The Voice vote:
Users browsing this topic:0 Registered, 0 Hidden and 0 Guests
Registered Users: None |
 |
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| My vote: |
| Yes |
|
54% |
[ 13 ] |
| No |
|
37% |
[ 9 ] |
| undecided leaning to yes |
|
4% |
[ 1 ] |
| undecided leaning to no |
|
4% |
[ 1 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 24 |
|
| Author |
Message |
David 
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
| slangman wrote: | if Australia was not aware of its history then I don’t understand how every adult has an equal vote, every person has equal access to health, education and welfare. There is a reason why the rear view mirror is substantially smaller than the front windscreen. Those who focus on looking back generally get left behind.
What indigenous people need is not the voice, but their own leaders and elders stepping up and inspiring others to do better for themselves and take control of their own lives. How many prominent aboriginal people showed their faces in Alice Springs a few months ago??
Where were Lidia, Goodes, Langton etc when the going got tough??
How will the voice change any of that?
EVERY Australian irrespective of their background is equal in law so regressing to special privileges to any one group is the epitome of racism.
The fabric of this country will forever be compromised, undoing all the work done to get us to the stage where all we’re equal.
Maybe some people subscribe to the theory that we’re all equal, just some are more equal than others. |
We're not equal, though. On no relevant outcome are Indigenous people equal to the rest of us – not in life expectancy, not in health, not in imprisonment rates, not in employment, not in wages, and repeating Pauline Hanson talking points from 25 years ago isn't going to solve any of that.
So what is this equality, exactly, that you cherish so much? Are you talking about the removal of discriminatory laws? If that is so important to you and your sense of what this country is, then I would assume that the activists who fought for those changes would be people you admire, and you would listen to what they have to say on the question of self-determination.
That's what you're missing here, I think. The Voice is not a vehicle for special privileges, but for self-determination. It's about Indigenous people speaking for themselves and having a more direct say in the policies that affect them.
As KenH said a couple of pages back, most First Nations people who oppose the voice do so because they think self-determination can be more effectively achieved in other ways. But hardly anybody is saying that things are actually fine and the real answer here is to wave an Australian flag and get over it. That's not a serious position.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
 |
watt price tully 
Joined: 15 May 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| slangman wrote: | | David wrote: | | slangman wrote: | The model of equality is to ensure no one is singled out.
I can’t see how voting Yes is anything but racist irrespective of the outcome it might or might not fulfill.
Replace First Nations with any other race would cause an outcry of racism and inequality from the same people that are promoting the Yes vote.
We are all equal within the eyes of the law and constitution and it bewilders me as to why we need to regress to past prejudices based on skin colour after coming so far to the equality of opportunity that we all now have.
What amazes me more is that people are erring on the side of voting Yes without being 100% certain of what the Voice will actually entail and whether it will ever succeed in its objectives.
I still haven’t heard or read how it’s implementation will do anything to improve Indigenous lives and their futures. |
Calling proposals like this racist is a bit of a blinkered position that requires a fairly rose-coloured view of Australia and its history. It’s essential to understand that this proposal isn’t emerging from a vacuum, and isn’t about one random ethnocultural group looking for special privileges. It’s about the fabric of this specific country we’re in and the dynamics that have shaped it since day one. |
if Australia was not aware of its history then I don’t understand how every adult has an equal vote, every person has equal access to health, education and welfare. …..on . |
WTF? What planet are you on? Every Australian has equal access to health, education and welfare?
Goodness me. That erroneous notion explains a lot.
Unbelievable.
_________________
“I even went as far as becoming a Southern Baptist until I realised they didn’t keep ‘em under long enough” Kinky Friedman |
|
|
|
|
slangman
Joined: 11 Aug 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
You’re telling me that if you turned up to a public emergency department you will be triaged by something other than your medical circumstance?
Children don’t have equal access to public schools?
It seems your ideology is blinding you from the facts.
_________________
- Side By Side - |
|
|
|
|
slangman
Joined: 11 Aug 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | | slangman wrote: | if Australia was not aware of its history then I don’t understand how every adult has an equal vote, every person has equal access to health, education and welfare. There is a reason why the rear view mirror is substantially smaller than the front windscreen. Those who focus on looking back generally get left behind.
What indigenous people need is not the voice, but their own leaders and elders stepping up and inspiring others to do better for themselves and take control of their own lives. How many prominent aboriginal people showed their faces in Alice Springs a few months ago??
Where were Lidia, Goodes, Langton etc when the going got tough??
How will the voice change any of that?
EVERY Australian irrespective of their background is equal in law so regressing to special privileges to any one group is the epitome of racism.
The fabric of this country will forever be compromised, undoing all the work done to get us to the stage where all we’re equal.
Maybe some people subscribe to the theory that we’re all equal, just some are more equal than others. |
We're not equal, though. On no relevant outcome are Indigenous people equal to the rest of us – not in life expectancy, not in health, not in imprisonment rates, not in employment, not in wages, and repeating Pauline Hanson talking points from 25 years ago isn't going to solve any of that.
So what is this equality, exactly, that you cherish so much? Are you talking about the removal of discriminatory laws? If that is so important to you and your sense of what this country is, then I would assume that the activists who fought for those changes would be people you admire, and you would listen to what they have to say on the question of self-determination.
That's what you're missing here, I think. The Voice is not a vehicle for special privileges, but for self-determination. It's about Indigenous people speaking for themselves and having a more direct say in the policies that affect them.
As KenH said a couple of pages back, most First Nations people who oppose the voice do so because they think self-determination can be more effectively achieved in other ways. But hardly anybody is saying that things are actually fine and the real answer here is to wave an Australian flag and get over it. That's not a serious position. |
Your argument falls down at “outcome”. Ideological rubbish that is nothing more than self aggrandisement.
Has anyone actually tried the Pauline Hanson method….because this current approach that is polar opposite to her idea certainly isn’t working.
We both seem to want indigenous people’s conditions to improve (along with many others) but I’m sick and tired of seeing the same tokenism dressed as caring fail over and over again.
The voice will be just another token symbol that will be as uselessl and ineffective as all of its predecessors.
Real change isn’t a constitutional voice.
The ones who think it is are part of the problem.
_________________
- Side By Side - |
|
|
|
|
think positive
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: | |
|
2 great replies slangman
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie 
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| slangman wrote: |
Real change isn’t a constitutional voice.
The ones who think it is are part of the problem. |
I don't thing anyone is suggesting that a Constitutional Voice is "Real Change" It's not going to magically fix everything or even anything.
My view though is that it is a start, and a vehicle to enable real change. Giving the people who the changes are aimed at helping, a say in how they should be designed and implemented.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
slangman
Joined: 11 Aug 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
I'm against the voice being enshrined in the constitution.
Should Aboriginal people be listened to? Absolutely.
But not as a permanent part of the constitution where there will no mechanisms other than a referendum to abolish it if it fails to achieve anything or worse still, gets corrupted by the same power hungry egomaniacs that “advised” previous governments with the net outcome being a broken system that has failed the real people in need.
But i guess its a bit more comfortable in the climate controlled and comfortable surroundings of Parliament House and inner city cafes than the dusty, rugged and tough conditions where the real work is needed to be done.
_________________
- Side By Side - |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
^
Fair points, but that's why the Voices existence is to be in the constitution, but the form it takes is up to Parliament.
So if the same power hungry egomaniacs get themselves onto the Voice and start to do what they did with ATSIC, the Government of the day can kick them out and change the rules. The Voice is to be a constant, the form it takes isn't.
We need to make sure those people in the dirty dusty communities are heard, as much as the ones everywhere else in the country about decisions that impact them rather than white blokes in Canberra just making shit up at focus groups.
My hope is that it gets up and that we get women from these communities on it who can drive what is needed in those communities.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
roar
Joined: 01 Sep 2004
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Questions for the naysayers:
Were you also against the government apology?
Would you support a vote for treaty?
Honest questions as I am curious to see the split.
_________________
kill for collingwood! |
|
|
|
|
think positive
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| roar wrote: | Questions for the naysayers:
Were you also against the government apology?
Would you support a vote for treaty?
Honest questions as I am curious to see the split. |
1. no
2. I'd want to know exactly what that means first, what it entails. I fully believe the voice is a step to that, and I want to know what "that" means for my kids, and their kids.
When I first heard about The Voice, I was all for it, then I started hearing how far the reach might go. First Nation people should absolutely have a say and a vote in policy that directly affect only them, but when it affects everybody in the country, I don't believe they should have any more votes than any other non-elected body. Yes, they can have a say in everything, but not a vote. Thats what caused my bridge too far.
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either!
Last edited by think positive on Thu Jun 22, 2023 11:19 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
|
think positive
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| stui magpie wrote: | ^
Fair points, but that's why the Voices existence is to be in the constitution, but the form it takes is up to Parliament.
So if the same power hungry egomaniacs get themselves onto the Voice and start to do what they did with ATSIC, the Government of the day can kick them out and change the rules. The Voice is to be a constant, the form it takes isn't.
We need to make sure those people in the dirty dusty communities are heard, as much as the ones everywhere else in the country about decisions that impact them rather than white blokes in Canberra just making shit up at focus groups.
My hope is that it gets up and that we get women from these communities on it who can drive what is needed in those communities. |
Thats a great hope.
I'd like to hear from these women, that could sway me. But we really don't know who it is do we? or have i missed that?
And no, I'm not that well versed on it, I'm not that invested, I'm honest about that, and anyone can sling anything at me for that, but you'd also need to realise that the vast majority of voters could be even less invested than I am! I'm here clicking the links and thinking about, most won't be, so quite frankly, the proposal needs to be idiot proof. There is so many negative facebook posts going around, I can't be bothered reading them, but a lot will.
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
slangman
Joined: 11 Aug 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| roar wrote: | Questions for the naysayers:
Were you also against the government apology?
Would you support a vote for treaty?
Honest questions as I am curious to see the split. |
I assume you mean the apology to the stolen generation??
I was in favour of it.
I’m against altering the constitution to include a race based voice. That would be a backward step for us as a nation. If we are not one, then we are doomed.
As for a treaty, it would totally depend on its objectives and it would need to be created with specific parameters with no margin for changes or manipulation after its implementation. If there wasn’t totally transparency I wouldn’t support it.
Ultimately, I want to see real change that benefits those that need it most.
Not just the latte sipping city elite who seem to scab all goodwill meant for others.
_________________
- Side By Side - |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| think positive wrote: | | stui magpie wrote: | ^
Fair points, but that's why the Voices existence is to be in the constitution, but the form it takes is up to Parliament.
So if the same power hungry egomaniacs get themselves onto the Voice and start to do what they did with ATSIC, the Government of the day can kick them out and change the rules. The Voice is to be a constant, the form it takes isn't.
We need to make sure those people in the dirty dusty communities are heard, as much as the ones everywhere else in the country about decisions that impact them rather than white blokes in Canberra just making shit up at focus groups.
My hope is that it gets up and that we get women from these communities on it who can drive what is needed in those communities. |
Thats a great hope.
I'd like to hear from these women, that could sway me. But we really don't know who it is do we? or have i missed that?
And no, I'm not that well versed on it, I'm not that invested, I'm honest about that, and anyone can sling anything at me for that, but you'd also need to realise that the vast majority of voters could be even less invested than I am! I'm here clicking the links and thinking about, most won't be, so quite frankly, the proposal needs to be idiot proof. There is so many negative facebook posts going around, I can't be bothered reading them, but a lot will. |
As soon as you try to make something idiot proof, they build a better idiot.
Take it back to basics, everything you said in your earlier post is that of someone who does want to see change. You have compassion and empathy, you're someone (IMHO) who should vote Yes and let the politicians **** around with the details, but it's up to you.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
roar
Joined: 01 Sep 2004
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| think positive wrote: | | roar wrote: | Questions for the naysayers:
Were you also against the government apology?
Would you support a vote for treaty?
Honest questions as I am curious to see the split. |
1. no
2. I'd want to know exactly what that means first, what it entails. I fully believe the voice is a step to that, and I want to know what "that" means for my kids, and their kids.
When I first heard about The Voice, I was all for it, then I started hearing how far the reach might go. First Nation people should absolutely have a say and a vote in policy that directly affect only them, but when it affects everybody in the country, I don't believe they should have any more votes than any other non-elected body. Yes, they can have a say in everything, but not a vote. Thats what caused my bridge too far. |
Thanks TP. Appreciate the reply.
_________________
kill for collingwood! |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| think positive wrote: | | roar wrote: | Questions for the naysayers:
Were you also against the government apology?
Would you support a vote for treaty?
Honest questions as I am curious to see the split. |
1. no
2. I'd want to know exactly what that means first, what it entails. I fully believe the voice is a step to that, and I want to know what "that" means for my kids, and their kids.
When I first heard about The Voice, I was all for it, then I started hearing how far the reach might go. First Nation people should absolutely have a say and a vote in policy that directly affect only them, but when it affects everybody in the country, I don't believe they should have any more votes than any other non-elected body. Yes, they can have a say in everything, but not a vote. Thats what caused my bridge too far. |
I think you may have taken in some misinformation there.
Few things.
1. The Voice is to be able to make representations to government on matters relating to First nations Peoples, not on matters that effect everyone. It's role is specific to them.
2. They don't get an extra vote, they don't get right to say No to anything and if the Government disagrees with what they recommend it can choose to ignore it. The only power they have is to give a view, recommendation, suggestion.
The model they're talking about is a group bought together to be an advisory or consultative committee. There's already a shitpile of them in existence in various guises.
My view is there's absolutely nothing to fear from the Voice. It's the Governments that do dumb shit.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
