaces...), accepting defeat or other opinions magnanimously seems to have gone out of the window, but I am absolutely certain the older generation are more nuanced and less likely to "go off on one", cry foul or just cry if their opinion or vote is thwarted.
We'll find out when Labour get in I guess.
We'll find out when Labour get in I guess.
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 10,695
- Location
- Shropshire
A genius
I would have thought SC and graduates would have loved such a regime, imagine how Brexit, the vote for Trump, "The Voice" and all the other votes perpetuated by the ignorant blah blah might otherwise have transpired? Getting `em to cough up the readies is another matter of course...
Eradicate the thick, pure genius indeed?
Last edited:
Whilst this would be an utter disaster, albeit short lived, for the country my post count on here will rocket lol...
Again those differing laws relate to the nations themselves and *not* ethnic groups that either reside in those countries or elsewhere in the UK very much unlike what the 'Voice' would do,
Which is granted by the Irish Republic not the UK. The UK parliament doesn't treat people differently in this regard
What does 'giving them a voice' actually mean? Its just buzzwords trying to convince people that a bad idea is a good one. They already have a dedicated department in government
And if my Australian born relatives can't join such an organisation then it is very much about 'race'.
None of this makes sense.
Why does an 'advisory' body need a constitutional amendment?
Why would the Voice be able to achieve that orgs like the NIAA and the numerous activist groups not be able to achieve?
Why can't they be clear about what influence of power the Voice would have had, who would comprise of, how they would be appointed, how they could be removed if necessary?
Its hilarious that you think these 'lies' are coming from only one side.
Deliberate omissions of facts, that should be provided, are also lies and the Voice referendum has been full of those and some very dodgy and obviously conflicting statements made about its purpose and the scope and power of what was being proposed.
Here's a list of objections raised by Nyunggai-Warren-Mundine for example
1. The Voice doesn’t mention race
No race of people is mentioned in Australia’s constitution. Not since 1967 when references to the “aboriginal race” and “aboriginal natives” were removed. “Aboriginal” is a racial description of Australia’s first peoples. We aren’t one homogenous group but many nations; each differentiated by common descent, history, culture, language and country. Bundjalung is my nation. Aboriginal is my race. If Kenny believes race is an outdated concept, he shouldn’t advocate for an “Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice”. That Voice not only mentions race, but is defined by race.
2. The Voice will only have influence if it has good ideas
Kenny says the Voice’s effectiveness will depend on the quality of its ideas; governments will “easily ignore” any wild recommendations. Wishful thinking. Consultation rights are powerful because actions can be delayed due to the processes followed and/or information considered, regardless of merit. Santos had to stop exploratory gas drilling when the Federal Court said it hadn’t consulted properly with Tiwi Islands traditional owners. Whether drilling was a bad idea was irrelevant. The more dismissive the government is of the Voice, the better grounds for dragging the government to court for not giving its ideas proper weight. That’s why Professor Greg Craven said it “absolutely guarantees judicial intervention”.
3. When the Uluru Statement says “Makaratta” it doesn’t mean “treaty”.
Makarrata has been synonymous with “treaty” since 1979 when adopted by the National Aboriginal Conference for its treaty demands. Don’t take my word for it; the Uluru Statement website says “Makarrata is another word for Treaty”. The website also sets out the “Our Story” narrative from the 26 pages Kenny claims is a “confection”.
The Uluru Statement says “Makarrata is the culmination of our agenda” and “We seek a Makarrata Commission to supervise a process of agreement-making between governments and First Nations and truth-telling about our history.” The government has committed to implement the Uluru Statement in full and has even appointed an Ambassador for First Nations People to “engage regional partners on the Voice, Treaty, Truth process”.
I support agreements between governments and traditional owners regarding traditional owner rights. They’ve been entering into them for 30 years under native title laws. But I absolutely oppose creating some centralised Commission to supervise them or to be some arbiter of truth.
4. The main change in 1967 was allowing the federal government to make special laws for Indigenous people
Australia’s constitution empowers the Commonwealth to legislate with respect to any race of people. Outdated maybe. But not the same as singling out one racial group. The states can also legislate with respect to any race of people. That’s not written down because state powers don’t have to be. Commonwealth powers do. And on those matters the Commonwealth laws override.
Before 1967, the states used their race powers to impose racial segregation on Aboriginal people. But the Commonwealth’s race power excluded the “aboriginal race”. The 1967 Referendum removed that exclusion.
The main change in 1967 was the Commonwealth gaining power to override state segregation laws and Aboriginal people attaining the same rights as other Australians.
5. A constitutional right to advise government is inclusive, just a fair go.
Indigenous people already advise governments through many voices. Hundreds of Indigenous organisations can offer their views and are directly involved in writing laws, policies and programs. The inclusivity and fair go Kenny supports already exists. But being able to make special laws for Indigenous people doesn’t justify a constitutional Indigenous Voice. The Commonwealth can also make special laws on foreign citizens, foreign corporations, Pacific Islands relations, maternity allowances and unemployment, among others. Groups affected by those laws don’t have a constitutional voice.
6. The Voice will be a grassroots, representative body
Governments appoint many advisory boards, with members selected on expertise and experience. To advise; not represent. The Indigenous Advisory Council I chaired was never claimed to be a representative body. Nor the hand-picked Voice Co-Design Senior Advisory Group chaired by Marcia Langton and Tom Calma, of which Kenny was a member. The Co-Design Group rejected the Voice having elected members, worried about low voter turnout. It proposed members be chosen by a consensus of the huge number of disparate Indigenous organisations in each state and territory and a vast bureaucracy interfacing at all levels of government via arbitrary regions bearing no resemblance to first nations. That won’t allow grassroots communities to be heard, but cause chaos, confusion and conflict. And since the proposed constitutional chapter on the Voice has no details on composition or structure, it could well end up being a few chosen individuals.
7. The Voice is meaningful recognition
The only recognition proposed in the Referendum is to recognise and entrench Aboriginal people as a race of people. Kenny describes an alternative of symbolic recognition as “a modern version of trinkets and beads”. Yet he describes the Voice is a “toothless body” so presumably beads would be more useful. The Voice isn’t about recognition. It’s about entrenching government dependency, bureaucratic institutions and community organisations through a centralised, top down, segregated model wrapped in a veneer of “recognition”.
8. The Voice aims to redress imbalance for our most downtrodden cohort
I don’t oppose special measures to help people out of hard times. Not to entrench them there. Are Aboriginal people destined to be downtrodden forever? If the Voice will redress imbalance, it should be temporary until balance is achieved. If it won’t, it’s not the answer. That’s reason enough not to constitutionally enshrine it.
9. The Voice will promote agency and shared responsibility for outcomes
Responsibility and agency go hand in hand with economic participation: getting educated, having a job, running a business, owning a home. Entrenched government dependence, whether administered centrally or by Aboriginal organisations, doesn’t promote responsibility or agency. Nor does wrapping up one bureaucracy with another black one. Bureaucracy is the enemy of outcomes.
10. The No campaign has no persuasive arguments other than fear
It’s not fear, but principle, that underpins opposition to a race-based body enshrined in the constitution. It’s not fear, but care and loyalty for country, that drives Aboriginal opposition to a national body speaking for other peoples’ traditional lands. It’s not fear, but common sense, to know that the official Yes pamphlet is lying when it paints the Voice as a magical wand to solve all problems facing Aboriginal people. That’s the greatest distortion of them all.
No race of people is mentioned in Australia’s constitution. Not since 1967 when references to the “aboriginal race” and “aboriginal natives” were removed. “Aboriginal” is a racial description of Australia’s first peoples. We aren’t one homogenous group but many nations; each differentiated by common descent, history, culture, language and country. Bundjalung is my nation. Aboriginal is my race. If Kenny believes race is an outdated concept, he shouldn’t advocate for an “Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice”. That Voice not only mentions race, but is defined by race.
2. The Voice will only have influence if it has good ideas
Kenny says the Voice’s effectiveness will depend on the quality of its ideas; governments will “easily ignore” any wild recommendations. Wishful thinking. Consultation rights are powerful because actions can be delayed due to the processes followed and/or information considered, regardless of merit. Santos had to stop exploratory gas drilling when the Federal Court said it hadn’t consulted properly with Tiwi Islands traditional owners. Whether drilling was a bad idea was irrelevant. The more dismissive the government is of the Voice, the better grounds for dragging the government to court for not giving its ideas proper weight. That’s why Professor Greg Craven said it “absolutely guarantees judicial intervention”.
3. When the Uluru Statement says “Makaratta” it doesn’t mean “treaty”.
Makarrata has been synonymous with “treaty” since 1979 when adopted by the National Aboriginal Conference for its treaty demands. Don’t take my word for it; the Uluru Statement website says “Makarrata is another word for Treaty”. The website also sets out the “Our Story” narrative from the 26 pages Kenny claims is a “confection”.
The Uluru Statement says “Makarrata is the culmination of our agenda” and “We seek a Makarrata Commission to supervise a process of agreement-making between governments and First Nations and truth-telling about our history.” The government has committed to implement the Uluru Statement in full and has even appointed an Ambassador for First Nations People to “engage regional partners on the Voice, Treaty, Truth process”.
I support agreements between governments and traditional owners regarding traditional owner rights. They’ve been entering into them for 30 years under native title laws. But I absolutely oppose creating some centralised Commission to supervise them or to be some arbiter of truth.
4. The main change in 1967 was allowing the federal government to make special laws for Indigenous people
Australia’s constitution empowers the Commonwealth to legislate with respect to any race of people. Outdated maybe. But not the same as singling out one racial group. The states can also legislate with respect to any race of people. That’s not written down because state powers don’t have to be. Commonwealth powers do. And on those matters the Commonwealth laws override.
Before 1967, the states used their race powers to impose racial segregation on Aboriginal people. But the Commonwealth’s race power excluded the “aboriginal race”. The 1967 Referendum removed that exclusion.
The main change in 1967 was the Commonwealth gaining power to override state segregation laws and Aboriginal people attaining the same rights as other Australians.
5. A constitutional right to advise government is inclusive, just a fair go.
Indigenous people already advise governments through many voices. Hundreds of Indigenous organisations can offer their views and are directly involved in writing laws, policies and programs. The inclusivity and fair go Kenny supports already exists. But being able to make special laws for Indigenous people doesn’t justify a constitutional Indigenous Voice. The Commonwealth can also make special laws on foreign citizens, foreign corporations, Pacific Islands relations, maternity allowances and unemployment, among others. Groups affected by those laws don’t have a constitutional voice.
6. The Voice will be a grassroots, representative body
Governments appoint many advisory boards, with members selected on expertise and experience. To advise; not represent. The Indigenous Advisory Council I chaired was never claimed to be a representative body. Nor the hand-picked Voice Co-Design Senior Advisory Group chaired by Marcia Langton and Tom Calma, of which Kenny was a member. The Co-Design Group rejected the Voice having elected members, worried about low voter turnout. It proposed members be chosen by a consensus of the huge number of disparate Indigenous organisations in each state and territory and a vast bureaucracy interfacing at all levels of government via arbitrary regions bearing no resemblance to first nations. That won’t allow grassroots communities to be heard, but cause chaos, confusion and conflict. And since the proposed constitutional chapter on the Voice has no details on composition or structure, it could well end up being a few chosen individuals.
7. The Voice is meaningful recognition
The only recognition proposed in the Referendum is to recognise and entrench Aboriginal people as a race of people. Kenny describes an alternative of symbolic recognition as “a modern version of trinkets and beads”. Yet he describes the Voice is a “toothless body” so presumably beads would be more useful. The Voice isn’t about recognition. It’s about entrenching government dependency, bureaucratic institutions and community organisations through a centralised, top down, segregated model wrapped in a veneer of “recognition”.
8. The Voice aims to redress imbalance for our most downtrodden cohort
I don’t oppose special measures to help people out of hard times. Not to entrench them there. Are Aboriginal people destined to be downtrodden forever? If the Voice will redress imbalance, it should be temporary until balance is achieved. If it won’t, it’s not the answer. That’s reason enough not to constitutionally enshrine it.
9. The Voice will promote agency and shared responsibility for outcomes
Responsibility and agency go hand in hand with economic participation: getting educated, having a job, running a business, owning a home. Entrenched government dependence, whether administered centrally or by Aboriginal organisations, doesn’t promote responsibility or agency. Nor does wrapping up one bureaucracy with another black one. Bureaucracy is the enemy of outcomes.
10. The No campaign has no persuasive arguments other than fear
It’s not fear, but principle, that underpins opposition to a race-based body enshrined in the constitution. It’s not fear, but care and loyalty for country, that drives Aboriginal opposition to a national body speaking for other peoples’ traditional lands. It’s not fear, but common sense, to know that the official Yes pamphlet is lying when it paints the Voice as a magical wand to solve all problems facing Aboriginal people. That’s the greatest distortion of them all.
Last edited:
That's something you just made up. You're quite dishonest person aren't you? Despicable.
Last edited:
I'm claiming that you make things up.
Last edited:
Claiming you're lying.
Nobody believes anything any more. Truth, it seems, is optional.
you seem strangely unable to answer a straight forward question which isn't normally a good indicator of truthfulness in and of itself.
I offered you the chance to correct me if I was mistaken so what was it?
So you would agree lies came from both sides?
Or are you claiming there were none (from the 'Yes' camp)?
I have no desire to engage further with you. You make certain posters on here look like nice people, which is some achievement.
C2k was lying, where did I say only one side lies? The irony of your truth statement is that your mate Trump (assuming you're a trumper) literally created a social media platform called Truth, isn't that ironic?
I don't think your protestations are all that great.
You responded to a poster who was talking about the trend where one side in these debates is characterised as being undesirable or 'lesser' than the other side by saying
So you were not at all a clear that you were saying both sides in this case had told lies because you were reposting to a poster who was talking about the trend where one side is depicted as being uniquely worse than the other!
You could have simply corrected me if that wasn't your intention in that post by clarifying that you meant neither side should have told lies.
But then filterering this thread by your user name shows what a low value added content bait poster you are from your previous 'contributions' to this thread.....
Last edited: