1 hour ago, Trippy said:

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

 

Does that sum it up? 

They already have a voice. The have the vote same as White/Asian/Black citizens have the vote. There are aboriginal MP's in Parliament.

 

Your race card appears ineffective on this one.

14 minutes ago, MrMojoRisin said:

What a conundrum for the dimwitted racists - having to argue that racism is bad to further their racist agenda.

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.

19 minutes ago, cranki said:

This about sums it up HERE

Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in the Australian Constitution

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are not mentioned in the Constitution.

The Constitution still allows racial discrimination – not just against Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples but against anyone.

 

• Why does Australia need to recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in the Constitution?
• When have the discriminatory provisions in the Constitution been used?
• What is the relationship between constitutional reform and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples?

The only way we can change the Constitution is if a majority of voters in a majority of states vote YES at a referendum.

A referendum is a vote by Australians over the age of 18, just like voting in an election. Instead of voting on politicians as we do in an election, in a referendum we vote on a specific change to the Constitution.

In a 1967 referendum, over 90% of Australian voters agreed to change our Constitution to give the federal parliament the power to make laws in relation to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and to allow for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to be included in the census. But this referendum did not recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as first peoples.

The Benefits of change

Recognising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in the preamble of the Constitution and ensuring the Constitution does not discriminate against anyone will not give any Australians more rights than others. In fact, these changes will build stronger relationships of trust and mutual respect between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and other Australians.

4 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

They already have a voice. The have the vote same as White/Asian/Black citizens have the vote. There are aboriginal MP's in Parliament.

 

Your race card appears ineffective on this one.

Ok, I didn't know. I'm not from that big island, I just figured the way Aussie's stick their noses into American politics, I could stick my nose into yours.

All I have to go by is the white only ten pound poms. 

So if they already have a vote, what's this all about?

7 minutes ago, Trippy said:

Ok, I didn't know. I'm not from that big island, I just figured the way Aussie's stick their noses into American politics, I could stick my nose into yours.

All I have to go by is the white only ten pound poms. 

So if they already have a vote, what's this all about?

Fixing the world's worst health and education outcomes.

4 minutes ago, Trippy said:

Ok, I didn't know. I'm not from that big island, I just figured the way Aussie's stick their noses into American politics, I could stick my nose into yours.

All I have to go by is the white only ten pound poms. 

So if they already have a vote, what's this all about?

I'm English. A Pom.

 

What's it all about? Very good question. It's about identity politics raising it's ugly head to sow the seeds of division, as it always does. Giving "a voice" to certain racial minorities (but not to other racial minorities for some reason). Putting race into the Australian constitution. It's a racist policy. Even those on the forum who support it are too ashamed to admit they support it. Why? Because it's clearly racist.

16 hours ago, ozimoron said:

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

What have they been doing - bu&&er-all, and what will change  (looking unlikely)  if the constitution is changed - S F A. 

7 minutes ago, Artisi said:

What have they been doing - bu&&er-all, and what will change  (looking unlikely)  if the constitution is changed - S F A. 

So don't bother trying to then? A consultative committee bound to fail so off to the pub instead?

1 hour ago, Trippy said:

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

 

Does that sum it up? 

No, as there has already been indigenous people elected to parliament and anyone can put their hand and run for a seat, nothing stopping them. 

So no, it doesn't sum it up. 

 

3 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

So don't bother trying to then? A consultative committee bound to fail so off to the pub instead?

Good question, why are they trying - any suggestions? 

1 minute ago, Artisi said:

Good question, why are they trying - any suggestions? 

To try and fix the world's worst health and education outcomes.

17 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

To try and fix the world's worst health and education outcomes.

Can be fixed without a constitution change. 

1 hour ago, Artisi said:

What have they been doing - bu&&er-all, and what will change  (looking unlikely)  if the constitution is changed - S F A. 

What do you lose if the constitution is changed to recognise indigenous Australians?

2 minutes ago, MrMojoRisin said:

What do you lose if the constitution is changed to recognise indigenous Australians?

What is gained is more the question? 

They are already recognised, to which the majority voted for in the last constitution change. 

Edited September 7, 20232 yr by Artisi

1 hour 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.

Everyone should not be treated equally, and in fact aren’t.

 

Only self loathing failures full of bitterness begrudge efforts to improve the circumstances of societies most disadvantaged.

The stupidity of the deplorables on the right never ceases to amaze me - just how easily fooled these dupes are.

Thanks to these morons we’ve had 30 years of trickle down economics that has succeeded only in concentrating wealth in the hands of the few and all but destroying the middle class.

 

Directing you’re anger downwards will achieve nothing other than perpetuating the status quo.

 

 

14 minutes ago, Artisi said:

What is gained is more the question? 

A Voice to Parliament is consistent with international human rights standards, and would provide for better human rights protections by promoting equality and self-determination for First Nations people.
 

Your turn.

What do you lose?

15 minutes ago, MrMojoRisin said:

A Voice to Parliament is consistent with international human rights standards, and would provide for better human rights protections by promoting equality and self-determination for First Nations people.
 

Your turn.

What do you lose?

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. 

6 minutes ago, Artisi said:

…but a constitution change will no remedy that,  that can easily be changed with an overhaul of policy and education. 

Why haven’t these things happened?

 

No one is surprised that you dodged the question.

 

I’ll try again.

 

What do you lose?

What harm is done?

 

 

8 minutes ago, MrMojoRisin said:

Why haven’t these things happened?

 

No one is surprised that you dodged the question.

 

I’ll try again.

 

What do you lose?

What harm is done?

 

 

You lose the hundreds of millions of dollars that the scheme will cost. Yet another trough for grifters to stick their collective snouts into.

 

The harm is elevating one racial group above the others.

2 hours ago, JonnyF said:

They already have a voice. The have the vote same as White/Asian/Black citizens have the vote. There are aboriginal MP's in Parliament.

 

Your race card appears ineffective on this one.

PLUS they already have numerous voices to parliament through all the Aboriginal quangos throughout Oz. Australia gives billions of dollars annually to these quangos for the betterment of first nations people. The problem is in most cases the money NEVER reaches first nations people living in rural/remote communities of Australia. The ONLY Aboriginals, or those claiming to have some degree of aboriginal blood in them, campaigning for the YES vote mostly live in the large metropolitan cities. Almost every rural/remote aboriginal community says to vote NO. Any aussie that has lived in a rural area where aboriginals form a decent part of that community, which I did from age 8 - 15, will know exactly how these people live their lives and how little assistance they actually receive from the govt funding to the quangos. If I was still living in Oz I would definitely be voting NO, as it is a divisive issue, especially as the govt keeps refusing to give full disclosure on what it actually involves.

16 minutes ago, MrMojoRisin said:

Why haven’t these things happened?

 

No one is surprised that you dodged the question.

 

I’ll try again.

 

What do you lose?

What harm is done?

 

 

Why haven't these things changed, maybe you can enlighten everyone on that point, however it's ok if you want to dodge it but please let us know a change to the constitution will fix it.

I expect you will also dodge that.

Your turn. 

Edited September 7, 20232 yr by Artisi

11 minutes ago, MrMojoRisin said:

Why haven’t these things happened?

 

No one is surprised that you dodged the question.

 

I’ll try again.

 

What do you lose?

What harm is done?

 

 

first thing, are you an aussie. If not then keep your opinions to yourself as they are irrelevant. Artisi is right. They already have numerous voices to parliament and a constitutional change will not solve anything. As for education and policy change, this changes every time there is a change in govt, so it does get done but piss poor administration f's it all up. Far too many aboriginal quangos in place & those running the quangos (all aboriginal by the way) are NOT using the govt funding as it is intended.

3 minutes ago, TigerandDog said:

first thing, are you an aussie. If not then keep your opinions to yourself as they are irrelevant. Artisi is right. They already have numerous voices to parliament and a constitutional change will not solve anything. As for education and policy change, this changes every time there is a change in govt, so it does get done but piss poor administration f's it all up. Far too many aboriginal quangos in place & those running the quangos (all aboriginal by the way) are NOT using the govt funding as it is intended.

Same in Canada. Billions spent on native issues but too much sticks to the wrong people, like wet leaves. In many cases it is native people screwing over other natives. Plus consultants and lawyers too numerous to count.

7 minutes ago, TigerandDog said:

PLUS they already have numerous voices to parliament through all the Aboriginal quangos throughout Oz. Australia gives billions of dollars annually to these quangos for the betterment of first nations people. The problem is in most cases the money NEVER reaches first nations people living in rural/remote communities of Australia. The ONLY Aboriginals, or those claiming to have some degree of aboriginal blood in them, campaigning for the YES vote mostly live in the large metropolitan cities. Almost every rural/remote aboriginal community says to vote NO. Any aussie that has lived in a rural area where aboriginals form a decent part of that community, which I did from age 8 - 15, will know exactly how these people live their lives and how little assistance they actually receive from the govt funding to the quangos. If I was still living in Oz I would definitely be voting NO, as it is a divisive issue, especially as the govt keeps refusing to give full disclosure on what it actually involves.

The government can't give a finite answer simply because they don't know what the outcome will be. 

It's guess work and crystal ball gazing. 

32 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

You lose the hundreds of millions of dollars that the scheme will cost. Yet another trough for grifters to stick their collective snouts into.

 

The harm is elevating one racial group above the others.

How does that compare with the $800 million lost on the French Submarine deal?

or

 

How does that compare with the $12 billion fossil fuel subsidies we annually pay to our largest corporations (which are all at least partially if not majority foreign owned)?

 

The Voice offers the possibility of significantly improving the lives of hundreds of thousands of Australians - money well spent in my book.

 

You think the least advantaged group is going to leapfrog “above others”.

 

I bet you’re one of those people who voted against marriage equality because “next up, people will be marrying animals”

 

How sad.

Edited September 7, 20232 yr by MrMojoRisin

51 minutes ago, MrMojoRisin said:

Everyone should not be treated equally, and in fact aren’t.

 

Only self loathing failures full of bitterness begrudge efforts to improve the circumstances of societies most disadvantaged.

The stupidity of the deplorables on the right never ceases to amaze me - just how easily fooled these dupes are.

Thanks to these morons we’ve had 30 years of trickle down economics that has succeeded only in concentrating wealth in the hands of the few and all but destroying the middle class.

 

Directing you’re anger downwards will achieve nothing other than perpetuating the status quo.

 

 

A very weak attempt to justify support for racist policies. Childlike in fact. ????.

 

Instead of making puerile assumptions about someone you have never met, why not show a bit of maturity and intelligence and try to justify your support for these racist policies? 

 

By the way, more than half of all Australians share my view so you must have an incredibly low opinion of the Australian population.

 

https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/world/2023/09/more-than-half-of-australians-oppose-indigenous-voice-to-parliament-referendum-poll-shows.html

 

 

 

5 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

Same in Canada. Billions spent on native issues but too much sticks to the wrong people, like wet leaves. In many cases it is native people screwing over other natives. Plus consultants and lawyers too numerous to count.

Perfect example of what’s wrong with the world - peanuts punching down whilst getting bent over from those above and being too stupid to see the reality of the situation.

 

7 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

A very weak attempt to justify support for racist policies. Childlike in fact. ????.

 

Instead of making puerile assumptions about someone you have never met, why not show a bit of maturity and intelligence and try to justify your support for these racist policies? 

 

By the way, more than half of all Australians share my view so you must have an incredibly low opinion of the Australian population.

 

https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/world/2023/09/more-than-half-of-australians-oppose-indigenous-voice-to-parliament-referendum-poll-shows.html

 

 

 

You obviously have no understanding of the history of referendums in Australia.

No referendum has ever passed without bipartisan support.

 

The majority of Australians wanted to become a republic in 1999 - yet the Liberals fear mongering was able to shoot that vote down. 
 

Why is Dutton promising another referendum on this matter if this one is defeated?

 

4 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, there are 11 politicians elected to the Australian Parliament today who identify as indigenous so they already have a Voice.

 

No need for a race based 'Voice' to be enshrined in the Australian Constitution as Albo is pushing for on the 14 October 2023

 

The way the polls are tracking this referendum will fail as most of the past referendums have

3 hours ago, MrMojoRisin said:

What a conundrum for the dimwitted racists - having to argue that racism is bad to further their racist agenda.

How predictable ????.

 

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