-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Indigenous Voice Yes or No?
- Thread starter eZyT
- Start date
I've called you racist not because you're voting No. It's because all the other *smile* you've spewed here wrt Indigenous people and the reasons you're giving for voting no. But it's cute that you're now playing the "Albo says so it must be true" card. A true man of convictions I see.
Pathetic lolol.
So you think there's NO chance of financial reparations IF the Voice succeeds .
The Voice is a bit like signing a contract to buy a house ,without fully knowing what house you will get.
Wrong Benghazi - we know the Voice is an advisory body to parliament and the executive - it has no power to make reparations, or enact legislation in fact.
Reparations would have to legislated through an act of parliament in either state or federal arenas and would be dealt with through parliamentary members voting like any other piece of legislation.
Come up with an argument against the actual Voice proposal - if you actually have anything, which I doubt.
Yeah but Sussssan Ley said the Voice can make it so indigenous people won't have to pay parking fines.
As a great person (or it could have been a member of the current government, not sure) said "the same arguments that have been used for every landmark Indigenous policy in Australia are being used again now"
Yeah nah. Racist *smile* are something I won't ignore. They need to be called out.
Did she say that, or she did she link to an article on the Advance Australia fansite?
I understand that view, but, and this pic may have been used, but TM is like the old Simpson character shaky his fist at the clouds. Anyone who still pays any attention to TMs posting on this thread isnt going to be swayed by fact or logic.
Yes and no Antrid.
It will all depend on how much power is given ,no one knows .
Also how will our esteem woke leader Albo react to proposals by the advisory council,lm sure he's not going to say no to anything they put forward.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was drawn up by the United Nations in 1948 and Australia was one of the original signatories. Article one says: “All human beings are free and equal in dignity and rights . . . “. Article two says: “Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this declaration without distinction of any kind, such as race . . . “.
There is another problem. On January 28, Janet Albrechtsen wrote in The Australian that if the referendum succeeds, it may well amount to a serious breach of Australia’s obligations under the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. If legal advice had been obtained from the Solicitor-General she wrote that it might have found that permanently entrenching racial preferences will make this nation a genuine international pariah.
If the referendum succeeds, everyone would still have the same right to vote and to seek to influence public policy. But those represented by the voice would have something extra.
They would be represented not only by their members of parliament but by a separate lobby group with constitutional standing, public funding and its own bureaucracy.
Those who quibble about whether this would create an extra right for indigenous people have missed the point. The reality, regardless of how it is termed, will be that Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders, through their representatives on the voice, would have greater constitutional standing than people of other races.
This would put an end to the idea that all Australians are entitled to an equal say on how this nation is governed. It would entrench racial division and kill reconciliation by fostering resentment against the beneficiaries of such an obviously unfair and unprincipled system.
Voice- The Case for Voting NO | Rule of Law Education Centre
www.ruleoflaw.org.au
Yes and no Antrid.
It will all depend on how much power is given ,no one knows .
Also how will our esteem woke leader Albo react to proposals by the advisory council,lm sure he's not going to say no to anything they put forward.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was drawn up by the United Nations in 1948 and Australia was one of the original signatories. Article one says: “All human beings are free and equal in dignity and rights . . . “. Article two says: “Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this declaration without distinction of any kind, such as race . . . “.
There is another problem. On January 28, Janet Albrechtsen wrote in The Australian that if the referendum succeeds, it may well amount to a serious breach of Australia’s obligations under the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. If legal advice had been obtained from the Solicitor-General she wrote that it might have found that permanently entrenching racial preferences will make this nation a genuine international pariah.
If the referendum succeeds, everyone would still have the same right to vote and to seek to influence public policy. But those represented by the voice would have something extra.
They would be represented not only by their members of parliament but by a separate lobby group with constitutional standing, public funding and its own bureaucracy.
Those who quibble about whether this would create an extra right for indigenous people have missed the point. The reality, regardless of how it is termed, will be that Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders, through their representatives on the voice, would have greater constitutional standing than people of other races.
This would put an end to the idea that all Australians are entitled to an equal say on how this nation is governed. It would entrench racial division and kill reconciliation by fostering resentment against the beneficiaries of such an obviously unfair and unprincipled system.
Voice- The Case for Voting NO | Rule of Law Education Centre
Just plain wrong mate.
Here's what the proposed constitutional amendment is.
It's absolutely clear - the Voice "may make representations" ie advise.
The Parliament makes the laws.
The worst thing about this whole debate is the absolute lies and falsehoods that are spread by people like you.
Read what you write. You are a racist. It's there for everyone to see. It spews out of you so easily. Own it. You ain't no victim.
The No campaign has this schizophrenic quality - "the Voice is useless and won't change anything but also we are terribly afraid that the Voice might change something"
Janet Albrechtsen quoting Australia’s obligations under the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, that's gold. i never knew she was such a supporter of UN.
