Commiejones [comrade/them, he/him] @ Commiejones @hexbear.net

Posts

0

Comments

190

Joined

3 yr. ago

You can be pro-Voice and anti referendum. The issue is that the proposed amendment is offensively ineffectual.

Claiming that the progressive NO has no path forward is intellectually dishonest. Just because you don't know what it is doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

"Everyone who doesn't agree with me is a racist even the Aboriginal Australians"

So good to have people like you willing to debate in good faith using facts and reason.

'May' is used, (in addition to other reasons) because otherwise it creates a legal obligation on the Voice, to make representations.

It is up to the voice to make representations and the voice should want to make a representation on everything that effects Aboriginal Australians. Eve if the representation is "I don't hate this" The word may means the government isn't obligated to receive representations. As it is right now anyone "may" make a representation to parliament but it is up to parliament to accept or ignore such representations. The wording in the proposed amendment changes nothing.

And "shall receive" still puts the legal/constitutional obligation on the Voice to come up with and present those representations

If the voice wants to be heard it has to do the talking. (I feel stupid for having to say that) Who else should have the responsibility to make and present representations for the voice other than the voice?

The current wording doesn't force them to make representations, and more importantly, doesn't mean the creation and the Voice having to follow strict rules about when, how, and how often those representations are made.

Sure but the wording also doesn't force Parliament receive the representations either. They could receive a single representation once a decade and claim to have done their duty. Because the powers and construction of the voice is left to the Parliament to legislate and future governments to modify the government ultimately decides when and how the Voice can speak. It is a soft form gag order.

And also importantly, can't be closed down and discontinued through a legislative act of parliament.

The don't have to close down the voice they can just defund and declaw it till it is inoffensive. Again the funding, composition, and powers of the voice are all subject to legislature and thus not enshrined in the constitution.

May is discretionary but it is not clear in this instance as to who decides... until the last line where it says that parliament gets to decide the powers of the voice. It is clear that the voice has the choice to not make representations but it is not cut and dry that Parliament must accept representations.

If they wanted it cut and dry they would have said "the Parliament and the Executive Government of the Commonwealth shall receive any representations on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples made by the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice" instead of using "may" which is subject to challenges.

You seems to think this amendment was written by people who want what is best for Aboriginal Australians and not made by people who directly benefit from the injustices committed against Aboriginal Australians.

the voice will only be able to "make representations to" parliament, just like everyone else.

Not "able" the voice "may" make representations. Who decides when they may? Oh right that is left to parliament.

Its a gag order written in a passive tone.

I have read the Uluru statement. It asks for a voice that is enshrined in the constitution. The referendum does nothing to enshrine the voice in the constitution. The wording of the proposed amendment leave all the details of how the voice is implemented up to government and subject to its whims.

What good is a voice that is subject to parliament? If the government of the day can stack it with sycophants or gut it at a whim they can negotiate a treaty on the worst possible terms. The process of how the voice is structured, chosen, and its powers need to be enshrined in the constitution and the proposed amendment does not do that.

What if a no vote is used as 'proof' no one wants indigenous representation

A No result could just as easily be blamed on the poor wording of the referendum.

Show your fucking work.

No need to be so aggressive I'm trying to debate here in good faith. Read the proposed amendment.

Parliament shall ... have power to make laws ... relating to the ... Voice.

So all they are doing is giving parliament the power to do something that it already has the power to do. The amendment doesn't even go as far to say that any changes to the voice after it is established would need 3/4 majority or any other protections. The amendment is a nothingburger.

What if the throwing of the bucket is used by the arsonists as justification for not calling the fire truck? What if the bucket was built by the people who have acted in the interests of the arsonists in the first place? What if the bucket isn't full of water it is just a bucket?

you just want to be a grumpy old

Doesn't everyone just want that? I cant wait till I can wear my stubborn ignorance as a badge of pride.

Its not "we don't know" its that the Referendum makes the Voice subject to parliament. The lack of details on how the voice will operate means that there is no protection from the constitution. It is not a Voice enshrined in the Constitution. The voice we will get if the amendment is passed is the same as the voice we would get if Parliament made a voice without a referendum.

Can you put the actual amendment in the post and ask people to read it before debating? It seems funny to have a discussion about something without having it there in front of us.

I didn't write it. Whirlybird didn't just say "I've spoken to indigenous people" they gave examples of the different people they spoke with. Just because you haven't ever had a real conversation with an Aboriginal Australian doesn't mean none of us have.

1. If you don't trust anyone on here why bother? It isn't difficult to discern a bad faith argument.
2. You trust polling but not another human that you are peaking to through the internet? Anecdotal evidence isn't perfect but polling has financial reasons to push lies and special accounting tricks to make the numbers say whatever they want.

The polling is massively skewed. I cant find a single poll where they exclude anyone who hasn't read the proposed amendment.

Indigenous peoples want a voice to parliament that is enshrined and protected by the constitution and so do I But the majority of the yes voters have been misled to believe the referendum will give them that. Anyone who reads the constitutional amendment critically will see it is the way the referendum is written is just a empty gesture to delay real action.

I'm just not sure that voting the voice down is a good move or would even help get those things done.

Would voting up a powerless voice help get them done? It would be used as a way to put off further action. "What? You don't need a treaty. We gave you a Voice to parliament last decade."

The right is always the one who wins political Football.

The voice will become an impotent political appointment to stuff a friend into as a favor like the appeals court or ABC Board. Nothing will change materially for indigenous peoples but settlers will get to pretend they aren't racists because they voted yes.

and removed next term when the next quasi fascist gets elected.

nothing in the referendum stops that if you actually read it.

"I've spoken to indigenous people."

Where did they say that? Are you really going to call the user a liar for saying they know Indigenous Australians? That's weak tea.

I have yet to encounter a legal expert, or for that matter, an Indigenous Australian who is accepted by their community, who is opposed.

Lidia Thorpe? ex-Greens senator who split because she is against the referendum?