With YES voters now below 50%, - and still falling according to the latest Newspoll - I wonder if Albanese and his cronies have considered the idea that the race-based Voice might backfire on the people (very few) who might - or might not - benefit from this divisive nonsense.

Australians are an easygoing, tolerant lot (for now), who still believe in a 'fair go' and assistance for the needy - who do exist, but not enough to divide the country, as Albanese is doing, and not because they belong to a particular race. We already have an excellent, and very expensive, safety net in place.

Special treatment for one group or another has always been unpopular in egalitarian Australia.

I think that the voice fails the substitution test. If the Constitution makes no mention of race or creed then I would guess that it recognises all Australians equally. Isn't that what everyone wants?

The Voice is a misnomer anyway, it's Invoice what is really the underlying definition !

The debate needs to move from the political arena to within the community. At present opposition politicians like Dutton are muddying the waters with their political rhetoric of lies and exaggerations. Once it becomes a community debate, Australians who are a fair minded people will see the merit in this referendum, and the good the resultant constitutional change will bring.

"Section 51(xxvi) of the Constitution of Australia, commonly called "the race power", is the subsection of Section 51 of the Constitution of Australia granting the Australian Commonwealth the power to make special laws for people of any race."

"As initially written, section 51(xxvi) empowered the Parliament to make laws with respect to: "The people of any race, other than the aboriginal race in any State, for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws". The Australian people voting at the 1967 referendum deleted the words relating to aboriginals"

"Edmund Barton had argued in 1898 that section 51(xxvi) was necessary to enable the Commonwealth to "regulate the affairs of the people of coloured or inferior races who are in the Commonwealth". The section was intended to enable the Commonwealth to pass laws restricting such migrant labourers as the Chinese and Kanakas. Quick and Garran observed in 1901 that "It enables the Parliament to deal with the people of any alien race.""

Putting quotation marks around three paragraphs of unacknowledged words is no contribution.

The skullduggery of the race-based Voice is evident in the lack of a convention. The polls are indicating that people are sick of the con; but, polls have lost their authority by being wrong a lot of the time.

The PM has done his bit to help it fail with his 'chicken littles' comment.

If Australians still have the traditional values that proponents of the Voice sneer at: a fair go, equality, etc., the Voice referendum will fail. Unfortunately, like polls, traditional values are no longer certain.

This racist Voice is all about a very small group of people with varying hereditary connections (including none) to a defunct primitive culture which made no material progress over centuries and would still be making no progress had it been left alone.

Currently 53% of Australia's land mass is covered by native title and many more claims pending. Frazer island has been the most recent granted. They want control of their land and administration of the land, with seats allocated in parliament to look after their land.

Proud Boy Jose'

You say; "They (Aboriginals) want control of their land and administration of the land, with seats allocated in parliament to look after their land."

Again you lie, where are Aboriginal people making a claim for seats in parliament. You post these lies on a regular basis, does your hate of people of colour force you to create these negative falsehood?

The law of the land has not been extinguished by British settlement.
http://www.smh.com.au/national/what-s-indigenous-sovereignty-and-can-a-voice-extinguish-it-20230113-p5ccdk.html

http://www.creativespirits.info/aboriginalculture/selfdetermination/aboriginal-sovereignty-in-australia

I think that a 60% land grab by by the aboriginal industry is closer to the mark, with more in the offing.

Fra(s)er Island we are told has now been 'renamed' - probably to something unpronouncable and made up by by activsts (there was never an aboriginal written language) which I took no notice of because it will remain Fraser Island to me and, I suspect, to most people, aboriginal and non-aboriginal alike. I have been there once, and it might as well be called Sh.t Island. The dingos seem to like living there in anticipation of getting a taste of tourists.

Proud Boy Jose'

What is the significance of the history lesson? Is it your way of covering up yet another one of your blatant lies that you claimed Aboriginal people want "seats allocated in parliament" There is mention of Aboriginal sovereignty, but no mention of "seats allocated in parliament". When do you think you might get off and stop lying about Aboriginal aspirations in Australia? Its getting rather ridiculous, how you tell your lies, then walk away from them.

p/s The British had a bad habit of, as ttbn called K'gari, leaving their diseased and misery stricken Sh.t Island and claiming other peoples lands for themselves. All in the name of king and country.

Paul, you are proving my point, that aboriginals want sovereignty and government of their lands, by your claims the British brought nothing but disease and destruction. Like you, they believe they can do it better.
http://www.facebook.com/watch/?comment_id=814119026432277&v=1251059508566351

Frazer Ireland renamed. The name K’gari comes from the ancient creation story told by generations of the island’s traditional owners. Yet almost 200 years ago, it was replaced by the story of a British couple marooned for a matter of weeks. https://bit.ly/3qrM9bC

Proud Boy Jose'

You are as slippery as a fish in water! I could say something else, YOU said; " "They (Aboriginals) want control of their land and administration of the land, with seats allocated in parliament to look after their land." Where is YOUR evidence that Aboriginal people want, "seats allocated in parliament"? Put up or shut up, YOU tell more lies than Dutton when it comes to 'The Voice'.

I suspect that Paul1405 is the fish.

Hi Paul,

Your comments made me think of the Immigration Restriction Act. That was a terrible act drafted with good intentions. It took a long while to get repealed and it did not require a referendum to get rid of it. It is not a part of Australian history to be revered, but it might be learned from at least.

Hi Fester,

Let me say I am not opposed to those who have genuine concerns about this referendum, and will vote no, that's a reasonable position to take. What I am miffed by, are those racists and bigots who will vote no because of their prejudicial attitudes, those that believe Aboriginal people are inferior and undeserving. I will call them out when they lie and exaggerate the true intention of the referendum, and there are plenty doing that. There is one poster on here who claims he is a Christian, but lies at every opportunity he gets to denigrate Aboriginal people, because I believe he is consumed by race hate, and has no real genuine concern.

Well good luck with that Paul. I think your ambition a little Quixotic, but it's a pursuit to keep you interested that causes no harm, so a thumbs up from me.

What annoys me, are those racists and bigots who will vote yes to create an apartheid state in Australia. Those who lie about the true intentions of the voice to create a massive gravy train that will cripple the democracy and integrity of this nation.

The Immigration Restriction Act (1901) repealed in 1959. The act was introduced to the Australian parliament by the then Prime Minister Edmund Barton, who by today's standards would be considered an ardent racists. The men who wrote the Australian Constitution were very much of the mind that Australia was for the British, and their decedents only, certainly not a country for non-white immigrants from Asia and elsewhere. That is why they inserted racists clauses into the Constitution, those provisions have never been removed, and any future government could use them at any time to legally introduce racially discriminatory laws. I don't see those claiming The Voice is racially discriminatory, jumping up and down and demanding the existing racist clauses in the Constitution be removed through a referendum.

No is the only way to go!!
A few elite latte sippers will be made rich and well off, a few further down the pecking line will get wealthy and enjoy life, the poor old black fella currently sitting under a gum tree will stay there. Have seen it all over the last 50+ years and it wont change.
A new bureaucracy costing the country millions will not fix the issues that have been there for years and will continue for years to come.

Paul,

Once again you have got it wrong, many liberals and nationals including myself on OLO have advocated removing any reference to race in the constitution.

Only Labor and the Greens want to put racist stuff into the constitution.

GBC

A good post. A straightforward opinion and a pleasant change from the catty little arguments.

Paul wrote:"That is why they inserted racists clauses into the Constitution, those provisions have never been removed, and any future government could use them at any time to legally introduce racially discriminatory laws. I don't see those claiming The Voice is racially discriminatory, jumping up and down and demanding the existing racist clauses in the Constitution be removed through a referendum."

Well I for one would love to see those clauses removed. But not for the reason Paul thinks.

You see, 'discrimination' can be a two way street. You can discriminate AGAINST but you can also discriminate IN FAVOUR of this or that race. The so-called racist clauses in the constitution have been used to discriminate in favour of racial groups - primarily the aboriginals. (Indeed some legal scholars think those clauses can ONLY be used to discriminate in favour of groups.)

So if these clauses that Paul uses to virtue signal his anti-racism were indeed removed then the legal basis for all pro-aboriginal federal schemes would be removed. No more Ab-study. No more The Indigenous Australians' Health Programme . No more Closing the Gap' funding. No more this....no more that.

I wonder if that's what Paul wants....or perhaps, as usual, he didn't think it through.

But you know the worst thing about getting rid of the so-called racist parts of the constitution? People like Paul would no longer be able to advertise their supreme virtue by calling for the repeal of those clauses. Oh the humanity!!

SM,

Is that the same Liberal Party that at election time is happy to take preferences from the racially bigoted One Nation Party? As for the Cow Cocky Party, they rejected The Voice without even considering the details of what was being proposed. They rejected it on the grounds of; "Give the black fella nothing". These conservatives are very sus!

p/s Is the Liberal Party leader, that Dud Dutton who refused to attend Parliament the day Kevin Rudd apologised to Aboriginal people for the 'Stolen Generation'.

Looking at SBS panel The Whole Table - Nakkiah Lui Wiki, claims aboriginality and hates white skin. Here ethnicity is listed a white Australian. Her worth is $5 million, she hardly needs an aboriginal voice. Her Father's name is Gibson her mother's name is Beale.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Indigenous Australian self-determination, also known as Aboriginal Australian self-determination, is the power relating to self-governance by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in Australia. It is the right of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples to determine their own political status and pursue their own economic, social and cultural interests. Self-determination asserts that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples should direct and implement Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander policy formulation and provision of services. Self-determination encompasses both Aboriginal land rights and self-governance,[1][2] and may also be supported by a treaty between a government and an Indigenous group in Australia.[3]

From the 1970s to 1990s, the Australian government supported Aboriginal groups moving from large settlements in remote areas back to outstation communities in formerly traditional lands. Also from the early 1970s, Aboriginal communities began running their own health services, legal services, and housing cooperatives.[4]"

There are those who naively believe the Voice is merely making suggestions to the elected Government. The Voice is to assist all areas of the government to reinstall what they feel is their original right to self-determination. "Always was and always will be."

Proud Boy Jose'

You hate extends to any Aboriginal who is a success, it destroys your narrative. Another lie, "Nakkiah Lui Wiki, claims aboriginality and hates white skin" Does she really, "hate white skin" provide evidence of her saying that, otherwise I'l call YOU a liar for the third time in as many days!

Warren Mundine. [edited]
"Why I Don’t Support the Voice
I have never been convinced to support the Voice, a position I share with many other Aboriginals from across the political spectrum. The reason for this is three-fold:

The Voice in a Westminster Government is not Aboriginal culture. In our cultures, only countrymen and women can speak for country. No national body can speak for the circa 300 traditional owner groups, Australia’s “First Nations,” it would be a huge bureaucratic structure drowning out real Aboriginal voices.

I am a believer in liberal democracy and all the freedoms and opportunities it creates; I don’t believe Australia and its Constitution is racist. There are racist individuals in our country.

The Parliament already has the power under the Constitution to set up a Voice to Parliament today or at any time of its choosing.

So, why go in the Constitution at an enormous cost of some $180 to $200 million (US$122 to $135 million), not including the money spent already? How about Parliament legislate the Voice and do something better with that money by spending it on the ground in ways that could produce practical results right now for disadvantaged aboriginals?

Paragraph 3 of the current proposed Voice amendment states quite clearly that the Parliament will have the power to determine the Voice’s powers, functions, structure and composition. The same powers the Parliament has now.

People have also said they want Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to be “in the Constitution.”

You could do that with a preamble or statement that has words recognizing the people and cultures who have been living on the Australian continent for millennia. You could enshrine Indigenous treaty rights like they do in Canada or give the Commonwealth the power to make laws on native title and/or agreements between traditional owner groups and governments on matters relating to their native title and cultural rights.

hate extends to any Aboriginal who is a success,
Paul1405,
A lot of Aboriginal people are successful & even moreso because they didn't receive the financial support Aborigines enjoy !

Maybe the whole thrust of ithe Voice is a ruse to scam Aboriginals from the benefits they now enjoy. (Re Mundines comments).

To my mind, a more constructive approach to Aboriginal integration both among themselves and towards broader society, is to strengthen Land Councils “Voice”.

Land Councils are more integrated into the Aboriginal sub-groups in their communities, which are tribal and family orientated.

Land Councils are also better positioned to recognise outsider incursions, including self serving Politicians.

This seems to be what Mundine is hinting at.

DD,

Oh no! You've woken up to Wazza, Chocs uncle Wazza. Given a lousy deal by the Labor Party, and then fed crumbs by the Liberals, but the guy makes a reasonable non racists argument concerning The Voice, I've got no problem with that.

Onya Bonger 1405.

My observations are first hand re land councils.

They have many flaws such as nepotistic in particular, and sectionally oriented, but that can also be a motivator for change, provided the inner conflicts don’t spill out into the street, as sometimes they do. But thats Politics.

The Land Councils are an under-utilised resource. Harnessing them for better utilisation of resources towards better targeted aims and ends makes sense: The Voice is divisive without a doubt, and is a shift from the wrong direction, the top down: That is the gist of Mundines position which I totally support!

Well DD,

'Land Councils' nepotism, No way! As a grass roots practical way of dealing with problems and providing solutions at the coal face, they are a good idea.

BTW, I still can't get over the fact, my first cousin got her 'Land Council' to approve her aboriginality a few years back. I said to her "Cuz, how did ya get that?" You've got as much aboriginal blood as me, Indy says I'm 2%. Anyway she proved it to the satisfaction of the mob, says on her "fathers side", hummm I thought he was a Pommy sailor. Anyway I said what's your Aboriginal name; "Didgeridoo"! Seems being aboriginal doesn't have the great benefits some claim, Cuz tells me she gets nothing from it financially.

Indy says I'm 2%.
Paul1405,
Well, it appears that some are actually minus 2% & still claim !

Paul, take a look at SBS 'The Whole Table' episode 3.

The Voice will be an expensive set of 24 unelected bureaucrats based in Canberra on taxpayer income telling remote communities what to do as decided by the white's elected Government.

The land councils should be given the same powers as local councils for their tribal areas.

Josephus

#The land councils should be given the same powers as local councils for their tribal areas.#

To a point, but Mundine sees the dangers here, and is objecting loudly, and his main objection is to loss of control from the grass roots level of Land Councils, which the Voice seeks to capture and control.

The Voice poses a big threat to the current autonomy enjoyed now.

The criticism of Mundine, that he has missed out on inclusion into the evolving new Voice order and is spewing sour grapes. I don’t agree with that criticism.
He should be taken seriously!

Bonger 1405. Your objection based on one character is shallow and unjustified.

Land councils deserve a credible place in debates.
The point of the experience of your niece is, land council meetings should be the most important arbiter in determining who is and who isn’t acceptable to qualify for Aboriginal ancestry and inclusion into the tribe.

At the moment, anybody putting up their hand to qualify for benefits derived from Aboriginal ancestry are considered legitimate and rarely questioned: A membership of a Land Council should be mandatory.

Reading comments by young people, they believe the Voice is mere recognition of aboriginal occupation when the settlers arrived 1788. The Voice is actually giving current tribal Groups power to advise governments on their requirements toward self-determination. The educational system is responsible for the young having wrong ideas about the Voice, with idea of recognition of history. The Voice is not about history, it is about the future.

diver dan, you have expressed it well.

DD,

I am not objecting to Wazza Mundine opinion on 'The Voice', they are somewhat legitimate, although there is a well known element of "sour grapes" with Mundine and his treatment by the Labor Party. That I'm sure influences his judgement on the matter to a degree.

BTW; That is my cousin, not niece, 1st cousin in fact, who is Aboriginal.

Jose'

After all the negative lies you have told about aboriginal people on here, failing to even substantiate one of them, I don't believe anything you say. You say; "The Voice will be an expensive set of 24 unelected bureaucrats based in Canberra on taxpayer income". I ask under what legislation has the government said that will be the case? Now Scuttle away again with no reply!

So according to Paul we will have aboriginals' elders coming to the supreme Government in Canberra cap in hand making suggestions at their own expense.

Sorry Paul, it is 20 not 24 as I previousl stated.

Pat Turner, NACCHO chief executive

Ken Wyatt, former Indigenous Australians Minister

Tom Calma, Reconciliation Australia co-chair.

Megan Davis, Uluru Dialogue co-chair.

June Oscar, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner

Noel Pearson, Cape York Institute founder

Marcia Langton, Indigenous Voice Co-design co-chair

Dale Aduis, South Australian First Nations Voice commissioner

Pat Anderson, Uluru Dialogue co-chair

Geraldine Atkinson, First People's Assembly of Victoria co-chair

Marcus Stewart, First People's Assembly of Victoria co-chair

Rodney Dillon, Tasmanian Regional Aboriginal Community Alliance Rodney Dillon

Graeme Gardner, Tasmanian Aboriginal Centre chairman

Sean Gordon, Gingee Group managing director

Jackie Huggins, Queensland Treaty Advancement Committee

Thomas Mayor, From The Heart representative

Dean Parkin, From The Heart representative.

Sally Scales, APY artist

Napau Pedro Stephen, Torres Strait Regional Authority chairman.

Peter Yu, ANU vice president

http://blog.canberradeclaration.org.au/2023/03/25/labor-mps-refuse-to-meet-with-indigenous-leaders-urging-no-on-voice/

Jose,

You lie once more, you claimed; "The Voice will be an expensive set of 24 unelected bureaucrats based in Canberra" there is no appointments to give that effect. There has been no appointments to 'The Voice' by government at this stage. There has been no legislation passed by the parliament. You claimed 24, now 20, prominent peoples names as being appointed to so called positions. All you provide is a link to a radical far right organisation calling itself "The Daily Deceleration" who the bloody hell are they? YOU!

I am going to call out everyone of your lies. You might fool others with your fuzzy Christianity, but you don't fool me.

It is starting to look as though Labor's gravy train is coming off the rails

"An exclusive survey shows that support for the Voice is at 56 per cent in Victoria and 53 per cent in NSW but this is outweighed by powerful swings that could block the reform from gaining the required threshold of a majority of votes in a majority of states.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has rejected calls to amend the Voice proposal before the Senate votes on the question's wording in the referendum bill this fortnight, cementing the plan for a public vote later this year.

The survey, conducted for this masthead by Resolve Strategic, shows that 42 per cent of voters support the Voice and 40 per cent oppose it when asked about the government proposal for change, with another 18 per cent undecided."

Patrick Lionel Djargun Dodson, byname Pat Dodson or Paddy Dodson, (born January 29, 1948, Broome, Western Australia, Australia), Australian activist and politician who became one of Australia’s most influential Indigenous leaders in the senate.

Senator Dodson said the voice was an historic opportunity for change.

"This alteration is profound because it is facing up to Australia's legacy of colonisation and assimilation," he said in the message.

"Through a successful referendum, Australians will finally acknowledge those injustices of the crown and will do so without undermining the integrity of our political and institutional framework of our nation."

Senator Dodson wrote that the voice would be an action of restorative justice.

How much is Pat Dodson worth? Pat Dodson net worth is estimated at around $5 million. His main source of income is from his primary work as a politician. Pat Dodson’s salary per month and other career earnings are over $400,000 dollars annually. His remarkable achievements have earned him some luxurious lifestyles and some fancy car trips. He is one of the richest and most influential politicians in Australia.

Does he need the ear of Government?

Jose',

Its hard to contain oneself when replying to a racists like YOU, but I'll try. To say; "His (Pat Dodson) remarkable achievements have earned him some luxurious lifestyles and some fancy car trips. He is one of the richest and most influential politicians in Australia." That shows you to be a resentful bigot, resentful of the success of a fine Aboriginal person and a fine Australian, who has served both his people, and this country well for many years. Unlike you who had done nothing but swing off the taxpayer teat, you did say once you are receiving aged welfare from the taxpayer, from people like Pat Dodson.

Possibly you prefer a senator who is an old white Christian fundo like yourself, who is accused of stalking one female senator and grabbing the arse of another, there is a third complaint yet to be exposed. Is that the kind YOU prefer as your representative?

Paul, it shows nothing of the sort, it proves aboriginals can live with equality in Australia without a Voice in the Constitution. It is you who is the racist bigot as you want to divide Australia on racial lines.

Jose'

One might think you are being truthful about Pat Dodson's wealth, he may have $5 million, he might have 10, not that its any of our business, but given your propensity for negatively lying about matters Aboriginal, I've caught you out 3 times recently, where is YOUR information coming from? Another one of those far right web sites you frequent like; '"The Daily Deceleration"!

"it proves aboriginals can live with equality", it proves nothing of the sorts. There were black folk who were wealthy under apartheid in South Africa, not many, but wealthy never the less. Wealth does not have the same meaning as equality. Since I have to tell you that, it shows how out of touch you are. Just tell me how many white and black social gathering took place in YOUR town, back in YOUR day. I asked that question of you before but you couldn't name any. In fact the black fella wasn't permitted in you white only public baths.

It appears that Paul1405 has outed himself as Anglophobic.

Quoted.
"Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has copped a lot of criticism for not giving Australians enough information about the Voice.
The man who stood next to the PM when he announced the referendum wording – is Thomas Mayo – he's been busy filling in the blanks. Mayo is a union official and “militant”.

He wrote the book on the proposed constitutional change.
He sits on Albo’s Referendum Working Group, his signature was on the Uluru Statement and he has spent a year and a half travelling the country trying to talk Australians into changing their Constitution to include the Voice.

What does he say about the Voice?

Thomas Mayo says the Voice is a campaign tool to “abolish colonialist institutions” and “pay the rent, pay reparations and compensation”.
Rather than what the PM described as an “inspiring and unifying Australian moment”, Mayo told a conference of communists that “there is nothing that we can do that is more powerful than building a first nations’ Voice, a black institution, a black political force to be reckoned with”.

At a 2021 Invasion Day protest he described “the powers that be” as “murderers”, he said he was “sick of governments not listening to our voice” so planned “to use the rulebook of the nation to force them”.
Mayo revealed the divisive aims behind the Voice at Invasion Day and Black Lives Matter protests as well as in numerous addresses revealing the Voice’s radical origins to the Search Foundation, which describes itself as the “successor organisation of the Communist Party of Australia”.

Remember when Albo said the Voice was “a modest request”?
Empty words.
Now you know the truth.

You’ve heard it from the mouth of the man who wrote the book on the Voice to Parliament.
It is not a “modest request”.
It’s about power and money and influence.
It's about dividing Australians.
Thomas Mayo, the Yes campaign’s most prominent advocate, said as much himself. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=655mzGRmkZw

Yours in unity,

Jacinta Nampijinpa Price
on behalf of FAIR AUSTRALIA

Josephus,
I'm sure his name is Mayor not Mayo.

Indy,

Thomas Mayo, maybe he's the mayor of Widgeridooland, seems he's just as confused as you and Jose' are on The Voice.

Finding the Heart of the Nation, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander author Thomas Mayor gets behind the politics and legal speak to explain why the Uluru Statement from the Heart is an invitation to all Australians.
Paul1405,
Is this then a different chap ?

Paul1405,
I know a member of a Mayo family who is a kind, polite & easy-going person & most definitely not a bitter-angry one as the one I see portrayed by that other name.

Indy,

The same person with two different spellings of his name. His is but one voice among many in this debate. Some on here have latched onto to a vague connection between Mayo and radicalism. Just as I don't share Lidia Thorpe's reasons for a NO vote, I may not share some of Thomas Mayo's reasons for a YES vote.

Paul if you are not listening to aboriginals on the Voice who wrote the Statement from the heart, you are not hearing their agenda.

The agenda of the Voice will never be revealed because doing so would sink it instantly !

The rednecks haters of Aboriginal people, and the hard core racists, are being well supported with their NO campaign by ONE NATION and the 'Lovely' Pauline, says a lot about what their real objections are.

Paul, we recognize your communist elitist position, it is just that we believe in equality, where every voice has the same value. You are a true watermelon who likes dividing by colour. You call those saying 'NO" haters and racists when this is coming out of your own identity. You express hate for opponents.

Jose'

I have said before, a minority of those articulating a 'NO' vote do have genuine concerns, and they should be respected, but so far a majority of No's are relying on a scare campaign of misinformation and lies, you being one, that I can't respect. The nonsense you post on this subject shows you don't have the foggiest notion what equality means. For years Aboriginal have suffered from disadvantage, and people like you have never protested about the lack of equality.

The rednecks haters of Aboriginal people, and the hard core racists,
Paul1405,
As per usual you're getting it all wrong again, it's those who actually do care about others unlike the Yes Voters are the ones who'll vote No !

Paul you are not listening to the Voices behind the Voice on what their agenda is for the Voice. They have no concern for remote aboriginals' plight, it is just the elite well educated and those that want the country back under their power and control. They do not want the Democratic elected Westminster Government; they want tribal elders controlling law and land, rivers, and beaches administration. If you give respect to aboriginal elders past and present [ancestral worship] and believe in welcome to country, you are agreeing the Land belongs to aboriginals. It is part of the Black power Communist movement to overthrow democracy and they believe white colonial supremacy.

In my view Paul1405 is the bigoted racist- but there you go.

In my view Canem Malum is a communist- but there you go.

100 Million people died under Communism- in the name of equality!

Trotsky is admired by many socialist groups in contemporary western society- Stalin had Trotsky assassinated as a political rival- but Trotsky would have allowed many more to die from starvation and counter revolutionary policies in the Gulag system under the auspices of utopian totalitarian civilization. Many aspects of the soviet system can be seen in contemporary western society.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DARVO
http://www.hebrewsurnames.com/FREYD

"DARVO (an acronym for "deny, attack, and reverse victim and offender") is a reaction that perpetrators of wrongdoing, such as sexual offenders may display in response to being held accountable for their behavior. Some researchers indicate that it is a common manipulation strategy of psychological abusers.

As the acronym suggests, the common steps involved are:

The abuser denies the abuse ever took place
When confronted with evidence, the abuser then attacks the person that was abused (and/or the person's family and/or friends) for attempting to hold the abuser accountable for their actions, and finally
The abuser claims that they are actually the victim in the situation, thus reversing the positions of victim and offender. It often involves not just playing the victim but also victim blaming."

"The acronym and the analysis it is based on are the work of the psychologist Jennifer Freyd, who wrote about it in 1997.[2] The first stage of DARVO, denial, involves gaslighting.[3][4]

Freyd writes:

I have observed that actual abusers threaten, bully and make a nightmare for anyone who holds them accountable or asks them to change their abusive behavior. This attack, intended to chill and terrify, typically includes threats of law suits, overt and covert attacks on the whistle-blower's credibility, and so on. The attack will often take the form of focusing on ridiculing the person who attempts to hold the offender accountable. [...] [T]he offender rapidly creates the impression that the abuser is the wronged one, while the victim or concerned observer is the offender. Figure and ground are completely reversed. [...] The offender is on the offense and the person attempting to hold the offender accountable is put on the defense."

Perhaps Communists are the most bigoted and racist of all- but yet they are usually the ones to use "the racist card" in an argument. I'm sure that DARVO isn't exclusively used by Communists however it seems to have become a signature technique of Communism and Wokism.

Interesting that not much is said about Asian "Chinese colonialism" between the 1200- 1400's in the form of the Mongolian "Golden Horde" invasion of Europe to Poland, Germany, Austria- for which perhaps Europe is still suffering from today. For example "The devastating Mongol invasion killed half of Hungary's population". Perhaps the Mongolian Chinese didn't believe in rule of law in the same way as was embodied in Europe at the time. Mongolian dynasties occupied power in China a few times- Yuan, Ming. The Mongolian derived Manchu class have been dominant in China but were subjugated under Mao as I understand- in his own genocidal cleansing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_invasion_of_Europe
http://www.britannica.com/place/China/The-end-of-Mongol-rule
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manchu_people

Interesting that Napoleon said if China rises the world will tremble- when the world did tremble when China invaded Europe. It seems that often Europe tried to spread it's culture to others to create common understanding- but once in a while it subjugated failing regimes such as when Alexander the Great subjugated Persia.

Australian voters overwhelmingly support reconciliation.

Many Australians experience racism.

These VOICE campaigners seek racial division, perhaps to benefit themselves.

Australians in 1967 overwhelmingly voted to extinguish, to eliminate, Australia's legislative racial discrimination.

Pre 1967, also post 1967, the Commonwealth maintained its' claims it was lawful for it to enforce racial divisions upon Australians.

The Commonwealth has long maintained its' claims it was lawful to deny fellow Australians their otherwise held rights, just by their claiming racial differences were sufficient to deny them their lafully held rights, including segregation of familes refusing their right to live together, or visit their friends.

The 2022 Legislative changes currently fail to clarify whether long applied Commonwealth claims remain lawful for racial segregationist orders upon Australians.

The proposed referenda is clearly racist.

Australians need equal rights and equal legal responsibilities, not racial divisions.

IF the VOICE is succesful the Commonwealth shall claim authority to widen its racial divisions upon Australians.

Australians need clearly vote NO to reject any racial division upon Australians.

.

Albanese should not be allowed to recruit any more migrants/refugees (Labor voters) until the VOICE referendum is finalised !

Indy,

You are so far off the planet, only Australian citizens can vote, that's why YOU couldn't vote, when you were a BLOW IN! Just like you dodged NATIONAL SERVICE that you want to force on others now.

Paul1405 seems to have many hateful views based on Anglophobia. I pity him.

We all have our biases and our reasons for them.
And in many cases it is difficult not to judge.

Hi Foxy,

Welcome back.

Sorry to hear of your long convalescence. My visits to the big white house are unfortunately frequent but usually just overnight at the most. It is quite daunting to think of being there for months. Hopefully things are now on a more even keel.

I don't pop in too often to OLO now, bury with other things, but it is good to feed the chooks every now and again. They really are becoming entrenched in their curmudgeon ways aren't their. A little amusing to watch to be honest.

only Australian citizens can vote,
Paul1405,
Precisely, those with an army of relos waiting to get their snouts into the Australian Taxpayer trough !

Dear polpak,

You claimed: "Australians in 1967 overwhelmingly voted to extinguish, to eliminate, Australia's legislative racial discrimination."

Did they really?

There is a case to be made that it was made more racial by including indigenous people. This allowed Howard's Intervention even though he had to suspend the Racial Discrimination Act to do so.

Before 67 the constitution he would not have the power to act Federally.

We have quite a racist constitution. People claim the government can make laws against any race therefore it isn't racist. In practice however the only application of the power it provides was against indigenous communities.

Interested in your thoughts.

Interested in your thoughts.
SteeleRedux,
Hasn't anything that requires personal responsibility & personal effort become racist now ?