I call out what I view as racist. And what I have seen from a poster on this thread. I’ve challenged it and ultimately I see it different from you and them; that’s fine.
I’m sure it probably shocked a lot of people but when is the right time and place? You can’t sensor something that’d an important issue just because it may offend people because it was done during the corination.
Not during the main coronation program itself. I know you don’t care about the coronation and that’s fine, each to their own, but this was a significant historic event and it did mean a lot to a large portion of the community (no different to the importance of the Voice to the indigenous community). Respect should cut both ways and this certainly wasn’t the case on this occasion.
As I’ve said in another thread, the ABC inviting Stan as a commentator to this knowing full well that he holds strong and impassioned views on the matter was little different to inviting Mark Latham as a commentator for Mardi Gras coverage and being shocked he’s said something controversial. Easily avoidable and should not have happened in the first place.
I understand that there is a need for the national broadcaster to broadcast a wide range of views, and as such if they had done a separate program with Stan and co. discussing their issues/concerns either earlier in the day or the night before, there would be no issue in my view.
2 Likes
2 Likes
An item from the No campaign, the yes side are very disingenuous.
https://www.fairaustralia.com.au/activists_admit_reparations_are_the_endgame
Bottom line is everyone already is constitutionally recognised equally now, including those of indigenous ancestry who rightfully reached that goal half a century ago, something the yes side is misleading talking on about ‘recognition’. It is not about recognition, which has been achieved, it is about money.
Once again, there is no requirement for constitutional recognition of what is called a “voice” to suck people in (word games again), they could do it right now, but the activists are too narrow-minded it is their way or the highway because it has been done before and failed so force it in the door so it can’t be removed later regardless of the negative consequences for society down the line.
The voice proposition also fails to consider the billions being spent now, if remote groups are still disadvantaged, then the right question to ask is where is the money going, in whose pockets?
3 Likes
I’m afraid I agree with you. The Yes campaign is focused solely on the Recognition aspect, which is overwhelmingly supported, and they are steering well clear of the Voice aspect. They are two very different things. If the Referendum was just about Recognizing First Nations as the original inhabitants directly in the Constitution it would sail through. The Yes campaign is being very disingenuous by rolling both aspects into one and calling it “Recognition”.
1 Like
From what I’ve seen, the yes campaign is not only considering that, but leaning into it. Yes, billions are being spent, and nothing changes, clearly a new approach is needed, and it needs to be a bold change.
Unless the No campaign starts to propose alternate ideas, instead of just saying no to this idea, then they are supporting the continuation of the status quo. If you are concerned about the billions being spent in the status quo, it should be an argument to vote Yes.
I was all for voting yes, but now Iam now leaning towards no. I am not firmly sold on no , I’m still bit worried at how certain details have not been disclosed or worked out. The whole thing is a mess. You make some good points, is it reconciliation or the voice. It seems that the yes campaign have mixed the two together which probably has a few people scratching their heads.
I want to know specifically what rights they will get recognised in the constitution and what exactly are they getting with parliament votes and issues. Do they get to decide on everything ? Some details need to be given to the public so we can see for exactly what is being changed and what exactly it is they want recognised in the constitution.
What about people who have bought their land where the houses sit, etc does that not get recognised anymore or are the Indigenous people going to make claims to that ;and too? Farmers own their land, would very worrying to see Indigenous radicals for the yes campaign demand them relinquish their land to the so called real traditional owners.
I have a theory, and it’s just a theory, but…
There will be two things that will be on peoples mind I think when it comes to voting on this, ans it may be harsh , but people won’t give a fuck as long as this keeps going on and the behaviour of thr yes campaign makes unnecessary noise.Secondly I think People have decided that everything is settled the way it is. Europeans have landed and taken the land, so technically the Indeginous people have no claim to the land whatsoever.
Ans the free hand outs and extra support they already get …. I think that will factor in the decision of most people (mainly probably the racists)
Not saying I agree with those, but it’s just a theory.
2 Likes
Value for money so not an indigenous issue, it is a whole-of-government value for money issue. Most governments every year spend like it is going out of fashion. Just look at the hundreds of millions being pissed on the wall for this brain wave to push us to so-called treaty.
1 Like
I think the word Treaty is problematic too. The Yes campaign and even various State governments are talking about “paths to Treaty” like it’s a foregone conclusion that a) it’s inevitable and b) it’s desirable. This is the type of thing that makes mainstream Australia feel they are being railroaded into something they don’t necessarily understand or support. Who will the Treaty be with? What will it mean in practical terms? Will it be accompanied by compensation, and if so, to whom? A Treaty isn’t something that happens 200 years later between descendants of the invaders and the invadees. It wasn’t “Australia” that invaded, it was Great Britain. So shouldn’t First Nations people be seeking reparations from the UK? Australia wasn’t even a country. This land was settled by the UK - what has happened since Federation is the responsibility of Australia and Australians, but not before.
I think the Referendum is starting to look very much like the Republic Referendum - a good idea, but a poor model (i.e. recognition vs. voice, path to treaty etc).
Except it’s not a treaty.
It’s a Constitutional amendment to establish a permanent advisory body that will give Indigenous Australians a literally voice on matters that affect then and the Government doesn’t have to abide by what the Voice Body recommends
2 Likes
The voice is not an end in itself, although the yes campaign (including the Labor pollies such as the PM) are deliberately saying nothing on this publicly to get the public onboard for the yes vote.
It is just one step. So called truth telling treaty and compensation, that is the process we are on.
2 Likes
They can also be achieved without amendments to the constitution, I really struggle with this line of argument for a no vote.
1 Like
Hate to say but we are in for a shit storm and I feel that this is going to create more division between black and white . They don’t need to be recognised in the constitution , they already are getting their stupid recognition in every ducking way! Literally before every university class , acknowledgements in presentations and street names after them . What possibly is the recognition going to do for their own situation ?
If a kid acts absolutely stupid, you say no and shut it down. You don’t give them chocolate and lollies in the hope they go away - they always come back for more.
2 Likes
Unfortunately, I do feel like the yes campaign is definitely losing momentum at the moment.
While the vast majority of people very much want to see improvements in the lives of indigenous people, especially those in remote communities, it does feel that the yes campaign is trying to rely solely on emotion to get this over the live, while being very scant on actual detail on how it will work in practice. I don’t think it’s an unreasonable ask for a bit more detail to be supplied in order to clarify things and likely bust some of the myths going about.
2 Likes
Yes I agree with you captaincupcake the more the yes campaign resolves to emotional blackmail and tactics of like Stan Grant coming out inappropriate times with his arrogant comments. What is our Pm trying to hide ? What does he want to keep secret about the details? The more cagey he and the yes campaign play it close to their bones they will just shoot thrmselves in thr foot.
If an Indeiginous person feels that they need to make their voices heard run for your local seat and build your brand that way .
2 Likes
Was the topic in the lunchroom today at work and interesting that everyone was pretty vocal they are voting no.
I don’t think some social/crime issues in Alice Springs, Darwin, some issues also in the Townsville/Cairns area at the moment, are helping either.
3 Likes