The Uluṟu Statement Of The Heart

[zac]

Zac and Izzy, and even Paddo (your knowledge of footy is impressive - and your political leanings are no more biased than mine - it's just easier to see the other guy's faults), I just think this is a bad idea - not the constitutional recognition but the bit about making representations to the executive (high court) if the advice is not taken, that's what worries me. It just potentially gives a bit too much power to the more extreme of the activists - I mean, if it's a lottery and the tickets are free why not ask for money if there's no disincentive (like having to pay your own legal costs). Plus I think a lot of this is Albo's ego - he wants to be another Whitlam, but he's no where as smart or charismatic as Whitlam, and he has not thought this through rationally. he could have framed this in a way that received bipartisan support and was a slam dunk. But he turned out to be a race baiter.

haha - good idea for this site to have an off topic section. we're not going to agree on everything. no doubt these issues are important but it's good they don't flood the main section

[ism22]

I've already told you how it would operate. You're outta fire mate...

Just go and watch the footy.

[Rooster1908]

Would you stop deliberately trying to derail threads Jaxxxxxx. We are discussing the Uluṟu statement from the heart not the weather in Uluṟu Id have thought a staunch and vocal NO supporter such as yourself would have had something positive and possibly even meaningful to contribute to this thread. Your behaviour this last week has been quite erratic I’m getting many PMs expressing concern for you

For him or about him . There is a difference

[Andrew Walker]

For him or about him . There is a difference

Now now Having heard your reactions when people pointed out your grammar Im very surprised you have gone down this path

[The Monk]

Why on earth would you ever sign up the first nations people to a bastardized constitution/contract with a corrupt and bankrupt corporation acting as a government? Its a LAND GRAB. Black and White will have NO LAND RIGHTS - All to the UN just like Beasley said in 1990. It not a Liberal or Labor thing. They are 2 wings of the same bird. They have sold off your lives. And most dont have a ****ing clue.

[ism22]

Why on earth would you ever sign up the first nations people to a bastardized constitution/contract with a corrupt and bankrupt corporation acting as a government? Its a LAND GRAB. Black and White will have NO LAND RIGHTS - All to the UN just like Beasley said in 1990. It not a Liberal or Labor thing. They are 2 wings of the same bird. They have sold off your lives. And most dont have a ****ing clue.

Right so in summary there's three 'no' arguments being put forward at the moment.

The factually incorrect argument - lead with claims like 'this will lead to the voice making representations to the executive, which means the high court'.

- I've successfully rebutted this, noting that the executive is the government of the day, anybody can make representations to the government of the day and this is not a special/scary power. Rather, it makes the structure of (diverse) indigenous voices more organised and prevents this organisation from being disbanded/stacked every time the government changes.

The Peta Credlin misinformation argument - in essence, you keep saying Albo 'lied' about the statement being one page (although it is) and focus on Credlin's appeal to FUD about 25 additional pages detailing content that didn't make it into the statement itself.

- We've cleared this one up multiple times. Single page. Credlin did an 'FOI' on a document that was already public and adds nothing to the debate about the voice regardless of what you say about it. Pure FUD aimed at calling Albo a 'liar' rather than engaging with the voice debate itself.

The doomsday "yeah well everything's just ****ed and corrupt no matter what so I'm not gonna engage with it" argument - per the Monk's quote, this argument relies on a deeply held opinion that we are run by a 'corrupt corporation' no matter who you vote for, so we shouldn't even engage with the issue. While such views claim opposition to 'both wings', they always lead to right-wing conclusions as they oppose progression per se.

- This one's too much of a rabbit hole full of deeply held opinions for me to bother with it (and seriously... why did some guy register a new account just to say this on a footy forum?)

This all goes back to the FUD argument... such minds start with fear [e.g. the high court will be rigged by the voice].

Then they move onto uncertainty once people's fears are shown to be false [e.g. 'how many pages is the statement anyway? I dunno!! Not taking a position here, I just dunno!! And how would it be structured? Too many unknowns for me...']

Then once you've provided certain answers to all their 'uncertainty' they use deeply held opinions of 'doubt' as their crutch [e.g. 'we are all run by a corrupt corporation no matter which way you vote so I'm not even gonna bother engaging with this matter because all change is bad!!!'] Wait hang on... isn't that 'corporation' Murdoch... which eeeem... is the 'corporation' that employs Peta Credlin to try and convince us to vote no? OH YEAH!!! So voting yes would be giving it to the corporation if you're TRUELY scared about Murdoch conspiracies? Sigh.

---

As a progressive, there's only so much time I can spend engaging with such things as it's clear that new accounts are popping up for the purpose of participating in this thread and its whole purpose is to perpetuate the cycle of FUD.

I encourage people to ignore the FUD cycle and ask whether views about indigenous Australians have changed since 1900! If you go back to the days when the constitution was being drafted, people who would later become Prime Ministers (Barton and Deakin) referred to them as 'inferior races' and there was an underlying assumption that they would die out (you read all this while studying constitutional law at uni BTW, but it's all on the public record if you are interested in reading it).

123 years later they have NOT died out. They've survived genocide and are an important part of our cultural identity as a country. I don't think that making a minor update to an antiquated document is contentious. Further... I don't think you truely 'recognise' indigenous Australians unless you pair that recognition with some sort of action. I agree that the voice won't achieve all that much. However it will make sure indigenous Australians have a permanent lobby group that's based on people they've elected as members. It's a start and it's what the majority of them have asked for! I don't see any benefits to me standing in the way of it and by doing so, giving Peter Dutton a purely political victory...

[zac]

yeah, the voice isn't a land grab - land rights legislation already exists and aboriginal groups don't need a voice to claim land.
the voice is constitutional recognition of aborigines (which both sides of politics are in favour of) and will only have the power to advise, not to legislate

[player 1]

I don't see any benefits to me standing in the way of it and by doing so, giving Peter Dutton a purely political victory...

Which is the main thing you're worried about.

[Paddo Colt 61]

[QUOTE=Rocky Rhodes; Haha...Well played Player1. Aborigines will be worse off...all of us will except the Corporate elites...that's why they are donating millions...it ain't rocket science.

You and your goose mate Plodder, stenographers for Murdoch who tells you that other people, not him, are "elites". Hello......Anyway why would anyone listen to a Year 10 leaver if either of you got that far. Your Sky devotion says it all. The Golden Rule needs to be, "Shut up if you don't know anything, you're an embarrassment!" but before you shut up please tell us what you think is afoot in this referendum - World domination by aborigines? Communists? I'm with ya though, Fluoride was the thin edge of the wedge and now our very freedoms are once more threatened, our freedoms that the ANZACs fought and died for - you know, the freedom to shop and to believe the drivel that some meathead, who works for a billionaire reactionary on a low rating channel, spews into the ether.

And where do you research Loki? Same place as you uncovered that diabolical vax conspiracy? The one that medical science dolts completely overlooked? Well they would have wouldn't they? They're in it up to their eyeballs. Murdoch knows, just like he knew about WMDs. Fools!

[ism22]

Which is the main thing you're worried about.

Not the main thing but it'd be disappointing if (like with Abbott) we saw a conservative government get in on a 'wreck all plans for social progression' type agenda.

I don't like seeing nasty FUD tactics used to destroy good social policy. Sure oppose things but don't turn EVERYTHING into a shyte show 'just because'. What kills it for me with the conservatives (who I could almost vote for in a place like Canberra where you see rates going up the whole time to pay for the Greens' weird shyte) is that they lack the fortitude to be collegiate about things like this. It kills my ability to connect with them on election day because I always remember the stupid shyte like this that Abbott/Dutton have done.

[Andrew Walker]

[QUOTE=Paddo Colt 61;n1027421][QUOTE=Rocky Rhodes; Haha...Well played Player1. Aborigines will be worse off...all of us will except the Corporate elites...that's why they are donating millions...it ain't rocket science.

You and your goose mate Plodder, stenographers for Murdoch who tells you that other people, not him, are "elites". Hello......Anyway why would anyone listen to a Year 10 leaver if either of you got that far. Your Sky devotion says it all. The Golden Rule needs to be, "Shut up if you don't know anything, you're an embarrassment!" but before you shut up please tell us what you think is afoot in this referendum - World domination by aborigines? Communists? I'm with ya though, Fluoride was the thin edge of the wedge and now our very freedoms are once more threatened, our freedoms that the ANZACs fought and died for - you know, the freedom to shop and to believe the drivel that some meathead, who works for a billionaire reactionary on a low rating channel, spews into the ether.

And where do you research Loki? Same place as you uncovered that diabolical vax conspiracy? The one that medical science dolts completely overlooked? Well they would have wouldn't they? They're in it up to their eyeballs. Murdoch knows, just like he knew about WMDs. Fools![/QUOTE]

Lol Paddo seems triggered. I promise when I get some quiet time I’ll continue with When Worlds Collide I have some wonderful ideas as to where this could all lead to.

PS May I suggest this off season after the roaring success of last years Off Season Poetry thread that you start an Off Season Creative Writing thread

[Rocky Rhodes]

[QUOTE=Andrew Walker;n1027435]

Lol Paddo seems triggered. I promise when I get some quiet time I’ll continue with When Worlds Collide I have some wonderful ideas as to where this could all lead to.

PS May I suggest this off season after the roaring success of last years Off Season Poetry thread that you start an Off Season Creative Writing thread

Haha...yeah PC61 dude seems very triggered of late and almost always rude and condescending. I tried to be nice when i first was debating him here but then he got triggered when i mentioned the word "Freedom".

Strange fella, he thinks everyone fits neatly into one box or the other....simpleton really.

Thinks MSM only lies when it doesn't suit his agenda...but otherwise fooled, controlled and manipulated by all of it. Loves western medicine and big pharma profits and all his little techno toys he can get from the west, then on the other hand he hates the west. So much confusion must go thru his head.

[zac]

'if you don't know - vote no.'
why? if you 'don't know' how could you know a no vote is better than a yes vote? that's not logical. makes more sense to toss a coin or to vote informal

[Carlos Parra]

It's a NO from me in big BLACK biro.

[Jacks Fur Coat]

It's a NO from me in big BLACK biro.

Just don't mark an X for No. Won't be counted.

However a tick will count as a valid Yes vote.

Hmmm...sounds fair

Big Clive is going to Court on this one, stay tooned.