Recently I watched 'The Dark Emu Story' a film shown at the Sydney Film Festival and also on the ABC, involving Bruce Pascoe and Peter Sutton, alongside others.

There was one part about the film, I did like though. It was the following comment:

"Why do you hold up a god of sophistication as a kind of a solution to people feeling bad about themselves?"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1lu3UpJxCk

I think it is perfectly fine, to live a special, unique, low impact, simple, unsophisticated lifestyle where you work and connect with nature.

You don't need to be good at everything and I would argue sophistication in many ways has had a negative impact on people's lives and the planet overall.

No. You don't have to be sophisticated, but it sure helps. Look what happened to the Aboriginal population because they were not sophisticated after 65,000 years, or whatever the latest figure is.

Sophisticated people no longer get their education from the ABC, nor from fabulists like Bruce Pascoe.

Dear Nathan,

I'm not sure in which context you're using the word -
"sophisticated?" as opposed to uneducated? Unaware?
even naive? Many of us grew up being unaware of many
things. I wasn't aware of the "White Australia" policy.
Nor of the racial problems in the United States, and
so many other things. Yes ignorance can be bliss for
many of us - who are unaware of the sufferings of
others - and lives are often happy as a result. However
truth telling is vital for people to learn and ensure
that bad things don't happen again. That is if we are to
live in harmony in a peaceful world with no discrimination
for all - not just for some.

NathanJ, identify what you mean by sophisticated please.
Do you mean living a high social life?
Do you mean not living a simple fugal life?
Do you mean not living a hunter gather life?
Do you mean living in a Modern world economy/

This whole Dark Emu and the Voice kefuffle has got me seriously wondering. I wonder what it is that the opponents to history, truth telling and the voice are so scared of. What is there to be scared of if not all first nations people weren’t nomadic, they baked bread, cultivated grains and set fish traps? What is there about any of that, that causes them to be so scared and devote so much energy and hostility to ‘disproving’ it.

Is it as Carl Sagan suggests, western culture's refusal to acknowledge that other cultures just might know stuff that we don’t. The semantics of defining ‘civilised’, or ‘sophisticated’ etc is pointless. Why not just simply accept things, understand that everyone is different, everyone has unique skills and abilities, everyone views themselves and their place in the world differently, and just get on with it.

Or does admitting a different history expose the ugly truth that the excuse we continue to use to mistreat first nations people is founded on a myth?

Personally I have great respect for a people who for 60,000 years “tread lightly upon the earth”, unlike us who in just 200 years have done a bloody good job of screwing the environment and the land upon which we live

Dear Aries54,

Beautifullu put.

Thank You.

Its really a question of what do people want out of life. Most simply adapt themselves to "modern living" without question. Set on a pathway from birth, the majority follow the social norms of the society around them, in the modern Australian context that is they get a worthwhile education, get a good job, having a loving family, moving through life without questioning the reason, if there is one, for their purpose in life.

There are those who see the inadequacies and injustices of modern society, and will try to instigate social reform of sorts to improve outcomes, but always within the confines of the existing boundaries and accepted social norms, the "reformers" as opposed to the "conservatives" who want to maintain the status quo. Politically these reformers and conservatives are to be found on both sides of Australian politics. The reformers agenda is to improve society to some degree by tinkering around the edges of its fabric, but essentially maintaining society with its rules and conditions very as it is, but with some improvements. The reformers and conservatives are the dominant forces within Australian politics today, all others fail to get a look in.

Who are there others, there are those who want complete social change, the "radicals", they are a small minority and have little traction within modern Australia, and will not make gains whilst ever Australia is relatively prosperous and egalitarian. Also on the outer edge of society are those who have failed for some reason to embrace modern living and have been excluded from the benefits, generally we call them the "disadvantaged". Somewhere there are few who reject modernism and want to live an alternate existence, being left to pursue a different way independent of others, call them cult followers, or just eccentric oddities, they want to pursue their own purpose in life. Have I left anyone out?

So, in 200 years we have screwed up the planet. Well, we have built houses of stone and clay of timber and steel, mined rare earths, and sand for glass, grown wool and cotton to clothe the nations, and tilled the soil to grow grains, fruits, and pastures to feed the nation. We developed fisheries too to supply the communities. Sorry we did not just scavenge to feed our own families and ward off other families trying to enter our food patch.
If you want a simple life and tread softly on the earth it is your choice, but do not develop cities of stationary dwellings and businesses supporting high technology. In the simple life it is survival of the fittest, be prepared for high death rates in children, childbirth and the aged.

Aries ,

It's not a case of being scared. It's a case of being offended.

I'm offended that a white man can pretend to be aboriginal and despite no evidence for the claim which has already been rejected by various actual aboriginal groups, it is accepted and promoted by other whites.

I'm offended that the history is fabricated out of whole clothe and then promoted by these fake aboriginals as fact which will be passed on to our kids via the indoctrination processes of public education.

I'm offended that some take the utterly unremarkable evidence that some small number of aboriginal groups weren't nomadic and try to insinuate that that means none were.

Basically, I'm offended when fantasy is portrayed as fact.

I don't care if this or that fabulist wants to believe things about stone age societies that are just rubbish. But I do care that there fables become the basis of fundamental changes to our society and thinking.

Case in point..."Personally I have great respect for a people who for 60,000 years “tread lightly upon the earth”, "

After these so-called first people arrived in Australia, they proceeded to wipe out ALL mega fauna. Not just the odd creature here and there but literally dozens upon dozens of large marsupials, birds, lizards and monotremes. Not only that but their fire culture utterly altered the Australian landscape, wiping out all sorts of flora that couldn't cope with the new regime, while favouring those that could. The landscape now is filled with flora that needs fire to germinate and the defining feature of the continent's flora - the Eucalypt - is utterly adapted to the fire regime.

So the new arrivals totally changed the landscape and the creatures in it and then (but only then) "tread lightly". Give we recent arrives a millennium or two to utterly change the landscape of Australia and we'll walk light upon it as well.

Oh BTW, this notion that the way Australia was in 1788 is the way it always has been is part of that fudging of history that I find offensive.

Josephus,

<<NathanJ, identify what you mean by sophisticated please.
Do you mean living a high social life?
Do you mean not living a simple fugal life?
Do you mean not living a hunter gather life?
Do you mean living in a Modern world economy/>>

I'm not 100% sure what you mean there, so I'll try and take a guess here. I'll include some dictionary definitions too.

Sophisticated does mean for me, not living a hunter-gather lifestyle. I see no issue with living a hunter-gather lifestyle at all. Such a lifestyle is low impact, like say for example mushroom foraging. Yes, you need the knowledge to take the good from the bad, but you are not living a complex, high impact lifestyle, one that impacts on the natural world.

Dictionary definitions and synonyms also provide some extended background to my view also.

(2) lacking complexity of structure: SIMPLE, STRAIGHTFORWARD and in terms of a synonym the following:

"NATURAL implies lacking artificiality and self-consciousness and having a spontaneousness suggesting the natural rather than the man-made world."

So, in essence your life is based the natural world, not your own and the impacts from that in terms of living and the planet flow on to a sustainable way of life. You are not a selfish person and see the planet as one to take from and use in a way it can regenerate at other times, with a light ecological footprint by yourself at the same time.

Aries54,

The semantics of defining ‘civilised’, or ‘sophisticated’ etc is pointless.

Well as per the above it is relevant. It separates people's lives today from previous times when we truly understand how people lived previously. We can then decide if we are going to change ourselves. I try and live a basic lifestyle myself, but I can only improve if I have facts available to do so and this includes how people lived in early days, not simply providing me with generalities, half-baked stories or feelings.

Offended that a white man can pose as a black man?

Aboriginal academic Dr Suzanne Ingram, suggests as many as 300,000 of the reported 800,000 Aboriginal population might not be genuine. No 'white supremacist' claim there.

That's a lot of posers.

Gary Johns has caused a lot of shrieking for his belief that DNA tests should be performed on those claiming aboriginality.

Good idea. No proof is currently required. Self-identification and acceptance by real aborigines is absurd. Yeah, mate, you're one of us could have all sorts of bribery and threats behind it.

There is too much money, too many privileges at stake, to piss around the way it is now. It's a bit like believing all women claiming to be raped because they say so: no proof - just believe them.

Let's do it scientifically, like the Left demands when it suits them.

Ancestry DNA gives so much more than just the places
you're from. Millions of people have uncovered something new.
Don't be jealous. You could to.

Hi Foxy, as one of the few libertarians on the forum please comment on the below. Thanks Paul. The comments after are the kind of crap to be expected from a hard right extremist.

"DNA tests should be performed on those claiming aboriginality" If Hitler was around today he would be conducting DNA tests to determine peoples Aryaness. I assume if this is a true statement this jerk off would make it compulsory, just as Hitler would!

Aryans...door on the right, non-Aryans... door on the left.

Excuse me, what did you say officer?.... You're a non-Aryan fella, just follow the darkies into the showers....NEXT!

Dear Paul,

I watched a movie last night named - "The Help."
Based on black women servants in the South of the US.
It was riveting stuff - and something I didn't know
how badly it existed. Poor Afro Americans certainly
had a tough time.

I would hate for Australia to copy those kind of actions
here in the 21st Century. DNA - testing what would that
achieve - only that some Indigenous people are more white
than black? If we look an any ancestry - we'll find
various ancestries and mixes. Why should we single out
our First People? Only because they are asking for a
Voice to Parliament on matters that affect them - as an
advisory body only? Isn't that being racist?

The Dank Emu is a collection of wild conjectures based on what at best appears anecdotal evidence with more resemblance to the tales of Sinbad than any intellectual effort.

We all have our tales and fables. And storytellers.

Just as we don't all look the same - whether it's
skin colour, hair, nose, or height. We're all
unique and different.

We should celebrate our differences. When we do -
there's no room for hate.

I believe anyone born here can claim aboriginality because we are made of Australian soil and will be buried in Australin soil. That is the way aboriginals see life and death. From mother earth and to mother earth return. Our ancestors have been around for 200,000 years, they were stone age hunter gathers living simple lives. If there are no DNA tests, we can all claim aboriginality as we all had the same ancestors.

By the way folks - for your information - scientists
have confirmed that there is no DNA tests for
aboriginality.

There's more at the following link:

http://sbs.com.au/nitv/article/no-dna-test-exists-for-aboriginality-scientists/cu9bksqqw

Proud Boy Jose'

As a decedent of the colonisers, what you believe is of little consequence, its racially motivated, your history of lies and deceit on the forum for all things aboriginal is testimony to that. You choose to be ignorant of the meaning of aboriginal, I can't believe you are that dumb.

aboriginal
adjective
1.
relating to the indigenous peoples of Australia or their languages.
"she's been working with Aboriginal people for the past 40 years"
2.
inhabiting or existing in a land from the earliest times or from before the arrival of colonists; indigenous.

aboriginality assuming their is such a word, a noun for one in the state of being aboriginal.

A women gets off a plane, 5 minutes later has a baby on the tarmac at the airport, according to you that new born child is aboriginal. Really!

Hi Foxy,

More importantly is there a test for "Aryaness", just to put these guys minds at ease.

That's true for my wife there is no DNA test for Maori, the test returns ones Polynesian make-up, hers is 80%, along with other racial qualities, including Asian. Just as there is no test for "Australianess" there's no test for "Aboriginalness". These drongo's will be wasting their time swabbing peoples mouths against their will, to determine what exactly?

"You don't need to be good at everything and I would argue sophistication in many ways has had a negative impact on people's lives and the planet overall."

Really Nathan? Yes, all 8.1 billion of us. I've heard estimates that the world might support as many as 10 million hunter gatherers, ruled of course by the four horsemen of the apocalypse.

I thought the idea of shaming people for eating meat or having pets was a bit of navel gazing, but that statement is on another planet altogether Nathan, maybe even in another universe.

to determine what exactly?
Paul1405,
If people claiming money & benefits are actually & morally entitled to them !

"If people claiming money & benefits are actually & morally entitled to them!"

Well, time to line up for your DNA test Indy. I want ALL aged welfare beneficiaries tested, as I believe many are claiming money and benefits they are not actually and morally entitled to.

The DNA of aboriginals in Australia has been sequenced and can be identified.
ABORIGINALITY CAN BE DETERMINED BY DNA. Some want to deny such because they claim aboriginality benefits.

ttp://www.latrobe.edu.au/news/articles/2017/release/dna-study-of-indigenous-australians
"La Trobe University researchers have completed the largest and most comprehensive mitochondrial DNA study of Aboriginal Australians in a bid to better understand their ancestry."
"
"DNA samples of 594 self-declared Indigenous Australians from around the country were analysed and classified into mitochondrial haplogroups - genetic groups that share a common ancestor and often show a distinct distribution."

The findings have been published in the Journal of Human Genetics.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-10-26/dna-of-extinct-human-species-pacific-islanders-analysis-suggests/7968950

"Mr Bohlender's findings are supported by an earlier study from the University of Cambridge which sequenced the genome of 83 Aboriginal Australians from the Pama-Nyungan-speaking language group, which covers 90 per cent of the continent, and 25 Highland Papuans.

It revealed Papuan and Aboriginal ancestors left Africa around 72,000 years ago and then split from the main group around 58,000 years ago.

They reached the supercontinent of 'Sahul' that originally united Tasmania, mainland Australia and New Guinea around 50,000 years ago, picking up the DNA of Neanderthals, Denisovans and another extinct hominin along the way'.

This story from the ABC.

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?&q=aboriginal+dna+in+australia&docid=603509416986428859&mid=78560C8F513C15018E8A78560C8F513C15018E8A&view=detail&FORM=VDQVAP&rvsmid=F055031BC350510BA372F055031BC350510BA372&ajaxhist=0

Let us look at who are the most sophisticated people: criminals (especially scammers), the military, law-enforcement agencies, lawyers, accountants and advertisers.

Sophistication is nearly synonymous with cunning, using wit to gain the upper hand, whether that be over other people or over nature.

This essentially excludes two groups:

1) The incapable and/or lazy who fail to improve their situation.
2) Those who are peaceful, happy and content, thus have no desire to compete or grab.

Some comments praised the sophisticated as better while others claimed that the unsophisticated are better, yet I claim that the sophisticated are middling - they are better than the lazy, but the contented are better than the sophisticated.

Sophistication can achieve measurable success, but it cannot give or allow peace of mind.

Technically, Aboriginality can be determined by DNA testing. Practically, at this time, its difficult because most of the testing agencies lack sufficient verified aboriginal DNA to make valid assessments. But that could be resolved in very short order.

The same problems existed for AmerIndians before they (the Indians) realised the benefits of weeding out the imposters and therefore ensured the testing agencies had sufficient genome samples to test against.

But returning to Pascoe, DNA is surplus to needs. Pascoe originally claimed that he was aboriginal on his mother's side. His great grandmother was Koori, he said, born in Dudley, Victoria. Instead, he later discovered, she was actually born in Dudley, England and was a rooly-trooly POM. Never mind, because Pascoe then 'discovered' that he was aboriginal on his father's side, the evidence for which is, shall we say, rather sparce.

As an aboriginal on SBS said of these fake aboriginals (ABBAriginals), "they are making money from our misery".

How many Pascoe's will still on the Voice?

Wait there,

How do we know the self professed "genuine" Aboriginals are not really the "fake" Aboriginals masquerading as the "genuine" Aboriginals to exclude the "genuine" "genuine" Aboriginals who the "fake" "genuine" Aboriginals want to 'kick out' for no other reason than they are "fake" "fake" Aboriginals masquerading as "genuine" "genuine" Aboriginals. Is that clear?

I do believe there has been exhaustive research done by Professor Nincompoop on behalf of the 'Institute Of Outer Galactic Studies" on this very subject. The good professor was able to place 20 willing volunteers into an oven at 2000 degrees C for 24 hours. After the elapsed time the good professor unequivocally declared that the subjects were all indeed, BLACK! Who needs DNA!

Paul, you are an idiot when discussing a serious topic.

Jose,

The notion that Aboriginal people should have another humiliation heaped upon them by being forcibly tested to prove their "Aboriginality" to the satisfaction of bigoted red necked racists like yourself is abhorrent to me. Deserving of nothing less than ridicule!

BTW, What would you do with those that refused to be tested? Hummmmm!

Why would anyone care a scrap about DNA testing unless it related to beneficial treatment compared to other Australians with a different result? For me, this is a reason why equal treatment of citizens should be a foundation of democracy and my main reason for voting No.

Sophistication is the reason that there are so many people living in the world today. Sure, everyone can dream of their idyllic life, but ditch the wicked ways of sophisticated civilisation for the noble and environmentally responsible hunter gatherer existence and nearly 99% of humanity dies. Wouldn't that be fantastic?

time to line up for your DNA test Indy.
Paul1405,
No problem, I can prove I've paid income & a host of other Taxes towards my retirement all my life ! Plus, I've never claimed to be indigenous Australian ! Those indigenous who are not really indigenous can claim all they want in my book if they agree to be equal to all others living here, no preferential treatment. The Voice should state but it never will, that all people living in this Nation have equal opportunities & Rights & responsibilities but they'll never agree to the latter two for reasons more obvious than daylight !
Please reply to this question; Do you think it right that non-indigenous have to pay for everything for their childrens' education including air fares home every school holiday whereas indigenous parents who in many cases earn more than non-indigenous are getting it all free plus the students receive "spending" money ?

Josephus

Perhaps if you stopped encouraging the idiot by continuing to respond to his idiocy he would go away and be an idiot somewhere else. He and his idiocy are of no use here.

Tbnnks ttbn,
I have blood taken every two weeks and have no problems if they want to do a DNA test.

Here is a fact of a developed civilization 50,000 -100,000 years ago, that built stone features.
" Wall on Easter Island
There is an old saying, “a photograph is worth a thousand words” but sometimes a photo will ask a thousand questions. The construction of this wall is the in the same style that is seen in Peru and other places around the world. Today we do not have the technology to constructed these stone walls today yet in very ancient times on a small island in the Pacific Ocean, Peru, Egypt and other places around the world they had this knowledge on how to form-fit stones. Modern archaeologists tell us that these parts of the world had no contact with each other in very ancient times; yet they had the same advanced technology for stone construction.
If there was unknown advanced civilizations on earth 50,000 or over 100,000 years ago, one of the few things that would survive this length of time would be stone objects. There are many things in this world that does not fit into modern archaeologists and scientists notion of “known written history”.

What happened to the 65,000 years of aboriginal history?

An unpublished report obtained by SBS News has outlined
the cultural and archaeological significance of Kokatha
Aboriginal sites that were discovered in a military
testing range in South Australia.

The report describes a cluster of stone hut foundations found
inside the weapon testing range that were either used as
habitation structures or as low walled hunting hides.

A total of 14 individual structures were recorded although
more could be present. GML Heritage Consultants wrote in 2020
in their Heritage Management Plan for the Defence Department.

There's more at:

http://sbs.com.au/news/article/the-significance-of-these-very-rare-aboriginal-structures-has-been-revealed/634tt22qt

Sorry for the typo. Here's the link again:

http://sbs.com.au/news/article/the-significance-of-these-very-rare-aboriginal-shelters-has-been-revealed/634tt22qt

Dear mhaze,

God save us from the serially offended.

Dear Fester,

You say you want equal treatment for all Australians yet the race powers within the Constitution only ever get directed at Indigenous Australians.

Howard had to suspend the Racial Discrimination Act during the Intervention where he put the army on the streets of 67 different Aboriginal communities. It was all done with virtually no consultation. A whole bunch of freedoms the rest of us take for granted were severely curtailed yet hardly a peep in protest from wider Australia about racial division and equal treatment.

Then the Labor party removed grog bans across all those communities when nearly 10 of them wanted them retained. Again a lack of consultation.

The Voice is a body capable of tempering the excesses of governments using the quite extraordinary race powers within the current constitution. They are capable of being used to close the gap but are often misdirected and rendered ineffectual through misinformed decision making.

Why wouldn't you back it?

Well, lookie here, it seems SR got some 'ligion while on his sabbatical...
"God save us..."

I'd have thought that anyone who had the true welfare of aboriginals in mind, would also be offended at fake aboriginals "making money from our [aboriginal] misery". Unfortunately, for many, the welfare of the aboriginals runs a distant second to virtual signalling.

Dear Fester,

«but ditch the wicked ways of sophisticated civilisation for the noble and environmentally responsible hunter gatherer existence and nearly 99% of humanity dies. Wouldn't that be fantastic?»

It is not 99%, but 100% of humanity will die, and eventually humanity itself too.

The question is of replacement, not of killing anyone.

We are presently beset by technology that has little to do with happiness and quality of life and much to do with squeezing as many of us on this planet.
It would be wrong to attempt to chop off the branch on which we sit, but as we climb down we can afford to gradually allow the top branches to wither.

Indy,

Your question is loaded with negative bias against Aboriginal people, playing the undeserved race card and claiming without offering facts of a free ride for Aboriginal people, how typical of you. Anything that assists with closing the gap between our indigenous brothers and sisters and the rest of Australia in a positive way I am in favour of. Does that answer your question.

NOT MY VOICE WARREN MUNDINE.
http://www.skynews.com.au/australia-news/politics/voice-to-parliament-isnt-our-voice-was-dreamed-up-in-melbourne-sydney-and-canberra-says-warren-mundine/news-story/6de493f0ba506ca1f03a22c8e45bb10b

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gajAAJsIaQ4
Not my Voice - Nyunggai Warren Mundine's Story

THE VOICE IS ABOUT INTEGRATION
NOT SEPARATISM!

Says Noel Pearson - at the Sydney Ideas event:

http://sydney.edu.au/news-opinion/news/2023/05/25/sydney-ideas-event-on-voice-to-parliament-featuring-noel-pearson.html

He's one of money giving the facts and telling the truth.

cont'd ...

Noel Pearson understand his own people.
He's a lawyer and money is not a problem for him.
But in the Aboriginal culture - it's a different
story. That's why a Voice to Parliament is necessary
to understand things better.

The following link explains further:

http://sbs.com.au/nitv/article/how-the-system-of-money-works-against-traditional-aboriginal-culture/3a4zczye4

Jose,

"“It was dreamed up by a whole lot of people, aboriginal people, in Sydney and Melbourne. The elites in academia.”

These are the same groups of people who have failed Indigenous people for decades, Mundine argued.

Does Mundine cast himself in that same mould, a claimed activists who has failed Indigenous people for decades.

Warren Mundine, seems to go against the grain of those who claim an Aboriginal elite are running the "Yes" campaign. It could be said Mundine is also an Aboriginal elitist from the "No" campaign. I'm sure if Wazza was still in the Labor Party (17 years a member) he would be a staunch "yes" campaigner. Self interest is a powerful thing.

Dear Steele,

Preferential treatment to a group of people is not the perversion of democracy I want. The Immigration Restriction Act is a regrettable part of Australia's history. Using the race powers of the constitution to enable another perversion of democracy with The Voice would suggest that Australians still don't understand the importance of equality in a democracy.

Dear Yuyutsu,

I think of the social and scientific advances as tools. I doubt that the world's population would be growing were women in control of their fertility, so I don't see population growth as a direct consequence of an advanced civilisation. Rather, I think that stable or even declining populations are the norm in them.

Does that answer your question.
Paul1405,
No because it is not an answer to my question. Yes, my post was negative, in fact as negative as the situation I described. All decent Australians are for closing the gap but the likes of you do everything they can to prevent this closing because it'd entail responsibilities towards others which is something you et all abhor because you et al are one-way merchants.
The Voice would be a very good thing if it was designed to be run by genuine, caring people. As things stand it is nothing but a power grab by revenge-charged activists who have always had it better than the average citizens who work & pay Tax !

The following link explains further:
Foxy,
Look up his Good to Great Schools.

Dear Fester,

Sorry mate but that was an utterly pissweak answer.

By your reasoning Howard's Intervention was an utter perversion of democracy but you have studiously ignored it in your response.

How about you address it.

Dear Steele,

The equal status of people in a nation has a very long and hard fought history, and is still not available to many people in the world. Yet you would throw out that principle on the basis of what you consider to be an inappropriate and unjust intervention.

Howard intervened because he felt that the problems in those communities were so extreme that they warranted extreme measures. You might note that all the people in those communities had a vote which counted the same as other Australians.

Was it an ideal intervention? Probably not, but what is the current PM's interest in solving problems? Dutton claimed that he was informed of sexual abuse of children in indigenous communities by health workers some months ago. For this he was accused of criminal conduct for not reporting the abuse. Dutton responded that the health workers also claimed that they had given the same information to Albanese earlier. Albanese denied this claim. Hmmm. If Albanese was informed as claimed, then a guy who manages child sexual abuse claims by brushing them under the carpet, as far as I can see, now wants to "solve the problem" by perverting a foundation of democracy. Wonderful!

Look Steele, if you are so worried about the violation of peoples rights, then why not push for something that directly addresses the problem such as a charter of human rights that would apply to all people in Australia, not just indigenous Australians? Why feel that you have to throw away a principle that took many centuries and the sacrifice of countless lives to establish? Obviously I value the privilege more than you do.

Dear Fester,

Howard went hard on the Intervention because he had an election just around the corner. The so called child abuse statistics were found to be quite overblown and matched socio-economic demographics reasonably closely.

But leaving that aside you keep studiously ignoring the bleeding obvious.

You say: "Why feel that you have to throw away a principle that took many centuries and the sacrifice of countless lives to establish?"

What you claim is established may well be the case for the rest of us, but for Indigenous people the race powers in the Constitution call that out as a ignorant lie.

And you are defending that myth.

I find it odd that there are posters on here from the extreme right, a hard line Anglo White minority, who have demonstrated their racism towards Aboriginal people in the past, but now put themselves up as champions of "equality" and "opportunity" for the said Aboriginals. When did these leopards change their spots?

Paul, how is Warren Mundine self-interested to promote the No vote? He believes it will undermine social unity of the Nation and be exploited by radicals. You tell us how it will improve remote communities more than is currently performed by Government with eleven elected aboriginal members?

Disadvantaged communities have not promoted the Voice, it is pushed by those who have prospered in our society and want power over the land, waters, and beaches. The result will be the same as the WA cultural laws, farmers not able to fence or plant trees without permits.
http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=wa+cultural+heritage+laws&docid=603548604268028864&mid=CD05EDC3EE01D861686DCD05EDC3EE01D861686D&view=detail&FORM=VIRE

Fester

Good one. However, there is no point in arguing the toss with Leftists, particularly those who only occasionally drag themselves out of their caves to snarl and grunt.

Albanese is making a real feast of race and culture; mainly with the Voice at the moment, doing his best to bring in a reversal of Boer-like apartheid.

The Left is definitely hung up on race and culture, the best way to divide and conquer in the totalitarian rule book. Multiculturalism and now blatant racism via the Voice and multiculturalism.

Speaking of multiculturalism, it looks if that ghastly and evil monstrosity is going to bite them on the bum.

Last night, I watched a man now an Australian citizen, but originally from Jordan, reporting on a movement of diverse immigrant Australians and their displeasure at the Voice which will single out one race or group of people, when they have always been told that everyone in Australia is equal, no matter what their race or culture; we are all Australians.

So disappointed are these people that they are thinking about making their own demands for their own 'voice'.

As a anti-multulturalist, I can't help saying, "told you so".

The evil Albanese has no idea what his racist Voice is doing, and what it will do if it gets in.

As an aside, the spokesman for the group getting stirred up, was told by a reporter for SBS, that he would be a racist if he voted NO to the Voice, and that he should vote yes because he should be 'grateful that he was allowed to come here to live'!

This filthy attempt by Albanese to divide Australia is only the beginning. Albanese has brought our country closer to a Communist dictatorship than it has ever been. He is now lying that he doesn't support treaties and reparations (he even had the Tshirt saying that he did support them, and he previously said that he wanted the Uluru Statement, in full, to prevail in Australia.

Now, he is working on a law that will crush freedom of speech on social media.

Jose,

Going on 67 MUndine is running out of time to make a political impact. Having some knowledge on the subject, its my opinion he was treated poorly by Labor in pre-selections, and the Senate ticket position in 2004. Now with the Liberal Party after a period as one of those Aboriginal elites, you and others here like to pan, "Forbes" puts Mundine's wealth at $5 million". He was booted by Turnbull from the "Indigenous Advisory Council" in 2017, as it was nothing more than a jobs for the boys outfit of yes men set up by Abbott. Now Mundine is hoping for a plum Liberal seat in parliament, should he be the successful destroyer of "Labor's Voice" that is. If he was a Labor MP, I'm sure his position on The Voice would be somewhat different.

Dear Steele,

"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."

I don't think that the Voice is congruous with that hope.

When the white Australia policy was in force, people thought that it had nothing to do with racism and was simply a measure to protect the rights and condition of Australian citizens. Of course, the nasty consequence of this is that people might start thinking it okay to treat people by their privilege rather than their need, such as happened in Penang:

https://penang.fandom.com/wiki/Japanese_Invasion_of_Penang

SR,

The child abuse statistics were horrific as were the DV etc. While there is some correlation with socioeconomic status, this did not come close to explaining all the differences.

Howard's actions were no less undemocratic than Labor's banning of alcohol in Alice, all of which have prevented many murders assaults and abuses of children.

The voice however remedies nothing and creates a new apartheid.

Despite what SR asserts about Howard's intervention policy, things were rather different in the real world.

Following the release of the "Ampe Akelyernemane Meke Mekarle" report, it was clear that the situation for native children in the NT was dire and, despite years of failed policy initiatives, becoming more dire. The timing had nought to do with election issues.

The need for action was so obvious that even the Labor Party supported the policy. Despite SR's fixation on the nullification of the Racial Discrimination Act to implement the policy (although quite why he's fixated on it remains a mystery), again the ALP supported that move and indeed, after Rudd won the subsequent election, continued the policy for a further three years.

As we've seen over many aboriginal issues, the actual welfare of aboriginal people, especially the at-risk kids, runs a distant second to the politics of the aboriginal issue. As I've shown in other threads, traditional aboriginal society was highly misogynistic with women and children having few if any rights or status within the tribe. That carries over into the present day, especially among the less integrated groups. Hard-line intervention policy to break the grip of millennial old practices is a policy that, had it been continued, may have borne fruit. Alas, politics won out.

" Noel Pearson......He's one of money giving the facts and telling the truth."

Quite the Freudian slip there Foxy! </grin>

Dear mhaze,

I went on to explain in the following link.
It wasn't a slip. I just did not do a good
job explaining in the first round. So I
tried to follow it up with the link.

For me this entire issue of our First People
is a highly emotional one. I know - how can I
judge anything when I have been so privileged
all of my life? Living in my own comfortable
bubble. Who am I to judge anyone?

But when I read links like the following:

http://bbc.com/news/world-australia-53436225

I just can't understand the Nay sayers and why
we can't shift resources from policing and prisons
and towards empowering Aboriginal people to make
decisions that affect their communities?

Dear mhaze,

Well I could believe a keyboard warrior like yourself or I could take the word of the AHRC who actually looked at the figures.

"A report by the Australian Human Rights Commission in 2008 said that statistics for confirmed child abuse did not appear to support the "allegations of endemic child abuse in NT remote communities that was the rationale for the NTER"".

The Little Children are Sacred report said categorically: "It is critical that both governments commit to genuine consultation with Aboriginal people in designing initiatives for Aboriginal communities."

Instead Howard set up the Intervention within a couple of weeks of the report coming out.

Dear Fester,

Howard acted in election mode haste and brought in severe restrictions in 67 indigenous communities instead of the dozen that had been specifically identified. He put military boots on the ground. Not only suspended the Racial Discrimination Act, a protection the rest of us feel is sacrosanct, but also Native Title. All indigenous members of those communities had welfare payments quarantined regardless whether they had family issues.

Yet you are prattling on about the White Australia policy?

You continued myopic take on this is very telling. If you supported the Intervention then you support the race powers within the constitution and your protests are very hollow.

In the 1990s when I would weekly travel through Purfleet near Taree, before it was bypassed, young aboriginal girls would line up along the road to pick up a payment for sex. Taree police often would clear the road because they were all underage. I would say they were between 14 and 16 years of age

As usual a discussion topic has gone in a different direction, but I'll try and comment regardless.

I tend to agree with Yuyutsu when mentioning those who are the most sophisticated people and what these people undertake. It's not overly nice in terms of activity and is used as a way to get an upper hand over others.

I prefer to deal with people who are peaceful and content with their lives and even some who are lazy. They may have been busy all day and need time to rest and relax.

I do agree with contented, and in terms of the book Dark Emu and the recent film put out, you don't need to over emphasise people's lives in their early days. For some people this is seen as a plus, but for myself, I'd prefer an accurate account of a person, (in this case Aboriginal), and their life, rather than something to make these people come across as more European (or other) to prove a point by portraying them as farmers, this, that or something else to have an increased level of value in some form. We should value people as they were in earlier times and in principle today.

Albanese believes we must Westernize aboriginals, while remote aboriginals want the old ways of gathering food and their primitive ancestral cultures.
The minister Linda Burney tells the truth, Albanese lies.
MUST SEE:
http://www.facebook.com/reel/3683607388572289

Foxy,

Freudian slip....you wrote "money" when you meant, I presume, 'many'.

ie "" Noel Pearson......He's one of ]many] giving the facts and telling the truth."

The Freudian slip is that this really is all about money.

Dear Steele,

I had no idea what powers Howard used with his intervention. All I knew was that it was a desperate situation with children in those communities at risk of harm and abuse. So in essence those measures were taken to protect children from harm. Note again that Howard's action was not about giving some Australians a democratic privilege over other Australians.

I have read that the race powers can be put to good and bad uses as justification for keeping them in the constitution. I think that we will just have to disagree about whether the Voice is a good or bad use of those powers, but it has been interesting to read your opinions. Incidentally, what first drew me to comment on this thread of Nathan's was my belief that modern civilisation might be doing a bit more for humanity than he imagined it was. Cheers.

"A report by the Australian Human Rights Commission in 2008.... "

Yes...competing statistics. But the information in the "Ampe Akelyernemane Meke Mekarle" report is rather compelling. Compelling enough that both sides of politics found it necessary to act. But, of course, we do have people who later wanted to re-write the information in the name of politics as opposed to the aims of helping the children themselves. As I said, for some, the welfare of the aboriginal women and kids runs a distant second to the politics.

"Like many dispossessed and colonised people around the
world Aboriginal communities around Australia face
enormous social problems including poverty,
homelessness, high rates of incarceration and poor
health."

"In communities where the social fabric has unravelled,
issues like violence and substance abuse are rife."

"Of course the domiant narrative echoing the ethnocentrism
of colonial thinking is that Aboriginal culture is violent
and uncivilized."

"The current social problems that are the result of
dispossession and marginalisation and inter-generational
trauma deflects any attention away from taking pride in
Aboriginal heritage and culture - which makes it hard
to achieve success in other ways - if you're consistently
told you are primitive, violent, and no good."

"Governments in the past have always been quick to use rhetoric that
Indigenous culture is part of the problem not part of
the solution."

"However what is not advertised is that when Indigenous culture
is strong, more positive outcomes do come out for
Indigenous communities."

"This has been shown particularly in the area of education where
progress such as - "Stronger, Smarter "approach developed
by Indigenous educator Chris Sarra and programs for young
Indigenous men - such as Shane Phillips "Tribal Warrior" -
have succeeded.
A connection with culture and a pride in heritage works in
many ways."

"What is necessary is for a Western lens to put a new lens
on Australian Aboriginal culture and and perhaps this can
assist the rest of the country to see what Aboriginal
people have seen all along."

This was taken from:

http://theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/sep/22/indigenous-australians-know-were-the-oldest-living-culture-its-our-dreamtime

cont'd ...

Sorry - excuse my typo again:

http://theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/sep/22/indigenous-australians-know-were-the-oldest-living-culture-its-in-our-dreamtime

Hi Foxy,

Hear, hear, absolutely spot on. I have seen it first hand with my wife's extended family in Aotearoa, in the Maori (90%) towns up north, the social and economic problems that beset some, not all. What I see as the saving grace for people there is not welfare and its associated agencies, although in the here and now that's important, I see the community/whanau (family) working through what is still their strong culture to protect many in need.

Dear Nathan, You asked "Do you need to be sophisticated?"
The Dark Emu debate continues."

The link I just gave from The Guardian explains quite well:

"The problem has always been, Europeans often did not know
what they were looking at when observing Indigenous people
in their culture."

"Often blinded by their confident belief in their own racial
superiority and their arrogant perception of the inferiority
of other races - it seemed impossible that other cultures could
have any insights to offer."

"In his book - "The Biggest Estate on Earth" Bill Gammage
deconstructs the sketches and paintings that the first
colonists made of the landscape of the Sydney basin
and what is revealed is not wild bushland but
carefully farmed landscapes
including tracts of land cleared specifically for luring
grazing animals."

"Pascoe identifies other aspects of Aboriginal cultural practices -
sophisticated fishing practices, to the establishment of permanent
structures."

But that's not all. They are not all lost. There continues to be:

"A heavy interest in the traditional practices of fire burning,
which ig gaining a broader consideration for pastoralists,
conservationists, and other interested parties who are starting
to understand that perhaps a culture that has lived on a land
for around 60,000 years just might know a thing or two about
how to maintain its delicate ecosystems."

Dear Paul,

Bravo to your wife and her family, and the Maori culture.

If only Australia was as advanced.

I'm praying and hoping that the Australian people will finally
see what needs to be done to correct things because so far
nothing else has worked.

Voting YES for the Voice to Parliament is so important.
And anyone who votes no - as a former PM once said -
"Is a bum!""

Dear Foxy,

Human existence has seen many failures and struggles, and I don't see the land of droughts and flooding rains as being any different.

I think that the level of sophistication needed to support 8.1 billion people on the earth is nothing short of extraordinary, yet for Nathan "sophistication in many ways has had a negative impact on people's lives and the planet overall". Nearly 99% of humans would be dead without sophistication, so while you may marvel at the survival skills of hunter gatherers, be mindful of the life that sophistication gives to nearly all humans alive today.

Dear Fester,

«I think of the social and scientific advances as tools.»

Definitely, but tools for what?

Mainly for allowing a larger human population.

«I doubt that the world's population would be growing were women in control of their fertility,»

Women have instincts that make them want babies.
At present, the hardships and stress of raising children in urban settings seem to slightly outweigh these instincts.

«I don't see population growth as a direct consequence of an advanced civilisation.»

Perhaps not further growth, but having population levels stagnant more or less where they are now, because if population levels drop a bit, then female instincts will again top the hardships.

«Rather, I think that stable or even declining populations are the norm in them.»

I think so too, stable or only slightly declining, and that's not good enough.

Maintaining a high human population requires science and science requires a high human population.

Yes, besides its ability to maintain a high human population, science does provide some other benefits, but in my view, the damage caused by a high human population outweighs these benefits.

We cannot and should not stop it cold-turkey, and have 99% die, but rather we should aim at a gradual reduction by non-replacement.

---

Dear Nathan,

«I prefer to deal with people who are peaceful and content with their lives and even some who are lazy. They may have been busy all day and need time to rest and relax.»

Everyone's body needs a rest and a good night's sleep, that's not laziness.

If one is 100% lazy and won't eat unless an apple falls into their mouth, that's fine, but the kind of lazy people I was referring to could be just 90% lazy, who say, "I'm hungry, let me grab and eat my neighbour's cow", or "let's get on the dole so others feed me". Or the 80%-lazy who say "let's rob the bank and be rich". They lack the sophistication of hackers, so are likely to fail in their lousy attempt to commit the perfect crime, then end up in jail at our expense!

Hi Yuyutsu,

You say; "We cannot and should not stop it cold-turkey, and have 99% die, but rather we should aim at a gradual reduction by non-replacement."

Without a healthy birth rate, you get an ageing population, and old people simply cannot adequately provide for themselves, like battery hens that are not capable of laying eggs. In a "perfect" Orwellian society you would simply euthanize all "non productive's" those too old to be of further use, those defected by birth or accident, those of habitual criminal or lazy intent, those young destined for breeding stock, but surplus to requirements, that is too many breeders, painlessly disposed off, and in one last act of usefulness their remains become fertiliser for increased food production for the "good" in society.

Is that the "perfect" world you desire? You have previously on this forum spoke of a 97% population reduction. The above would probably only require a 30% to 40% culling, far more people on the planet enjoying a healthy happy lifestyle than simply those surviving through unplanned control measures.

p/s In a magnanimous gesture of recognition, a few exceptions to the above could be made for those who have made an outstanding contribution to society throughout their lifetime, such people as 'Fearless Leader' and his cohort. They should be able to live on and expire naturally at a ripe old age as society thanks them for their unselfish contribution of above and beyond that of the ordinary citizen! It makes me feel like singing the new national anthem; "Fearless Leader How Great Thou Art' you must learn the anthem, it will be a requirement in the future, to demonstrate your loyalty. There will be no place in future society for the counter productive disloyal types, those with impure thoughts!

Dear Paul,

We got ourselves into a corner, so we need to turn back and no one is saying that it will be easy.
Yes, a reduction of human population to around 100-200 million people is necessary, but I never suggested that this is done at once over a single generation: I estimate it reasonable to be done within 100-200 years.

«In a "perfect" Orwellian society you would simply euthanize all "non productive's" those too old to be of further use»

If you read "1984" by Orwell, you could see that they were not after people's bodies but only after their souls. Despite horrific tortures, the "hero" of the story was kept physically alive under doctor-supervision and once he was converted to love Big-Brother, he even got a new set of teeth to replace all his teeth that were broken during the torture.

Dear Yuyutsu,

"Women have instincts that make them want babies.
At present, the hardships and stress of raising children in urban settings seem to slightly outweigh these instincts."

Do you see the contradiction there? In developed nations where women have more rights and education you don't see high birth rates. Also, when women are given access to birth control, the evidence would suggest that their fertility drops to the extent that were it widely available to women the world's population would stop growing.

https://www.washington.edu/news/2020/09/08/how-birth-control-girls-education-can-slow-population-growth/

So contrary to your opinion that sophistication is the cause of a growing population, it is in fact the case that the denial of sophistication (birth control and education) that is the cause.

The reality Yuyutsu is that many do not share your concerns of overpopulation. Some even think a growing population a big advantage as it provides cheap labor to keep their economies strong.

Dear Fester,

I think you've misunderstood the points I was trying
to make regarding "sophistication." As Pascoe and
others tried to point out - Aboriginal culture had
more to offer than the colonists realised.

Go back and re-read what I wrote.

I see Paul, Foxy and Steele want to hand the land back to the sovereignty of aboriginal tribes to be governed.

http://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/marcia-langton-a-key-architect-of-the-voice-to-parliament-details-plans-to-compensate-aboriginal-people-and-return-stolen-land/ar-AA1exlOp?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=79bd228de283403eb90e2a14c9de4d61&ei=13

"Marcia Langton - a key architect of the Voice to Parliament - details plans to 'compensate' Aboriginal people and return 'stolen land'

Thomas mayo listed 'all the things we imagine when we demand' a Voice, including 'reparations, land back, abolishing harmful colonial institutions'.
Teela Reid, a lawyer, Wiradjuri woman and public speaker, also once described the proposal to change the constitution as a 'journey with all Australians to demolish the systems that continue to oppress us'.

Ms Reid has said she is 'concerned by the conservatism of [her] profession' and urged lawyers across Australia to support the Voice in a wide-ranging interview on YouTube.

She also called for strong activism she likened to the push for communism in the 1970s.

In newly unearthed tweets from 2019, Ms Reid said: 'Aboriginal people built the nation and now it's time you pay rent.'

In January this year, Ms Reid demanded 'every Aboriginal elder in NSW should be living rent-free'.

She said such action was the 'bare minimum this state has to offer given the displacement and dispossession'.

Mr Mayo said a 'guaranteed representative body' was 'needed [to]... properly pursue the rent that is owed and an abolishment of systems that harm us.

'A constitutionally enshrined Voice is important to establish to use the truth to support treaty negotiations.'

Mr Mayo has since told Daily Mail Australia he is now of the understanding a Voice will 'focus on practical issues that matter to Indigenous communities such as better employment outcomes and housing'.

Langton and Mayo want the benefits of Western society without cost and live as a superior class of overlords living off the rent paid by the colonial workers. It is a Feudal system of overlords, like communism.

They claim Australia went to war and the aboriginals lost, but the elite are still weeping, claiming oppression, and must be given back their lands, waters, and beaches.

Paul and Foxy are all for this future.

Poor Josephus,

Just because you continue to repeat things does not
make them true.

You need to come up with better arguments.

Your posts imply a lack of comprehension on your part and
an inability to engage in high-level thinking.

You need to improve your style.

Keep on trying.

I'm sure you can do better.

This is an hour long discussion about Pascoe and related matters, so most will give it a pass...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDik61GZkcI

The participants are Blainey and Warren Mundine (who will vote 'no' and is therefore, according to Foxy, a bum).

Just some of the highlights.....

1. Mundine points out that aboriginal culture is full of stories about their imagined past. I seem to recall many of aboriginal apologists here swooning over aboriginal stories as valid history. Mundine points out that he's never met any aboriginal in his own or any other mob who knows of any 'historic' stories about townships or villages of 1000 people. Nor granaries. Nor any of the other fantasies that Pascoe comes up with. If people are going to rely on aboriginal stories as history, then the lack of stories about some claim or other should also be relied up.

2. Mundine worked for 9 years in the Native Title Service, one function of which was to check claimed aboriginal credentials. He says they never once came across a situation where a person's claimed aboriginality couldn't be proven or disproven one way or t'other. He finds Pascoe's claims of being aboriginal without proof to be a fantasy.

3. Mundine points out that, despite claims that there were no or few wars between groups, aboriginal stories are replete with tales of wars. Whatismore, aboriginal lore has all sorts of rules pertaining to war and its conduct, which would be strange in a society where wars were few.

4. Mundine says that, in his talks with ordinary aboriginal groups (ie not the vocal elite) he finds them to be very unhappy with the whole Dark Emu movement on the basis that it creates fantasies to try to elevate aboriginal society to be the equivalent of Europeans. He calls it racist.

Much more at the link....

Warren Mundine is a failed political strategist.

Blainey argued against the "Black Armband view of history."

No more needs to be said.

Foxy, my posts are not my words, but the words reported of Marcia Langton and co.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12338519/Marcia-Langton-Voice-compensation-stolen-land.html
You must debunk Professor Langton not me. Try it, I'll listen!

They want free housing, free education, and employment in the Government, all paid for by rent.

"Warren Mundine is a failed political strategist."

Whose views can, apparently, be ignored because they're 'inconvenient'.

Dear mhaze,

No. Wrong again. - Mundine's views are self-serving.
Always have been.

Dear mhaze,

Please don't make things up. This isn't a case of 'competing statistics' at all.

The original report was quite clear: “as we have already noted, it is a very important point and one which we have made during the course of many of our public discussions of the issues that the problems do not just relate to Aboriginal communities. The number of perpetrators is small and there are some communities, it must be thought, where there are no problems at all.”

Further they acknowledged that with all the indices for the risk of child abuse are present in many indigenous communities, mainly “Family dysfunctionality, as a catch-all phrase, reflects and encompasses problems of alcohol and drug abuse, poverty, housing shortages, unemployment and the like.” which are there in spades so “it would be it would be remarkable if there was not, given the similar and significant problems that exist elsewhere in Australia and abroad.”

In its two main recommendations the report expressly said: “It is critical that both governments commit to genuine consultation with Aboriginal people in designing initiatives for Aboriginal communities.”

Howard did nothing in that regard in the 6 days after the report came out before he kicked off the Intervention legislation.

That is why the Voice is needed.

There's not a single human on this planet nor was or will ever be who is not ignorant of something !
Just look where the highly educated have gotten our society to. There are many uneducated who have done more for bettering society than most of the educated experts could ever dream of being able to do.
Unsophisticated billions haven't polluted our planet, thousands of sophisticated people have !

SR wrote: "Please don't make things up. This isn't a case of 'competing statistics' at all."

Well it is. The 'Sacred Children report' had plenty of data as to the problems in these communities. They readily acknowledged that the data was not conclusive in that little work had been done to isolate problem areas.

I know, SR, that you are trying very hard to not notice this, but at the time the evidence was sufficiently dire and compelling that a Labor NT government was moved to urgent action to address the problems in their aboriginal communities and the Federal Labor opposition was so convinced by the need for action that they fully supported Howard's moves including the moves on the Racial Discrimination Act.

That you want to re-write history from a different perspective 2 decades later is rather pathetic.

Dear mhaze,

No it isn't a matter of "competing figures" no matter how much you try and rewrite this. It AHRC wasn't challenging the figures in the report at all, a report which clearly stated: "The number of perpetrators is small and there are some communities, it must be thought, where there are no problems at all."

Action on child abuse is supported by virtually everyone. The fact that Howard acted unilaterally and excessively due to an upcoming election is pretty well accepted.

This was shown by the lack of action on "poverty, housing shortages, unemployment" which was clearly identified in the report as being strong contributors to family disfunction.

It was treated almost exclusively as a law and order issue by Howard seeking votes. When you do that 6 days between the report coming out and enabling legislation might seem fine. It wasn't and the Intervention did not address the systemic disadvantage at the root cause of family disfunction in a number of these communities.

A Voice would provide some balance to electioneering parties seeking to use the extraordinary race powers in the Constitution for knee jerk political point scoring and instead attempt to make them justify their actions.

"The fact that Howard acted unilaterally ..."

I know you want to pretend otherwise, but he acted with support from the Labor NT government and the Labor opposition. Whatismore, the incoming Rudd Labor government continued the policy for several years.

'Unilaterally' - "you keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dTRKCXC0JFg

Dear mhaze,

Lol.

Well that is the pot calling the kettle black. Let's go through this slowly shall we because it seems you are struggling a little with the concept.

Websters has the definition of the word as "done or undertaken by one person or party".

Howard do not even consult his own bloody cabinet.

"In political terms, the Howard government faced little opposition to the Intervention. Cabinet was not consulted, and the government was able to take advantage of its Senate majority to push through the legislation.

With a federal election around the corner, Labor leader Kevin Rudd saw no electoral advantage in criticising the Intervention".

http://theconversation.com/ten-years-on-its-time-we-learned-the-lessons-from-the-failed-northern-territory-intervention-79198

"little opposition" does not mean it was a multilateral decision at all. Labor going through with Stage 3 tax cuts is an example. No one but you it seems would call that a multilaterally agreed action.

To be clear support after the fact or act does not mean it wasn't a unilateral act in the first place.

If you are still unclear let me know and I will step you though it further.

You can always tell when SR realises he's screwed up again....he starts concentrating on the semantics rather than the substance.

Dear mhaze,

Lol.

God forbid I go to the definition of the word to try and help you understand what unilateral means.

Look mate, you just can't take words and decide they mean something they don't. You tried and I quite rightly pulled you up. I was hoping this might be an educative moment for you but you seem intent on shooting the messenger.

Hopefully though, with a little luck, you will be a little more circumspect when using the word in the future.

I would have used the word "gullible" rather than sophisticated

From the outset, Pascoe said he set out to change the perception of Aboriginal people ...

his "evidence" was, at best, flimsy for his hypotheses

his extrapolation from a possible hypothesis to theory was an over-reach of credibility

"you will be a little more circumspect when using the word in the future."

I didn't use the word....you did. To describe a bi-partisan policy no less!! If it was a unilateral decision then every governmental decision is unilateral. Words have meaning. Fiddling with them to suit the moment also has meaning, but not in a good sense.

Dear mhaze,

Come on mate. When rightwingers are at a loss they will immediately dive to projection. It is a tried and true path for you guys.

I showed quite clearly that the reports did not have conflicting statistics as you had asserted, but rather than dealing with that you took a dive to the use of the word unilateral, and then you had the utter raw hypocrisy of accusing me of semantics. Which would be funny if it wasn't so boring.

It is such a well worn tactic. How about you address the substantive issues for a bit.

Aboriginals are an example of survival of the fittest, as only the fittest survived. They had high child infant mortality. At the time of settlement 1788 there existed between 770,000 and 1.300,000 aboriginals. Because of the scarcity of food infanticide was practiced by the mothers.
http://quadrant.org.au/magazine/2020/10/life-and-death-in-pre-contact-aboriginal-australia/

Mounted policeman William Henry Willshire:

"Says of the parts of Central Australia known to him, that at least 60% of the women committed infanticide. He tells of one woman that she had five children, three of whom she murdered immediately after birth, and she explained in her broken English: “me bin keepem one boy and one girl, no good keepem mob, him to[o] much wantem tuckout!” The women of the bush daily murder their children and do not wish to raise more than two.2"
Frail and malformed children were murdered, just because they were frail. A twin was killed (and sometimes both) because the mother could not suckle it … When a mother died while suckling a child, the infant was buried with her, and death often awaited a child if its father, died.

"Moreover, “sometimes an infant was murdered and cooked for its elder brother or sister to eat, to make him or her strong by feeding on the muscle of the baby”. Superstitions regarding twins often resulted in the murder of one or both. There were occasional cases of infants being killed to enable their mothers to suckle orphaned dingo pups instead.5"In the estimated 40,000 years of Aboriginal habitation of Australia it follows that 100 million Aboriginal infants were deliberately murdered.

It seems to be the case that many Aboriginal children were deliberately killed to be eaten. The existence of this eating of children is testified by all too numerous facts. Phil Moubray, relates that he found in the basin of the River Mitchell the Aborigines roasting and eating their own children:"

This is the society that treads lightly on the Earth. Abandon moral obligations to life, medicical care, and hospital care and live in the bush, only the fittest will survive. This is the society Foxy believes is worthy of retaining.

The one thing Dark Emu achieved is that it brought inventing history to light. It'll be interesting what approach will be taken by future Pascoes' !

Josephus you little racist prig.

We have dealt with the Quadrant article already on this forum and shown just how full of holes it was and you have decided to reel it out again.

You really just can't help yourself can you.

Get a life.

Hi traveloz,

I think it obvious that indigenous Australians were intelligent and capable human beings living a hunter gatherer existence.

I think that sophistication is a akin to Newton's view of why he was able to advance humanity's understanding. Sophistication is a construct of knowledge built by all humanity and potentially empowering those who choose to embrace it.

The irony of people like Pascoe is that they use the collective knowledge of humanity to appreciate the intelligence and capability of early Australians yet fail to appreciate the vast body of knowledge from which they draw that insight. But if he makes a film that people enjoy then good for him. 8.1 billion humans will keep living regardless of whether they are aware of the sophistication that enables them to live.

For an authoritative review of the Dank Emu film:

"The Dark Emu Story is a recently released film produced by Blackfella Films for the ABC and directed by Allan Clarke.

I won’t call it a “documentary” because, although it starts pretty well, by the time it gets to the end, certain segments fail to reflect the values underlying a good documentary: balance, fairness and respect for reliable records as against unfounded speculation.

At the centre of the film is Bruce Pascoe’s 2014 book, Dark Emu.

In 2021, archaeologist Keryn Walshe and I published a detailed assessment of Pascoe’s claims as compared with the evidence (our book’s short title is Farmers or Hunter-gatherers?).

The film is biased towards one side of the debate, the side of Bruce Pascoe. At several points, it turns into propaganda. This is the opposite of the much-stressed independence and even-handedness Blackfella Films promised in our pre-filming discussions. It becomes a puff piece for Pascoe."

Early peoples lived in tribes and extended families, and in tough times, sacrificed their children for food and to appease the gods or in the aboriginal's case the spirit of the Earth.

When Boniface, OSB (Latin: Bonifatius; c. 675 – 5 June 754) an English Benedictine monk and leading figure in the Anglo-Saxon mission to the Germanic parts of Francia during the eighth century. He organized significant foundations of the church in Germany. He found the people sacrificing their children at the winter solstice [Christmas]. They would make a pudding and place a coin in it and the child who got the coin was the one to be sacrificed. He changed this custom to being the blest child and was spared from being sacrificed.

The sanctity of human life began in Mesopotamia with Abraham when he converted to animal sacrifice. Those around him were sacrificing their children to the Gods. He had received a promise in his son that he would be great nation, so he abandoned the practice to the gods and sacrificed a ram, which has followed Hebrew theology even to this day.

It has been the Jewish Christ that has changed the attitude to the sanctity of human life.

When Christian missionaries went to the aboriginal tribes in the Gulf country Doomadgee, they started taking in the abandoned aboriginal babies and built a children's home. To feed the home they grew gardens, established a cattle station, and employed the aboriginals to run it on their land. In the 1940s I met these retired missionaries who set up this mission they were in their 80+ years.

The anthropologists doing the study into pre settlement history have to request material from the National Library and demonstrate their use, because it is hidden from public reading.

It was the influence of Christianity that gave life sanctity, schooling, children's homes, hospitals, and nurses, the printing press, and adopted agriculture to feed the growing nations.

Stelle can scream all he likes as an atheist who supports the Marxist review of History. But The Truth telling must begin.

The Stolen generation was introduced to save aboriginal children, but it has become a guilt trip by those opposed.

This really is quite funny.

The NT government (Labor) were fully on-board with the intervention. The Federal opposition (Labor) were fully on-board with the intervention, supporting it in parliament and continuing it after they took power.

But no, no, no says SR. I don't want that to be true, therefore it isn't. SR just asserts that it was all done by one man, which is true, if, like SR, you ignore all the facts.

Should I say, he unilaterally ignored all the facts?

Then he asserts "I showed quite clearly that the reports did not have conflicting statistics as you had asserted," yet if you read back through the thread you'll find no such thing. And then he tells Josephus that "We have dealt with the Quadrant article already on this forum and shown just how full of holes". Well no such thing happened but, it seems, that in SR's mind, since he didn't want it to be true that's the same as proving it to be untrue.

Should I say, he unilaterally decided it was untrue?

Dear mhaze,

Lol. Still projection you poor sod. You dive into semantics then look up and accuse me of doing the same, and when you get called out you just can't let it go.

What part of "In political terms, the Howard government faced little opposition to the Intervention. Cabinet was not consulted, and the government was able to take advantage of its Senate majority to push through the legislation. With a federal election around the corner, Labor leader Kevin Rudd saw no electoral advantage in criticising the Intervention" doesn't speak to a unilateral act?

SR wrote: "What part of "In political terms, the Howard government faced little opposition to the Intervention. Cabinet was not consulted, and the government was able to take advantage of its Senate majority to push through the legislation. With a federal election around the corner, Labor leader Kevin Rudd saw no electoral advantage in criticising the Intervention" doesn't speak to a unilateral act?"

The part where the Rudd government after the election so utterly agreed with the intervention that it continued it for several years thereafter. Or the part where the NT (Labor) government thoroughly agreed with the intervention and joined in.

SR I appreciate that you've managed to find one other apologist who wants to skip over the fact that the intervention had bipartisan support but quoting from him doesn't make it so. If you found a quote from Rudd saying something like 'we don't agree with this but won't stand in the way' then you might be able to hang onto your failed hopes by a finger-nail. But alas....

The simple truth, (and I appreciate that that is something that eludes you), is that, at the time, the intervention was widely supported.

OH! I forgot we live in a pagan society; it is just we have learned to murder infants before birth and cannibalize their bodies for science.
In 2005 estimate it was found that 83,210 induced abortions were performed, with women aged 20-29 years who were the most likely to present for abortion. The resulting estimated abortion rate in Australia was about 19.7 per 1000 women aged 15-44. Though this figure included stillborn. Currently terminations across the country are 13.5 per 1,000 women, or 65,000 per year.

Aboriginals abandoned unwanted births if they could not support them or cannibalized them. Those that lived on the Coasts were better off as they had unlimited source of seafood.

The shame of the stolen generation is nothing compared to the practices of infanticide. Truth telling must start and abuse of children and women has not abated in a pagan society.

Child abuse, and sexual abuse done by so many - is also
rampant in this "civilized" country of ours.
Domestic violence, rape, murder, et cetera is still
part and parcel of our nation. One has to only watch
the news. So before pointing any fingers - lets clean up
our own communities before pointing out the faults of
others that we don't really know or understand and has nothing
to do with the YES Voice to Parliament.

Josephus needs to pay a visit to any Protection Unit
of the State's Human Services Department and see
what really goes on in this "civilized" predominantly
Christian country of ours. The truth and facts may
sshock.

Foxy, paganism knows no boundaries on human life, a true follower of Christ will not destroy another human by violence or chemistry. Many church goers are equally pagan in their lives. But to promote a culture that is based in paganism destroys the values of Judea-Christian society. Currently it is this society that is being condemned as evil by paganism.

Dear mhaze,

You say: "SR I appreciate that you've managed to find one other apologist".

Mate, that is one more than you have.

Look if you are going to counter an argument which has been sustained with a direct quote you really do need to provide something to balance it. So far zip.

Josephus,

Spontaneous abortions occur at rates of 10 to 20% without outside intervention.

Which means from your perspective your God is the greater aborter creating pain, misery and loss on an unimaginable scale. This is the work of your so called loving Christ.

Own up to his role in terminating the lives of millions children every year. At least back in the day he confined himself to the wholesale slaughter of firstborns. Now all children are at risk it seems.

Disgusting.

SR,

Oh you want quotes to prove you're talking through your well-worn hat....from the ABC so we know its true....

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2008-06-21/rudd-stands-by-nt-indigenous-intervention/2479408

"Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has told the Queensland ALP Conference on the Gold Coast the Government remains committed to the Northern Territory Indigenous intervention. [said one year AFTER the intervention].

"But Mr Rudd says the intervention has made a major difference."

"Important progress is being made, with more police on the ground, people feeling safer, 11,000 health checks for children with follow-up treatment," he said.

"[There has been] a major investment in housing and infrastructure and 200 additional teachers being recruited over the next five years, to teach the 2,000 children previously not enrolled."

He also told the conference that the Commonwealth has learned a lot from the first year.

"One year on the Australian Government remains committed to the response and determined to maintain momentum," he said.

"Its effectiveness is critical to the change that's essential if Indigenous children are to be safe and healthy, growing up in families and communities which nurture and protect them."

Stand by....SR doesn't want that to be true so we'll be told it isn't.

Dear mhaze,

Do you even read what you write anymore?

Sigh.

Once again for the seemingly slow witted. You can't take the statement Rudd a year after the fact and say it shows Howard didn't act at the time unilaterally, especially when he didn't even consult his own bloody cabinet, or are you contesting whether he did or not.

There were aspects of the Intervention I fully supported. The extra resource for child health, the extra policing and increases in social workers. But it was directed at a race of people in a punitive and universal manner with no regard to those who were successfully raising their families.

Both Rudd and Gillard did make quite significant changes to the Intervention including reinstating permit requirements and striking down the suspension of the Racial Discrimination Act.

The sad fact is that only 3 of the 97 recommendations in the report were fully acted on. That is an indictment on both parties.

We are now at that part of the SR education where I can't tell if the logic is just too difficult for him to follow or he's decided to act the fool rather than admit his earlier imbecility.

First he claimed Howard acted unilaterally.
I showed that Howard acted with the full support of his party and the opposition.
Then SR claimed that Rudd didn't really support the intervention but didn't oppose it because of the political situation. SR found some obscure article which made this point and SR acted as though said obscure article was holy writ.
Now I've shown that Rudd supported the intervention when it was first proposed AND continued to support it long after the politics had changed.

Let's do SR a favour and just assume that the logic of this is beyond him and that the illogicality of his original claims will remain opaque to him.

Steele,
So now you are blaming Christ for human disfunction, and God for Herods slaughter. You have an uninformed confused mind. Humans are responsible for their behaviors, which includes aboriginal women who murdered their newborn. That is why Christian aboriginals do not want to return to the former pagan culture, which they abhor. They want to enter a better life than their ancestors and elders.

Oh dear mhaze,

Still playing in the semantics and not addressing anything substantive.

Okay, if this is really what this is reduced to I’ll keep going, if only to show how clueless you are.

You have taken a statement from Rudd a year later and said it proves Howard didn’t act unilaterally.

You claim: “I've shown that Rudd supported the intervention when it was first proposed”. No you haven’t.

And you repeatedly claimed: “The NT government (Labor) were fully on-board with the intervention” No they weren’t.

Here is the NT Chief Minister at the time reflecting on Howard’s UNILATERAL ACTION.

“Without any forewarning or consultation at all the prime minister was intending to implement a range of measures that would dramatically affect Aboriginal Territorians. When I asked why he was taking such UNILATERAL action he simply repeated it was a national crisis. When I said if that was the case then I needed to speak to him about the detail as soon as possible and would be on the plane to Canberra that day, he told me not to bother, that he was too busy, and that maybe he would have some time available in a couple of weeks.”

http://youtu.be/-ZnlHaeBLvo

So we have a principal player saying this was a unilateral action by Howard, and a little mhaze chirping from a twig that it wasn't.

Game set and match young fella. Time to give it away.

Oh dear SR,

Even you....yes even you...agreed that Rudd supported the intervention when Howard implemented it. But you claimed this was pure politics and that the ALP didn't rooly-trooly go along with it. Now I've shown that they were still supporting it a year later and suddenly you want to back-track left,, right and centre. You've even been reduced to now claiming that you sorta, kinda supported the intervention also.

Game, set and match? You can't even find your racquet.

A look at Dark Emu:
http://www.skynews.com.au/australia-news/anthropologist-peter-sutton-reignites-bitter-debate-over-dark-emu-after-being-slammed-in-new-abc-documentary/news-story/11682a799a94ef57cd480956dabc7f8a?fbclid=IwAR0h2iNnuPSUvJ3szOkl8Yob0orzZSV0rxWuWP1t3e5nQXUL1dTg9VaMUH0

The ABC falsehood of Pascoe.

Falsehoods of the ABC - coming from a Right-Wing source?
How unusual.

The "truth" from Rupert Murdoch's Sky News Australia
is to be expected. Media bias/Fact-check may list its-
failed fact checks, unproven claims,
the promotion of conspiracy theories and
misinformation. What do they know? Andrew Bolt, et al,
rule here.

As Billy Graham once stated :

Right-Wing, Left-Wing?
I prefer the whole bird!

Dear mhaze,

Well that was a lot of blather.

Pretty simple really.

You diverted this into a semantic discussion on the word unilateral. You made a big deal of me saying Howard acted unilaterally, even posting a cute little video to boot.

But he did act unilaterally, the Chief Minister of the NT who you had falsely claimed had given unwavering support even spelt it out for you. Yet you are still trying to run the line.

Give it away boyo.

Thank you Josephus. Very interesting. Aside from those defamed and all the fraud it exposed, Andrew Bolt made the point that to be a successful hunter gatherer you still needed to be an intelligent and capable human being, especially in as harsh an environment as can be presented in Australia.

Perhaps what some here don't want to acknowledge is that sophistication might have had something to offer those hunter gatherers.

SR,

You got caught with your pants down. The decision was clearly bipartisan which is clearly not unilateral.

It is not just semantics.

Dear Foxy,

I did re-read what you wrote and note that you have fallen hook line and sinker for the fantasy of a fraudster, starting with your affirmation of Aries' comment. As Carl Sagan also remarked, having an open mind is good as long as it isn't so open that your brain falls out.

I agree with Steele, the intervention was a unilateral decision of Howard's, he did not seek or obtain support from others, before applying his scatter gun method to a perceived problem in the NT.

See SR, Paul agrees with you. That proves you're wrong.

But have it you way boys. Howard acted with the full support of the parliament AND the next parliament, the full support of the ALP both before and for many years thereafter, and that, in some bizarro world, is acting unilaterally

Foxy is brain-washed by the ABC and cannot reason facts. Her facts checkers are the ABC. I watch all news sources to determine the facts and cannot believe the lies the Marxist presenters of the ABC and SBS, who pander to immature journalists who like conflict with an agenda to change Australian values. I personally have encountered presenters on SBS, and they have strong views and cannot reason. They deliberately set up conflicts to video and present it as news. I have been in this situation several times when they want a story.

Dear Fester,

So to be clear, you are taking the word of someone who has been found by a court of law to have fabricated, exaggerated, made "erroneous" claims unsupported by evidence, made claims which were manifestly "untrue" and been "grossly incorrect".

More fool you I'm afraid.

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/30/court-finds-andrew-bolt-dising

"Right-Wing, Left-Wing?
I prefer the whole bird!"

They are both 2 wings of the same bird, and it's a dodo.
Forget about the issues where they disagee, those issues don't matter.

Look to the issues where they are in agreement and the same line is trotted out no matter which party leads.

Dear Fester,

Carl Sagan also said:

"Our passion for learning is our tool for
survival. The cure for a fallacious argument is
a better argument, not the suppression of ideas."

After all "the purpose of education is to replace an
empty mind with an open one."
( Malcolm S. Forbes).

One thing, we cannot make the blind see. There is no evidence of Pascoe's claims. If that were the case, they would have easily adapted to our systems of housing, agriculture, and business. The fact is they did not and there is no unquestionable evidence of such. Foxy posted a few rocks as evidence of building in stone. If stone buildings existed, they were not still be standing in 1788. It is fiction. They actually stood branches together and covered them in native vegetation like grass, or lived in caves where they drew pictures of food available.
DARK EMU IS A FRAUD. The only animal they domesticated was the dingo, which was introduced about 3,500 years ago.

That left the Toalean people. Fillios and Taçon speculate that the Sulawesi hunter-gatherers brought the dingo to Australia 4000 years ago, perhaps after obtaining it from neighbors in Borneo. Here, the archaeological data bolster the case: Similarities in rock art between Sulawesi and Borneo indicate a close connection between the people. What's more, 8000- to 1500-year-old tools and toolmaking materials unearthed in south Sulawesi confirm that the local hunter-gatherers were able to travel vast distances by sea. "There were strong currents which could have blown their ships to Australia," Taçon says. He adds that since the 1600s, people from south Sulawesi visited north Australia "until the Australian government forbade it in 1900."

THE MARXIST WANT TO REWRITE HISTORY AND BELIEVE IT AS FACT.

Next time mhaze is right, it will be his second time in his life. He's given up on being right the first time. ha ha me old mate.

mhaze, are in stage 4 of "SANTA".

A mans life can be divided into four stages of SANTA.

Stage 1. A man believes in SANTA.
Stage 2. A man doesn't believe in SANTA.
Stage 3. A man is SANTA.
Stage 4. A man looks like SANTA.

Dear Josephus,

There is evidence:

An unpublished report obtained by SBS News has outlined
the cultural and archaeological significance of KOKatha
Aboriginal sites that were discovered in a military testing
range in South Australia.

The report describes a cluster of stone hut foundations
found inside the weapons testing range that were either used
as habitation structures or as low-walled hunting hides. A
total of 14 individual structures were recorded although more
could be present - GML Heritage Consultants wrote in 2020.

http://sbs.com.au/news/article/the-significance-of-these-very-rare-aboriginal-shelters-has-been-revealed/634tt22qt

In the 1960 -1 When I lived in among aboriginal's camp north of Alice Springs building the home for aboriginal children to be serviced by a teacher and nurse who were working at that time in Alice. That was to keep the children attached to their families.

On Christmas week we drove out past nine mile bore and the tribe had come together from the cattle stations and were camping on the ground with nothing but blankets. There were about 60 to 100 there as there was water there. They complained they had no food, so we shot a couple of kangaroos for them. By our standards they are uncivilized and uneducated.

On many nights at the local camp, you would hear the woman screaming as fights broke out among the men who were taking to each other with metal poles and axes. The son of the missionary we were working with would go across and settle the situation otherwise it would go on all night till one was deeply injured. Makarrata settling justice aboriginal way with a deep injury. Makarrata means spear in the leg to stop them oppressing [fighting].

http://www.antt.com.au/the-makarrata-commission/

The Voice is the first step in aboriginal justice, to get justice by injuring the colonial settlers, they claim took their land, without benefit to them. The elite cannot accept they have every opportunity to prosper in the current western society, they want to return to the old culture. Those in the bush would love to have the same standard of living as their cousins in the cities. The Voice will not function for the uneducated as they cannot speak in parliament as their educated cousins who want power to control land, water, and beaches.

Dear Josephus,

You've got it wrong.

All the First Nations people want is to be able
to have a say and offer solutions in policies
and programs that affect them.

Josephus you are a clown. It is an advisory body. That is it. You continue to prosecute this racist dog whistle crap. It is utter garbage that any normal person would be ashamed to put up.

I went to primary school in Darwin in the mid 60s and about a third of the school were Aboriginal kids. We got on fine. Darwin at that time was a grog soaked cesspit with a hell of a lot of white trash escaping problems they had in the south. The booze culture was absolutely everywhere and domestic violence was rife no matter the colour of the skin.

However for a certain section of the Aboriginal population without housing the excesses were not behind closed doors but out in the open.

I often went to a mate's place and the his was passed out drunk on the couch. An aboriginal passed out drunk in a park though would be looked down upon.

The only real difference was of having the opportunity to keep ones intoxication out of the public eye.

Foxy, that is the beginning of the ULURU STATEMENT FROM THE HEART.
It is the VOICE with the INVOICE to follow. Pay the RENT. You are ignoring the agenda of the voice. Listen to the founders of the Voice, like Linda Burney, Thomas Mayo, Thea Reid, Marcia Langton, and others who proposed the Voice. Albanese is just stuck on the Voice at the moment and will not propose Treaty and truth telling and reparations for loss of sovereignty.

In sixty-five thousand years they did not develop more than their ancestors had when they arrived in Australia, except a boomerang which the tribes in the Arnhem land that had contact with sailors from Borneo introduced 20,500 years ago.

http://www.nma.gov.au/defining-moments/resources/earliest-evidence-of-the-boomerang-in-australia
"Australia was not the only place in the world where throwing sticks like the boomerang developed. A 23,000-year-old mammoth tusk carved in a shape similar to the boomerang was discovered in Poland in 1986.

The oldest Australian boomerangs yet discovered were found in Wyrie Swamp, South Australia, in 1973 and have been dated to about 10,000 years ago.

However, the oldest images of boomerangs in Australia are found among the Bradshaw/Gwion Gwion rock art paintings in the Kimberley, and are about 20,000 years old."

"However, the oldest images of boomerangs in Australia are found among the Bradshaw/Gwion Gwion rock art paintings in the Kimberley, and are about 20,000 years old."

That's really interesting, Josephus. Thanks for that.

It is quite clear that the society that created the Bradshaw paintings was very different to the aboriginals that replaced them. What happened to those people will never be known but extermination at the hands of less advanced but more violent tribes seems likely. Given that the Bradshaw people were more advanced in their arts, it seems likely that they were more advanced in other areas. That they passed on boomerang technology to the aboriginals seems more than plausible.

Dear Josephus,

I don't understand WHY you keep on barking and banging
on about stuff that has nothing to do with the coming
up Referendum for our First Peoples Voice to Parliament.

All people are being asked to do is vote YES or NO on
ONE single question:

"A proposed Law to alter the Constitution to recognize
the First Peoples of Australia - by establishing an
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice.

Do you approve this proposed alteration?"

That's it.

Why are you bringing in all this other stuff that has
NOTHING to do with the Referendum?

It does not make any sense.

Dear mhaze,

Same applies to you.

Hi Foxy,

You ask; I don't understand WHY you (Josephus) keep on barking and banging on about stuff that has nothing to do with the coming
up Referendum for our First Peoples Voice to Parliament.

Could it have anything to do with the fact he has demonstrated his bigoted racism towards Aboriginal people on the forum, time and again.

Jose' claimed that he lived in Northern NSW in the 1960's where there were harmonious relations between whites and blacks, he spoke of social events. When I asked how mixed social event he attended, he went silent. Like the rest of the Klan they were all racists.

Dear Fester,

«Do you see the contradiction there? In developed nations where women have more rights and education you don't see high birth rates.»

This is not a contradiction but only a drop in the ocean because despite it, most women still have babies.
The main reason for the reduction in birth-rate is the density and hardships of urban life, which is not suited for having children.
One could even add the factor of sophisticated-technology-driven pornography replacing the desire for real sex, but even all these taken together would not suffice to reduce human population significantly enough, only to keep it relatively stable around today's levels.

«So contrary to your opinion that sophistication is the cause of a growing population, it is in fact the case that the denial of sophistication (birth control and education) that is the cause.»

But why deny birth control and this particular education? Among all sophisticated things that already exist, they should be among the last things to go, which will occur naturally once population has sufficiently declined.

«The reality Yuyutsu is that many do not share your concerns of overpopulation. Some even think a growing population a big advantage as it provides cheap labor to keep their economies strong.»

In other words, they play a Ponzi scheme, which future generations will have to pay for, and have their dignity stripped away as they be considered as nothing but "cheap labor".

Paul1405, Wrong again. I lived in North NSW in the 1940s, not 1960s.
I was a school child and lived on a farm out of town, so I never attended adult social events. Get a life! You try to demean my life and actual experiences.

Foxy, the Voice is just the beginning of the Uluru statement. This allows aboriginal radicals to introduce Treaty and reparations. Argue against what the Uluru statement entails. It is not just about recognition of the past but opening the future to aboriginal sovereignty. Albanese is using the tactic decided after the Republic referendum Just put the question without a MODEL. Labor believed if it had no model, it would have succeeded. They do not want to disclose the details as it would fail. Praise God it is failing so it does not divide Australia by race. Those that are disadvantaged must be attended too by the appropriate ministers. Linda Burney is failing in her role and must go!

Dear Yuyutsu,

I used to be concerned about population until I realised that it was an issue of personal liberty. I have also formed my opinion from research suggesting that the worlds population would not be growing were more women given access to contraception, which contrasts with your view of women being the cause. I'd also alert you to the situation in China, where the population will decline markedly in the coming decades:

https://asiasociety.org/policy-institute/last-generation-why-chinas-youth-are-deciding-against-having-children

Dear Foxy,

Seeing as we are quoting Carl, he also said,

"That writing as careless as von Däniken's, whose principal thesis is that our ancestors were dummies, should be so popular is a sober commentary on the credulousness and despair of our times. I also hope for the continuing popularity of books like Chariots of the Gods? in high school and college logic courses, as object lessons in sloppy thinking. I know of no recent books so riddled with logical and factual errors as the works of von Däniken."

Unfortunately for Aussie school kids the EVD of indigenous Australian history is part of the syllabus. So instead of being commended for their scholarship for debunking this nonsense, the critic of "is he or isn't he" would be failed for such efforts, or worse still be given the most shameful contemporary label for school children, "The child who thinks".

Foxy scolded: "Dear mhaze, Same applies to you."

The strict schoolmarm has a certain status within the fetish community but I'd doubt Foxy could carry it off.

She wants me to answer the Voice question over and over again in the hope I'll finally, out of boredom, provide the answer she demands. But I've already given my answer more times than necessary on this forum and don't intend to play these games ad infinitum. Just bring the vote on. Of course, I've laid out the circumstances under which I'd change my mind, but until such circumstances change, the issue is, as far as I'm concerned, closed. Just bring on the vote - there's no valid reason for Albanese to delay further other than he, like Foxy, just hopes we'll all, eventually, do as we're told out of boredom.

So no, Foxy, the Voice isn't the only issue. I found the information about the Bradshaw people's being a possible vector for the introduction of the boomerang to the aboriginals to be intellectually interesting and was curious to follow up. Intellectual curiosity? You should try it some time.

A bit more on the boomerang. As Josephus says the earliest known example dates to 30000BC in Poland.

Boomerangs have also been found in the Low countries dated to around 100BC. It seems there is also evidence of boomerangs being used by AmerIndians, particularly in and around the Pacific north-west regions. Similarly, boomerangs have been found in southern India, which poses interesting questions in regards to the possibility of population and cultural exchange between India and aboriginal Australia.

Boomerangs have been found in ancient Egypt including the tomb of Tutankhaten (c 3300BC). Experiments show that these Egyptian varieties were both the returning variety and the straight throw variety.

Boomerangs were primarily designed to travel relatively straight or as weapons of war in hand-to-hand combat. It is thought that the returning boomerang was discovered by mistake and was used in all cultures that had it more as a curiosity than as a useful tool.

Its possible that the boomerang was invented separately in each of these locations. Equally its possible that the curved hunting stick was in use by the original out-of-Africa tribes and travelled with the various branches of humanity as they expanded around the globe

The Referendum is about the recognition of the
First Peoples of Australia by establishing an
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice.

We shall be asked to vote YES or NO.

That's it.

Anything else being brought up - is irrelevant and
an attempt to muddy the waters.

Talking about boomerangs?

The Australian boomerangs are ones that return to you.
The other throwing sticks do not.
They are recognized as an Australian invention the world
over. A visit to our National Museums would clarify this
for anyone truly interested.

"Anything else being brought up - is irrelevant and
an attempt to muddy the waters."

- That's just the line we get from those who introduced the policy.

Part of me would like to vote yes, as I do support an end to all this animosity and would like to see indigenous have better lives.

But the onus is on the government to provide all the details, and if they can't do that then I can't support it, refuse to even entertain it.

The answer is an automatic 'No' until such a time as they can lay out full details.
As well as that I don't support a 2 class system where one group of people enjoy more rights and privileges than others, which is a divisive plan by it's nature.

The 'no' camp can say whatever the hell they want.
It's up to the 'yes' camp to convince us to say yes to constitutional changes, and they haven't done that while they haven't figured out or don't wish to share full details of their plan.

Maybe if the result is a 'no' vote, they will learn from it and be more forthcoming with the details on their next attempt.
It's better that we get things right, rather than push this through on a whim.

Maybe there should be an indigenous only referendum first to find out just exactly what the indigenous themselves want.

Step 1 - They tell us what they want, what is acceptable to end all the division.

Step 2 - We negotiate from that starting point, see what we can do to accomodate it, then the whole country has a referendum.

A lot of indigenous have no idea whatsoever about what this voice legislation is even about, they are just as clueless as the rest of us.

Here's earlierst evidence of the boomerang in Australia
from the National Museum:

http://nma.gov.au/defining-moments/resources/earliest-evidence-of-the-boomerang-in-australia

There's a lot of deliberate misinformation being
put out which is unfortunate. However the facts
don't change. A Constitutional Convention bringing
together 250 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
Leaders met at the front of Uluru in Central Australia
in 2017, on the land of the Aboriginal people. The
majority resolved to call for the establishment of the
First Nations Voice.

There's enough information available to answer all
questions for those genuinely interested to find out.

I thought we were discussing Dark Emu, which makes all subjects relevant to aboriginal culture discussable.

Aboriginal culture has morphed into Western culture in the cities, living in western houses, playing Western sports, musical instruments, and employed in western businesses. All these environments are managed by a Western Government. This should exclude any aboriginal who has adopted a western lifestyle from a separate Voice in the constution.

Those that need a voice live in remote and isolated camps with no housing, education, or health services and live on their native lands and want to stay there with no government interference.
http://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/trio-hospitalised-after-violent-outbreak-on-groote-eylandt-nt-police-say/ar-AA1eLA3M?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=ccb0c91eed4d4d7f9bc57f4943d054e4&ei=23

The culture the elite want you to believe is the morphed culture that has made them proud achievers in western culture, not the primitive culture of 65,000 years ago, which was violent, inhumane, and cannibalistic, their tools were for killing and injuring, or sticks for digging. They did not introduce any foods that were not naturally here. They had no written language, it took western translators to develop a written language. They now have parts of the bible in 250 written aboriginal languages using western alphabet characters.

After all "the purpose of education is to replace an
empty mind with an open one."

'It's good to be open-minded Foxy, just don't let your mind be so open that your brain falls out'.

School (Schule) was never about specifically about education, but largely about indoctrination instead.

Watch and find out for yourself how it originated.

The Capitalist Way? Our School’s Connections to Nazi Germany
http://youtu.be/lUL8gdJx9qc

Here's some more information about boomerangs:

http://kullillaart.com.au/dreamtime-stories/The-Boomerang#

"The Australian boomerangs are ones that return to you.
The other throwing sticks do not."

That's just not true. Returning throwing sticks have been found in quite a few parts of the world, from Egypt to the Americas.

"They are recognized as an Australian invention the world
over."

That's just not true. Its something that the ignorant would say. Its is known that returning boomerangs existed elsewhere. They may have been independently invented in Australia but that doesn't mean they weren't independently invented elsewhere as well.

Foxy then provides a link to the National Museum to support her case. Its the exact same link Josephus provided yesterday which Foxy obviously didn't check while simultaneously telling Josephus he was wrong. What was I saying about intellectual curiosity?

That the boomerang is best known as being associated with the Australian aboriginal is solely due to the fact that they were the last to use it, not provably the first. So in recent memory, aboriginals continued to use this stone age tool, while all others had long since moved on to more sophisticated weapons.

This is rather informative:

http://web.archive.org/web/20070630231305/http://www.rediboom.com/englisch/geschich/

Hi Foxy,

New program on the ABC; 'FIRST WEAPONS'

For countless millennia, the First Australians have wielded their knowledge, dexterity, and scientific understanding to devise weapons for hunting, survival, and warfare.
ABC’s latest series, ‘First Weapons’, hosted by Phil Breslin, embarks on an adventurous quest to unveil the science and genius behind Australia’s oldest, most innovative, and deadliest arsenal.

This is rather informative:

http://australian.museum/blog/science/aboriginal-boomerangs-tutankhamun/#

_____________________________________________________________

Dear Armchair Critic,

" An open mind leaves a chance for someone to drop a
worthwhile thought in it."

A Voice to Parliament is consistent with international
human rights standards and would provide for better human
rights protections by promoting equality and self-determination
for First Nations People. It IS right and fair that Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander People participate in decisions which
affect them.

The following link is another informative one:

http://theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/apr/27/a-majority-of-first-nations-people-support-the-voice-why-dont-non-indigenous-australians-believe-them@

Hi AC,

"School (Schule) was never about specifically about education, but largely about indoctrination instead."

Did you not have the privilege and pleasure of attending a Catholic boys school in the 60's and 70's. Where those wonderful Brothers and Fathers were so understanding and tolerant, kindness personified! Oh well, humm, not when they were bonking the little tikes that is. Outside of that, it was all lovey-dovey with the good ole' fellas of Catholicism. AND they are still in business today. Catholic priests and brothers are working o/t buggering children in secret, and certainly in the third world Catholic countries of Africa, Asia and South America.

From researching the origins of tools and weapons it appears the boomerang was only ever used in the NT tribes who had contact with people from Borneo who brought the Dingo and boomerang about 12,000 ago.

Aboriginals never learned to use coal or gas to make fires hot enough to make iron tools, though it was plentiful enough in Australia, and was only ever used for cooking as on the beach in Swansea NSW.
http://www.coalandcommunity.com/coal-and-the-aboriginal-people.php

School children are taught dreamtime stories and a culture that must be celebrated, but they are not told the unpleasant facts in aboriginal families, which continues to happen today. The nulla-nulla stick hit an unwanted newborn on the head.

The Voice is a simple proposition that boils down
to one thing - ADVICE.

It is nothing more than a group of First Nations People
advising the government on how to best help Indigenous
Australians.

Why bring in all this other stuff?

Dear Josephus,

Here's some "unpleasant stuff," that few know about:

http://theconversation.com/the-lost-children-of-the-empire-and-the-attempted-aboriginal-genocide-93380#

Here's a correction to a link I gave earlier that had a typo:

http://theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/apr/27/a-majority-of-first-nations-people-support-the-voice-why-dont-non-indigenous-australians-believe-them#

Prod Boy Jose'

Looks like you copped a few wacks around the chops with the nulla-nulla stick, it must have been what has caused your delusional hate of Aboriginal people. Why do you make the grossly disgusting claims of Aboriginal people eating their new born, you have no evidence, you just lie about things like that. Around the time you claimed you were living in Northern NSW, whites were murdering Aboriginal children in that area. Have you not heard of the Richmond River massacres, did good old grandpa Josephus take part in that? Now tell the truth for once.

The voice boils down to one concept Apartheid.

[This post has been deleted. The poster made an ugly allegation about another poster on this forum without being able to provide evidence. They were given 7 days to come up with that evidence. That is completely unsatisfactory.]

Dear Steele,

A 10+ year old article critical of Bolt's integrity is a good start to a fact check, but there is a fair bit more to fact check in the story than the presenter, the accuracy of Dark Emu and the claimed heritage of the author being examples.

To be fair though Steele, you have probably made more effort fact checking the criticism as any supporter of Bruce's fantasy history of indigenous Australia, so well done you!

I think to believe that voting Yes in the referendum will resolve the problems of indigenous Australians requires a credulousness akin to believing the fantasies of Bruce along with his claims of indigenous ancestry.

" An open mind leaves a chance for someone to drop a
worthwhile thought in it."

- Nice response.

Dear Fester,

«I used to be concerned about population until I realised that it was an issue of personal liberty.»

Well of course this is an issue of personal liberty - what else could it be?
Do you consider personal liberty a trivial matter?

When population is too high, as it has been in the last 2000 years, but especially the last 200, nobody can make a move without stepping on someone else's toe.

To remedy this, states are formed, restrictive laws are made and the higher the population gets, the more standardisation and regimentation is required, which eat away the very value and purpose of life.

Other than mere physical survival for its own sake, what's there to gain from having an unnaturally huge population, all practically living the same way and doing the same, who instead of living their own life, are addicted to entertainment where they passively watch each other (meanwhile robbing and polluting this planet)?

Those without bodies do not feel the passage of time, they don't even get bored, so why can't they wait patiently, without pushing, for their turn to obtain a human body with life-quality rather than mere quantity of useless years?

«the worlds population would not be growing were more women given access to contraception, which contrasts with your view of women being the cause.»

But I did agree and am happy for the contraceptives, it's just that "not growing" would not reduce human population back to reasonable levels, but only maintain population levels at today's unacceptable order of magnitude.

«I'd also alert you to the situation in China, where the population will decline markedly in the coming decades:»

The article says: "UN experts now see China’s population shrinking by 109 million by 2050."

That's nice, but is still well within the same order of magnitude of over a billion Chinese people alone.

Such temporary fluctuations due to economical pressures are normal, but then new sophisticated technologies emerge that make life a bit cheaper, a bit more economically bearable, and people forget everything and give in to their genetic pressure to procreate.

Paul,

Once again you personally are a LIAR and a FRAUD and what you falsely claimed I said is defamation.

Pauliar
Pauliar
Pauliar
Pauliar
Pauliar
Pauliar
Pauliar
Pauliar
Pauliar
Pauliar
Pauliar
Pauliar
Pauliar

Dear Yuyutsu,

That population is an issue of personal liberty ultimately means that it is an issue for individuals, not governments, which was why I included that link.

I don't share your pessimism, as the impression I get is of educated women realising that there are options for them in life beyond that of baby producing cattle. I note time and again that governments of educated populations with access to contraception can get very annoyed with the drop in fertility, Iran being an example.

https://www.jpost.com/middle-east/iran-news/article-743904

I am sure that the Iranian rulers wish that your theory about the genetic programming of women were true, but for Iran at least Yuyutsu, I believe that the "FU" factor is somewhat stronger currently.

Dear Foxy,

"It IS right and fair that Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander People participate in decisions which
affect them."

Indeed it is, but it is not right or fair to give one group of people a democratic privilege over another. Doing so violates the principle of equality upon which modern democracy is founded and I would NEVER agree to such a thing.

I would vote "Yes" to remove the race powers from the constitution. It is high time they were done away with.

A belated thanks for your affirmation ttbn. I guess I differ from you in that I don't think the "no" argument need extend beyond the violation of equality, although the introduction of WA's heritage legislation could not have come at a worse time for the "yes" argument. It has been a complete mess and has seen WA Labor's popularity collapse as the stories have spread in the month since it took effect. A $2.5 million "fee" for a tree planting program? That doesn't leave me with a warm and fuzzy feeling of reconciliation.

Dear Fester,

That's where you're wrong. The Voice will not affect
any other group. It will not affect the rest of us at
all. That is misinformation bandied about by the Murdoch,
News Corp. NO campaign - and unfortunately some people
like yourself believes it. A pity. A true shame.

The Voice is a simple proposition that boils down to ane
thing - ASVICE. Only.

It is nothing more than a group of Indigenous Australians
advising this government on how to best help Indigenous
Australians.

If you think that the Race clause should be removed from
the Constitution - then you should support the Voice to
allow self determination of our First Nations people.
We can't continue to keep making decisions for them.

They have invited us to give them this chance.

I for one cannot say NO - when this is their country.
And keep continuing to leave them out of things.

I've stayed out of the recent population debates here. But this caught my eye: "When population is too high, as it has been in the last 2000 years,..."

The population 2000 yrs ago was around 150 million. Remove 98% of humanity to get back to that?

For all of human history, the urge to have children has been governed by self-interest. Man had as many kids as their resources allows. Even more to the point people needed to kids who would be able to look after them as they aged. The more kids you had the better your older life would be by selling off the daughters or have sons to work the farm or make the next kill.

Now, in modern society, that is no longer the case. Modern man is so economically efficient that he no longer needs kids to ensure a comfortable 'retirement'. So we now find that in every (yes EVERY) modern first world society, birth rates have fallen below replacement levels.

The notion that this is due to contraception or female education confuses causes and symptoms. The cause is economic advancement. An advanced society can afford to educate its women. Educating women doesn't cause the society to advance, its a symptom of advancement. Contraception doesn't cause advancement, its a symptom of a family structure that no longer needs large numbers of kids.

Everywhere, throughout the first world, population levels are falling unless supplemented by immigration. I've written here before about how the Chinese population is falling much faster than the official figures claim.

The population bomb has already been defused. To be sure, there remain places where population continues to grow They are all economically backward. The solution for them isn't to educate the women of hand out contraceptives like M&M's. The solution is economic development and the result will naturally follow.

OTOH, we, raised to fear rising population levels (the Soylent-Green syndrome) shouldn't be too sanguine about the 21st century population decline. The greatest resource on the planet is the human brain. Having less of that resource is an existential threat to our survival.

Foxy, you are lying to yourself. The Uluru statement is Voice, Treaty, and repatriations. True it is advising the Government on how to implement this agenda.

The Albanese Government has appointed $5,4 million to a commission to bring this about. Get the facts right, it is leaving some of this program to State Governments as in WA heritage laws, which they had to abandon as it was affecting the Yes camp in WA.

Dear Josephus,
I will be happy to continue the discussion with you
when you get your facts right.

Do your research before you post.

You currently have no credibility.

Well we have a post that tells us "The Voice is a simple proposition that boils down to [o]ne thing - ADVICE. Only."

But it then also tells us that its about aboriginal "self determination" and is a way for us to stop " making decisions for them.".

Anyone else see the illogicality in that? If its just advice we (whoever 'we' are) will continue to make the decision. And how can you have self determination when others are making decisions for you?

Of course, this only makes sense if its not just 'advice'. That's just a sop to reel in the anxiously gullible. The only advice will be to do whatever the aboriginal elite want - ohh and keep the funds flowing.

And of course none of this explains why the Voice has to be in the constitution other than the need to elevate it above a mere advisory role.

I note the Albanese continues to dodge the question as to when the vote will be held. Just get it over with so we can move on to things that really matter.

To move onto things that really matter?

TO WHOM?

The reason why the Voice has to be in the Constitution
has been explained by the Prime Minister numerous times
including on this morning's "Insiders," program.

He can't be held responsible for some people's
lack of comprehension skills or their own interpretations
of what is being said or posted on social media by the
NO campaigners.

"The reason why the Voice has to be in the Constitution
has been explained by the Prime Minister numerous times
including on this morning's "Insiders," program."

Yes, he explained that this is the only form of constitutional recognition that he will allow the people to vote on. Not that its the only way to get constitutional recognition but that this is the only way he will allow the people to consider. Not even close to good enough. And absolutely no reason to cave to this blackmail.

The Prime Minister actually explained WHY it was
necessary to have the Voice in the Constitution.

BTW:

The Voice is a request from our First Nations People -
not the Prime Minister. And it is up to the Australian
people to vote YES or NO. They will be the ones who
will decide - not the PM.

"The Prime Minister actually explained WHY it was
necessary to have the Voice in the Constitution."

We must have watched a different interview. The one I watched had him saying:

1. Its the only form of constitutional recognition he plans to allow the people to vote on. My way or the highway. So you either agree to it being in the constitution or there's no recognition vote at all. This is democracy?

2. We should give it to the aboriginals because they want it!! Just because they want it. Wow!!

Foxy, I can't help but notice that you completely ignored my pointing out the illogicality of your claims. The body can't be simultaneously merely an advisory body AND one that provides self-determination.

If the Voice is no more than an advisory body that does not affect anyone else, it does not need to be in the Constitution as there are over three hundred aboriginal bodies already advising the Government.

The Voice is the initial program put into the Constitution by the Federal Albanese Labor Government, then it is up to the Labor States to introduce the laws that put in place treaty [as each State was established separately on local aboriginal tribal lands], and repatriations [pay the rent], as Australia is a federation of States.
South Australia, Western Australia have tried to introduce laws that will be at the advice of local aboriginal elders. The WA government had to postpone their heritage laws because it was affecting their Yes case.

Here's the link again which explains why the Voice should be
in the Constitution:

http://theconversation.com/why-cant-we-just-establish-the-voice-to-parliament-through-legislation-a-constitutional-law-expert-explains-203652#

The Prime Minister stated that the voice must be protected in the
constitution because of the request from Indigenous Australians
through the Uluru Statement From the Heart.

"You can't say you want to listen to Indigenous Australians and
then not listen to the very first point in the form of
recognition they want."

Read WHY having the voice in the constitution is important
as explained by a constitutional law expert in the link I gave.

The PM stressed that the voice would be governed by legislation.

Dear mhaze,

You are just being disingenuous now.

We have been through why it is appropriate that the Voice be included in the Constitution.

The extraordinary race powers in the Constitution have only and will likely only ever be directed at Indigenous Australians. Sometimes arguably for their benefit but also punitively and for political gain as with Howard's Intervention.

They have been used to suspend the Racial Discrimination Act and the Native Title Act. They have put troops into the streets of over 70 indigenous communities and mandates repeated health checks of only one race.

It is only right that such extraordinary powers be informed by an appropriate body. This is what the Voice delivers.

Voting against that at the very least smacks of churlishness and mean-spiritedness.

SR,

Even if what you say is true, (and its rubbish), the PM isn't using that argument as to why HE wants the Voice in the constitution. As Foxy has correctly discerned....

"The Prime Minister stated that the voice must be protected in the
constitution because of the request from Indigenous Australians
through the Uluru Statement From the Heart."

That is, according to the PM, we should put the Voice in the constitution because the aboriginal elite want it in the constitution. No other reason was offered.

Making constitutional change just because a small group want it, isn't really the way to run a country. (Although I'm looking forward to the time when they get around to asking other groups what they want - I'm offering my services to sit on the Voice representing left-handed, bearded 60 yr olds!).

This is, of course, one of the reasons the Voice shouldn't be in the Constitution. If we have to do things just because the aboriginal elite want it, then the Voice won't be, contra the fevered claims of its proponents, a mere advisory body. We'll go rapidly from the Voice merely advising to it telling us what it wants and being told we have to give 'em what they want because they want it.

So apparently there will be 24 people appointed to be 'the voice'.
- But there's 250 indigenous tribal groups in Australia, as well as many land councils

How will these 'voices' be selected?
- And what happens if the 'voice' gives a recommendation to Parliament that is denied?
- Will there be challenges in the High Cort that overturn to governments decisions?

Then there is the fact that even the plan itself is not bi-partisan, that is even before we start the 2 political parties don't even agree to begin with.

SR and Foxy,

The putative reasons for the voice being permanently inserted into the Constitution are at best puerile and unconvincing and at worst simply a springboard for a treaty, reparations etc.

Dear mhaze,

Just you saying something is rubbish certainly doesn't impact its legitimacy one iota.

Leaving that aside here is a little bit of history for you.

Gough Whitlam 1973 established the National Aboriginal Consultative Committee.

Fraser turfed it.

He replaced it with the National Aboriginal Conference.

Bob Hawke got rid of that.

He replaced it with the Aboriginal and Torres Straight Islander Commission

John Howard got rid of that.

National Congress of Australias First Peoples was kicked off in 2008 but was defunded by Abbott in 2013 then finally killed off by the Morrison government.

Why on earth do you think having a Voice to Parliament enshrined in the Constitution is a big ask for first nations people?

Dear Shadow Minister,

http://theconversation.com/why-cant-we-just-establish-the-voice-to-parliament-through-legislation-a-constitutional-law-expert-explains-203652#

It's not "purile," as you suggest.

The Voice must be protected. And it will be governed by legislation.

The Voice will help close the gap in education, health,
housing, and so on. for our First Nations people. Surely you
would not want to kill that off?

SR

"Just you saying something is rubbish certainly doesn't impact its legitimacy one iota."

Its rubbish. We already litigated this in an earlier in this thread where I showed that all major parties supported the intervention. That you don't want that to be true doesn't make it so.

The National Aboriginal Conference was closed because of, among other reasons, significant financial mismanagement. ATSIC was closed down because of, in part, significant financial corruption and nepotism.

Yes, I can see why the carpet-baggers want their phoney-baloney jobs (http://youtu.be/VgF_hP4GO_Q) to be protected behind the constitution.

Squirm all you want SR, but your own 'Dear Leader' has said its about just giving the Aboriginal elite what they want. Nothing more noble that that. They want it...we have to give it to them....apparently.

Foxy, the Minister for aboriginal affairs should currently be dealing with those issues, ["The Voice will help close the gap in education, health, housing, and so on. for our First Nations people."} If Linda Burney is not capable, we need to replace her with an adequate person who will listen and fight for those issues for aboriginals, who are inadequately housed, educated, and have no health services. However, if they wish to retain their 65,000-year-old culture then these services cannot be made available to every isolated camp in the bush.

The Aboriginals who have these services do not need a Voice as these services are provided already. Of course, Thomas Mayo and Thea Reid, Marcia Langton, Linda Burney all have these services already, so they do not need a Voice. The reason they want a Voice was proposed by these elite, was to gain power in influencing the executive Government, the Reserve Bank and Public policy in laws that affect water, lands, and beaches as in WA.

But for Foxy she cannot see the proponents of the Voice already have available all these services, and their agenda is more than these services - it is landlord power.

As Australians, we pride ourselves on our diverse and
vibrant society. One important piece of our history has
not yet been recognised in our Constitution and that is
the 65,000 years of continuous cultural connection to this
land by Indigenous Australians, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander people.

By voting YES in the referendum we create a pathway for
Indigenous Australians to speak directly to the government of
the day about the things that work on the ground of their
communities. This will mean fewer misdirected resources and
real results for Indigenous Australians.

Foxy,

You keep on saying that the voice will help improve the health and welfare of aboriginal people but never say how or why the 11-odd indigenous advisory panels have not done this?

Secondly, a prime example of the scope of this voice came when an Aboriginal voice panel member claimed that the purchase of nuclear submarines should be subject to review by the voice.

This is not a voice but a rent-seeking veto.

Dear Shadow Minister,

They were government agencies under government control.
The Voice will be Indigenous people speaking directly about
things that work on the ground in their communities. They
will not be told what works best for them - they will advise
on what needs to be done. This will mean fewer misdirected
resources and real results for Indigenous Australians.

Surely that's not hard to understand?

Get the facts right, it will be the States that introduce TREATY and REPATRIATIONS as the States exist on aboriginal Land, and Australia is a Federation of States. Some states have already begun putting in place legislation, laws that govern aboriginal tribal lands, waterways, and beaches. Where Native Title exists or is identified these laws will apply. Australia Post is now referring to areas with aboriginal identification titles, and SBS and the ABC always recognize country. That is why we have welcome to Country identified in numerous events.

I watched a program by Ernie Dingo and one of his staff interviewed an elder in the Riverina who had been given custody and management of a farm because his grandmother was aboriginal, he was voting Yes yet he had no needs of education, housing, or employment. THE VOICE IS A FRAUD IF IT IS FOR HOUSING, HEALTH< AND EDUCATION.

It is a deception to smoke screen the real agenda.

Dear Josephus,

Please don't deal with hypotheticals - and what may
or may not happen in the future. All you are being
asked to do in this referendum is quite simple.
The question is simple and so is your answer - YES or
NO.

Stop your attempts at fear-mongering. It's most
unbecoming. Deal with facts not conjectures and
your own personal biases.

Dear Fester,

«That population is an issue of personal liberty ultimately means that it is an issue for individuals, not governments, which was why I included that link.»

Sure it is, but what can individuals do when governments encourage procreation? Governments constantly need cannon-fodder and economic-fodder to perpetuate their power, so if individuals overall become "too slack" in procreating then they will start severe sanctions against them. Historically that's why they originally sent the women home to make babies and excluded them from public life. One obvious sanction can be "no procreation --> no sex". Not just Iran and Afghanistan - even the U.S.A. is starting to go this way in regard to abortions. Alternately, governments can construct baby-farms. China will have no moral barriers to implement either.

---

Dear Mhaze,

«The greatest resource on the planet is the human brain. Having less of that resource is an existential threat to our survival.»

This human brain is capable of elevating us spiritually, yet it is being wasted on struggling for mere survival. What's the point in survival if we don't get anywhere. Besides, this obsession with survival is futile because no matter how hard we try, sooner or later everyone will die anyway, including humanity itself.

"Stop your attempts at fear-mongering. It's most unbecoming."

- Stop being a control freak Foxy.
You have no right to dictate what others should think or say.

"The question is simple and so is your answer - YES or NO."
- NO

If Josephus wants to 'deal with hypotheticals' or 'fearmonger'
- Then that is his right to do so and others can judge for themselves.

Since when did you become the forum moderator?

Dear Foxy,

«The question is simple and so is your answer - YES or NO.»

My answer is clearly NO.

Since I don't want the commonwealth of Australia, its government or its constitution to even exist, I certainly don't want to strengthen them further by one extra mandatory function, which would only make them even more difficult to dismantle.

As for aboriginals, why would any true-blooded aboriginal person come and grovel before the regime which conquered his land by force? That "Voice" could only represent spineless and shameless assimilated aboriginals who are now just after material benefits.

[Cont]
If you think Josephus has broken the forum rules you are free to report him
- Just like I just reported you.

For consistently telling other people what they should think and what they should say,
- And when they can and can't post as you did to me on the other thread.

You think Putin's a dictator,
But take a look in the mirror you're not so different yourself.

Dear Armchair Critic,

You did what? Reported Foxy? For what? For telling someone to stop posting crap?

Well yes I suppose I do see why you might get a little triggered by that, but still, we usually let you go on and on principally because you don't come across as a racist little prig like Josephus does.

Your stuff is relatively harmless, Josephus is regurgitating racist and fascist tropes and they really should be left to lie on the table garnering implied consensus where there is none.

Now calm the farm old boy and be at peace when the nasty types get a clip around the ears every so often. They are manifestly deserving of it.

*shouldn't

Steele, Nothing I have stated has not been stated by Albanese or his Voice committee, the ABC or SBS. If you cannot accept the words I write, you are not blighting me you must take it up with the people I quote. It shows evidence you do not listen to or read what they say.

The Question time today Labor members were quoting health and education short falls by specific cases, since they already know these problems, it is their responsibility to do something about it. A Voice will do no more than what they are doing after hearing from communities and not acting on it. Albanese is an inept leader to deal with the problems they hear about, it is all a smoke screen. He was in Arnhem last week and heard the situation and wants the Voice to Act, when he knows the problems without a Voice.

Dear Steele,

Armchair Critic needs to go back and read my posts
to Josephus. Perhaps with time, he just may
understand what I did say - not what he thinks I
said. Although I won't hold my breath.
He unfortunately has this problem in other
interpretations of important issues.

That's why I've decided from now on stop reading
what he posts. I should do the same for Josephus.
But the Voice is to important an issue - to allow
misinformation and fear-mongering to continue to
be spread.

Hi SteeleRedux,
Foxy, like everyone else here is entitled to her opinion.
She's well within her rights to say:
'Josephus, I think your opinion's crap and I also think you're crap'

But she doesn't have the right to try to limit Josephus' speech in any way.
If Josephus posts something that's a breach of forum rules she can report him and let the REAL forum moderator decide.
Over the past few months she's directed this kind of finger-waving attitude and behavior at me numerous times,
often telling me that I have no credibility, when what she should be saying is 'I don't think your statements are credible'
- It's not for her to decide for the entire group.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=10168#349151
"We should not be giving a pro Putin supporter a
platform to continue to spout Putin's propaganda."

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=10168#349870
"Start your own discussion stop trying to divert mine!
Za-mohl-chee!"
['Shut up' in Russian]

She said to Josephus:
"Please don't deal with hypotheticals - and what may or may not happen in the future."
"Stop your attempts at fear-mongering. It's most unbecoming. Deal with facts not conjectures and your own personal biases."

[Speaking of personal biases, she most certainly was attempting to impose her own personal biases in attempting to limit my opinion.]

She's not the forum police officer.
She doesn't get to try to coerce others to only say things she approves of.
- And she doesn't get to try to influence others to try to isolate a person from having their opinion.

Why is it that so-called 'liberals' are often the most authoritarian?
Does she think that she's above others, more intelligent, and that she has a duty to stifle opinions she doesn't agree with?
- Well she may think that, but it's not all about her, she doesn't have any right to limit anyone else's opinions
Do we need to seek her approval before commenting?
If she wants to wave the finger at others;
Maybe the actual forum moderator should wave their finger at her.

And at least I owned what I did, I didn't hide from it.

Dear Steele,

I saw a cartoon on the web that you might like:

Two CEOs walking along discussing the Voice.

One says to the other:

"I've always found that with a generous donation
we get a decent "voice" into the making of laws that
affect us."

His friend replies:

"Same! who needs a change in the Constitution."

Dear Steele,

I deal with facts.

It's an occupational habit.

Beyond that Foxy,
I truly have nothing against you personally.
You are a valued member of the forum as much as everyone else.
I'm not bothered that you disagree with me on numerous issues.
I just don't like the finger waving and attempts to silence opinions you disagree with.
It's a matter of principle, I must stand up for free speech, the right of everyone to express their opinions however they choose, within the constraints that we already have.
No one else here tries to dictate what others think and say.
I myself may even say that I think a persons comment is stupid, but I would never try to restrict them from saying what they think.

Telling another poster to :

1) Please don't deal with hypotheticals.

2) Stop attempts at fear-mongering.

3) Deal with facts not conjecture and personal biases.

This does not amount to being a "control-freak."
It's merely an attempt at trying to correct lies,
and misinformation.

Hi Foxy,
Well even if Josephus was engaging in hypotheticals, fear-mongering, conjecture and personal biases, who are you to say that he can't say it?
He can defend himself in regards to the content.

You don't get to finger wave and tell him what he can and can't say;
You are most certainly welcome to respond with 'facts' that show his claims to be invalid or state that 'IN YOUR OPINION' 'this or that point' is a hypothetical argument or raising certain aspects of a discussion could be seen as fearmongering;
- In which case you MUST still recognise that he is still every bit entitled to do it, as you've no authority to dictate what people think and say.

Josephus spoke about indigenous murdering and eating their own children.

I don't know the truth of it, and whilst it portrays indigenous people as soulless sub-human people not worthy of fair and equal treatment, at a time when Australians have to make a decision on this referendum, (which relies very much on appealing to peoples emotions) and you might feel his comments may influence people a certain way that doesn't mean he's not permitted to say it, nor does it mean he's racist for saying it.

You ARE equally allowed to make your own arguments to influence others.

As for conjecture and personal biases, please note your own comments would often be considered conjecture.
Personal biases however are a core part of peoples opinions.
More often than not you seem to cherry-pick the facts which reinforce your own personal biases, and refuse to look at 'inconvenient facts' which would alter your opinion or broaden your own understanding of a particular topic.

Ultimately I don't even know how you can make a response like that with a straight face, considering most of it applies directly to your own comments.

But I do understand that some people can never accept criticism as being valid.
They cannot see how that which they accuse others of also applies to them, and they always argue the point in an effort to justify their own behavior.

I didn't say Josephus can't say it.

I asked him not to deal with hypotheticals, conjectures,
et cetera,
but to deal with facts.
I asked him to stop his attempts at fear mongering.

Your interpretations of what I posted is not my problem.

You should maybe consider paying less attention to what others are doing and saying and look more upon that which you are doing and saying.
Nobody can control what others say or do, but you most certainly can control yourself.

Your words are a reflection of your own insecurities.

I know who I am. You don't.

You would not bother - if I wasn't a threat.

Extremism thrives on ignorance.

The only thing that will redeem our country is
inclusion and co-operation. That's why voting
YES is so important.

Even Bob Hawke disagrees with the racism in the voice:

http://twitter.com/johnvic48/status/1688798144371576832

Check with - Julian Leeser, Murray Gleeson, Simon
Birmingham, Bridget Archer, Karen Andrews, Paul Fletcher,
Andrew Brigg, Russell Broadbent and so many others.

Not everyone sees the racism that's being flouted by the
NO campaigners. They just may well find themselves on
the wrong side of history.

And, history is calling.

So, the Western Australian Cultural heritage laws were progressive, where land, forests, waterways, and beaches become controlled by aboriginal Elders who receive $160 p/h income for identifying cultural sites. This is part of the States role, and the Constitution will guard these laws. "This always was and always will be aboriginal land." It was stolen not by war but by colonizers settlement.

Closing the Gap might sound great, but it's completely unrealistic.

Let me give you an example...

Wutungurra is a small community in the Northern Territory of Australia. It is located 209.8 kilometres (130.4 mi) south-east of Tennant Creek. It has a population of 166 (2016 Census) and is on the country of the Alyawarr people.

How in the feck...
- Are we going to close the gap for people who want to live here?
http://www.google.com/maps/@-20.4058047,135.256866,65679m/data=!3m1!1e3?entry=ttu

What are we going to do?
Put in a Mater satellite hospital?
Build a local Tafe and a University?
Open a Woolies? Build a factory and create Jobs?
Harvey Norman? JB-HIFI? Bunnings Warehouse? Supercheap Auto?
McDonalds, KFC and Dominos Pizza?

You want to know why 'Closing the Gap' is a ridiculous policy?
- It's because the gap is UNCLOSEABLE.

No matter how much we give, you just would never be able to close the gap.
It sounds good and something admirable to aim for, but we equally have to accept THE UNCOMFORTABLE TRUTH, that its JUST NOT REALISTIC.

- The Gap is UNCLOSEABLE.
It might be admirable, but it's not viable.

If anyone disagrees, then speak now, give it your best shot or accept it and forever hold your peace.

Look, I want these people to get a fair go, and to have an opportunity for happy, fulfilling lives with the modern health facilities and comforts most of us enjoy and take for granted..

Why wouldn't I wish that for others?
- But it's just not realistic.

Foxy,
"Your words are a reflection of your own insecurities."

- Maybe, maybe not..
But we're not talking about me so don't deflect.

"I know who I am. You don't."
- Do you? I'm not so sure.

I already beat you to the punch - Scroll up and re-read
"But I do understand that some people can never accept criticism as being valid.
They cannot see how that which they accuse others of also applies to them, and they always argue the point in an effort to justify their own behavior."

Was I wrong?

"Telling another poster to :
1) Please don't deal with hypotheticals.
2) Stop attempts at fear-mongering.
3) Deal with facts not conjecture and personal biases.

This does not amount to being a "control-freak."
It's merely an attempt at trying to correct lies,
and misinformation."

Seems like you were trying to control things to me, you even admitted it.
"It's merely an attempt at trying to correct..."

These comments above look like subtle demands, like a school teacher scolding a child, or a dog owner teaching obedience.

You don't need to correct anyone we're all adults.
Just present your own facts and offer your own opinions, simple.

"You would not bother - if I wasn't a threat."
You're not a threat, you're annoying, frustrating, nitpicking.
Pat people on the head when they say something you approve of - good boy.
Or wave your finger around when you disapprove - bad dog.
Don't overstate your own importance, it's just a forum.

I wonder if they have a farmers market in Wutunugurra?
- Because we all need good fresh fruit and vegies to stay healthy, it looks pretty desolate out there
"Get your fresh cactus!"

I wonder if they've got a local butcher shop or if they have access to a wide range of health products and medicines?

Anyone got the phone number for Chemist Warehouse in Wutunugurra?
Damn, it looks like the closest one is in Coolalinga, (Darwin)
- it's only 1170klms away.

Sounds like you've got a bit of a cough - Lets go get some codral.
Quick jump in the car, it's only 12 hrs and 33 minutes away.

What you scaped your knee?
Jump in the car well just duck up the shop and grab some dettol.

What's that you need some tampons?
Emergency, I'll call the flying doctor.

Me - a control freak?

No way!

I'm not a control freak.

But can I show you the right way to post? (smile).

And unlike Putin who you wholeheartedly support, I don't
throw people out of buildings if they don't do exactly
what I want.

You're welcome.

Regarding the Voice:

I'll repeat what I posted on another discussion:

For those who are concerned about the Voice giving
"special rights" to our First Nations people?
Don't be.

"The Voice does not confer special rights on anyone.
A group of leading constitutional lawyers, including a
former High Court Judge have considered this question.

They found that the Voice does not confer rights, let
alone "special rights" on anyone. Instead the Voice
would give Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples
an opportunity to make representations to the Parliament
and the Government. All Australians have the same
opportunity.

The Voice would not change this. It would not change or take
away any right, power, or principle of anyone who is not
Indigenous."

There's more information at:

http://anu.edu.au/about/strategic-planning/indigenous-voice-to-parliament#

"For those who are concerned about the Voice giving
'special rights' to our First Nations people?"

That's not the issue, and FYI, they already do get special rights above that of others.
How many unemployed indigenous get cut off welfare benefits for not completing their looking for work obligations?
Don't they get handouts above that of normal people?
Don't they get priority in health and housing services for being a 'vulnerable ethnic minority group'?

But I digress.

Take out the issue of one group of people enjoying rights none of the others have.

Take out the issue of 24 people selected for the voice
(When there are 250 indigenous groups and numerous land councils and how these 24 'voice' members will be selected and their term of tenure.

What happens when the 24 'voice' members give advice on a certain issue, to which the government is not obligated to follow...

Then if the 'voice' members oppose the government not taking their advice we could see the 'voice' members taking the issue to the high court to overturn the governments position, so that even our government can't make decisions in what they see is the nations best interests..

It will be the tail wagging the dog, possibly used or threatened to be used to extract more and more deals and concessions for themselves,
- playing politics themselves to overturn government decisions...

At the end of the day, I support 1 nation, 1 people, 1 vote, 1 set of rules.
I'm quite happy for their to be an indigenous body that makes submission on things that are in their best interests, and I'm happy for them to recieve extra benefits when and where required.

But I'm not supporting the voice.
It's all ill-thought out policy on a whim.
An accident waiting to happen that will cost citizens who knows how much and probably doomed to failure like government policies usually are.

And all in all, it's probably another UN or WEF lead policy just as all these other indigenous policies we see occurring around the world.

I'll repeat what I posted on another discussion:

The solutions to many of the complex problems facing
our Indigenous communities today already exist, but they
don't have the power to change policy to implement them.

It is important to have these opportunities that are going
to give voice to Indigenous communities. One community is
not the same as another and the priorities of each community
are different. They are not one homogenous group.

The truth is Indigenous Australians are among the most
disadvantaged in the country. The Voice is unfortunately
being weaponised politically by the Coalition according to
Andrew Gee. Why? Obviously it helps raise funds. They're
doing it to shore up leadership positions and they're doing
it just to have some ground to fight on.

The hope that this is the pathway to victory is a bankrupt
one according to Gee. Seeking short term gain in comparison
to the decades of campaigning by Indigenous people could
have the opposite effect for the Coalition at the ballot box.

We shall have to wait and see - if decent Australians will prevail.

Hopefully they shall - as they did with same-sex marriage, Mabo, at cetera.

"We shall have to wait and see - if decent Australians will prevail."

There you go again with you micro-snippy-aggressions.
Are you implying that anyone who doesn't support the yes vote is not a decent person?
You may as well just say anyone who doesn't vote yes is a sub-human piece of crap?

This 'voice' thing is as ill thought out as the governments COVID policies.
As half-assed as putting infected in hotels in the middle of all our capital cities where the rooms have shared ventilation.

They don't even want to show us the fine print until it passes,
Which is about as dodgy as not testing the vaccines for side effects until everyone's had the jab.

The policy has been in waiting for 200+ years.
There's a proper way of going about things, and this isn't it.
There's no need for a knee-jerk policy pushed through in a hurry because it the current PM's pet policy.
Both sides of politics don't even agree, that says "We're not in agreement, and we're not ready yet"
If it takes longer to get it right, then no big deal.

The Australian Government on the 2020 National Agreement
on Closing the Gap acknowledged that Indigenous people
continue to face entrenched disadvantage and ongoing
institutional racism. We're told that:

This racism extends beyond racist attacks by other Australians
and is often felt in institutional settings such as our
justice system, healthcare system, and educational facilities.
More than half of Indigenous Australians reported facing
discrimination in educational institutions.

Institutional racism limits access to essential resources and
services, denying individuals opportunities and worsening
cycles of disadvantage. The solutions to many of the complex
problems facing Indigenous communities today already exist
but these communities don't have the power to change policy
to implement them.

That is why it is important for these communities to have a
Voice to Parliament.

And yes, any decent Australian will understand that Indigenous
Australians are among the most disadvantaged in this country
and to give them a Voice to be heard is way past due. Over
200 years of waiting to be heard - is long enough.

To paraphrase journalist Nikki Savva - of course not everyone
who votes NO is a racist but every racist will vote NO.

Foxy forgot to mention many racists will vote Yes, because they hate white colonial rule and laws. She believes the only racists are white followers of Murdock and indecent hicks.

Dear Armchair Critic,

The question for me is I would have to be the biggest offender of this egrigious crime yet you are going after Foxy. Why?

I am constantly telling people to put a sock in it, to drop it, to nick off or a whole bunch of other dismissive quotes. Even in this thread I've told mhaze to 'give it away'.

Yet you haven't said boo. Why is that? I would be disappointed if it is just a boring sexist thing.

For me, the Voice is about the following:

"The Voice is about advice.
It will urge Australians to vote YES to help close the gap
on Indigenous disadvantage, promising an Indigenous advisory
body will help Government to make better decisions, secure
better results and delivering value for money."

"A Voice will be able to raise concerns about issues that
affect First Nations people and give them a say on how to
address them. They should be the owners of their own
destiny and if they have a Voice to Parliament they will
have a say on stuff that impacts on them.

Dear Steele,

I was taught to believe that "You are not entitled to
your opinion. You are entitled to your INFORMED
opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant."

Hey SteeleRedux,

Yes, well that's curious and interesting...
Firstly you haven't been telling me to put a sock in it consistently...
- But even if you did, I probably take is like
'Aw gawd [rolls eyes] Armchair Critic just goes on and on and on, like a bloody violin'
- And I'd be like 'Oh yeah, fair enough', or 'Too bad, so sad' depending on my mood.

Foxy comes off snippy and snarky, like it's the attitude and intent behind it;
- Like she actually thinks it's her duty to correct bad behavior and willfully silence those who don't fall in line with the way in which she sees things.

>>I was taught to believe that "You are not entitled to
your opinion. You are entitled to your INFORMED
opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant."<<

- That attitude.

And it comes off in this 'uppity' 'holier than thou' way, and I guess it kind of gets my back up, especially when she bangs on about having an 'informed opinion', when the truth is she is very selective in her facts.
- She never seems to ever acknowledge or see things from the perspective of those she's trying to correct.
- Never acknowledges the arguments from the other side.

I guess that's the best explanation I can give.

Dear Steele,

Ad Hominem - this fallacy occurs when instead of addressing
someone's argument or position people irrelevantly attack the
person or some aspect of the person who's making the argument.
These attacks can also be directed to membership in a group or
institution.

"We can't approve of this Voice to Parliament stuff.
It was thought up by a bunch of elites, communist weirdos,
who want to take over this country!"

The Conversation / By Michelle Grattan
Posted Fri 4 Aug 2023 at 2:39am
"The Albanese government is at risk of letting down the Voice's "yes" case by its tactics of excessive caution and control in the referendum debate.

Inside and outside parliament this week, its performance was, for the most part, woeful. The government's persuasive power in the fight for the Voice is not as effective as it needs to be. Minister for Indigenous Australians Linda Burney struggles constantly.

The Coalition this week focused its attack on the issue of treaty – the part of the Uluru Statement from the Heart calling for "a Makarrata Commission to supervise a process of agreement-making between governments and First Nations and truth-telling about our history".

The government has already provided $5.8 million for a Makarrata Commission — yet to be set up — of which some $900,000 has been spent. When Treasurer Jim Chalmers was asked about the money spent, he provided no details.

In successive questions, Burney was asked about the commission and what it will do. She refused to engage, just repeating her spiel about the Voice (although she did say "progress on Makarrata will not occur until after the referendum").

But when a minister is in trouble, they have nowhere to hide. Burney, unconvincingly trying to stick to the narrowest of scripts, was caught in the headlights the Opposition was shining on the issue of treaty.

Meanwhile Albanese was all over the place when quizzed on treaty during an ABC interview on Wednesday. After he pointed out there was treaty-making under way at state level, he was pressed on whether he was still committed to the Commonwealth negotiating treaties.

The expectation is there would be a treaty, or an overarching structure, at the national level, under which state and other treaties would sit.

Albanese in his comments was trying to erect a solid fence around the Voice debate.

Fact check: Indigenous support for the Voice
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has claimed surveys show Indigenous Australians support the Voice at a rate between 80 and 90 per cent. Is that correct?

RMIT ABC Fact Check investigates.
VERDICT: "Yes, but more to it"
Read more
The government fears letting the debate widen to any discussion of treaty will frighten voters, setting back the referendum's chances.

That might be true. But not addressing the issue head-on can potentially be equally or more damaging. It can make the government appear paralysed, as it seemed for much of this week, and leave voters wondering what's being concealed.

Albanese has always said Labor supports the Uluru statement in full. Indeed, the just-released Draft Platform for the party's national conference this month declares Labor supports "all elements" of the Statement, including the Voice, a Makarrata Commission for agreement-making and a truth-telling process.

It adds "Labor will take steps to implement all three elements … in this term of government."

Trying to dodge the treaty issue will continue to have Labor spokespeople tied in knots. And given what's happening at state level, it shouldn't be impossible to take some of the heat out of it."

Foxy and steelreflux,

Fortunately, the voice seems to be going the way of the dodo. Australia's BS detector has gone off and picked up Albozo's lies.

The question is whether Albozo will get the Gillard knife in the back when this turns to sh1te.

Dear Shadow Minister,

Too early to predict things just yet.

Lets wait until after the Referendum.

In the meantime - be careful in your comments -
anyone Using ad hominem attacks - with no real
solutions of their own, could be interpreted
as a fool's attempted reach for
superiority. (smile).

Dear Shadow Minister,

I posted this on another discussion.

It may help towards a better understanding:

History is calling
So we are told
By our current government
That's prepared to be bold

That's prepared to admit
The wrongs of the past
To ensure that those wrongs
Don't continue to last

A new start is something
They now want to be made
So our Indigenous folk
Don't continue to fade

They're having a vote
For a voice to be heard
Directly by government
One that doesn't get blurred

We need to give
Our First People a chance
To advise the government
How they can advance

It's up to us all
To do what's right
And ensure that we fix
Our historical blight

Let's not continue
To make them plead
And allow their communities
To thrive and not bleed.

Dear Foxy,

Thank you.

Sums up a simple ask beautifully.

Well Foxy has revealed the hidden agenda, with the lines.
That's prepared to admit
The wrongs of the past
To ensure that those wrongs
Don't continue to last.

Well, the aboriginals hold that the land was stolen from them, and their ancestors murdered. These are the wrongs they want repatriated, and the lands, waterways, resources, and beaches returned to their self determination and control.

Dear Steele,

Thank You for understanding.

At the moment the racists and bigots of the radical right have the upper hand with a free rein to spread lies and miss-truths about what is contained in the referendum question. The scare campaign by the extreme has thus far been very effective in convincing many moderates to vote 'No'. Unless there is seismic shift in the debate and subsequent public opinion, the extremist on the right, with their hate campaign will win out, and the World will judge Australia as a land of white rednecks unwilling to make any kind of concession to the countries indigenous blacks. We will be seen as another 1960's "White South Africa" or the "New Alabama" of the Pacific. AND, Australia wants to curry favour with the island nations in the region, China will have a field day.

I wouldn't say the scare campaign for a no vote is effective.
I'd say that the Yes campaign is unconvincing.

Dear Paul,

It is going to cut deep if the NO vote wins out.
It will set Indigenous relations back to a time that
does not bear thinking about. But we have got to remain
positive. We need to continue to bridge the gap and
keep on explaining to people what the Voice is about.
There's so much misinformation out there.

We need to celebrate this country's Indigenous history.

We are the custodians of the oldest living continuous
culture - we should be as a nation enormously proud of
that. Lets keep on explaining - we just may get through.

Hi Foxy,

I would be in favour of the government releasing some kind of draft legislation that it has in mind, regarding a Voice to Parliament, as highly unusual as that would be when it comes to referendum, its never been done before, but it may dampen the powder of some of the more radical nonsense coming from the far right with their 'No' campaign of lies and deception. Of course there is nothing that will placate the bigoted racists, as their agenda is one of hate for Aboriginals, and they will not entertain an thoughts of recognition or equality, to them; "darkie needs to know his place, in their white world of privilege".

Dear Foxy,

If the nos have it, be assured that the sky wont fall and the Uluru statement will be the same length that it always has been.

For me, a no vote will be a comfort that the majority of Australians value equality and understand its importance in a democracy, or at least are smart enough not to be bullied by emotive and illogical argument.

Dear Paul,

"The lobby groups campaigning to sink the Indigenous Voice
to Parliament Referendum have deep links to a number of
conservative Christian organisations and consultancies, a
Guardian investigation can reveal." There's more at the
following:

http://theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/jul/13/indigenous-voice-no-campaigns-deep-links-to-conservative-christian-politics

Dear Fester,

If the NO campaigners win - it means that they don't
believe in equality or democracy. They've done it to
shore up leadership positions, and to just have some
ground to fight on. They're also done it to help raise
funds for themselves. Their hope that this is a
pathway to victory is as Andrew Gee has pointed out -
a bankrupt one. Decade of campaigning and advocacy by
our Indigenous people will have a huge impact on the
Coalition at the ballot box.

Why do you think so many members of the Coalition have
switched sides?

You should do the same if you truly believe in equality
because the truth is the Indigenous people are among
the most disadvantaged in the country. You should not
allow yourself to be swayed against them and be used as
a weapon politically. You're surely better than that.

Dear Foxy,

I do believe in equality and democracy. If I believed that the voice upheld those values I would support it. My problem is accepting that you can make people equal by making them unequal. That seems all so 1984.

"Why do you think so many members of the Coalition have
switched sides?"

That sounds a little optimistic given the way the polls have been traveling. I have heard of two, but people should make decisions according to their own beliefs.

"If the NO campaigners win - it means that they don't
believe in equality or democracy. "

Making an individual decision is always preferable to being told what to say or do, and voting yes or no is no reason to label people good or bad.

Hi Foxy,

Thanks for the 'Guardian' article, I read it, and yes the Conservative Christian Fundo mob are not only a concern on the question of the Voice, but on social issues in general. They are people with very narrow blinked views, and distort reality by misrepresentation using biblical nonsense as a reference. Fortunately they have little traction in Australia, and are mostly ignored by the majority, left to "nut off" with their delusions in some isolated corner of society. BTW, these nutters are well heeled, with a good cash flow, and some very powerful supporters in and out of politics.

I have confronted such people in the past, and they hold very strong views, and as a tiny minority they desperately try to sway public opinion their way, all in the name of being good "Christians".

Dear Paul,

You're right. The most toxic people (remember "runner"
on this forum?) have been the self-proclaimed so called
"Christians" on this Forum spreading absolutely consistently
vile, and attacks.

I remember walking out on a Mass a few years back - when
what was being preached from the pulpit was shameful.

A relative once bragged to me that "I go to Church EVERY
Sunday!" I couldn't help thinking - "Maybe you need to?"

Dear Fester,

So glad that you agree that "being told what to do..."
Is not preferable. We've been doing it to our
Indigenous for decades. All they're asking is to
be heard on what works best for them in their
communities.

Glad that you get it.

Not always been a big fan of the Catholic Church but it seems those of Catholic faith intend voting yes in markedly greater number than those of the Protestant ilk.

The Bishops statement that “This could be a significant step towards a more just and equitable Australia," is spot on.

Whatever else you might say about Catholics they more often than not have a good handle on social justice issues.

Good on them, in this instance at least.

"The Australian Catholic Bishops Conference endorsed the Uluru Statement from the Heart in 2021, with the Fifth Plenary Council of Australia taking the same step last year."

http://mediablog.catholic.org.au/bishops-issue-statement-on-indigenous-voice-to-parliament/

Dear Foxy,

If you believe that the problem is one of government telling people what to do without consultation, then why not change the constitution to make it compulsory for a consultation process to take place for any Australian resident? That way the change could benefit all Australians. If you think it essential for some then why shouldn't it benefit all? That is what equality is about isn't it?

Dear Fester,

Again with the hyperbole.

"to make it compulsory for a consultation process to take place for any Australian resident"

There is nothing compulsory about the Voice. The Federal government doesn't have to take its advice at all. So what is with all the straw men you keep trotting out?

You are a Catholic though aren't you?

After three weeks of waffling, it appears that nobody is 'sophisticated' enough to realise that their pointless arguing has not, and will not, change anything. Everyone feels the same way they did at the beginning about something that doesn't matter. Sophisticated or not, most people never change opinions that they adopt in their formative years so, really - expressing your opinions once is enough. You are not going to change, nor is the other person with a different opinion. But, I suppose you have to be sophisticated to grasp this fact.

According to Psychology Today:

"Ideally people would be rational beings who consistently
adjust their beliefs, attitudes and behaviors to align
them with new information that is essentially not able to
be denied (incontrovertible)."

"But that is not the case. Indeed there are many who still
maintain that - vaccines are a health hazard. That evolution
is a falsehood, that climate change is a hoax, that the Voice
to Parliament will affect all of us badly, and so on."

"Unfortunately many people are unwilling to change their
world view. They are comfortable in their ideologies and are
unwilling to account or take in any new information that
contradicts their cherished beliefs."

"Instead they reduce their lack of agreement (dissonance) by
justifying their outlook rather than changing their minds or
behaviors."

"If science worked this way many people do we would still be
living in caves, dying in our 30s, but at least the planet's
ecological health would be better - even if humans wasn't."

That is correct psychology today indoctrinates the new generation they can change their gender and men can now become pregnant and chest fed their babies. However, in the natural world this is not observable as it only happens in the human mind and in surgeries. You should believe this stuff as it is advanced thinking called WOKE [meaning enlightened]. We now base all our social services on the Woke agenda, and our language must reflect this new vocabulary. You must no longer use Mother or Father, or boy, or girl, or lady, or gentlemen, these are now offensive terms. Well, that is if you believe we must move with the new science. This is how Dark Emu rewrites facts; they are the new facts of history.

Here is a link that explains what does the bible say
about transgender people.

An interesting read - especially the conclusion at the end:

http://hrc.org/resources/what-does-thebible-say-about-transgender-people

My apologies. Sorry for the typo.

Here's the link again:

http://hrc.org/resources/what-does-the-bible-say-about-transgender-people

Dear Josephus,

What religion, if any, do you follow?
It's not Christianity. Because Christianity
is about love and inclusion - not the preaching
of hatred and exclusion. By your posts it appears
that you follow a cult. Possibly something like
Hillsong - a corrupt evangelistic cult that groomed
and abused and finger-pointed.

It's the finger-pointers we have to watch and walk away from.
There's enough hatred in the world as it is.

Dear Foxy,

You claim that the government will have no obligation to act on the advice it is given, so why do you believe that it will make any difference?

"You are a Catholic though aren't you?"

Simple curiosity Foxy. I don't have any interest in convincing anybody of anything, but I am interested in why people hold there opinions, and I do like to consider why I think as I do. As I said, I don't necessarily think people good or bad for the opinions they hold.

Hi Foxy,

Recently in discussion, a chap who comes to the Christian fellowship that I sometimes attend on a Wednesday night, I believe he is also a member of a conservative splinter group within the Anglican Church. He asked me how I was going to vote in the up coming referendum, without explanation I said; "I intend to vote yes", he replied; "You do realise aboriginals get too much already!", I just answered; "do they, that's your opinion", and left it at that, not wishing to go into his reasons.

I see Foxy has posted some obscure teaching she claims as Bible scholarship. That neither reflects the orthodox eschatological scholarship teaching of Judaism, Islam, or Christianity. It is part of the Uniting Church theology who have several lesbian teachers in pulpits in an attempt to be relative to current social atheistic norms.

Dear Fester,

The act of judging someone personally, derogatorily,
and unfairly, is not a good thing.

That's why it is important to have an informed opinion
and deal with facts

Dear Josephus,

The Bible teaches that "God is love."

"God did not send his Son into the world to condemn
the world - but to save the world."

Your being judgemental is fueled by self-righteousness,
the misguided inner motivation to make your own life look
better by comparing it to the lives of others.

You too will be judged. So be careful.

Foxy, so you want to abolish courts because they judge on religious based opinions. According to your opinion sexual love is Biblical Love, so pedophiles must not be judged because they show sexual love toward children. You have no Moral standards because you cannot judge in your opinion. If Muslim men want to marry a nine-year-old girl, we should not judge or condemn pedophiles because they love. If you want to sleep around with multiple one-night stands, we should not exclude them as a follower of Christ.

To the woman who had had five previous lovers, he said, "go and sin no more". Did he have a right to condemn her previous life?

Biblical Love is agapae [ sacrificial care and giving] not philio or erotica [sexual or marriage].

Dear Josephus,

No court has found that religious freedom can
never be limited or restricted - religious belief
does not put a person or religious body above the law.

Hate is not holiness.

People spreading misinformation about the Voice to
Parliament is unfortunate. Especially, the lie that
the Voice intends to get rid of the British Crown,
and so on. The author Thomas Keneally pointed out
that:

"King Charles has frequently and amiably declared that
the question of a republic is up to the Australian
people. His late mother - Queen Elizabeth II said the
same thing. Neither of them frothed at the mouth when
the republic proposition was raised."

"King Charles has often pointed out that we had the
constitutional power to bring this into being if we
choose to. "

However it has to be a national majority vote in a
referendum and a majority vote in all the states.
The Voice is merely an advisory body it has no power
to make any changes.

As Keneally said - "King Charles is not the problem -
neither is the Voice to Parliament. The lies being
bandied about that the Voice will get rid of the crown,
that Mandarin will become Australia's chief language,
that there will be tanks in the streets, and that
milk will turn to blood if we give up elitist monarchy
for fraternal republic. These are the problems ."

"These same people are rustling up equivalent
misrepresentations and misinformation to hinder the
Voice to Parliament. We have enough on our plates
with the Voice referendum on Aboriginal recognition
in the Constitution. Lies flow about that. But we should
be voting YES - because in legitimising the validity, we
legitimise ourselves including children now to young to
vote."

"Our crabbed NO vote will send us back to a pale and
demoralised and unresolved Australia. To a race of
trespassers. A YES vote will animate us and flow like a
living river among us."

The following link has more:

http://theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/may/06/for-australia-the-question-is-not-charles-or-the-coronation-but-whether-we-at-last-become-a-republic-

Here's the link again:

http://theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/may/06/for-australia-the-question-is-not-charles-or-the-coronation-but-whether-we-at-last-become-a-republic

Foxy it is time you listened to SBS, ABC, and NITV and many businesses to understand where we are heading. Welcome to country by smoking the visitors! Abolish the Date! Pay the Rent! Abolish the Crown and its institutions! Tell a sanitized version of History that the settlers murdered aboriginal men and raped aboriginal women. The British committed genocide and war on aboriginals! The British stole the land! That The British have destroyed the Land and waters. You will never hear a balanced view of historical facts on the said Media. This they consider justice and pay back.

Wonderful news They did invent things like how to throw a stick to wound or kill. The only inventions were weapons of war, how to kill an intruder.

Do we want to make them like us, or do we want them to remain primitive? Many have entered our way of life and flourished.
When the Voice has achieved assimilating them into our society it will have no further purpose. VOTE NO TO A PERMANENT VOICE.
Have we asked them do they want to be like us or to retain living in the Bush?