Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

The Voice

Jump to new
JohnDe said:
Monday afternoon, ABC Radio National discussed this with an indigenous leader, he was asked why the document was not signed and who the author or authors are. The interviewer was berated for asking, made it sound like some sort of sacrilegious travesty was being committed for asking, and he should know better. I can't find the program on ABC Listen
Click to expand...
Perhaps just to close to the bone and amazingly this programme has "disappeared"
 
orr said:
You wish by any chance, Rumpole, to enlighten us to your critque of the efforts of Prof Peter Yu ? or any knowledge of him? ...didn't think so.

Trawler should be well aquanted with his, PeterYu's, work, being from WA'n all... I wonder what was it like back in the day Trawler voting for a party the had Iron Bar Tucky as rep? do you still feel unclean? I tradgically never had the chance. What do your indigenious mates think about your cuddling up to old Wilson's team?
And Trawler quote the first ten or so words of my post that has your knickers in a twist... go on: And then tell me what percentage of Mrs Price's indigenious constituents she represents on the voice issue; and the next couple ? Our military man here would know the parlance (Or should) it's called 'a shot over the bow' .... And anything you'd like to add about that non-elitist John anderson ... and tell the forum who is it that funds the IPA?? .... give you a hint she's big she's a bad poet and she's from WA..... and she has many pearls to clutch; So just like you Trawler. And her dad liked the idea of chemically castrating probably a few of your indigenious mates.

'Heh Makkarata'
Click to expand...
There you go ranting as usual, with no rhyme or reason and ably supported by your peanut gallery. Lol
What are you going on about Tuckey for? He was as nasty a piece of work as Brian Burke and his offsider Parker.
I notice you didn't refer to Tuckey as a 'honkey', why ? you only save your racist slurrs for aboriginals.
You need to climb back under your rock. Lol
And just to clarify your post about me cuddling up, I didn't vote at all, so it is just another in a long line of your idiotic aspersions.
I see in your post you were driving to Canberra, that figures.
 
Last edited:
sptrawler said:
There you go ranting as usual, with no rhyme or reason and ably supported by your peanut gallery. Lol
What are you going on about Tuckey for? He was as nasty a piece of work as Brian Burke and his offsider Parker.
I notice you didn't refer to Tuckey as a 'honkey', why ? you only save your racist slurrs for aboriginals.
You need to climb back under your rock. Lol
And just to clarify your post about me cuddling up, I didn't vote at all, so it is just another in a long line of your idiotic aspersions.
I see in your post you were driving to Canberra, that figures.
Click to expand...
Good arvo Mr sptrawler there some corresponents posts that I certainly choose not to read, lately there has been few.
 
Tom Calma is travelling with the PM and going to the state dinner in Washington. One of the 'A listers'... Is this like a consolation prize or something? I suppose he's the old age Australian of the Year for 2023, so that must be the ticket.
 
22 October 2023
To the Prime Minister and every Member of the House of Representatives and the Senate of the Commonwealth Parliament
This is an open letter which will be circulated to the Australian public and media.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples have observed a week of silence across Australia since the outcome of the Referendum last Saturday 14 October 2023. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander flags have flown half-mast and we have refrained from media commentary, even as politicians, governments, media commentators and analysts have spent a week exonerating – and indeed, lauding – the nobility of the 60.8 per cent of Australians who voted to reject Constitutional Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people as the First Peoples of Australia.

These are the collective insights and views of a group of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander leaders, community members and organisations who supported Yes:
  1. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are in shock and are grieving the result. We feel acutely the repudiation of our peoples and the rejection of our efforts to pursue reconciliation in good faith. That people who came to our country in only the last 235 years would reject the recognition of this continent’s First Peoples – on our sacred land which we have cared for and nurtured for more than 65,000 years – is so appalling and mean-spirited as to be utterly unbelievable a week following. It will remain unbelievable and appalling for decades to come.
  2. We thank the 5.51 million Australians who voted Yes to recognition. This represents approximately 39.2 per cent of Australian voters on 14 October 2023. At the 2022 Federal Election the Australian Labor Party received support from 32.58 per cent of voters, the Liberal Party 23.89 per cent, the National Party 3.6 per cent and One Nation 4.96 per cent. We thank those Australians who gave Yes more support at this Referendum than they did to any political party.
  3. We acknowledge the resounding Yes vote in discrete and remote Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. The high levels of support for Yes in our communities exposes the No Campaign’s lies, taken up by the media even in the last week of the campaign. The situation of these communities needs to be addressed sooner rather than later.
  4. Australia is our country. We accept that the majority of non-Indigenous voting Australians have rejected recognition in the Australian Constitution. We do not for one moment accept that this country is not ours. Always was. Always will be. It is the legitimacy of the non-Indigenous occupation in this country that requires recognition, not the other way around. Our sovereignty has never been ceded.
  5. The Constitution still belongs to those who the founding fathers originally intended it for and remains unchanged in our exclusion. We were asked to be recognised over a decade ago; we sought to be included in a meaningful way and that has been rejected. In refusing our peoples’ right to be heard on matters that affect us, Australia chose to make itself less liberal and less democratic. Our right to be heard continues to exist both as a democratic imperative for this nation, and as our inherent right to self- determination. The country can deny the former but not the latter. A 'founding document' without recognition of First Peoples of this country continues the process of colonisation. It is clear no reform of the Constitution that includes our peoples will ever succeed. This is the bitter lesson from 14 October.
  6. The support for the referendum collapsed from the moment Liberal and National Party leaders, Mr Dutton and Mr Littleproud, chose to oppose the Voice to Parliament proposal after more than a decade of bipartisan support. The proposal was tracking 60 per cent support compared to 40 per cent opposition for several years until the National and Liberal parties preferred wanton political damage over support for some of this country’s most disadvantaged people. There was little the Yes campaign could do to countervail this.
  7. Lies in political advertising and communication were a primary feature of this campaign. We know that the No campaign was funded and resourced by conservative and international interests who have no stake or genuine interest in the lives of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. We know this funding supported multiple No campaigns that intentionally argued in varying directions to create doubt and fear in both non-Indigenous and Indigenous communities. This included resurrecting scare campaigns seen during the 1990s against land rights, but the scale of deliberate disinformation and misinformation was unprecedented, and it proliferated, unchecked, on social media, repeated in mainstream media and unleashed a tsunami of racism against our people. We know that the mainstream media failed our people, favouring ‘a false sense of balance’ over facts.
  8. There has always been racism against First Nations people in Australia. It increased with multiple daily instances during the campaign and was a powerful driver for the No campaign. But this campaign went beyond just racism. ‘If you don't know - Vote No’ gave expression to ignorance and licensed the abandonment of civic responsibility on the part of many voters who voted No. This shameful victory belongs to the Institute of Public Affairs, the Centre for Independent Studies and mainstream media.
  9. Post-referendum commentaries that exculpate those who voted No were expected as the usual kind of post-election approbation of the electorate. The truth is that the majority of Australians have committed a shameful act whether knowingly or not, and there is nothing positive to be interpreted from it. We needed truth to be told to the Australian people.
  10. We will maintain the vision of the Uluru Statement from the Heart. We will continue to uphold the outcomes of the Uluru Dialogues to which more than 1,200 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people from across the country contributed – culminating in the Uluru Statement signed by 250 people on 26 May 2017. It is evident that many Australians are unaware of our cultures, our histories, or the racism imbued in the Australian Constitution. That so many Australian people believe there is no race or division on race in the current Australian Constitution speaks to the need for better education on Australian history and better civics education. We have faith that the upswelling of support through this Referendum has ignited a fire for many to walk with us on our journey towards justice. Our truths have been silenced for too long.
  11. We want to talk with our people and our supporters about establishing – independent of the Constitution or legislation – an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice to take up the cause of justice for our people. Rejection of constitutional recognition will not deter us from speaking up to governments, parliaments and to the Australian people. We have an agenda for justice in pursuit of our First Nations rights that sorely need a Voice – we will continue to follow our law and our ways, as our Elders and Ancestors have done.
  12. We will regather in due course and develop a plan for our future direction. While this moment will be etched into Australia’s history forever, today we think of our children, and our children’s children. Our work continues as it has always done. We will continue to fight to seek justice for our peoples. We are three per cent of the population, and you are 97 per cent.
Click to expand...

Senator Kerrynne Liddle, the only Indigenous MP from Australia's Liberal Party, stands firm against the anonymous authors of a letter that criticized those who voted 'No' in the Voice referendum. The referendum, which sought to create a new body to give Indigenous Australians a voice in the government, was defeated, leading to an uproar among its supporters. The issue at hand is more than just a debate over a rejected referendum. It's a clash of perspectives, a manifestation of the deep-seated divisions within Australia's political landscape regarding Indigenous representation.​
​

The Controversial Voice​

Named in an unpublished draft of the letter as a 'front person' for right-wing think tanks, Liddle has been a long-standing critic of the Voice. Her opposition, however, raises complex questions about the role of Indigenous representation within the political sphere. As an Indigenous MP opposing a measure that supposedly aimed to empower Indigenous people, Liddle's stance highlights the intricacies of Indigenous politics. It also underlines the influence of external entities, such as think tanks, on individual political views.​
​

Democracy, Responsibility, and Reflection​

Liddle's critique of the anonymous authors extends beyond their anonymity. She calls for them to accept the democratic outcome of the referendum, underlining the importance of respecting the voice of the majority. By doing so, she raises larger questions about democracy, responsibility, and the need for reflection. Her call to 'consider their own actions' is not just directed at the authors of the letter, but at every stakeholder in the democratic process. It's a reminder that the outcomes of democracy are collective responsibilities, shaped by every vote cast, every voice heard, and every action taken.​
​
As Australia continues to grapple with the complexities of Indigenous representation and rights, the fallout from the Voice referendum serves as a stark reminder of the deep-seated divisions and challenges that persist. The true resolution to these issues may not lie in a single referendum or policy, but in a comprehensive, nuanced understanding and respect for the diverse perspectives at play.​

MSN

www.msn.com
 

Jacinta Nampijinpa Price Defends ‘No’ Voters Against ‘Borderline Racist’ Label​

The referendum rejecting the Voice to Parliament proposal has been a contentious issue in Australian politics, with the recent open letter anonymously labeling those who voted 'No' as borderline racists. Jacinta Nampijinpa Price, the prominent Indigenous Australian activist and politician, has fiercely criticized the letter, arguing that it misrepresents the true sentiments of many Indigenous Australians and Australians at large.​

A Divisive Letter​

The open letter, shared by former Labor senator Nova Peris and activist Allira Davis, claimed that rejecting the Voice in the referendum was a shameful act. Price, who is of both Aboriginal and Anglo Celtic heritage, took issue with the anonymous authors' assertion, labelling it a cynical attempt to keep race in the national conversation without taking responsibility for their words.​

Price's Counterpoint​

Price argues that the referendum was not a rejection of recognition or the significance of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander culture, but rather a rejection of the Voice body itself. She sees the result as an affirmation of every Australian's equal right to be heard, not a rejection of the right of anyone to be heard. Her criticism also extends to the anonymity of the letter's authors, asserting that if they truly believed in its content, they should have put their names to it.​
​
Price's response highlights the complexity of the debate surrounding the Voice to Parliament movement. There is a clear division and heated rhetoric from both sides, and the referendum result has sparked further discussions about Indigenous recognition and reconciliation in Australia. It's a reminder that issues of Indigenous recognition and representation need to be approached with open and respectful dialogue, considering the diverse perspectives inherent in a country as multicultural as Australia.​
​

MSN

www.msn.com
 
JohnDe said:
Price argues that the referendum was not a rejection of recognition or the significance of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander culture, but rather a rejection of the Voice body itself. She sees the result as an affirmation of every Australian's equal right to be heard, not a rejection of the right of anyone to be heard.
Click to expand...
EXACTLY!

This is what the Yes camp refuse to acknowledge, thus preventing any progress. This makes me deeply suspicious of an underlying agenda.
 
JohnDe said:
Senator Kerrynne Liddle, the only Indigenous MP from Australia's Liberal Party, stands firm against the anonymous authors of a letter that criticized those who voted 'No' in the Voice referendum. The referendum, which sought to create a new body to give Indigenous Australians a voice in the government, was defeated, leading to an uproar among its supporters. The issue at hand is more than just a debate over a rejected referendum. It's a clash of perspectives, a manifestation of the deep-seated divisions within Australia's political landscape regarding Indigenous representation.​
​

The Controversial Voice​

Named in an unpublished draft of the letter as a 'front person' for right-wing think tanks, Liddle has been a long-standing critic of the Voice. Her opposition, however, raises complex questions about the role of Indigenous representation within the political sphere. As an Indigenous MP opposing a measure that supposedly aimed to empower Indigenous people, Liddle's stance highlights the intricacies of Indigenous politics. It also underlines the influence of external entities, such as think tanks, on individual political views.​
​

Democracy, Responsibility, and Reflection​

Liddle's critique of the anonymous authors extends beyond their anonymity. She calls for them to accept the democratic outcome of the referendum, underlining the importance of respecting the voice of the majority. By doing so, she raises larger questions about democracy, responsibility, and the need for reflection. Her call to 'consider their own actions' is not just directed at the authors of the letter, but at every stakeholder in the democratic process. It's a reminder that the outcomes of democracy are collective responsibilities, shaped by every vote cast, every voice heard, and every action taken.​
​
As Australia continues to grapple with the complexities of Indigenous representation and rights, the fallout from the Voice referendum serves as a stark reminder of the deep-seated divisions and challenges that persist. The true resolution to these issues may not lie in a single referendum or policy, but in a comprehensive, nuanced understanding and respect for the diverse perspectives at play.​

MSN

www.msn.com
Click to expand...

The authors must have been those that were the actual architects of the Voice. Carma, Langton, Mayo(r), Reid, Pearson, etc. Why were they so gutless to not put their name to this letter of gievance?
 
Sean K said:
The authors must have been those that were the actual architects of the Voice. Carma, Langton, Mayo(r), Reid, Pearson, etc. Why were they so gutless to not put their name to this letter of gievance?
Click to expand...

Can't imagine why or maybe to avoid the below perhaps!

"Who is the blonde thing walking around with him? Is she from the ghetto too?"
 
On October 14, Australians sent a clear and unmistakeable message: we won’t be divided by race.​
​
It’s a lesson the Yes campaigners and so-called Indigenous leaders have yet to learn. Despite a six-state and 60 per cent majority result, they continue to push guilt and grievance politics, playing the victim and doing everything they can to twist this result into an attack on Indigenous Australians.​
​
In a cowardly, anonymous open letter to parliamentarians, they have tried to make this referendum result about rejection.​
​
This letter is a pathetic, cynical attempt to keep race in the national conversation and to keep Australians divided. They know that this wasn’t simply about recognition, and no one was trying to silence the voices of Indigenous people.​
​

The message Australians sent is clear: we won’t be divided by race

As they do, political experts, campaigners, party officials, commentators and the like will be analysing the referendum results for months to come.

They’ll pore over every detail looking for trends. They’ll send out surveys, online polls and hold focus groups to understand how the voice failed.

But I think the reason it failed is obvious.

On October 14, Australians sent a clear and unmistakeable message: we won’t be divided by race.

It’s a lesson the Yes campaigners and so-called Indigenous leaders have yet to learn. Despite a six-state and 60 per cent majority result, they continue to push guilt and grievance politics, playing the victim and doing everything they can to twist this result into an attack on Indigenous Australians.

In a cowardly, anonymous open letter to parliamentarians, they have tried to make this referendum result about rejection.

“Rejection of constitutional recognition will not deter us from speaking up to governments, parliaments and to the Australian people.”

This letter is a pathetic, cynical attempt to keep race in the national conversation and to keep Australians divided. They know that this wasn’t simply about recognition, and no one was trying to silence the voices of Indigenous people.

But their letter highlights a failure of understanding, the same failure of understanding that plagued the Yes campaign for the past six months.

October 14 was not a rejection of recognition, it was not a rejection of reconciliation and it was not a rejection of the significance of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander culture in our nation’s history.

The referendum was not a rejection of anyone’s right to be heard.

This referendum was not a rejection at all.

It was an affirmation of every Australian’s equal right to be heard, of every Australian’s equal right to have a say – of every Australian’s equal right to a voice.

This is something the voice advocates never understood, and from the beginning the road to the referendum was one of exclusivity.

The Referendum Council’s final report – the report Anthony Albanese failed to read – describes how delegates were chosen for the initial Uluru Dialogues. It was a process of selection and invitation, where local host organisations invited 100 delegates to one of 13 First Nations Regional Dialogues.

“Delegates were selected according to the following split: 60 per cent of places for First Nations/traditional owner groups, 20 per cent for community organisations and 20 per cent for key individuals.”

It was from this pool that the 250 signatories to the Uluru statement came.

The referendum clearly showed that the 250 signatories do not represent the views of all Indigenous Australians. What should be even clearer to anyone is that it has always been paternalistic and wrong for anyone to claim they have the ability or the authority to speak on behalf of all Australians of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander descent.

But that hasn’t stopped them from claiming they do.

In their open letter they write: “Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are in shock and are grieving the result. We feel acutely the repudiation of our peoples and the rejection of our efforts to pursue reconciliation in good faith.”

Far from a message of unity, this letter is a clear example of the division and disharmony the voice would have delivered and is a continuation of the lies peddled by the Yes campaign across the past 12 months.

Not all Indigenous Australians are “in shock and grieving” because a constitutionally enshrined body that gave an extra say to just one group of people based on nothing more than racial heritage was democratically voted down.

We do not all feel “acutely the repudiation of our peoples” because many of us – about 40 per cent according to polling the week before the vote – voted No ourselves.

The letter goes on: “That people who came to our country in only the last 235 years would reject the recognition of this continent’s First Peoples – on our sacred land which we have cared for and nurtured for more than 65,000 years – is so appalling and mean-spirited as to be utterly unbelievable a week following. It will remain unbelievable and appalling for decades to come.”

The “us and them” language continues; the division instigated by the Prime Minister last year continues.

The results on October 14 signal that Australians want our country to turn a corner, to leave all of that behind and unite as one Australia.

There can be no denying that the prevalence of race has increased in our national discourse. No one can deny the increase is heated rhetoric, name-calling and unfounded accusations of racism. The authors of this letter go so far as to claim there is “racism imbued in the Australian Constitution”.

If we want to move forward, we must acknowledge that the people who need our help most in this country are not all Indigenous Australians, just as not all Indigenous Australians are in need of our help.

There are, of course, some Indigenous Australians who genuinely need our help, but our focus must be on need, not race.

In the areas where some Indigenous communities need help, our solutions need to be targeted in a way that reflects that.

That’s why my colleagues and I have called for a thorough audit of the structures that exist, to see where problems exist, to see what is working and what isn’t, and take action to implement real change where it’s needed.

It’s why the Coalition is calling for a royal commission into Indigenous child sexual abuse, so we can provide a targeted solution.

This year – this campaign – has been the most divisive period in recent Australian history. Now, we must put it behind us.

We need to come together to focus on need, to look for those who need help – no matter their background – and work together to help them.

Because whether they are of Indigenous heritage or otherwise, whether they were born here or are a new citizen, this country belongs to all Australians.

And our government needs to work for all Australians.

Jacinta Nampijinpa Price is a CLP senator for the NT and the opposition Indigenous Australians spokeswoman.
Click to expand...
 
JohnDe said:
On October 14, Australians sent a clear and unmistakeable message: we won’t be divided by race.​
​
It’s a lesson the Yes campaigners and so-called Indigenous leaders have yet to learn. Despite a six-state and 60 per cent majority result, they continue to push guilt and grievance politics, playing the victim and doing everything they can to twist this result into an attack on Indigenous Australians.​
​
In a cowardly, anonymous open letter to parliamentarians, they have tried to make this referendum result about rejection.​
​
This letter is a pathetic, cynical attempt to keep race in the national conversation and to keep Australians divided. They know that this wasn’t simply about recognition, and no one was trying to silence the voices of Indigenous people.​
​
Click to expand...

We can only assume Calma Langton authored the letter. It's beyond me why 250 activists were happy to sign the Uluru Statement 'from the heart', but no one put a mark on this letter. Weak. One of the most divisive issues ever to be put to the Australian people. Let's hope we move on quickly and deal with the real issues. Like getting the funding to the people who actually need it and not just to the fat cats wearing fedoras and Paspaley.
 
Sean K said:
We can only assume Calma Langton authored the letter. It's beyond me why 250 activists were happy to sign the Uluru Statement 'from the heart', but no one put a mark on this letter. Weak. One of the most divisive issues ever to be put to the Australian people. Let's hope we move on quickly and deal with the real issues. Like getting the funding to the people who actually need it and not just to the fat cats wearing fedoras and Paspaley.
Click to expand...
The Uluru statement signatories were mainly faked (remember the video in Uluru where the old guys speak out), many indiginous groups never agreed with a voice panel, they wanted sovereignty and a treaty, the elites told them that they couldn't have it without a voice panel. I posted a link to the indigestions group that spoke out about the voice a few pages back, and if you have a look at some of those NITV videos on the net they had groups that also spoke out about it at the Uluru convention.
 
TimeISmoney said:
The Uluru statement signatories were mainly faked (remember the video in Uluru where the old guys speak out), many indiginous groups never agreed with a voice panel, they wanted sovereignty and a treaty, the elites told them that they couldn't have it without a voice panel. I posted a link to the indigestions group that spoke out about the voice a few pages back, and if you have a look at some of those NITV videos on the net they had groups that also spoke out about it at the Uluru convention.
Click to expand...

Very appropriate ! :roflmao:
 
Alice Springs battens down for crime wave.

www.abc.net.au

'We can't have another summer like we did': Calls for more action to address Alice Springs crime

Alice Springs leaders are calling for the outback town to be properly resourced ahead of the summer, when crime traditionally surges in the region.
www.abc.net.au www.abc.net.au

From an indigenous elder regarding parents,

"
Alice Springs town councillor and Alyawarre man, Michael Liddle, said parents of young offenders also needed to be held to account.

"Why aren't there consequences for the parent?" he said

"Why are these people allowed to have welfare when they get paid to look after children, and then are totally neglectful in that?"
 

Similar threads

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