Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

The Voice

Jump to new
There is a difference between tokenism and symbolism and this referendum really should be about symbolism.

I think many want too much from it. It's the Constitution, actual fixes should be left to legislation.
 
Knobby22 said:
There is a difference between tokenism and symbolism and this referendum really should be about symbolism.

I think many want too much from it. It's the Constitution, actual fixes should be left to legislation.
Click to expand...
So why has legislation so utterly failed so far to provide an answer to these questions?

How will any sort of constitutional change, change these legislative failings (apart from once again, enriching the elites)?

Additionally, any legislation will reflect the ideology of the incumbents and me be changed by the same legislation as any such ideology shifts.

To my mind any constitutional change should be immune from the vagaries of legislative changes of the government of the day. This is actually the point of a constitution.

As the proposal stands, depending on the government of the day, this voice may have absolutely zero influence or may have undue influence.

Any apartheid rights given to Aboriginal people by, say the current government, may be removed by some future government.

This is the folly of any open-ended constitutional change, it becomes a claytons amendment still subject to the statutory shenanigans of the day.

Worst still, it could be subject to regulatory, rather than statutory ideological imperatives.

Therefore, as it stands it is an absolutely hard no from me
 
wayneL said:
To my mind any constitutional change should be immune from the vagaries of legislative changes of the government of the day. This is actually the point of a constitution.
Click to expand...

Additional to that, a Constitution should be about individual rights (the rights we all share), not group rights, and it gets really messy when people can self identify as belonging to a particular group without having to prove that claim.

We already have some people wanting migrants being acknowledged in the Constitution, I mean, where will it end ? :rolleyes:
 
Knobby22 said:
There is a difference between tokenism and symbolism and this referendum really should be about symbolism.

I think many want too much from it. It's the Constitution, actual fixes should be left to legislation.
Click to expand...

I think most don't understand the need for symbolism as a starting point or base and yet it dominates our world around us.

Example is the Australian flag a relic from the days of empire we certainly do need one to live or survive and yet its flown and worshiped relentlessly.
 
IFocus said:
I think most don't understand the need for symbolism as a starting point or base and yet it dominates our world around us.

Example is the Australian flag a relic from the days of empire we certainly do need one to live or survive and yet its flown and worshiped relentlessly.
Click to expand...
Yes indeed another relic from British colonisation, is a first world sewage, drinking water system and welfare system etc, which we wouldn't have if we were colonised as was Indonesia, Philippines etc. ?

But hey let's just focus on the negativity, ala what Abbott was always chastised for.?
 
IFocus said:
I think most don't understand the need for symbolism as a starting point or base and yet it dominates our world around us.

Example is the Australian flag a relic from the days of empire we certainly do need one to live or survive and yet its flown and worshiped relentlessly.
Click to expand...

Ok, so lets change the flag to something that doesn't represent any humans but is uniquely Australian, like a kangaroo or even just an outline of the country. Instantly recognisable and shouldn't be offensive to anyone.

If the Canadians can get away with a maple leaf I don't see why we can't do something similar.
 
mullokintyre said:
I wonder how many people know just how many Indigenous bodies already exist.
Lets take the NiAA - or the National Indigenous Australians Agency.
From their NIAA website

Note how many white folk are on the gravy train, and if you look at the top of the tree where all the big money is made, its almost exclusively white.

View attachment 152519

Why on earth can this group not do exactly what "the voice" is supposed to do.
Its got a "presence" throughout OZ, they are "in touch" with all the communities, and tick all the correct boxes.
Mick
Click to expand...

And you can rest assured there are many, many more businesses doing much the same thing for the Aboriginal people.

I fully support helping them to become engaged in modern society but as has been demonstrated, some do not want to do that.

In both white fella laws and black fella laws women and children are meant to be protected
BY their menfolk, not FROM their menfolk

Authorities need to get together with Elders, define what are acceptable standards of behaviour and then jointly enforce those laws.

It must be local and cannot be done by Another board in a city somewhere, so the Voice will make absolutely no difference to those who are currently suffering
 
SirRumpole said:
Ok, so lets change the flag to something that doesn't represent any humans but is uniquely Australian, like a kangaroo or even just an outline of the country. Instantly recognisable and shouldn't be offensive to anyone.

If the Canadians can get away with a maple leaf I don't see why we can't do something similar.
Click to expand...

Yep. A big kangaroo is so blindingly obvious I don’t understand why it’s even an argument, imo. Its just the colours that would be a more significant issue. I would vote red kangaroo with blue top for sky or ocean and white base for some sort of peace symbol. Still red, white and blue. But, the Lefties will want something Aboriginal in there, so throw in a black boomerang perhaps. And, surround it in rainbow colours.
 
Hmm the point about symbolism (i.e recognition having a voice) may have been missed.
 
IFocus said:
Hmm the point about symbolism (i.e recognition having a voice) may have been missed.
Click to expand...
Due to your example! ?

From Monty Python.

Chairman: Item six on the agenda, the Meaning of Life. Now Harry, you’ve had some thoughts on this.
Harry: That’s right, yeah. I’ve had a team working on this over the past few weeks, and what we’ve come up with can be reduced to two fundamental concepts. One, people are not wearing enough hats. Two, matter is energy. In the Universe there are many energy fields which we cannot normally perceive. Some energies have a spiritual source which act upon a person’s soul. However, this soul does not exist ab initio as orthodox Christianity teaches; it has to be brought into existence by a process of guided self-observation. However, this is rarely achieved owing to man’s unique ability to be distracted from spiritual matters by everyday trivia.
[Pause.]
Max: What was that about hats again?
 
SirRumpole said:
I think that we could recognise that indigenous people were here before the rest of us, but giving some people more access to Parliament than others could be divisory.
Click to expand...

Cannot honestly see how given the voice holds no power, indigenous issues are in Australia quite unique and given that its been done else where in the world with little problem I wonder what really drives peoples objections.

I don't see the Voice as a panacea to all their problems but hopefully a 1st step.
 
IFocus said:
Cannot honestly see how given the voice holds no power, indigenous issues are in Australia quite unique and given that its been done else where in the world with little problem I wonder what really drives peoples objections.

I don't see the Voice as a panacea to all their problems but hopefully a 1st step.
Click to expand...
Not a problem Ifocus, we will just add it to the long list of things you don't see.
Mick
 
IFocus said:
Cannot honestly see how given the voice holds no power, indigenous issues are in Australia quite unique and given that its been done else where in the world with little problem I wonder what really drives peoples objections.

I don't see the Voice as a panacea to all their problems but hopefully a 1st step.
Click to expand...

I just don't think The Voice is a proper use of the Constitution which should be about individual rights not group rights.

Parliament can get the views of anyone by inviting submissions from interested parties before enacting legislation and anyone can express their views through their local MP or form a lobby group as many other interested parties do.
 
SirRumpole said:
I just don't think The Voice is a proper use of the Constitution which should be about individual rights not group rights.

Parliament can get the views of anyone by inviting submissions from interested parties before enacting legislation and anyone can express their views through their local MP or form a lobby group as many other interested parties do.
Click to expand...

Come on Rump you mean like the last 200 years to get to where we are now?
 

Similar threads

R
The American use of War Pretext Incidents
Replies
6
Views
9K
sptrawler
sptrawler
Top