Jacinta Price is the self-elected, Dutton-appointed spokesperson for the Indigenous Nations of Australia. Did you listen to their question Bruce? What about you Sheila? Jacinta didn’t!
While every state and territory apart from the ACT rejected the proposed Voice to parliament in Saturday’s referendum, Indigenous communities resoundingly supported it.
Indigenous for well over 100 years couldn’t ‘Testify’, or “Bear Witness” in any court in the Colony because Aborigines simply couldn’t swear on a bible as they were heathens. That belief was the cornerstone of our racist system which has carried through as a belief that they can’t be trusted even today.. As a consequence, crimes by whites murder, rape, theft, or the stealing of children never came before the courts. Charges were never laid as there weren’t any white Christians who would testify.
Today Andrew Bolt publicly calls Indigenous Australians liars if they accuse whites of racist crimes or our Institutions as Racial. To do so is not to be a REALIST but to be WOKE and a REVERSE RACIST.
The Voice Referendum presents voters with many dilemmas, including, for “Yes” voters after a secret ballot, how to tell who not to invite into their homes.
Source: Referendum’s clear choices on the way Australia should go
Why do so many of my fellow non-Indigenous Australians seemingly have such a deep aversion towards the Aboriginal peoples of this land? Sadly, I am compelled to ask that question as we approach a referendum asking for constitutional recognition of Australia’s First Nations and an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander voice to parliament.
Source: The referendum: So little asked, so graciously, but seemingly too much – Pearls and Irritations
Listen to words out of the mouths of these two “No” advocates if you listen are the same sounds, declared as logic, we hear from Donald Trump. Mundine ignores history and any notion that there’s a difference between what’s right and wrong. He simply declares there is an “equivalence”, and “good and bad are on both sides” of Yes and No campaigns when they’re not. Trump said that after Charlottesville when his supporter drove his car into a crowd injured people and killed a woman.
The word “listen” has no place when Mundine says “We will fix Aboriginal community problems trust us and simply say “No” to their request for a Voice. Words, heard over and over again for more than 10 generations by Governors, Churches, and bureaucrats. Promises made and more often than not broken without any beneficial outcomes by successive governments. Einstein’s definition of insanity takes pride of place in his proposal. History has shown a trail of failed outcomes time and time again leaving Indigenous Australians at the bottom of every social metric. It’s with shame that any concept of a universal human right in Australia is ignored.
Peter Dutton is simply worse at fear-mongering with his simplistic claim of “it’s reverse racism” Racism against the kin of those kind-hearted white colonists now being terrorized. Invaded by Activists, Academics, Unionists, and Commies. Any Woke argument that the colonizers never had the best interests of Australian Aborigines at heart only their own is simply fake. He’s recruited Jacinta Price to hide behind and say that “Colonisation was the best thing that ever happened to Indigenous Australians.” Again this is the very argument Trump runs when African Americans cry Black Lives Matter he cries White Lives Matter. When any attempt at examining the statistical truth of that reality is made both Trump and Abbott bounce back it’s “lifestyle choices” and blame them
Dutton’s argument that any systemic racism in Australia is Fake, only driven by ” left-wing activists” who want to tear Australia apart is supported he maintains by listening to Price and Mundine” who like Dutton supposedly speak for a crowd of unnamed First Nations peoples who are never seen to stand behind them. On the other hand, the Yes advocates have listened to a Voice. One that Australia saw develop over 6 years of discussion by hundreds of Indigenous Australians who were elected to come together and provide us with their humble request in the form of the Uluru Statement which was then instantly rejected by the LNP. Now that’s “listening” like British Colonizers have always done. Whenever Human Rights are raised in Australia the LNP tells the UNAHRC they’re “not needed” along with the chorus of Murdoch’s choir making us seem we stand shoulder to shoulder with Russia China and Nth Korea.
Leading No campaigner Warren Mundine says he would consider vying for a spot on the Voice should the referendum succeed on October 14.
On Thursday, Mr Dutton returned serve, branding Ms Langton’s language as “vitriolic” and “bitter”, and claiming Yes campaign members would be appointed to the Voice advisory body.
“Well, I think they’re just providing, you know, a sort of a look through the window of what the Voice might be as a body – if it’s successful on October 14, it will be divisive,” he told Nine Radio host Ray Hadley.
“You hear it in the language of Marcia Langton, but some of the others as well … members on the (Yes) committee who have got union affiliations or Labor Party backgrounds or sympathisers to the communist cause.
“These people are the ones who would have all of the power under the Voice that the Prime Minister is proposing,” Mr Dutton said.
Mr Mundine said no matter the result on October 14, Australia would be “polarised”, but pleaded for both sides of the campaign to end the “vitriolic arguments and fights”.
“My concern is that we don’t wake up on Sunday (October 15) and the whole place is on fire. We really want people to know, no matter what the decision is, that it’s a democracy,” he said.
“People will make that choice and we must all accept it. And we must then work together to deal with the issues that are happening in Indigenous communities.”
Before voting in the upcoming Referendum, it’s vital to be educated on arguments from both sides to make an informed decision, writes Dr Abul Rizvi.
Source: How I decided to vote in the upcoming Voice Referendum
When a Historian takes aim at writing the History of the referendum and is from the left what chance has the voice two months from now. Grace Brooks is neither a supporter of the voice nor an advisor. In fact, she’s less active than those she criticizes.
Later this year, Australia will vote in a referendum on creating an Aboriginal Voice to advise parliament. The Yes campaign is flagging, hobbled by a technocratic strategy and language borrowed from corporate social responsibility values statements.
No campaign’s messaging is designed to appeal to a broad spectrum of voters. While the Yes campaign sticks to unconvincing, technocratic rhetoric about community consultation and “listening,” the No campaign is arguing that the Voice will interfere with everything from national defense to school curriculum. It’s a scattergun approach, and it is working.
If the Voice had emerged as a result of an organic movement — like the campaigns against Australia Day or those for a treaty, which regularly mobilize tens of thousands of people — then it might have been in a position to counter the No campaign. But this is far from the case.
In fact, among the highest-profile supporters of the Yes campaign are peak corporate bodies like the Business Council of Australia and mining giants like BHP, which has donated $2 million. It’s a far cry from the strikes that spearheaded the Aboriginal land rights movement of the twentieth century, which were aided by solidarity from unions and the Communist Party of Australia.
Source: Australia’s Voice Referendum Is Losing Thanks to the “Radical Centrism” of Its Architects
We apparently live in, if not a perfect, an almost perfect world of “racial harmony” according to the Liberals. So why risk what began in 1788 with a no-vote referendum today? That in a nutshell is the ahistorical premise on which the Liberals base their argument against A Voice.
Their argument denies both 1) History and 2) the social reality in which we live. Theirs is a fiction that dates back 240 years, or even further. A fiction that maintains an Inglorious Imperial and colonial history. Primarily, it is a past that is based on the fact that nobody was here, and that if there were they weren’t a nation and therefore had no rights, a treaty or needed to be recognized like the First peoples of the rest of the world are today. The LNP attitude remains the exception on this planet shaming Australia while declaring us to be the best of all possible colonised worlds and a model for the planet. They remain the British-sponsored pirates of the East India Company in the 21rst Century today.
According to the LNP any problems Indigenous Australians face is largely of their own making due to their resistance to assimilate
The federal opposition has questioned the wisdom of holding a referendum on an Indigenous voice later this year, putting a dampener on hopes of bipartisan support for the landmark vote.
Source: ‘Why risk racial harmony?’: Key Lib queries voice vote – Michael West
The High Court will be put in no doubt that parliament retains its supremacy if the Indigenous voice referendum is carried, a key figure in its design says.
Source: Voice role and function in hands of parliament: expert – Michael West
“Know your place” is a phrase used in the past by members of the Liberal Party when they observed, in their view, members of the Labor Party acting above their station.
The lessons of the last election should have left an indelible scar on those involved in the Luddite politics of the past decade. Have they not understood that the people, in their judgement, said they had had enough of their rancid unempathetic behaviour? Yet they go on unmoved as if nothing transpired while trying to give the Leader with a public image of a racist bigot a personality transplant. Queensland excepted.
But the attacks led by the Opposition leader Peter Dutton could have a fatal effect on the proposal. He knows that history tells us that without the support of the opposition, the referendum won’t pass. That is unless the people vote as they did in the election and decide to confirm their thoughts of May 21 2022, with a resounding yes vote that shatters conservative negativity for decades to come.
Source: Know your place – » The Australian Independent Media Network
Does the Constitution need changing is The referendum
What comes after Parliament determines and is elected. Is “a Voice TO not IN parliament a reasonable request?
Their demand for information on “what the Voice will be” is not entirely a red herring. The Labor Government’s statement that it’ll be decided by Parliament after the referendum succeeds, is not satisfying what a large number of people think they should know, before voting “Yes”. It is an added risk, that as soon as you give some plan, oppositionists will start debating the plan — attacking the main idea by attacking the example. But that might have to be the cost of shutting them up about providing “details”.
The Prime Minister’s commitment to implement the Uluru Statement From the Heart in full is in grave danger of being derailed by the shorthand title, ‘The Voice’ that we keep hearing about.
Source: Paul Bongiorno: ‘No’ campaign spoiling to muffle the Voice
Curiously, no-one publicly made the obvious point that if this were so, it was also by definition a referendum on the opposition leader, Matthew Guy. If Andrews, seeking re-election for a third term, was putting the Yes case, then Guy was running the argument for No.
Source: How Dan Andrews pulled off one of the most remarkable victories in modern politics
olddogthoughts 
You must be logged in to post a comment.