IFocus
You are arguing with a Galah
- Joined
- 8 September 2006
- Posts
- 7,649
- Reactions
- 4,719
You have lost the plot its not what I said or intended go twist other peoples words FFS
Zzzzz....zzzz....zzzz
And you accuse others of political games @IFocus ?
Only certain indigenous voices count hey? Interestingly only those that agree with a certain view. No discussion, no debate. Dissenters are disregarded and accused of "politics".
What an @55.
I just read what you said, bro.You have lost the plot its not what I said or intended go twist other peoples words FFS
Once again the language as expressed in the article is not in the spirit of discussion or debate. We can see that it uses disparagement and ad homonym... Not to mention both gaslighting and astroturfing.Who does Price speak for
I wonder who Senator Jacinta Price is referring to when she talks of “my people”.
She can’t mean the people I work for – 90 democratically elected Aboriginal men and women from the towns, remote communities and hundreds of tiny homelands of the southern half of the Northern Territory. People aged between 20 and 80, who are elected for three-year terms, meet three times a year out bush and who, for the past five years, have consistently expressed their strong support for the constitutionally enshrined voice to parliament the senator opposes.
Jacinta Price doesn’t speak for my people – and her stance shows why Australia needs the Indigenous voice | Indigenous voice to parliament | The Guardian
The ignorance expressed about the voice is only surpassed by the lack of knowledge about the rigorous process that led us to itamp.theguardian.com
You have to admit it is a stroke of genius to propose it immediately after conditioning the population, to accept and do exactly what the Government tells them to without question and fear of fines, over the previous 18 months.The proposed [First Nations] Voice is a stalking horse on our parliamentary democracy. And it's just the first cab off the rank.
Next will come the:
- LGBTIQA -Voice to Parliament
- Green -Voice to Parliament
- Climate -Voice to Parliament
Importantly, they'll have two votes to your one. ..a de facto third chamber, Parliament will need their permission.
They will be run by privileged coteries, un-elected by the people, run by economically comfortable urban elites.
And all safely insulated from the consequences.
It's hard to believe that the Australian people could be so gullible, as to willingly accept such a transparent political scam.
Classic scare mongering. Take a bow Logique.Importantly, they'll have two votes to your one. ..a de facto third chamber, Parliament will need their permission.
Greetings Rederob, good to know you are still alive.The "Voice" is similar to our previous referendum for a Republic.
Most Australians still want a Republic, but apparently we have to agree on the precise detail, lest Party politics get in the way.
Similarly, most people recognise first Australians as those arriving tens of thousands of years ago.
Yet we have chosen not to recognise this fact in our Constitution.
Nor, apart from an election process which occasionally gets some first Australians elected to push Party lines, is there a mechanism for seriously listening to how they would prefer that their concerns are addressed.
The precise detail, or mechanics, of the Voice would always be the prerogative of prevailing Parliaments. So the question for those with adverse views is "if you are not a first Australian, how does the Voice detract from your rights and privileges?"
Voting against the Voice because you believe its every detail is a prerequisite is the mindset that prevents progress in every field of endeavour. So if the NO vote prevails then, like the push for a Republic, our hopes for something better will stagnate for decades to come.
On the contrary!Greetings Rederob, good to know you are still alive.
"if you are not a first Australian, how does the Voice detract from your rights and privileges?"
We are yet to know, that's the problem. However in a democracy, groups should not have more rights than individuals. We are a country of individuals , if we choose to band together by race or religion that should not give us more rights than if we choose not to.
So why is a referendum needed ?On the contrary!
Parliaments make decisions about rights.
The Voice has no "power" beyond the effect it has on decision makers.
This has been explained so many times yet clearly is not understood.
The Oz constitution does not contain a bill of rights, but it does contain some limited rights protections.On the contrary!
Parliaments make decisions about rights.
The Voice has no "power" beyond the effect it has on decision makers.
This has been explained so many times yet clearly is not understood.
So why is a referendum needed ?
So the next conservative government cannot remove it, also confers status and recognition of the 1st people to settle Australia up to 60,000 years ago which currently doesn't exist.
I have no problem with recognition, but I fear that The Voice will be a source of red tape that will result in holdups to normal processes and strangle democracy.
Just one example, a BMX track on Mt Panorama that would have benefitted the community was turned down because the local indigenous people did not like it. So how many amenities will the majority have to forgo to satisfy the few ?
Rump again the voice wont have any powers other than advisory its up tp state, federal and councils to decide what happens same as now.
If that is the case, why not just have a Government funded indigenous lobby group, that has access to parliament?Rump again the voice wont have any powers other than advisory its up tp state, federal and councils to decide what happens same as now.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?