The Uluṟu Statement Of The Heart

[zac]

What part is bullshit? I'll have to have another squiz.

I agree with the Monk in supporting a 'No' vote, but not with his reasoning. Aboriginal people, being Australian citizens, are aleady "signed up" to the Constitution like all of us. Thats why I see this as an unnecessary and potentially divisive step. It enshrines a form of apartheid we have worked hard to avoid in this young multicultural country. Say no to dividing us by race.

she said a couple of things i didn't agree with.
both sides of politics believe in changing the constitution to recognise aborigines as the first australians - this is the change that's on offer and won't do any harm and there's no guarantee another offer will come in our lifetimes.. i see it as recognising our history rather than 'apartheid' which with its association with south africa is over the top. maybe you don't think change to the constitution is necessary but that would put you in a minority.
yes, it does makes aborigines unique australians (in a very limited way) but that's just an honest reflection of the unique spot they hold in our history. they've been here for tens of thousands of years. aboriginal affairs has had its own ministry for over 50 years and the voice would take the responsibility for influencing policy away from the ministry and onto the elected members of the voice. it's part of a move towards putting the responsibility for how aborigines live their lives squarely on their own shoulders.
maybe too long a reply ...

[Jacks Fur Coat]

she said a couple of things i didn't agree with.
both sides of politics believe in changing the constitution to recognise aborigines as the first australians - this is the change that's on offer and won't do any harm and there's no guarantee another offer will come in our lifetimes.. i see it as recognising our history rather than 'apartheid' which with its association with south africa is over the top. maybe you don't think change to the constitution is necessary but that would put you in a minority.
yes, it does makes aborigines unique australians (in a very limited way) but that's just an honest reflection of the unique spot they hold in our history. they've been here for tens of thousands of years. aboriginal affairs has had its own ministry for over 50 years and the voice would take the responsibility for influencing policy away from the ministry and onto the elected members of the voice. it's part of a move towards putting the responsibility for how aborigines live their lives squarely on their own shoulders.
maybe too long a reply ...

No, fair enough. Whilst I dont agree fundamentally with your reasons, as I think we've come beyond those attitudes of needing to cling to our past, I acknowledge I may well be in a slight minority. I also think people who do agree with my sentiments wouldn't advertise it for fear of being ostracised by the louder majority, including the big corporates.

[zac]

but one man's clinging to our past is another's celebrating our proud history. constitutional recognition isn't about clinging to our past - it's about having the constitution of the country reflect the reality that the place has a history that started well before 1788

[Jacks Fur Coat]

but one man's clinging to our past is another's celebrating our proud history. constitutional recognition isn't about clinging to our past - it's about having the constitution of the country reflect the reality that the place has a history that started well before 1788

All for celebrating our proud history but that still shouldn't require including one group with special rights under the constitution that others dont have. Thats the apartheid element. And can only lead to a division that we don't need. This argument gets a bit circular .

[zac]

All for celebrating our proud history but that still shouldn't require including one group with special rights under the constitution that others dont have. Thats the apartheid element. And can only lead to a division that we don't need. This argument gets a bit circular .

comparing the voice to what existed in south africa is absurd jfc

[Jacks Fur Coat]

comparing the voice to what existed in south africa is absurd jfc

I never mentioned SA. The term in this debate is to denote separation by race.

Ok if you dont like the term apartheid, replace it with 'racial segregation'.

[Andrew Walker]

What part is bullshit? I'll have to have another squiz.

I agree with the Monk in supporting a 'No' vote, but not with his reasoning. Aboriginal people, being Australian citizens, are aleady "signed up" to the Constitution like all of us. Thats why I see this as an unnecessary and potentially divisive step. It enshrines a form of apartheid we have worked hard to avoid in this young multicultural country. Say no to dividing us by race.

It’s all very interesting Jaxxx Why only yesterday I was speaking to a client of mine who is a lawyer about this whole topic When I mentioned what The Monk had said his response was that’s not true When I asked what part and for him to show me or direct me to somewhere that does show where it isn’t true, he admitted he could not as it wasn’t quite his expertise I then invited him to ask some of his colleagues to show him so he could do so as I would like to see it in writing.

What is also interesting is I believe the legal sector is backing the Yes vote

[zac]

I never mentioned SA. The term in this debate is to denote separation by race.

Ok if you dont like the term apartheid, replace it with 'racial segregation'.

apartheid is afrikaans for racial segregation. something like racial segregation has existed in australia - e.g. blacks having their area to sit in country cinemas or not being allowed into bars to drink.
to compare the voice to south africa or to what went on in australia is a long bow

[Jacks Fur Coat]

apartheid is afrikaans for racial segregation. something like racial segregation has existed in australia - e.g. blacks having their area to sit in country cinemas or not being allowed into bars to drink.
to compare the voice to south africa or to what went on in australia is a long bow

Yes that's why I didn't make that comparison.

Phew!

Having a part of the constitution referencing one individual group or race (probably in perpetuity) infers that segregation withn our key governance authority.

And, worse still, it perpetuates a victimhood assumption on capable, intelligent people who don't see themselves in that guise at all. i.e. many indigenous people are against the Voice, and Senator Price emphasised this point in her speech. Refer to my rather large appendage above.

[zac]

Yes that's why I didn't make that comparison.

Phew!

Having a part of the constitution referencing one individual group or race (probably in perpetuity) infers that segregation withn our key governance authority.

And, worse still, it perpetuates a victimhood assumption on capable, intelligent people who don't see themselves in that guise at all. i.e. many indigenous people are against the Voice, and Senator Price emphasised this point in her speech. Refer to my rather large appendage above.

but you did use the word apartheid. you're not the only no voter who has used that sensationalist language.
but like you say it's getting a bit repetitive. we're not going to agree on this

[mightyrooster]

I appreciate the nice civil debate and reading references on this topic as I’m still grappling with which way I lean.

[Paddo Colt 61]

OMG MR what on Earth might concern you about a consultative committee of persons representing that section of the population whose land this was for millenia. A people who have a different culture to ours and who have preserved the integrity of that culture through 200 years of colonial oppression.

Wouldn't you be better using your loaf critically and see the Constitution for what it is - essentially a commercial document guided by and signed off on in England. It is/was in no way a democratic, the vote for the new Constitution was restricted to property owners which effectively left the bulk of the population out. It was modelled to some extent on the American setup with it's unrepresentative Senate but note that the colonial bourgeoisie had no appetite for an American style Bill of Rights. That's our revered Constitution - a sham. Most Australians, even if they knew we had one, wouldn't know what's in it.

This No exercise has been prosecuted by a reactionary, petulant political party in decline and in league with a reactionary media mogul whose joint aim is to inflict maximum damage on a political enemy. It's Abbott's strategy - oppose everything. We saw them both operating in tandem for the last 10 years and you'd give 'em this win?

And old Jax, the voice of reason with his emotive language like "Apartheid" and then the disingenuous "Who me?" The shameful thing is that he uses it to blame the victims - the Committee is going to use it's power to divide and suppress us whites. How preposterous and laughable but we know where he comes from with all that Anzackery bullshit. He's a tosser, no two ways about that.

[Jacks Fur Coat]

And that 'civil debate' gets the usual treatment from the left and its predictable foot soldier.

Whack! ....Marcia Langton would be proud of him.

[Rocky Rhodes]

The Corporate "Yes" Vote...

Pop songs and Propaganda...that the crux of it...on the surface anyways,

All those lovely aborigine & Australian images emotional charged by Johnny Farnham (the corporate sellout) song.

The brainwashed leftard YES sheeple will buy it for sure. Only 30 million of tax payers dollars for the rights of that song.

And what does Johnny Farnhsm know about Aboriginal issues? NOTHING.....pretty much the same as PC61 knows about anything.

[Random Rooster]

The Corporate "Yes" Vote...

Pop songs and Propaganda...that the crux of it...on the surface anyways,

All those lovely aborigine & Australian images emotional charged by Johnny Farnham (the corporate sellout) song.

The brainwashed leftard YES sheeple will buy it for sure. Only 30 million of tax payers dollars for the rights of that song.

And what does Johnny Farnhsm know about Aboriginal issues? NOTHING.....pretty much the same as PC61 knows about anything.

30 million of taxpayers money for a song to brainwash the masses into voting yes? I'm outraged!!!!!

Thing is-its not true. Not even close to being true. It was bullshit that circulated on Facebook....and it doesn't take a genius to work out that social media has brainwashed you.

Youre the Voice is owned by Sony and Farnham....who actually waived the $100,000 royalty they would gain for the use of the song.

The irony of you, the resident village idiot, accusing others of knowing nothing!