The Voice

[SirRumpole]

In this context it relates to operational powers

Where is that specified ?

 

[rederob]

Goes both ways, I can say the same for you. Though your foolishness follow with aggression and anger.

The very act of saying something does not make it true.
You need to show how Sheridan's comments are aligned with reality.
I have shown them to be baseless, and outright lies.
You seem to have a problem doing that and keep using logical fallacies to back your point of view.
As for your idea that I am angry, you could not be further from the truth. I consider liars to be dangerous when they have so much airplay, and then are held up in social media by folk like you to be credible.
Then you add "aggression" to your kit of put downs. Yet all I am doing is regularly pointing out where the no case falls down, mostly through disinformation and sheer ignorance. We have @SirRumpole for example claiming the Voice to be some form bureaucracy and creating concerns out of thin air. "No" voters are looking at every avenue to justify their stance, but refuse to concede there needs to be a change because of centuries of policy failure. It's akin to keeping ATSI people down and kicking them again if they dare to try to get up.

 

[rederob]

Where is that specified ?

OMG!
How about you work out if a body can do anything at all if it has no capacity to act, because it is not given any authority to act.
Do you understand "context"?

I worked for numerous agents of government for 20 years and was granted powers to act by departments that awarded contracts that prescribed the work I was able to perform under their aegis. You appear to be confusing the power to act to carry out a function to do a job with the power of a function that requires others to act in accordance with that functional power, ie., give legally binding directions to others.

 

[SirRumpole]

Do you understand "context"?

When dealing with a major matter like modifying the Constitution everything has to be spelled out so that there is no confusion and people don't have to make assumptions.

You have made your assumption about what "power" means, to suit your viewpoint, others can make other assumptions.

Unless the Solicitor General's report is released in full and deals with the detail then I don't believe it's safe to vote yes.

 

[JohnDe]

If you are talking about Jacinta clearly she hates blackfellas and makes it very clear, go fugue, no representation there.

Wow that’s a big statement, can’t get traction on the issue, so throw some mud.

 

[rederob]

When dealing with a major matter like modifying the Constitution everything has to be spelled out so that there is no confusion and people don't have to make assumptions.

You actually need to apply some common sense as well.
No powers to act beyond being able to do their job are being conferred on the Voice. In fact, if the Voice were to have "powers" that allowed it to make lawful demands on others then it would breach existing lawful powers given to other arms of government, and invalidate its Constitutional role.

You have made your assumption about what "power" means, to suit your viewpoint, others can make other assumptions.

No. "Powers" have a context. I have the power to go out and buy something I want. I don't need permissions. I have the power to prevent trespass, as the laws of the land grant that to property owners. I don't have the power to perform an arrest.
You are simply unable to differentiate basic concepts.

Unless the Solicitor General's report is released in full and deals with the detail then I don't believe it's safe to vote yes.

I get that it is your position.
It again reflects on your poor understanding of most things on this topic.
The Solicitor General provides "advice." He does not rule on points of law.
Wording may change to give greater clarity to those who have concerns about what might be challenged. However, the chosen wording has been endorsed by various law councils who see it being adequate.
The Solicitor General's advice has been made available and the reports I have read from those who have seen it suggest it does not offer any weight to a "no" vote.

 

[SirRumpole]

The Solicitor General's advice has been made available and the reports I have read from those who have seen it suggest it does not offer any weight to a "no" vote.

Then why is it being kept secret from the people who have to vote on the question ?

 

[rederob]

It's a distraction.
The Solicitor General's views also went to Cabinet, and that has always entailed a non-release policy.
It went to the Working Group to allay concerns, and this Group has been bound to confidentiality.

Maybe we could wait until the King has seen his advice as well, and nobody vote "yes" until he says it's ok.

 

[wayneL]

Wow that’s a big statement, can’t get traction on the issue, so throw some mud.

It was idiotic in fact, totally outrageous and divisive.

This person's opinion should be completely disregarded as it is clearly not coming from a good place.

 

[SirRumpole]

also went to Cabinet, and that has always entailed a non-release policy.

No it hasn't.

The SG's views on the Morrison multiple ministries were released and that was only for a Parliamentary debate.

Your argument is very weak.

 

[mullokintyre]

If you are talking about Jacinta clearly she hates blackfellas and makes it very clear, go fugue, no representation there.

That is one of the most arrogant, racist stupid statements I have ever read in ASF.
Mick

 

[rederob]

No it hasn't.

Seriously confused person:

"Prime Minister Anthony Albanese is insisting the Solicitor-General is supportive of the federal government's Indigenous Voice to Parliament proposal, while rejecting ongoing demands for his advice to cabinet to be made public."​

Your argument is very weak.

I am using the Uluru Statement of the Heart and its supporting material.
You have yet to make a credible point.

I am saying the Voice is an ATSI people's solution to their concerns.
You are making excuse after excuse to not support a change that ATSI people have been fighting for and had bipartisan support until Dutton got into the fray.

 

[SirRumpole]

Seriously confused person:

"Prime Minister Anthony Albanese is insisting the Solicitor-General is supportive of the federal government's Indigenous Voice to Parliament proposal, while rejecting ongoing demands for his advice to cabinet to be made public."​

I am using the Uluru Statement of the Heart and its supporting material.
You have yet to make a credible point.

I am saying the Voice is an ATSI people's solution to their concerns.
You are making excuse after excuse to not support a change that ATSI people have been fighting for and had bipartisan support until Dutton got into the fray.

Albo is confused, yes.

As I've said before , everyone should have the right to petition Parliament on matters that affect them, it shouldn't be enshrined for one group only.

 

[rederob]

As I've said before , everyone should have the right to petition Parliament on matters that affect them, it shouldn't be enshrined for one group only.

You have the same capacity as the Voice when it comes to making representations. The difference is that this body may have used a collaborative grass roots approach to arrive at their ideas, as distinct from personal experience.

Everyone does have the rights you are concerned about, so nothing changes in the matter of representation. You cannot seem to grasp these realities.

 

[IFocus]

That is one of the most arrogant, racist stupid statements I have ever read in ASF.
Mick

She has stood up at the IPA of all places and disparaged the so called "woke" crowd.

I haven't ever seen her speak a positive word re culture.

 

[mullokintyre]

She has stood up at the IPA of all places and disparaged the so called "woke" crowd.

I haven't ever seen her speak a positive word re culture.

There is nothing , absolutely nothing , you can say to justify your original disgusting comment.
Mick

 

[wayneL]

Jacinda appears to have committed the heinous and egregious sin of not agreeing with absolutely everything about radical left ideology. And to top it off, she has the absolute temerity to say so.

Of course this means she is an extreme bigot and must hate everyone except old white men, and especially must despise her own race.

</sarc>

 

[wayneL]

Another blackfella hater... probably an everythingphobe too:

 

[JohnDe]

Jacinda appears to have committed the heinous and egregious sin of not agreeing with absolutely everything about radical left ideology. And to top it off, she has the absolute temerity to say so.

Of course this means she is an extreme bigot and must hate everyone except old white men, and especially must despise her own race.

</sarc>

Probably has the wrong qualifications -

‘Race shifting’ casts long shadow over cultural identity

The 2021 census found the number of people identifying as Aboriginal in Australia had increased 25 per cent over a five-year period.
The huge uptick could not be explained by an Aboriginal baby boom, but the result of an increase in people claiming Aboriginal identity later in life, possibly after discovering a long-lost Aboriginal ancestor, or some other link to Indigenous heritage. According to the ABS, the uptick in Aboriginal-identified population has not occurred in the Northern Territory, but in the big cities on the east coast.

The establishment of the Indigenous voice to parliament may drive these numbers higher again. While some have described the increase as a “wonderful thing”, others are not so sanguine. Some community leaders argue that funding opportunities and jobs go to those who falsely claim to be Aboriginal, as opposed to those who are authentically Indigenous.

Nathan Moran, chief executive of the Metropolitan Local Aboriginal Land Council, told 2GB last year: “We’ve now got a large proportion, if not a quarter of our population, (who) have chosen to self-identify rather than being born as Aboriginal to take up benefits of housing, scholarships, universities, employment opportunities and programs that are targeted for us to overcome our disadvantage.”

Victoria Grieve-Williams, an Aboriginal scholar and researcher into Indigenous identity fraud, describes such people as “race shifters”. They tend to be “well educated and articulate” and “oriented to getting awards, scholarships, benefits, and financial assistance”, she wrote in The Australian in 2021.

Since the 1980s, the commonwealth has applied a three-part test to determine Aboriginal identity whereby a person must be of Aboriginal descent, must identify as Aboriginal, and be accepted by an Aboriginal community. But the explosion of Aboriginal identity appears to sidestep this test, with those claiming the identity later in life relying on self-identification only.

While the three-part test is frequently dodged by individuals claiming Aboriginal identity, it is often ignored by organisations as well. Indigenous representation is highly sought after in business, academia and the public service, which leads companies and organisations to welcome “box-tickers” with open arms.

Pambalong woman Kumarah Kelly, CEO of Awabakal Local Aboriginal Corporation, told SBS Australia last year: “We’re seeing people participating in cultural site surveys for the protection of artefacts and sacred sites. They’re making $1500 a day. Where did they get that cultural knowledge from?”

Dr Stephen Hagan, a Kullilli man from Queensland, also told SBS that those claiming fraudulent Aboriginal identity are protected. “They can sign a statutory declaration (to confirm they self-identify) and they’re in. They can take on a $200,000 job anywhere they want.”

Academics who participated in a roundtable to discuss the issue of ‘race-shifting’ and its impact on Indigenous people.
The phenomenon is not unique to Australia. Last year Canada’s CBC aired a documentary titled “The Pretendians”, which follows a First Nations Canadian author as she explores the trend of white people claiming indigenous status. “Is it all about money and jobs, or is there something deeper going on?” she asks the audience.

It appears there is something deeper going on. Indigeneity, whether in Canada or Australia, while historically marginalised and stigmatised, now comes with unique cultural status. While “whiteness” is often negatively associated with the evils of colonialism and racism, indigeneity is positively associated with the qualities of spiritualism, ancestral lands and cultural wisdom.

It’s easy to dismiss those opportunistically claiming Aboriginal status for material gain as cynical race hustlers. But for those who genuinely feel affinity with Aboriginal culture the issue is not so clear cut. Should a desire to identify with a culture be immediately invalidated because a person has light skin or is from an urban background? The ethics are complex.

In 2017, a philosopher named Rebecca Tuvel attracted worldwide attention when she published a paper arguing that if society accepts transgenderism then, on the same basis of reasoning, it ought to accept transracialism as well. The paper was inspired by a real case: Rachel Dolezal, an instructor in Africana studies at Eastern Washington University, and who identified as mixed-race, was publicly shamed when her white parents accused her of pretending to be black. Dolezal later admitted to being “white and born to white parents” but argued that her self-identification as a black woman was real, and that her transracial status ought to be respected.

In her paper, Tuvel grapples with the arguments against transracialism, and argues that each of these arguments (that it is offensive, it is an example of privilege, and it is not biologically possible to change one’s race) could also be used against transgenderism if extended to their logical conclusion.

And in the context of gender, self-identification is now widely accepted. In Victoria, for example, an individual born biologically male with XY chromosomes can change their recorded sex to female on the basis of self-ID only. No surgery or psychiatric diagnosis is required.

These philosophical issues may seem arcane and abstract, and only worthy of debate in academic journals. But when claims to power are involved, the stakes become much higher. The reality is that if the voice succeeds, it is likely the number of Australians identifying as Aboriginal will increase further. It is also likely the issue of self-ID will become increasingly divisive.

Claire Lehmann is the founding editor of Quillette

 

[SirRumpole]

Jacinda appears to have committed the heinous and egregious sin of not agreeing with absolutely everything about radical left ideology. And to top it off, she has the absolute temerity to say so.

Of course this means she is an extreme bigot and must hate everyone except old white men, and especially must despise her own race.

</sarc>

From what I have heard from JNP, her message seems to be that Aborigines should take more responsibility for themselves and rely on white people less, which seems sensible to me.