Voice referendum: Lies fuel racism ahead of Australia's Indigenous vote

[MrMojoRisin]

17 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

How predictable ????.

 

Although according to the absolute legend Sowell, I probably shouldn't be too concerned ????.

 

You think everyone plays by the same rules and is judged by the same rules?

????????????

 

I remember back in the early 2000’s in Darwin the NT News compared two criminal cases on the front page:

1. A white woman was convicted of stealing several hundred thousand from her employer

2. An aboriginal man was convicted of stealing a packet of biscuits from the corner store

 

Guess who went to jail for 12 months and who got the good behaviour bond?

Edited September 7, 2023 by MrMojoRisin

[MrMojoRisin]

3 hours ago, JonnyF said:

The only dimwitted racists are the ones arguing that race should form part of the Australian constitution.

 

The ones arguing that everyone should be treating equally irrespective of race (as I am arguing) are the non-racists.

 

It's really not complicated. Try harder.

Do you think that the young and the old should be treated the same?

Do you think the rich and the poor should be treated the same?

Do you think that the industrious and the lazy should be treated the same?

Do you think that the able bodied and disabled should be treated the same?

Do you think that straight people and homosexuals should be treated the same?

Do you think the religious and the non religious should be treated the same?

 

Your crocodile tears about “race in the constitution” are fooling no one.

 

[isaanistical]

3 hours ago, MrMojoRisin said:

Vague, made up bullsh!te appears to be all the No voters have in their arsenal.

"Vague" is precisely what the referendum proposal is. And that is why I will vote 'no'. Weeks out from the vote itself I am totally fed up with the propaganda that 'everyone voting no is a racist'.

I want some progress for the [insert you own term for first nations - the ones I know in our local are happy with 'blackfella' but that's not PC enough]. This "Voice" gives no promise of progress, only more consultation about grievances. It's kicking the issue into the long grass, amplified by Albanese's threat not to visit the issue again for a generation if the vote goes against him (and his instant rent-a-rant when Dutton said he would do it again).

He has already shot himself in the foot by allowing the vote to be politicised, with each side getting massive funding. A referendum is not for win or lose, it's to establish what the voters think on an issue.

I lived in South Africa through the times of the TRC - truth and reconciliation commission so wonderfully led by Des Tutu. Not saying it's appropriate for Oz, but at least it was something that helped. This Voice will do nothing whatever for the people it is intended for, only display a hypocritical self-satisfaction for some whites* if it's a 'yes'.

 

* not much has been said about the millions of Australian citizens of, eg Vietnamese, Indian, Greek, Italian origin, for whom this must be a puzzle. After all, this First Nations stuff has nothing to do with them. How should they vote?

 

[Artisi]

20 minutes ago, MrMojoRisin said:

You think everyone plays by the same rules and is judged by the same rules?

????????????

 

I remember back in the early 2000’s in Darwin the NT News compared two criminal cases on the front page:

1. A white woman was convicted of stealing several hundred thousand from her employer

2. An aboriginal man was convicted of stealing a packet of biscuits from the corner store

 

Guess who went to jail for 12 months and who got the good behaviour bond?

And will a change to the constitution fix that - NO! 

[ozimoron]

1 hour ago, Artisi said:

The first nations people are already protected along with equality by the same constitution and rights as non first nation people in Australia. As for self determination, what does that entail, different laws, rules and regulations outside the current constitution? 

I accept that the first nation peoples have it and probably do it tough but a constitution change will no remedy that,  that can easily be changed with an overhaul of policy and education. 

Then why is a constitutional body being mooted. You know better than the experts who have recommended it? You make it seem like nothing has ever been tried.

[MrMojoRisin]

9 minutes ago, Artisi said:

And will a change to the constitution fix that - NO! 

There is more chance that it will fix things than doing nothing will, and if it doesn’t - then we’ve eliminated one option that doesn’t work and thus are better placed on our next attempt.

 

The bitterness of the right is a self defeating sickness. I can’t help but think of the MAGA hat wearing numpties in the US constantly voting against healthcare for themselves and then going bankrupt the minute they get sick.

 

Idiocy.

 

 

 

 

Edited September 7, 2023 by MrMojoRisin

[Artisi]

15 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Then why is a constitutional body being mooted. You know better than the experts who have recommended it? You make it seem like nothing has ever been tried.

Some experts have recommended it,  some haven't plus it's the Australian people who make the final recommendation with their vote. 

[malt25]

5 hours ago, Trippy said:

So, the indigenous people want a voice in govt, but the white overlords are refusing.

 

Does that sum it up? 

No, not at all. The first nation people have many voices. Many advisory committees. Billions, that's with a "B", spent on numerous projects annually. The current system is broken. Dividing the Aussie population to inflate a prime minister's ego will solve absolutely nothing. Why won't the PM stop all the grand standing and divulge the actual contents of the referendum ? If, and that's an enormous IF, the Voice gets up, the country will face years of legal challenges. Guess who'll foot that bill ? An issue, I'm surprised no one has raised so far. I understand if the Voice is successful it will- could result in the demant for  compensation by way of a % of GDP. Considering the current BILLIONS spent annually on first nation people, is the Aussie tax payer expected to support 2 snouts in the trough ? The current BILLIONS plus a % of GDP ? I bet the Honourable Albo would just love to answer that question... NOT !  The current and past governments have been putting band-aids on this indigenous issue for decades. Too many committees & too much administration. A large proportion of the BILLIONS flushed down the toilet. Changing the constitution & dividing the country will only make the situation much worse.   Does that sum it up? 

[ozimoron]

14 minutes ago, Artisi said:

Some experts have recommended it,  some haven't plus it's the Australian people who make the final recommendation with their vote. 

which experts recommended against it?

[ozimoron]

1 minute ago, malt25 said:

No, not at all. The first nation people have many voices. Many advisory committees. Billions, that's with a "B", spent on numerous projects annually. The current system is broken. Dividing the Aussie population to inflate a prime minister's ego will solve absolutely nothing. Why won't the PM stop all the grand standing and divulge the actual contents of the referendum ? If, and that's an enormous IF, the Voice gets up, the country will face years of legal challenges. Guess who'll foot that bill ? An issue, I'm surprised no one has raised so far. I understand if the Voice is successful it will- could result in the demant for  compensation by way of a % of GDP. Considering the current BILLIONS spent annually on first nation people, is the Aussie tax payer expected to support 2 snouts in the trough ? The current BILLIONS plus a % of GDP ? I bet the Honourable Albo would just love to answer that question... NOT !  The current and past governments have been putting band-aids on this indigenous issue for decades. Too many committees & too much administration. A large proportion of the BILLIONS flushed down the toilet. Changing the constitution & dividing the country will only make the situation much worse.   Does that sum it up? 

No. The country is already badly divided. The proposed changes are intended to address. that. Bottom line. No metric by which you can measure Aboriginal people's life in Australia could be worse than it is now. Not doing something won't move the needle away from the world's worst health and education outcomes. And I didn't even mention the pernicious racism. What's been tried before could not fail any harder.

[MrMojoRisin]

1 minute ago, malt25 said:

No, not at all. The first nation people have many voices. Many advisory committees. Billions, that's with a "B", spent on numerous projects annually. The current system is broken. Dividing the Aussie population to inflate a prime minister's ego will solve absolutely nothing. Why won't the PM stop all the grand standing and divulge the actual contents of the referendum ? If, and that's an enormous IF, the Voice gets up, the country will face years of legal challenges. Guess who'll foot that bill ? An issue, I'm surprised no one has raised so far. I understand if the Voice is successful it will- could result in the demant for  compensation by way of a % of GDP. Considering the current BILLIONS spent annually on first nation people, is the Aussie tax payer expected to support 2 snouts in the trough ? The current BILLIONS plus a % of GDP ? I bet the Honourable Albo would just love to answer that question... NOT !  The current and past governments have been putting band-aids on this indigenous issue for decades. Too many committees & too much administration. A large proportion of the BILLIONS flushed down the toilet. Changing the constitution & dividing the country will only make the situation much worse.   Does that sum it up? 

No.

The litany of lies and conspiracy nonsense only sums up how factually weak the No campaign is.

Unfortunately it is much easier to smash  something than it is to create something so it appears, to our shame, that the referendum will fail.

[Artisi]

12 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

which experts recommended against it?

Which experts recommended it? 

[ozimoron]

1 minute ago, Artisi said:

Which experts recommended it? 

Apparently some did other wise we wouldn't be having a referendum. I'm not sure any recommended against it. I'd say you're blowing smoke up somewhere you shouldn't.

[Trippy]

14 minutes ago, malt25 said:

No, not at all. The first nation people have many voices. Many advisory committees. Billions, that's with a "B", spent on numerous projects annually. The current system is broken. Dividing the Aussie population to inflate a prime minister's ego will solve absolutely nothing. Why won't the PM stop all the grand standing and divulge the actual contents of the referendum ? If, and that's an enormous IF, the Voice gets up, the country will face years of legal challenges. Guess who'll foot that bill ? An issue, I'm surprised no one has raised so far. I understand if the Voice is successful it will- could result in the demant for  compensation by way of a % of GDP. Considering the current BILLIONS spent annually on first nation people, is the Aussie tax payer expected to support 2 snouts in the trough ? The current BILLIONS plus a % of GDP ? I bet the Honourable Albo would just love to answer that question... NOT !  The current and past governments have been putting band-aids on this indigenous issue for decades. Too many committees & too much administration. A large proportion of the BILLIONS flushed down the toilet. Changing the constitution & dividing the country will only make the situation much worse.   Does that sum it up? 

It might sum it up by your point of view, but now I'm really confused.

You said the current system is broken, so how would you fix it?

[Artisi]

1 minute ago, ozimoron said:

Apparently some did other wise we wouldn't be having a referendum. I'm not sure any recommended against it. I'd say you're blowing smoke up somewhere you shouldn't.

Somewhat like your experts ????

[metisdead]

Some posts in violation of our Community Standards have been removed.

[isaanistical]

5 hours ago, ozimoron said:

which experts recommended against it?

how about Lidia Thorpe, a first-nations federal senator with whose views I otherwise disagree?

 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-20/lidia-thorpe-will-back-no-campaign-against-indigenous-voice-/102500592

 

Or Warren Mundine AO, also inconveniently (for you) blackfella:

 

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/indigenous/opponents-to-an-indigenous-voice-to-parliament-concede-their-campaign-is-low-key/news-story/472199474b5ca36a36922166e69a2dd2

[ozimoron]

9 minutes ago, isaanistical said:

how about Lidia Thorpe, a first-nations federal senator with whose views I otherwise disagree?

 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-20/lidia-thorpe-will-back-no-campaign-against-indigenous-voice-/102500592

 

Or Warren Mundine AO, also inconveniently (for you) blackfella:

 

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/indigenous/opponents-to-an-indigenous-voice-to-parliament-concede-their-campaign-is-low-key/news-story/472199474b5ca36a36922166e69a2dd2

I don't care if they are black, white or brindle. Get off your racist horse.

[isaanistical]

12 hours ago, ozimoron said:

I don't care if they are black, white or brindle. Get off your racist horse.

Just underlines what I have said and you failed to understand: if I vote no I am branded as a racist. You need to get out more, or eat fresh fruit or something.

[still kicking]

On 9/6/2023 at 7:54 PM, ozimoron said:

That's been tried for decades. What do you think they have been doing?

It badly failed in Chile 

[MrMojoRisin]

15 hours ago, isaanistical said:

how about Lidia Thorpe, a first-nations federal senator with whose views I otherwise disagree?

 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-20/lidia-thorpe-will-back-no-campaign-against-indigenous-voice-/102500592

 

Or Warren Mundine AO, also inconveniently (for you) blackfella:

 

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/indigenous/opponents-to-an-indigenous-voice-to-parliament-concede-their-campaign-is-low-key/news-story/472199474b5ca36a36922166e69a2dd2

Both are exceptions (that prove the rule).

[ozimoron]

2 hours ago, isaanistical said:

Just underlines what I have said and you failed to understand: if I vote no I am branded as a racist. You need to get out more, or eat fresh fruit or something.

Well, there's no good reason to vote no. Prematurely claiming it won't work doesn't cut it as a reason at all. A previous attempt, not in the constitution, got axed by the more conservative govt oz has had since the war. This will prevent that.

[JonnyF]

23 hours ago, MrMojoRisin said:

Do you think that the young and the old should be treated the same?

Do you think the rich and the poor should be treated the same?

Do you think that the industrious and the lazy should be treated the same?

Do you think that the able bodied and disabled should be treated the same?

Do you think that straight people and homosexuals should be treated the same?

Do you think the religious and the non religious should be treated the same?

 

Your crocodile tears about “race in the constitution” are fooling no one.

 

A bit off topic, but since you asked...

 

Young and old? yes, the same.

Rich and poor? yes, the same.

Industrious and lazy? no, I'd give preferential treatment to industrious.

able bodied and disabled? no, I'd give preferential treatment to disabled where required, assuming the disability is real.

straight and gay? yes, the same

religious and non-religious? yes, the same.

 

Your racist calls for people to be treated differently and excluded from various groups based on their race is fooling nobody. It's strange how "progressives" always seem to want to move us back to the days of racial inequality.

 

[JonnyF]

23 hours ago, MrMojoRisin said:

There is more chance that it will fix things than doing nothing will, and if it doesn’t - then we’ve eliminated one option that doesn’t work and thus are better placed on our next attempt.

 

The bitterness of the right is a self defeating sickness. I can’t help but think of the MAGA hat wearing numpties in the US constantly voting against healthcare for themselves and then going bankrupt the minute they get sick.

 

Idiocy.

 

 

 

 

You think the solution to racism is more racism?

 

You're clearly a smart fellow... ????

[MrMojoRisin]

5 hours ago, JonnyF said:

A bit off topic, but since you asked...

 

Young and old? yes, the same.

Rich and poor? yes, the same.

Industrious and lazy? no, I'd give preferential treatment to industrious.

able bodied and disabled? no, I'd give preferential treatment to disabled where required, assuming the disability is real.

straight and gay? yes, the same

religious and non-religious? yes, the same.

 

Your racist calls for people to be treated differently and excluded from various groups based on their race is fooling nobody. It's strange how "progressives" always seem to want to move us back to the days of racial inequality.

 

Why do we allow the young to be paid less than minimum wage?

 

Why do we allow the rich to avoid tax to the point that they pay less than the poor?

 

Why do we allow religious institutions to discriminate against homosexuals in their hiring practices?

Why are you willing to offer a helping hand to one disadvantaged group - the disabled but not another group - aborigines?

 

 

 

[MrMojoRisin]

6 hours ago, JonnyF said:

You think the solution to racism is more racism?

 

You're clearly a smart fellow... ????

How pathetic one has to be to believe that efforts to help societies most disadvantaged and vulnerable group shouldn’t be undertaken because one’s feelings might be hurt.

[farmerjo]

Coming from rural Australia i would vote No as to much of an unknown for agriculture,fishing and mining.

 

But i do see merit of a Yes vote if the voice was contained to just over seeing the 100 plus agencies already established.

 

The cynic in me says it is a hidden agenda to de colonize and change from a King to an Uncle.

 

[ozimoron]

1 minute ago, farmerjo said:

Coming from rural Australia i would vote No as to much of an unknown for agriculture,fishing and mining.

 

But i do see merit of a Yes vote if the voice was contained to just over seeing the 100 plus agencies already established.

 

The cynic in me says it is a hidden agenda to de colonize and change from a King to an Uncle.

 

I hope so.

[Yme]

The referendum should have been two questions IMO. Greasy Albanese decided to go all or nothing. I suspect it will be nothing and set the cause for First Nation people back at least a decade. 

If passed it would see the establishment of a government funded "advisory" group. A government funded advisory group can rapidly become a government funded anti-government lobby group if it doesn't get what it wants and the government would be obliged to continue funding it, even if it was white anting the government of the day.

 

Meanwhile the ridiculous number of outstanding native title claims in NSW alone shows that this referendum is ill conceived similar to the reparations movement in the USA. This is about massive redistribution of wealth and assets and continuing the trend globally to destroy the middle class.  
 

[Chomper Higgot]

12 minutes ago, Yme said:

The referendum should have been two questions IMO. Greasy Albanese decided to go all or nothing. I suspect it will be nothing and set the cause for First Nation people back at least a decade. 

If passed it would see the establishment of a government funded "advisory" group. A government funded advisory group can rapidly become a government funded anti-government lobby group if it doesn't get what it wants and the government would be obliged to continue funding it, even if it was white anting the government of the day.

 

Meanwhile the ridiculous number of outstanding native title claims in NSW alone shows that this referendum is ill conceived similar to the reparations movement in the USA. This is about massive redistribution of wealth and assets and continuing the trend globally to destroy the middle class.  
 

Don’t get distracted.

It’s the corporations destroying the middle class.

If they can keep you busy with culture wars all the better for them.