This clown is off his head. Tolerating his psychotic self destructive delusional thinking is beyond bearable.

infuriatingly blind to reality.

Dan.

Two simple reasons it should not pass. It is racist and it is undemocratic.

Binoy Kampmark number 2.

We now have the development of two identifiable Nations in Australia, and the Voice only want One flag - one identifiable country, as their land they believe was stolen from them. However, the "Them" have multicultural and ethnic backgrounds, as most Australians have but have no aboriginal ancestry. Though most first nations aboriginals have Indian DNA links, and currently the bulk of those who identify as aboriginals have European DNA links.

The Voice must come from full blood first Nation only and be an advisory body with no power of enforcement of law or practice.

The referendum will be divisive whichever way it goes. Despite claims to the contrary opponents of mining projects will use it as a lever to achieve their aims. The gas pipe near the Tiwi Islands is an early example. The public will then ask where the money is coming from to pay for all the increased services the 'Voice' will demand.

A fair question is just who is First Nations? Genetically Tasmanians are different from desert aborigines or Torres Strait people. Many claiming to be aboriginal are mostly Caucasian. If the 'Voice' gets up we will have such people using public media to berate everybody else, including taxpaying migrants who are somehow not quite as Australian. Meanwhile metrics such as aboriginal education, health and incarceration may not improve but we'll still get lectured by the mouthpieces. Expect a debacle.

I have to admit when I watched the protests on the news
and saw blood being splattered over symbols and the flag
being burned I felt not sympathy or understanding but
anger. I thought the actions were vile. And even though
I am for the Voice to Parliament - I agree with the author
that these actions probably did not win much sympathy, or
understanding and may have turned many off.

It was our former PM - John Howard who at one flag burning
reminded us about freedom of expression - that we must support
no matter how we may disagree with it. Well, I'm not so sure.
What's the point if the form of expression that being given
defeats the purpose that is being sought?

Big mistake. Huge. But again, I guess I'm seeing things through
the eyes of a white person. However, the whole point of the
exercise is to win support and get a "YES" vote - isn't it?
And being so disrespectful and aggressive - is not going to do it.

Agree with most of this Everald. Having served under a flag, with the union jack under one corner. Seeing flag burning by folk that might be hard placed to register as much as one sixteenth aborigine heritage. my sentiments to the voice referendum are shifting toward NO!

And also, when these mixed blood activists start claiming sovereignty! I lean towards NO.

In aborigine culture and tradition, no aborigine owned land, conversely, the land owned them, they belonged to the land and were never ever more than custodians. And only a small cohort have resided here for 60,000 years.

Others came later and later. With the last wave of native migration coming some 14,000 years ago, when the Asian wolf (Dingo, companion hunting dog) was introduced to this wide brown land. There were consequently at least 500 different tongues as spoken native language

I believe we need an act to determine who is an aborigine and who is essentially white. And for mine 50% is the end point for establishing aborigine status. And reliant on DNA analysis, rather than feeling aboriginal.

25% was a number accepted by American natives, simply to make the numbers, as it is here. And to win the extra income/entitlements/sit down money, that goes with that title?

For mine, anything less than 50% and they are like you and me, essentially (more white than black) white fellas.
Alan B.

Dan, were you looking in a mirror as you made your "extremely robust" and therefore fitting remarks?

Don't forget to take the meds! Otherwise, I'll turn the torch off as you slide down the beam to escape. And then you may have a reason to/for, hate, violence and unrequited anger.

It's not the fall that hurts, but the sudden stop at the bottom. Who put those unprintable (ouch, ouch) rocks there and who let the dogs out? My what big sharp teeth you have, Grandma. And leave off, they're not prairie oysters.

High C, you've never done that before?

Y'll have a nice day now y'hear.
Alan B.

It is time for reason to prevail.
Time to put aside the idea of blaming people living today for historical events.
Thankfully, I don't think it is as widespread a 'concept' as one would suppose.
I personally know persons of mixed 'race' who do not favour that view.
I have known them for a long time, and have never seen any evidence of such an attitude.
So they must be using their own thought processes to develop a logical view of life.
One can only hope this expands to others, and becomes the norm in our society.

No one is born with a knowledge of history.
That is taught to them.
So children are being taught to think that someone 'owes' them something.
They are taught to carry on what amounts to an inter-generational feud.
So I blame the 'elders', who must be teaching them to think like that.
They are the ones responsible for this debacle.
It is time for those 'elders' to make a careful assessment of their goals.

Anything divisive should be discouraged?
Having two flags on display, as it done in many places now, disparages and divides australia?
My (reasonable?) view is that we need only one flag.
But let us not go overboard with a zealous intensity of feeling about this.
A flag is physically a piece of cloth.
It is only what it reminds us of that is important.
The flag itself is an inanimate object: it does not do much except hang around.

Just a final thought thought or two:

I quote: 'While all this is true, Elizabeth was not personally responsible for it, nor is anyone living on our continent.....'
That is right. No one living now is in any way responsible for those historical events.
We have no obligation whatsoever to anyone, for actions carried out by others long ago.

I quote again: 'Once this first step is taken, consideration can be given to the signing of a Treaty.....'
No! One cannot sign a treaty with dead persons.
As this happened centuries ago, there is no one alive from that time who can agree to anything now.

Quoting yet again: 'it is important to note that no indigenous tribe ever surrendered or ceded their land to the British. It remains their own to this day.'
No it doesn't.
Ownership means occupying, using, and above all, being able to DEFEND an area of land.
The indigenous population clearly lost control and 'ownership' of the land a long time ago.
Those living back then had nothing, except knowledge, to pass on to their descendants.

And those descendants are predominantly mixed race now?
So they have obligations to their european ancestry too?
We who live in Australia must all make the best use possible of any knowledge and infrastructure passed to us by a previous generation.
And try to live together without making absurd and error based demands on others.

Dear Foxy

I agree with you 100%.

Regards

Cody

We are asked to acknowledge and honour their Leaders , Past ,Present and Future .

It's a pity that it is not recipculated .

Same goes for the flag .

Unless I see the EXACT wording of this change , then there is no way I will support it .

Trust a politician?

Just look across the Tasman . . . just look across the Tasman to see where this 'voice' lunacy will take Australia . . .

On Everald's logic:

1. "Indigenous people were not consulted when the Australian Constitution was drafted and approved in 1901"

AND "women were not consulted about the Constitution in 1901"

AND I, as a man, wasn't consulted about the Constitution in 1901.

THIS MAKES ORIGINAL CONSULTATION A NON ISSUE

2. Hawii's state flag has a Union Jack in the corner http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_Hawaii.svg . This is even though Hawaii is not part of the Commonwealth of Nations. The Union Jack remains part of Hawaii's history - JUST LIKE ITS PART OF OURS.

3. Look on the bright side.

The more Australian flags real of fake Aborigines burn the lower the chance the Voice Referendum will get through.

Mavs

Well anyone who believes in "Climate-Change" should oppose the burning of flags because that releases CO2 to the atmosphere. Also there will always be poor people who can make good use of an old cloth. Sadly, Australians release even more CO2 through unnecessary explosive fireworks.

Creating an aboriginal advisory body does not require any constitutional change, but passing of this referendum would provide an extra coat of justification for the disease of nationalism - while aboriginals lived here for 65,000+ years, till the British arrived they were never infected with this white-born disease!

Dear Alan B,

you wrote: "For mine, anything less than 50% and they are like you and me, essentially (more white than black) white fellas."

Sure, and you will of course be saying any blonde and blue eye people who see themselves as Jews with a birth-right to migrate to Israel be denied because they couldn't be of the Semitic peoples therefore must be frauds?

No Steele, I'm not saying anything like that. You are trying to put words in my mouth. And that's totally unacceptable.

I have cousins Aunts Uncles who are more than 50% indigenous, yet have blue eyes. Aunty Dot, who was more than 50% indigenous, had both blue eyes and blonde hair. Her sister Aunty Pat had fussy black hair and brown eyes. Their Father was away fighting in WW11 when they were born, and apparently conceived during his RR leave?

My mum had a different dad, hence my 8%, Something I've never acknowledged or used.

As for being Jewish, that can also be established by DNA not your eye, skin colour or shape of nose.

It's a war crime to annex occupied land, your real beef with me for illuminating that fact, right?
Alan B.

Two simple reasons it should not pass. It is racist and it is undemocratic.
Little,
That's not how it's seen in the aborigine & pseudo-aborigine circles & I understand why. However,
if that Voice brings about fair play on every front then it's worth starting to iron out the finer crinkles.
If historical facts are to be used for this then so should be the history of social & medical welfare & the already heaped-on good will !
Ignoring the good will only validates voting against the Voice !
The numerous working cattle stations handed back to traditional inhabitants of these stations' areas should be included in the calculations as should the contribution to pollution by the indigenous.
Demanding that non-indigenous Australians curb their doings should also apply to the indigenous non-traditional habits.
The only way this Voice can work is by all present & future inhabitants of Australia doing their bit towards a more united society. The descendants of the invaders aren't going to move nor are the descendants of the indigenous going to forfeit the benefits since invasion.
Those of mixed heritage should find it extremely easy to make this work if they have the integrity !

Dear Alan B,

I don't have a beef with you old boy just testing your capacity for consistency.

I am well aware of the high number of blue eyed and blonde people who identify as Jewish. Extensive influx of European genes within the Jewish diaspora is well documented.

But you seem to be contending a person's right to be regarded as a Jew can not be bred out but a person's aboriginality can.

Why isn't this a racist attitude, one deserving of being called out as I am doing with you now?

Of course the test being requested by Israeli Rabbis to test for Jewishness before issuing a marriage licence is well known and employed often.

"Israel's religious authorities — the only entities authorized to perform weddings in Israel — are not permitted to marry couples where both partners do not have the same religion; the only way for people of different (or no) faith to marry is by converting to the same religion. However, civil, interfaith, and same-sex marriages entered into abroad are recognized by the state; as a consequence Israeli residents not permitted to marry in Israel sometimes marry overseas, often in nearby Cyprus." Wikipedia

The lack of documentation of recent immigrants from areas such as Eastern Europe has compelled Rabbis to request DNA testing to test for Jewishness.

As this test involves looking at the DNA of the mitochondria, which is passed down from the mother unchanged, it fits the maternal heritage line assessment of a person's Jewishness determined by tradition. This is despite the fact that the vast bulk of the person's DNA may be a complete hodge-podge of mongrel mixings.

However using your definition of Aboriginality they would most certainly not retain their Jewish status. But you seem prepared to cut Jewish people the slack you aren't prepared to grace our indigenous brothers and sisters. Instead you bleat about me putting words into your mouth which is rubbish.

Why do you think that is?

"They have a fundamental right to be recognised as human beings and this small step will recognise it."
This sentence sums up the nonsense this fellow promulgates. His entire argument is based on lies and distortions. Aborigines have always been recognised as human beings. additionally, diseases do not belong to particular civilisations but are organisms in their own right that do not work either for or against particular ethnic groups. There may be a good argument for the "voice". But I haven't heard it yet.

Hinder.

SR,

The major difference is that Judaism is a religion and aboriginality is a race. That a tiny minority of Rabbis in Israel call for DNA testing does not obviate the fact that most Rabbis happily marry people with no Jewish background that have converted.

Technically, it is impossible to convert to aboriginality, but with no defined limit to genetic dilution, it is becoming very difficult to differentiate between those with say 1/32nd of aboriginal blood and those with zero and those being recognised as aboriginal are growing at nearly double the rate of aboriginal births with many stories of well-tanned Europeans becoming aboriginal and getting benefits such as free Uni etc.

With the "voice" and its racially based parliamentary privileges, the gravy train will be adding plenty more carriages.

shadowminister,

Rubbish as usual.

The practice of identifying a person's Jewishness through DNA testing has been going on in Israel for quite a while and the right to do so was recently upheld by their highest court.

http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2020-01-24/ty-article/.premium/israeli-high-court-allows-dna-testing-to-prove-judaism/0000017f-e13b-d804-ad7f-f1fb85f90000

Greater numbers of people identifying as Aboriginal has largely come about as the lessening of the stigma of having indigenous heritage gathers pace.

Mitochondrial DNA has about 16,500 base pairs while nuclear DNA has 3.3 billion. Yet decisions on ethnicity are being made on this basis.

SR,

You've cocked it up as usual.

"For example, in the preliminary response, it was argued that the proposal to conduct genetic testing is only made when the rest of the material presented is not sufficient, i.e., in cases in which, without such testing, the person’s Judaism would not be recognized. According to this line of thinking, the proposal to do testing can only benefit the person being tested, whether he accepts the testing or refuses to undergo the test." Essentially it is for those who are completely without documentation.

So essentially it cannot be used to show that someone is not Jewish. People with zero Jewish heritage who convert are considered as Jewish as anyone else.

Also:

In recent years, Israel has allowed for an opening in what has been an air-tight religious affair with a law permitting a domestic partnership when both members of the partnership have no official religious affiliation. In order to qualify for a brit zugiut (domestic partnership):

The partnership must consist of a man and a woman over 18 years of age

Both must be permanent residents in Israel

Both must be registered as not religiously affiliated in the Ministry of the Interior

There must be no degree of family relation between the members of the couple

The couple must not already be married to other partners or married to each other (from a ceremony outside of Israel)

The thing that gets right up my nose in this whole debate is this common, lazy and easy excuse that "it all happened long ago and I can't be held responsible for what my forefathers did."

What a load of bollocks.

I was alive when indigenous people weren't even counted or regarded as human. I was alive when little Johnny Howard sent the army in to communities. I'm not so old as to be 'ancient history'. So please, don't expect me to give your opinion any value (and you know who you are) when you blatantly choose to be so willfully ignorant.

shadowminister,

You are just reinforcing my point. Where there is doubt about someone's Jewishness or Aboriginality then the genetic means that are open to validating someone's Jewishness isn't open to an Australian Aborigine who in your eyes doesn't qualify because they are '1/32' indigenous.

As to so called domestic partnerships they aren't even recognised in the US for gods sake.

"Under Israeli law, a domestic partnership or common-law marriage is not fully equivalent to a traditional legal marriage in all respects. Therefore, under U.S. law, an Israeli domestic partnership is also not treated as fully equivalent to a traditional legal marriage. A visa applicant’s domestic partner, therefore, is not eligible for derivative visa status on the basis of marriage."
http://il.usembassy.gov/visas/visas-for-treaty-traders/_co-habiting/

Dear Aries54

When, exactly, were indigenous people not considered Human? When and where were the army sent into communities?

SR,

I can become Jewish if I so please by simply converting which means it is a religion, not a race. When I can simply convert to being aboriginal then you may have a point. That there is a loophole in the Jewish belief that by tracing your heritage back to the original 12 tribes of Israel you can also claim Jewishness does not make it otherwise.

A family friend of ours converted to Judaism and her children are automatically accepted as Jewish even though the father is not Jewish and the kids most likely have not a single gene traceable to the tribes of Israel.

If I had my mitochondrial DNA traced back far enough I'm sure that I would have perhaps 1/100 000 of a link to aboriginality. Should I also be able to claim this and get all the benefits?

Dear Cody

Google it sweetheart. Then get back to me.

Dear Aries54,

What a response. No facts to back yourself up with?

I am concerned when people express passionate views on a matter.
We all run on instinct, and we need it to survive.
And, let's face it, some of our instinctive reactions can be passionate.
However, we normally use reason to control and direct our actions.
Running on instinct alone won't cut it any more.
So views need to be thoughtful, measured, steady, rather than passionately expressed.
Passionately expressed views mean you are running on instinct rather than reason.
It needs reason to lead us to a better understanding of something, and passionate people might not get there.
They can't or don't exercise reason to modify their views. They are not being logical.
I don't take too much notice of passionate views, as mostly they are not well thought out.
They are thus likely to be faulty.

shadowminister,

Repeatedly shooting you down is becoming a little tiring.

If a person's mitochondrial DNA returns positive genetics for Jewish heritage then there is no need for proof of conversion or otherwise. It is a test where a tiny amount of DNA is taken as confirmation of belonging to a particular ethnic group.

Why isn't a proven linage enough for a person to see themselves as having Aboriginal heritage?

You either reject or accept them both. To only validate one is to be rightfully regarded as racist.

SR,

Beating you like a drum is too easy.

First, you are happy to accept religious teachings based on the Torah from 1000s of years ago as a sound legal base for determining ethnicity. That it is scientifically dubious doesn't seem to bother you either.

Mitochondrial DNA is passed from mother to child, meaning that a person with a 100% aboriginal father and a mother with 99% aboriginal but a non-aboriginal mother somewhere in the female line would test negative for Mitochondrial aboriginal DNA. Whereas someone that is 99% British but has an aboriginal female somewhere in the maternal line could test positive.

Secondly, as you haven't tried to address the issue of conversion to aboriginality, I guess that you are ignoring it because it blows a hole in your infantile logic.

shadowminister,

Why are you attempting to use the mitochondrial DNA in an Aboriginal frame? Don't be idiotic.

The question is about the amount of DNA which you deem qualifies someone as Jewish or someone else as Aboriginal. It is quite evident that a very small amount still gets you a ticket to take up Israeli citizenship. Yet you want to set limits on what qualifies someone as an aboriginal.

You are making a racist distinction.

SR,

I've never claimed that the tiny fraction of Jewish DNA makes you Jewish. You are the one claiming that because of a religious loophole in Jewish belief that it must be right. I disagree and think it's an aberration and you are the one arguing that mysticism is a sound legal base.

People that are 1% Aboriginal are claiming Aboriginal heritage along with all the taxpayer-funded grants etc. I think that's bollocks.

What will Australia gain economically from becoming a Republic?
And what will cost of the change be?

shadowminister,

You claimed: "People that are 1% Aboriginal are claiming Aboriginal heritage along with all the taxpayer-funded grants etc. I think that's bollocks."

Name a single person.

SR,

Got you!

The onus is on you to show that nobody is since you claim that it is their right.