The Voice

[sptrawler]

Over in the East we slaughtered the 'native 'a whole lot earlier.
Look to the 'progressive' Lachlan Mcquarie's proclimation of 1816 and the Appin Massicare that followed. Then roll on to the Elliston Massicare, where the the Great white gobbled a surfer down a week or so ago, of 1849,.... and then to the Governorship of SA by Alexander Downers gran Daddy, J.W. and all those Snider-Enfield 50cal's with unlimited ammo that went north to any who wanted it through the mid 1880's t0 mid 1890's.

Yeah ...you in da' west know what's up... if it happened yesterday.
remind me again of the historical reading on Australia you've done trawler ... is that crickets ??

not that it should matter, my interation with Brewarrina goses back 40 years, those I know there? well over a century. 'Get out'a Dodge' might just take on a bit of new mean'n....

the Bethnal Green Pub, was the Salmon & Ball....

It's all about Labor; That's why the the Liberals are left with the knuckle-draggers and the Teals have eat'n their lunch and they are all in favour of the Voice.

'Time will tell' I remember that from one of you Brexit defences... you really are laughable..

I see you're still dribbling nonsense, you must be Victorian. ?
What does this mean?
from your post:
not that it should matter, my interation with Brewarrina goses back 40 years, those I know there? well over a century. 'Get out'a Dodge' might just take on a bit of new mean'n....

I certainly hope someone gives you a how to vote card with the referendum.

And you think I'm laughable, that's rich coming from you. ?

By the way just to drag your dumb butt up to speed on the Aussie dollar Vs the British pound, as I said originally Brexit was done in 2020, it will take some time for adjustment.
Obviously you have trouble understanding technical issues, maybe try some remedial english courses.

Pound To Australian Dollar Rallies Amid Renewed Brexit Hopes

Pound to Australian Dollar Rallies amid Renewed Brexit Hopes

www.exchangerates.org.uk

 

[rederob]

Henry Ergas AO is an economist who spent many years at the OECD in Paris before returning to Australia. He has taught at a number of universities, including Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, the University of Auckland and the École Nationale de la Statistique et de l'Administration Économique in Paris, served as Inaugural Professor of Infrastructure Economics at the University of Wollongong and worked as an adviser to companies and governments.

What a shame he knows SFA about Australian history and the Voice, yet gets to spew rubbish in The Australian.

 

[orr]

I see you're still dribbling nonsense, you must be Victorian. ?
What does this mean?
from your post:
not that it should matter, my interation with Brewarrina goses back 40 years, those I know there? well over a century. 'Get out'a Dodge' might just take on a bit of new mean'n....

I certainly hope someone gives you a how to vote card with the referendum.

And you think I'm laughable, that's rich coming from you. ?

By the way just to drag your dumb butt up to speed on the Aussie dollar Vs the British pound, as I said originally Brexit was done in 2020, it will take some time for adjustment.
Obviously you have trouble understanding technical issues, maybe try some remedial english courses.

Pound To Australian Dollar Rallies Amid Renewed Brexit Hopes

Pound to Australian Dollar Rallies amid Renewed Brexit Hopes

www.exchangerates.org.uk

'Interaction' .... and 'goes'

you've read nothing of Australian History have you. You're cluless to the historical construct that's served the 'communities' you have such 'deep understanding'. no use anything remedial on something you have no interest.

keep on keep'n with that Brexit narritive; it 'polishes' your work here, it gives it that 'depth of understanding' ... A special sort of sheen.

 

[sptrawler]

'Interaction' .... and 'goes'

you've read nothing of Australian History have you. You're cluless to the historical construct that's served the 'communities' you have such 'deep understanding'. no use anything remedial on something you have no interest.

keep on keep'n with that Brexit narritive; it 'polishes' your work here, it gives it that 'depth of understanding' ... A special sort of sheen.

Are you ever going to say anything about the voice, or the treaty? Or are you just going to keep dribbling on endlessly about me and Brexit, with an occasional reference to Australian history, interspersed amongst an illiterate garbling. ?

By the way another article of the state of play in the U.K, just to get you into the now, after all you were the one who brought up brexit, not me.

Maybe you can focus on the thread, rather than me now, but then again looking at the standard of your content, it maybe best just to focus on me.

Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

The UK economy will grow faster than Germany this year and avoid a recession, the International Monetary Fund said, after sharply upgrading its forecast on the back of strong household spending and better relations with the European Union.

Falling energy prices will also help Britain expand 0.4% this year, the IMF said on Tuesday in its regular health check on the UK economy. That’s up from the 0.3% contraction the fund projected just last month, and which will lift the UK off the bottom of the Group of Seven league table.

 

[rederob]

What a shame he knows SFA about Australian history and the Voice, yet gets to spew rubbish in The Australian.

For example, he says "It should therefore have been obvious that the voice would raise serious concerns."
This is only true if you are not too bright!
The referendum proposes we regcognise first inhabitants and that their concerns can be addressed by a Voice.
How exactly that raises "serious concerns" is a mystery, unless you believe your own distorted view of reality.

Ergan then says "the proposal seeks to constitutionally entrench the separate representation that has failed whenever it has been tried." But this is not true. The Voice merely consolidates the capacity of indigenous peoples to be heard, and they do not get "separate representation" as he claims. Moreover, no early attempt at consolidation has ever been so rigorously worked through, and detailed. He then opines, "... if the voice opens a door, it is not to equal political rights but to institutionalised racial division." How people swallow such rubbish is beyond me. Just in case he missed it, the "racial division" is best seen in a myriad of Closing the Gap reports. Given the Voice seeks to do better, his logic fails miserably.

Although Ergas says "By placing that ideal back on the table, the referendum invites a mature discussion of where this country is heading' his commentary is not just immature, it's poorly informed and seriously flawed. Compounding his undaunted bias he believes "the Yes camp is resorting to cheap moralising whose purpose is not to convince but to silence." How stupid is he to not know that he is writing in a newspaper that, with its media siblings, has more influence on opinion than anything else in Australia. In other words, if he does not know who paid him for the article then he's not just stupid, but innocently peddling lies.

Now let's look at where racism hides in Ergas's blood. This sentence of his is riddled with it: "Hiding behind a steam bath of emotions, it seems to believe moral blackmail can induce Australians into repeating the error of pursuing political equality by entrenching political inequality." Mr Ergas, it is never an error to pursue political equality unless you prefer to keep those with lesser rights where you think they belong.

 

[wayneL]

Funny thing is B-orr, change a few of the names and dates, it could be the history of anywhere, any continent, any group.

Yet we are the only ones called upon for restitution, whether our particular ancestry was involved or not.

An agenda there?

The ladies doth protest too much, methinks. (with apologies)

BTW I demand restitution from the teutonic hordes that invaded the green and pleasant isles of my ancestors.

About 5 million sounds fair.... in Euros please.

 

[IFocus]

What a shame he knows SFA about Australian history and the Voice, yet gets to spew rubbish in The Australian.

Haha was thinking the same The Australian must be struggling to find anyone to slag off the Voice

 

[SirRumpole]

One country.

One Constitution for all.

 

[rederob]

One country.

One Constitution.

Tell me how you would go with that idea 250 years ago.

 

[SirRumpole]

Tell me how you would go with that idea 250 years ago.

It doesn't matter. We live now not in the past.

 

[rederob]

It doesn't matter. We live now not in the past.

So if indigenous people had a Constitution that did not favour non-indigenous that would be ok.

More on point, your racist excuses refuse to acknowledge the people who had their land stolen, were decimated by introduced diseases, were subjected to slavery, were regularly hunted down and massacred, had their children stolen, and have suffered systemic disadvantage.

And to top it off you are not in favour of a proposal that stands a better chance than in in the past of putting in place better policies, programs and projects than have been previously tried. I'm sorry @SirRumpole but it is you who are locked into the past so strongly that you won't open the door to a better future.

 

[SirRumpole]

So if indigenous people had a Constitution that did not favour non-indigenous that would be ok.

More on point, your racist excuses refuse to acknowledge the people who had their land stolen, were decimated by introduced diseases, were subjected to slavery, were regularly hunted down and massacred, had their children stolen, and have suffered systemic disadvantage.

And to top it off you are not in favour of a proposal that stands a better chance than in in the past of putting in place better policies, programs and projects than have been previously tried. I'm sorry @SirRumpole but it is you who are locked into the past so strongly that you won't open the door to a better future.

Sorry I don't agree.

I have nothing against ATSI people having a representative body that makes submissions to Parliament. There are lots of those around, but they survive because they achieve something for their members not because they are guaranteed a place in the Constitution.

And don't call me a racist. Everyone wants the ATSI people to have living standards equivalent to the rest of the population and they will if they take the opportunities provided that everyone else has and not be perpetual victims.

 

[JohnDe]

We live in strange times. A race-based constitutional body will ensure racial equality. Those calling for a race-blind constitution and public policy are racists. Those spewing hatred and bile at sceptics raising legitimate questions to complex policy challenges accuse the latter of hate speech described as literal violence. Those who betray traces of deeply buried subconscious racism in the belief that Aboriginals can never exercise agency and be educated to take responsibility for their destiny, but must always be treated as victims, glow with virtuous satisfaction at their progressivism in spurning equal citizenship......the case for a constitutionally enshrined Voice is vague, emotionally manipulative, rooted in guilt for historical wrongs and race-based.​

Yes, the Voice is racist​

In conception, content and consequences

We live in strange times. A race-based constitutional body will ensure racial equality. Those calling for a race-blind constitution and public policy are racists. Those spewing hatred and bile at sceptics raising legitimate questions to complex policy challenges accuse the latter of hate speech described as literal violence. Those who betray traces of deeply buried subconscious racism in the belief that Aboriginals can never exercise agency and be educated to take responsibility for their destiny, but must always be treated as victims, glow with virtuous satisfaction at their progressivism in spurning equal citizenship. Biden’s belief that African-Americans who voted for Trump over him ‘ain’t black’ is a typical representation of this inherent racism that could be perceived in the spat between Philip Adams and Kamahl. When Adams belittled Kamahl as an ‘Honorary White’, Nyunggai Warren Mundine called the racially charged, derogatory and offensive description ‘reprehensible’.

After apologies for ill-chosen remarks against Meghan Markle emboldened his critics instead of appeasing the duke of woke and the cry-bully duchess of whinge, Jeremy Clarkson wrote in the Sunday Times that we are at war with ‘a full-on left-wing campaign to unstitch and burn the fabric’ of Western society, for example by indoctrinating instead of educating children and capturing the commanding heights of the mainstream media. The most lethal weapon in their arsenal is identity politics on race, religion and gender. This subverts Martin Luther King’s dream of a world in which people are judged not on the colour of their skin but the content of their character. Its most insidious effect is to fracture national unity and social cohesion. Tory (!) candidates in the UK are being given lessons on ‘white resentment’ and ‘unconscious bias’ before standing for parliament.

Matt Canavan’s call for a second question in the Voice referendum on keeping 26 January as Australia Day is worth considering. Failing that, the Voice could well call for the day to be scrapped because, for an activist minority, it’s a day of mourning, not celebration. The zeitgeist encourages the romanticisation of Aboriginal culture and history and the demonisation of everything European. The Manichean framing is erroneous and dangerous. How many schoolchildren are being taught to be ashamed of Australia’s British heritage for the alleged inherited guilt of institutional racism, dispossession and oppression? Sports and entertainment stars must believe their celebrity status confers superior wisdom to set the nation’s moral compass. Ashleigh Gardner called out Cricket Australia: ‘As a proud Muruwari woman and reflecting on what Jan 26 means to me and my people it is a day of hurt and a day of mourning.’ Gardner is presumably mixed-race who wouldn’t exist but for the Europeans’ arrival in 1788. She is both coloniser and colonised or, as Stan Grant put it once, the settler on the ship and the Aborigine on shore. What would we think if a mixed-race person proclaimed herself a proud white woman? How does she reconcile the conflict between her oppressor and victim genes? Why is it racist to proclaim oneself a proud white woman but virtuous to proclaim oneself a proud [appropriate tribal] woman? I would be upset if my children were to feel ashamed of either their Irish-Australian or their Indian ancestry instead of being proud of each yet free to criticise unsavoury elements of both. ‘My culture is something I hold close to my heart and something I’m always so proud to speak about,’ Gardner added. But this is just confused and incoherent. What culture is that, if not that of a product of a mixed heritage? Language is the key gateway to any culture, and her tweet was in English. The tweet also denies the benefits that have accrued to people like Gardner alongside the history of atrocities against Aborigines. The easiest way to grasp this would be for her to think, honestly, about what her position would have been as a woman in the traditional Aboriginal society of 1788: a Hobbesian society where life is nasty, brutish and short. Gardner’s professional identity is a cricketer. Unless I’m badly misinformed, cricket is not part of Aboriginal inheritance.

Another example comes from an article in the Australian by Judith Brett. Like shallow virtue-signalling views on Australia Day, the case for a constitutionally enshrined Voice is vague, emotionally manipulative, rooted in guilt for historical wrongs and race-based. Brett used lofty language to insist that a No vote ‘will do lasting damage both to the body politic and to the nation’s soul’, yet lacks the self-awareness to realise the insult and offence caused by describing nth-generation, native-born and therefore indigenous albeit non-Aboriginal citizens as ‘settler Australians’ (hence the endless ‘welcome to country’ ceremonies?) who must vote Yes to ‘strengthen their bonds with indigenous Australians’. We must vote Yes so the author can assuage her guilt and feel good? The case against is clearer, reasoned and principled in rejecting race as a factor in Australia’s governance structure. As a lifelong campaigner against racial discrimination and for human rights, I oppose enshrining in the constitution special mention of any identity-based group. Senator Ralph Babet notes that 8 of 76 senators have Aboriginal heritage. By contrast, Asian-Australians are badly under-represented in parliament and top positions in the public and private sectors. Do we really want to go down the rabbit hole of ever-finer subdivisions between First (Aborigines), Second (British immigrants and convicts), Third (post-war European immigrants) and Fourth (post-White Australia immigrants) Nations? Should Asian-Australians have our own Voice or should we know our place and stay there?

Albanese betrays contempt for voters by insisting we vote for the Voice without knowing any of the details on its composition, functions and powers. Once approved, it will be hijacked by the more strident activists among the cultural elites, some part-Aboriginal, to acquire more assets, influence and political power as has happened everywhere else – nothing unique about it. In time, it will be judicially reinterpreted and expanded beyond recognition. Those who insist otherwise are either naive or gaslighting us. The Voice is racist in conception and will be racist in content and consequences, hardening identitarian divisions without solving real problems. While Alice Springs burns, Albanese and Burney fiddle with the Voice. Jacinta Nampijinpa Price is an authentic voice: ‘When Linda Burney tells us this would not be happening if a constitutionally enshrined Voice had been established, you cannot help but feel gaslit and infuriated.’ Mundine is spot on: ‘The world over, social breakdown, family violence and abuse, drug and alcohol abuse go hand in hand with kids not going to school, adults not in work and chronic intergenerational welfare dependency.’ Mundine’s parents ‘were determined not to be treated as second-class citizens… We were taught that you’re never a victim’.

 

[rederob]

I have nothing against ATSI people having a representative body that makes submissions to Parliament. There are lots of those around, but they survive because they achieve something for their members not because they are guaranteed a place in the Constitution.

It's the exact opposite.
Most of the bodies you talk about are legislated, but you are so poorly informed on this matter I am not surprised.
And they have not achieved any significant outcomes in those areas of disadvantage that have been covered here ad nauseum. But again you either refuse to recognise that or make yet one of the myriad of excuses you are prone to.

And don't call me a racist.

Your posts smack of racism. As I will show below.

Everyone wants the ATSI people to have living standards equivalent to the rest of the population

But you clearly do not want to support a mechanism that ATSI peoples themselves have spent years developing in the hope of betterment.
And you think that's ok... because you have the baseless belief that

... they will if they take the opportunities provided that everyone else has and not be perpetual victims.

So you think that blaming the victims of centuries of disadvantage is the solution because, despite the fact they clearly do NOT have the same opportunities as everyone else, they magically have the ability to rise above it!

You believe your rationale for not recognising first inhabitants has nothing to do with racism, but if that's not the case then where is the problem?
And despite zero evidence that ATSI people have the same opportunities as everyone else, you are happy to further deny them the chance of achieving that outcome because you somehow think the Voice is divisive.

 

[SirRumpole]

So you think that blaming the victims of centuries of disadvantage is the solution because, despite the fact they clearly do NOT have the same opportunities as everyone else, they magically have the ability to rise above it!

How many migrants have come here from war ravaged countries with hardly a penny to their names but have used the opportunities provided to make successes out of themselves ?

That's what I call not playing the victim but taking opportunities.

 

[rederob]

How many migrants have come here from war ravaged countries with hardly a penny to their names but have used the opportunities provided to make successes out of themselves ?

Bait and switch does not wash.

Your excuses get more lame by the day.

 

[rederob]

We live in strange times. A race-based constitutional body will ensure racial equality. Those calling for a race-blind constitution and public policy are racists. Those spewing hatred and bile at sceptics raising legitimate questions to complex policy challenges accuse the latter of hate speech described as literal violence. Those who betray traces of deeply buried subconscious racism in the belief that Aboriginals can never exercise agency and be educated to take responsibility for their destiny, but must always be treated as victims, glow with virtuous satisfaction at their progressivism in spurning equal citizenship......the case for a constitutionally enshrined Voice is vague, emotionally manipulative, rooted in guilt for historical wrongs and race-based.​

Why don't you stump up with your own ideas?

I read the piece and it only makes sense if you you do not understand what racism is.

So let me go through it's preamble:
First, it's not at all "strange" that bipartisan support disappeared when Dutton took the helm from Morrison. Anyone seriously thinking that a man that refused to attend Rudd's Apology would support the Voice has rocks in their head.
The second sentence has nothing to do with the Voice. The concept of equality is already built into our system of laws. The Voice is about rectifying disadvantage.
The third sentence fails to grasp the simple concept that the first inhabitants were a different race. To suggest that's "racist" defies common sense.
The fourth sentence descends into muck raking. What are these "legitimate questions"? The unanswered questions will be determined by Parliament, as has been clarified many times.
The fourth sentence is blatant misinformation. What the Voice seeks to achieve and how it can operate has been thoroughly detailed, so its a lie to say it's "vague". The other claims have nothing to do with the Voice, but read well to those who are keen to suppress indigenous advancement.

Much of the rest of the article has little to do with the Voice.
What you always see is avoidance of the actual questions being asked and, in the media, the creation of a new narrative.

 

[SirRumpole]

What the Voice seeks to achieve and how it can operate has been thoroughly detailed,

Now that statement is BS because the Parliament decides how the Voice will operate after (and if) the referendum is passed.

Your lack of knowledge of this issue is disturbing.

 

[basilio]

That's not what proponents of the Voice believe. Better targeted policies, properly funded and managed projects, and local ownership of solutions has to be an improvement on past failures.

Those observations always make sense. The challenge is as usual in the implementation.

That doesn't mean we don't have a go.

 

[rederob]

Now that statement is BS because the Parliament decides how the Voice will operate after (and if) the referendum is passed.

You really have had a miserable time posting.
What I wrote was correct. There are clear design principles for how the Voice can work. Parliament may choose to set it up differently.