Dear Fester,

You put the following:

"The fact that the Voice will give a democratic privilege to one group of people over another is reason enough to reject it. So while there might be speculation as to what sort of world it will be, no amount of Orwellian doublespeak can convince me that I will be making Australians equal by creating inequality."

What a load of self serving tripe.

How on earth is an advisory group with zero veto power giving them a democratic privilege?

I'll tell you what democratic privilege is. It is having the protections afforded by Section 51 of the Constitution limiting Federal government power over you. No limits in the Territory which has the highest proportion of Indigenous people in it.

Thought you had protections via the Race Discrimination Act? Nope. Not if you are Indigenous. The government simply suspends it.

Howard didn't have to evoke the race powers within the constitution because they come as a default when governing the NT.

Thought you had rights to your land? Nope. Howard suspended the Native Title Act. There was no compensation for the land compulsorily acquired during the Intervention because: “the "just terms" compensation requirement that applies when the Commonwealth compulsorily acquires property under section 51(xxxi) also does not apply in the territories.”

Thought you would have equal say in the upcoming referendum? Nope. Even with the highest proportion of Indigenous people the Territory's block of votes counts for nothing when the tally of the States is done.

And how many Senators with real veto powers on laws does the Territory get? 2. Tasmania gets 12 with triple the representation at that level per capita.

So cry me a bloody river.

Dear Steele,

I think the Yes argument has some fundamental problems.

For one thing, I am repeatedly assured that the Voice will give indigenous Australians no privilege and that the role will be symbolic and advisory, carrying no power of enforcement. That strikes me as the Voice being a powerless bureaucracy and a waste of money.

Alternatively, if the Voice does have more than an advisory role, such as might be the case if it can have a say to any law being applied to an indigenous Australian either individually or collectively, then it is indeed a democratic privilege and should be rejected as a corruption of democracy.

Pushing the yes case so hard when it is supposedly innocuous makes people suspicious, so it is no surprise to see the no case taking advantage of this suspicion.

Governments at times do horrible things to people, not just indigenous Australians. The history of my heritage has repeatedly shown that treating people equally leads to better outcomes for all.

Whenever I hear the term 'Discrimination' it makes me think how many people actually know what discrimination is.
To my mind, discrimination means denying one & not another. It definitely does not mean getting rejected due to lack of effort & ability etc. Nor does it mean reduced help due to unwillingness to co-operate with the help offered.
Discrimination is giving more to one for less effort than the other, providing for one but not another with the same need, showing leniency to one but not another for the same breach of Law etc. or providing free education for one but not for the other from the same economic situation.
I know many who fit the scenario of discrimination black, white & brindle ! Mostly courtesy of incompetent & corrupt Leftist bureaudroids blaming conservative Authority !

Dear Steele,

You might also acknowledge Peta Credlin's efforts a little more graciously. Albanese did not look good equating people questioning the length of the Uluru statement with Q Anon conspirators and having Megan Davis confirm that it was only one page. Sky News then showed Megan Davis on numerous occasions telling audiences that the Uluru statement was quite a lengthy document.

Such examples as the above might make people feel that they are being lied to, or at least misled.

Albanese is demonstrating how to kill a referendum with misinformation and possibly dishonesty.

Dear Fester,

Absolutely bloody not.

This is what I posted on another thread:

Quote

Virtually nothing the Cretin has put is correct or with basis.

The idea that she had some bloody scoop through an FOI request is utterly ludicrous.

All this was presented in the Referendum Report in 2017.

"A synthesis of the Records of Meetings of the First Nations Regional Dialogues was produced by the Referendum Council. This synthesis, entitled ‘Our Story’, recounted the themes that emerged in the Dialogues and is reproduced below"

http://www.referendumcouncil.org.au/sites/default/files/report_attachments/Referendum_Council_Final_Report.pdf

The 429 word statement which the attendees signed off on is an extraordinary document and I have a reproduction on my wall.

To have the Cretin sullying it will all her crap is one thing but to have even half way intelligent people swallowing it hook line and sinker is just depressing.

End quote

I defy you to tell me what ground breaking information the Cretin has uncovered.

It is just duplicitous garbage designed to chip away at support for the Yes vote purely because Liberals like her want to take skin off Albanese.

Dear Steele,

The problem for the yes argument isn't with Peta Credlin, but with what she is presenting. When you have people stating that the Uluru statement is one page, then have footage of the same people saying that the Uluru statement is much longer than one page, that is not good for the Yes argument.