9 News tells us:

" Australian music legend John Farnham is giving his
hit song "You're the Voice," to an advertising campaign
for the YES vote in the Voice to Parliament referendum."

"The aptly named track is being used by the Uluru Dialogue
campaign, the architects of the Uluru Statement to gain
support for a successful referendum."

" Uluru Dialogue leaders publicly thanked Farnham for
granting them permission to use the anthem.
This is the first time the hit classic has ever been used
commercially."

Farnham has called the track life-changing and hopes it can
do the same for our First Nations people. Change their lives
for the better.

Opposition leader Peter Dutton has said that if the referendum
does not succeed they will back another referendum. And when
asked how will this make things better. His replied that they
would "listen."

What does he think this Voice is about?

Hi Foxy,

Have received and read the 'Referendum Booklet' can't find any compelling argument to vote No, so its a YES from me.

I see the Noalition are now back tracking and saying they will support a YES vote for Aboriginal recognition in the constitution some time in the future. Although I think that is simply a sop, and although I would vote YES to recognition, it doesn't offer anything substantive in itself.

What does he think this Voice is about?
Foxy,
What do You think this Voice is about ? It's about effort-loathing activists hell-bent on enough power to demand, not advise !

As I say there's these end of life, old crusty conservatives, down on the world, down on people, simply miserable. They see nothing good in others, only those of their ilk, its all negative. What a sad way to end ones life, being nothing more than a bloody old nark!

Good on John Farnham, he wants to contribute in his way, a positive way, there's no problem. The No campaign can adopt the 'Death March' if they wish as their song, so be it.

Paul1405,
The Voice is an alternative for making a bad situation even worse !
We crusty old conservatives have been holding the lid of Pandora's Box down but the Leftist parasites are doing their utmost to overpower us but are too silly or selfish to understand forward planning !
These (you) lemmings are simply too far off ever comprehending what is workable for the good of all, you only care about parasitism, we're focussed on symbiosis !

I have admired John Farnham for ever so long.
I even got to meet him once at a concert and
was thrilled to bits. I've still got the photo.

His giving that fabulous song to the YES campaign
moved me so much. Such a positive gesture.

And it speaks volumes about the man. Also I am so
glad that he's cancer free. Wonderful news for him,
his family, and all who love and admire him.

Here's just some of the lyrics to "You're the Voice" :

We have the chance to turn the pages over
We can write what we want to write
We gotta make end meet before we get much older
We're all someone's daughter
We're all someone's son
How long can we look at each other
Down the barrel of a gun?

You're the Voice, try and understand it
Make a noise and make it clear
Oh, Whoa
We're not gonna sit in silence
We're not gonna live in fear
Oh, Whoa

This time we know we all can stand together
With the power to be powerful
With the power to make it better
Ooh, we're all someone's daughter
We're all someone's son
How long can we look at each other
Down the barrel of a gun? ...

I still get tears in my eyes every time I hear this song.
Hopefully it just may touch the hearts of others as well.
Fingers-crossed.

Come on Australia. You can do this!

Indyvidual

You would have seen this piece of 'news' over the weekend under 'Why Albanese is worse than Morrison', where I said, "That might remove him (Farnham) from the playlists of quite a few people and cost him a lot of money in the future".

Which it probably will in many cases. A man grateful for his survival of cancer, trying to be nice out of gratitude, is not going to make any difference to the vote. The "voice" himself has just one vote, and those people convinced of the righteousness of the Voice were always going to vote YES.

For mine, the attack on our Constitution and democracy is far more important than what a pop star does or thinks.

I just hope that John Farnham gets paid for the use of his song, else he will be yet another Australian conned by this nonsense.

Paul's choice of voting yes because of no compelling argument presented by no campaigners makes good sense as the yes campaigners give no reason to vote yes other than the vibe. For me it feels like a bad vibe.

Well, that seals it. If that well known political analyst and King of Pop, Farnsy is in favour of of the Voice, who am I to oppose it. Now if only we can find out what Kylie Minogue thinks about it and the deal will be sealed.

Don't get me wrong. I enjoy Farnham's work. When my new supa-dupa turntable arrived (bought so I could play my father's 78's) Whispering Jack was one of the first vinyls I played. But he's just a singer albeit with a once in a generation set of lungs.

Seriously, what have we become? Has the 'yes' cult become so desperate?

One of my favourite movies from this century is called Idiocracy. It started its life as a comedy, but increasingly its becoming a far-sighted documentary.

"This song changed my life. I can only hope that now
it might help, in some small way, to change the lives
of our First Nations Peoples for the better," Farnham
said.

According to some - "You're the Voice," is the nation's
unofficial anthem. I, like so many others, can still
remember when it was first released and how it felt
at the time. The power of its message was so strong.

History is not something we read about in books but
something we ourselves can influence, given the chance.
Now we have a Voice in what happens at this critical time
and we must use it.

Tim Wheatley the son of Farnham's late manager Glenn and
a close friend of Farnham said the singer's team had:

"Fiercely protected this song's use for decades. I think for
this very moment."

"You're the Voice," is not aligned with any political party.
It is aligned with humanity. It's a song for ALL Australians.
Always has been, always will be," Wheatley said.

"Win or lose this referendum this song will forever
remain on the right side of history."

Singer songwriter Paul Kelly released a song in support of the
Indigenous Voice, days after he called on voters to back the
referendum titled - "If Not Now." Manty others also are backing
the YES campaign all feeling this is business that's
unfinished.

Australians will get it right in the end as they always have.

Some people - need 'names,'important' people, to rub against - metaphorically. They don't have enough confidence in their personal beliefs and decisions; they need to line up with the incrowd. As soon as a name says or does something, they have to blurt it out, as though all they think has been proven right. It's the herd instinct on stilts. But, if there is a majority NO vote,they will melt away, leaving people who can see through Albanese to to save them again down the track. If there is a majority YES vote, with what will follow, there will be nothing left to save.

"According to some - "You're the Voice," is the nation's unofficial anthem."

It was written by 5 people.....all English.

According to the producer in the Franham doco, their version got its distinctive sound due that well known Australian instrument.... bagpipes.

Meanwhile, it seems Meta (the owners of Youtube) have sacked one of their fact-checker groups because they lied about the Statement of the Heart. You'll recall the assertions about the statement being only one page, and based on the fact-checkers, Youtube banned, censored, tagged etc posts which said otherwise. Now that new data has come out showing even the Yes camp elite saying it was way more than one page, Youtube has been forced to acknowledge their error and that they were misled by their fact-checker (misled being a euphemism for 'lied to'). So, in a rare victory for the truth over the propaganda, Youtube will now allow videos that tell people that the statement is 18 pages (or 26 pages depending on your font).

WTF?

Wrong yet again mhaze.

According to RMIT University: "The Uluru Statement from the Heart is a one-page document, as confirmed by its authors. Papers released under FOI contain the statement, but also include 25 pages of background information, including minutes of meetings held with Indigenous communities, which are not part of the Uluru Statement from the Heart."

WTF?

Initially some opponents to the Voice complained that there was not enough detail.

When it was pointed out that the National Indigenous Australians Agency (NIAA) has published a 270 page document outlining how this process could take place there was a 360 degree turn.

Now it seems that they are erroneously complaining that the Statement from the Heart is actually longer then one page.

Perhaps they should read the (NIAA) document rather then minutes from meetings that may or may not have provided input into the Statement from the heart.

NO CASE Song. We speak with ONE VOICE.

I Am Australian / We Are Australian

I came from the dream-time, from the dusty red soil plains
I am the ancient heart, the keeper of the flame.
I stood upon the rocky shore, I watched the tall ships come.
For forty thousand years I’ve been the first Australian.

We are one, but we are many
And from all the lands on earth we come
We share a dream and sing with one voice:
I am, you are, we are Australian.

I came upon the prison ship, bowed down by iron chains.
I cleared the land, endured the lash and waited for the rains.
I’m a settler, I’m a farmer’s wife on a dry and barren run
A convict then a free man, I became Australian.

We are one, but we are many
And from all the lands on earth we come
We share a dream and sing with one voice:
I am, you are, we are Australian.

I’m the daughter of a digger who sought the mother lode
The girl became a woman on the long and dusty road
I’m a child of the depression, I saw the good times come
I’m a bushy, I’m a battler, I am Australian.

I’m a teller of stories, I’m a singer of songs
I am Albert Namatjira, I paint the ghostly gums
I am Clancy on his horse, I’m Ned Kelly on the run
I’m the one who waltzed Matilda, I am Australian.

I’m the hot wind from the desert, I’m the black soil of the plains
I’m the mountains and the valleys, I’m the drought and flooding rains
I am the rock, I am the sky, the rivers when they run
The spirit of this great land, I am Australian.

We are one, but we are many
And from all the lands on earth we come
We share a dream and sing with one voice:
I am, you are, we are Australian
I am, you are, we are Australian.

We are one .. We are many .. We are Australian!

There is only one Voice and it has no single race identified.

http://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=e794413fef80500bJmltdHM9MTY5MzY5OTIwMCZpZ3VpZD0yNmY0N2E2Mi02YzFhLTY5OGEtMWI3NS02OTFiNmQyODY4NjcmaW5zaWQ9NTU3Mg&ptn=3&hsh=3&fclid=26f47a62-6c1a-698a-1b75-691b6d286867&u=a1L3ZpZGVvcy9zZWFyY2g_cT13ZSthcmUrYXVzdHJhbGlhbiZ2aWV3PWRldGFpbCZtaWQ9MjY0NEFDNjNEMERFMzk3RTQ4MzMyNjQ0QUM2M0QwREUzOTdFNDgzMyZGT1JNPVZJUkU&ntb=1

Ahem WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot,

Well YouTube disagrees with you....

Oh and so does Megan Davis, one of the primary authors of the Statement....but what would she know?

http://twitter.com/i/status/1689170921171587072

They want you to think its just one page because the rest is way too truthful about their true intentions. They'll be pleased to know that at least one one case (no names, mi you, but the initials are WTF) in one case at least, their rewriting the facts has been taken hook, line and sinker.

For some there are only two consideration in life, first, what advantages them, and second, "money". They think John Farnham would be concerned about missing out on financial gain with his song.

"I (Fester) just hope that John Farnham gets paid for the use of his song"

Why is that Fester, you measure everything in dollars and cents, do you.

ttbn; "That might remove him (Farnham) from the playlists of quite a few people and cost him a lot of money in the future". Another crusty old conservative who believes money is the be all and end all, must be saving up for a gold casket.

Hey, that jackass Dud Dutton wants Albanese to change the wording of the referendum question. Well jackass Albanese has no power to do that, the question has been determined by the parliament, and only the parliament can enact new legislation . Dutton you are such a fool, and you want to be the next PM, me thinks not

We are one and we are many - and from all the different
lands on earth we come - we are Australian. Yes indeed.
I have proclaimed this on this forum many, many times.
Which means we accept different cultures and religions -
and don't impose just the one religion and political
viewpoint on everyone!

The Voice is asking for us to be inclusive - and to listen
and acknowledge our First Nations Peoples and their rightful
place in this country

WTF?

Still wrong mhaze.

Professor Davis has referred to claims that the Statement from the Heart is 26 pages long as "disinformation" and a "well-organised and well-funded misinformation campaign".

Professor Davis also rejected claims that the extra pages were kept "secret" until recently, noting that most have been publicly available for years, as they form part of the 2017 Final Report of the Referendum Council.

"That's the formal report. It's all in there … nothing hidden," she wrote on Wednesday. "It's been there for seven years."

"Politicians of bad faith like Pauline Hanson and the Coalition, who are on a unity ticket, are pointing to a Henry Parkes Oration I gave in 2018, where I say the Uluru Statement is not only the one pager, that there's 18-20 more pages for Australians to read," she wrote.

"This is alluding to the many pieces of information that informed the Uluru Statement or provide context to the statement."

The statement is the one page.

I received the official Referendum Booklet today.
It is definitely worth a read and presents the
YES and NO arguments clearly.

As for Farnham's song? It's history is on the web.
And it's an interesting one. A new documentary was
released on the 19th May 2023, "Finding the Voice,"
It was shown at the Palace cinemas. The singer's career was
flagging when the track landed on his desk. The documentary
detailed hos his best known song came to be - bagpipes and
all.

The track is one of Australia's most enduring global
classic. A song that's both sentimental and forceful
in its convictions and seemingly non-partisan for all
groups to try to co-opt it. It's ingrained on the
cultural memory of both young and old. And hopefully it will
reach out and touch the hearts of everyone hearing it again
today.

Yes - we are all Australians, but it is time that we voted
for a better future for our First Nations People.

Alexsandr Solzhenitsyn wrote that 'the biggest mistake people make is assuming that totalitarianism can't happen in their country'.

The mistaken people here on OLO, as well as those in the real world going for YES, are the low-information, ill-read types who are unaware that the new totalitarianism (a la Albanese) is not based on overt violence, but on psychological manipulation.

The NO case has prevailed here, and the polls say it's prevealing, even increasing, in the real world. Hopefully that is so.

Australia cannot afford for it to be any other way.

Our First Nations people have put forward to the
Australian people a very modest request stating
how they want to be recognised within
the founding document of the country.

They asked for a Voice that gave them a greater say
in laws, policies, and programs that impact them.

Our current Prime Minister made an election promise
to give their request a priority. Which he has done.
He kept his election promise. It will be up to the
Australian people to decide whether the request of
our First Nations people is granted or not.

For some politicians to now go out and propose something
completely alternate, and some people suggesting - that the
Voice is something different to what it actually is -
beggars belief.

To propose and suggest something
completely alternate to what the First Nations people
asked clearly speaks to their disempowerment as our
First Nations people - when others think they have a
better solution and a better way forward. While still
others are trying to use fear and scare-mongering
tactics - which is the usual method when not being
able to offer anything of substance.

I think it was WTF - who called then "Chicken Little."
Which is a very apt description. Thank you.

Melbourne's Deputy Mayor, Nicholas Reece, seems a likeable enough young man - then he opens his mouth.

His latest pronouncement is , everyone should speak an aboriginal language.

Where would we all learn such a language? There are few native speakers of aboriginal able to teach languages, and most text versions of such languages are just word lists of animals, foods and body parts, abstracted from dialogue.

There is no proof that reviving Aboriginal language has a beneficial effect on aborigines themselves. Any money spent should be on teaching them English, and how to get a job, and get out of the clutches of the aboriginal industry for good.

Reece's sort of nonsense, along with with the Voice, are a result of the inability of Nugget Coombes-type Leftists like Albanese and his activists to accept that most aboriginal Australians have assimilated, and the ones in the bush don't know or don't care about such tomfoolery.

Foxy believes to Vote No disempowers aboriginals. that is Nonsense!

"To propose and suggest something completely alternate to what the First Nations people asked clearly speaks to their disempowerment as our First Nations people."

She does not say how all those well-educated lawyers like Megan Davis who put together The Uluru Statement will suffer by voting: "NO"!

There is another agenda in the Voice, that if voted down will remove the power of the elite to control the lands, waterways, resources, and beaches and receive remuneration from their use. Always read the fine print in a contract before signing.

Albanese's Voice proposal is only the latest manifestation of a push towards a new social order. A blatant attempt by a small group of activists to insert themselves into Australia’s rule book, our Constitution.

Things are going very wrong in Australia.

Dud Dutton, is now saying if the referendum is defeated then a future Noalition government would hold another referendum to give constitutional recognition to Aboriginal people. Then the Noalition would enact legislation giving an Aboriginal Voice to Parliament. Is this bloke now trying to have two bob each way? Can't trust that slippery snake with anything, no matter what he says.

What does the bank of Forum's band of 'Usual Suspects', have to say about that? Agree/Disagree.

Things are going very wrong in Australia?

Well, we now have the opportunity to put things right.
When governments listen to people about issues that
affect them governments make better decisions. They get
better results. And, deliver better value for money.

We need a Voice to Parliament for our First Nations
people because their life expectancy is 8 years shorter than
that of non-indigenous Australians. They have worse rates of
disease and infant mortality. The suicide rate is twice as
high. And, they have fewer opportunities for education and
training, and much more.

Clearly the current approaches are not working.

Josephus,

For your information - the Voice will be a committee of
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people who will give
advice to the Parliament and Government on issues that affect their community.

It will include Indigenous Australians from every state and
territory, the Torres Strait Islands and representatives from
the regional and remote communities.

Members of the Voice will be chosen by the First Nations people
in their local area and serve for a fixed period.

You continue to spread falsehoods. Why do you do that?

It's not a good look for a person who professes to be religious.
You're not giving us a good example of your beliefs.

Attaboy WTF, believe what they tell you to believe and ignore your lying eyes. There's the women openly saying that people should read "the whole document that we call the Uluru Statement of the Heart".

There she is saying outright and unambiguously that the entire 26 pages is the Statement from the Heart. But flying-monkeys like WTF just don't want that to be true so the pretend to not hear it.

Quite extraordinary. Quite concerning. But also quite funny.

The relentless assertions that we should do what the aboriginals want has convinced me. So I will be voting the way the natives have told me to vote.

We all need to follow the enlightened advice of the aboriginal elders. People like.....

Warren Mundine
Jacinta Nampijinpa Price
Lidia Thorpe
Michael Mansell
Murriguel Coe
Cheryl Long
all the aboriginal groups that traipsed to Canberra to say they didn't want the Voice....only to be ignored by governmental leaders who, apparently, only want to hear one voice.

oh dear WTF.....who wrote: "According to RMIT University: "The Uluru Statement from the Heart is a one-page document, as confirmed by its authors. Papers released under FOI contain the statement, but also include 25 pages of background information, including minutes of meetings held with Indigenous communities, which are not part of the Uluru Statement from the Heart."

RMIT were the fact-checkers Meta dropped because they got it wrong. So of course you believe them!!

Dear Paul,

I have no problem with people making money. I think John Farnham a good guy who has done it tough for part of his life, and as music pays his bills I'd hate to see people take advantage of him. Further, I couldn't give a damn how he votes. As it is, he doesn't own the copyright, so I hope he has been recompensed adequately for giving the thumbs up to its use. I'd be thinking at least a million for John and a few million for the copyright holders. Anything less and he is being exploited in my view.

Yes I am a bloody old nark, old and cranky. Having seen the absolute waste over 50+ years I see the voice just being another nipple for a few in the know to suck on and become very rich, a few becoming just rich and the absolute bottom rung staying the same.
NO is the only way to go!!

And regarding the Uluru statement, I heard that a book authored by Megan Davis and Pat Anderson also claims that the statement was much longer than a page (fifteen or sixteen pages). Now I don't buy the conspiracy theory. Instead, I think that Mr Albanese didn't know that the Uluru statement was longer than a page, so everyone had to agree with him as cult leaders are infallible.

So much for fact checking. Truth suppression more like.

The Voice's potential to be a massive & unrecoverable social & economic disaster is out-weighing any potential of it being a success !
Only the elites of Academia & Bureaucracy can benefit from the Voice & those supporting the Voice are of course members of those groups & those whom they successfully deceived with fake emotional & idealistic rhetoric. A handful of deceiving agenda pushers will not only become wealthy whilst the needy will remain needy, the deceivers wlll also gain dictatorial political power which will with 99.9% certainty abused !
The Yes voters deserve to get that, the No voters don't deserve that ! Let's see if Australia is indeed a democratic functioning society rather than the dictatorial malevolent leaning one it is presently !

WTF? states:

"When it was pointed out that the National Indigenous Australians Agency (NIAA) has published a 270 page document outlining how this process could take place there was a 360 degree turn"

A 180 degree turn? The key word there is "could". Aside from debasing democracy by making a group of people privileged based on their heritage, the wording in the referendum gives no indication of the specific system that you would vote for or against. So maybe the No campaigners did do a 360 degree turn?

Fester

Yes I did mean 180 degrees.

Yes the word is "could" nobody is trying to dictate anything from that document but it does gives possibilities just the same way that Voice is not dictating anything but is designed to open up possibilities.

mhaze

On Tuesday Meta cited RMIT FactLab's expired certification from the International Fact-Checking Network as a key reason behind the move.

RMIT was aware of Meta's decision and its accreditation with the fact-checking network was being renewed, a university spokeswoman said.

The network had confirmed FactLab's fact-checking met all its standards and adhered to its code of principles, the spokeswoman said.

"RMIT FactLab stands by the accuracy of its work to date and remains dedicated to slowing the spread of viral misinformation and disinformation through its fact checks," she said.

I do believe one of the authors who says the Uluru Statement is a one page document and that there are other pages to provide context to the statement.

I know the difference between a statement and it's accompanying documents that provide some context.

I have yet to see anyone on this forum give their view on this context providing material.

Hi Fester,

Not all are concerned with money, maybe Mr Farnham and others have alternative motives for "lending" their voice and the song "You're the Voice" to the 'YES' campaign. Although I intend to vote 'YES' I now have taken a position closer to that of Lidia Thorpe and the 'Black Sovereign Movement' which advocate a 'NO' vote, believing the proposal doesn't go far enough. Regardless of the outcome, First Nations people will still have to continue the struggle for recognition, truth telling, treaty and sovereignty. The struggle for equality and to overcome disadvantage will also continue for many.

Simple "recognition" of Black Australia in the Australian Constitution would be a feel good, lardy-dardy exercise for white Australia, but nothing great would be achieved by it alone. The Voice as a consultative body to government, I see as a positive step, but in no way would it be a panacea for all that ails the indigenous. Should the referendum be shot down, and its likely it will be, then so be it, just anther set back in what has been a very long struggle for First Nations people. Having old white blokes jumping up and down about it, shows maybe that Australia is not ready to take that tiny step, and entrenched bigotry, racism and hatred of Aboriginal people is still very much alive and well in the Australian community.

a very long struggle for First Nations people.
Paul1405,
Idealistic & emotional words but exactly what struggle are you referring to ? The struggle to muster the efforts needed to access & maintain post stone age existence ? I don't recall ever hearing any argument about the Aborigines desiring to revert to their hunter gatherer wanderer existence. I only ever hear of the demands to get better conditions provided rather than the desire to work for them. You see, everything you demand is from the efforts of people working every day & contributing taxes from which many of these demands are covered. Attending college at others' expense is nothing more than tokenistic in most cases. Why do we never get to hear from Aborigines & part Aborigines & Islanders who do work, contribute & achieve like normal, responsible people world-wide ? No, that's not very handy for hanger-on activists who don't share the idea of commitment & effort, their subscription is with bleating & accusation whilst keeping that Gap wide enough to perpetuate their claims of discrimination whilst milling around the Govt funding instititions like vultures ! There are indigenous success stories but they are a threat to the activists hence them not being publicised ! They do all that without the need for another fund-guzzling Bureaucracy occupied by bureaudroids likes of you ! As i said earlier, it's a case of parasitism vs symbiosis !

Keep digging that hole WTF?.

https://www.skynews.com.au/australia-news/voice-to-parliament/new-book-reveals-uluru-statement-is-15-pages-long-appearing-to-contradict-pms-claims-the-document-is-only-one-page/news-story/9164a65fee4cbbad556fe63076ab8e41

Dear Foxy,

Thank you.

Yes an inspiring song for an inspiring occasion. By all accounts Farnham is a decent bloke doing a decent think for a decent cause.

BUT, Steele and Foxy,

Where's the bloody MONEY, the MONEY I say! Is there anything in life more important than MONEY? Surely not, look how the Forum's Old Men count every thing in dollar and cents, no one is doing anything for anyone else unless they are rewarded, nah! unless there is a profit in it for them!

Except, for Indy whose been attached to the taxpayer teat for 50 years, and I suspect most of the old fellas here are on some kind of taxpayer funded welfare as well.

Dear Steele and Paul,

I was so happy to learn of Farnham's giving the famous
song to the YES campaign. It was a decent thing to do.

Accusations thrown at the Voice of it being racist is
not only disingenuous but wrong. It's always been that
marginalised groups sometimes require unique representation.
Creating an Indigenous Voice to Parliament is not racist or
inequitable. On the contrary, it presents an opportunity
for Australians to address and overcome racism and
discrimination.

Denying Indigenous Australians will only serve to
maintain racial inequality and continue the marginalisation
and discrimination of our First Nations people.
We can't keep making decisions for them and telling them
how they should live. We need to listen to what will work
in their communities. Not what we think is best for them.

The Austral;ian Constitution already includes several
provisions about race one of which gives parliament the
power to make laws for people on racial grounds. This
is often referred to as the race power
and Australia is the only country that has
empowered its federal parliament to make
laws based on race.

I watched Q and A last night. It upset me as to how much
misinformation is out there on what the Voice is and how
it will work. No wonder some people fall for these
falsehoods. I hope that people will do their homework
prior to the Referendum - and learn what the Voice
actually is, and how it will work, and why it is necessary
because what has been tried so far with our First Nations
people has not, and is not working.

Such a simple modest request from our First Nations people
and yet so much is being done to muddy the waters.
I only hope the attempts to muddy will fail - just as it
did with same-sex marriage And that in the future we will
all wonder what all this fuss was all about.

This entire issue has really made me think about
which side of politics I should support in future.
Should it be politicians with a heart, or politicians
who on issues which require radical solutions that
are likely in their minds to harm vested economic
and political interests?

Should we support politicians who look upon new ideas,
instead of being welcomed for the opportunities they
opened up for the improvement of the human lot are seen
as a threat to them who've become comfortable in their
ideologies.

Something to think about. Heart versus power grabs
and cash registers?

" It upset me as to how much misinformation is out there on what the Voice is and how it will work."

Information you don't want to be true isn't the same as misinformation.

The problem for the government (or at least one of many problems) is that they refused to provide the detail as to how all this would work and its impacts. We all know why they refused - because if they told the people the truth about how the Voice would operate, it'd be lucky to get even a quarter of the vote. Even when detail is provide such as with the Statement from the Heart (the full statement) they tried to hide it.

The latest Newspoll is a disaster for the government....Yes 38%, No 53%. We all know polls ain't what they used to be, but numbers like this are way outside the margin of error. Additionally, it seems this whole fraught referendum is dragging the overall government vote down with Labor trailing Lib on primary vote and Albo's approval rating now under 50%.

All of that will probably reverse after 14/10 and the government can put the project behind them. But the judgement of Albo and his senior people will forever be a little more questionable.

An apt description of Opposition leader Peter
Dutton's modus operandi is to "let off a lot of
hot air and then set fire to it in order to
gaslight the nation." This is one description
doing the rounds on the web.

It is not just the parliamentary kabuki. It is the
misinformation designed to harden the nation's heart
aided by falsehoods bestowed by a media mistaking
balance for context and further amplified by
divisive media platforms.

It is the very determined concerted efforts to sow
confusion and doubt in the minds of voters.
This is soiling our public square.

We get wild and wacky replies from some when asked
to justify their voting no. Things like:
You'll have to pay to go to the beach and national
parks. That First Nations people will get cheap
sport and music tickets. The scope is unlimited.

As we learned in Covid, you can only really
understand how infected a community is when you
test the water in the sewer.

This focus on what the Voice is not
actually drags attention from what should be the
main goal - showing how this change will make a big
practical difference.

No wonder our current Prime Minister has distanced
himself from this political game p-laying and is
focused on the positivity of the referendum.

Mhaze mentioned "Idiocracy" Kudos.

"No Idea" wanted for being a di**. And the White Creepy Education Minister is Black President Comancho's Brother but he does a pretty good job. "Fud-ruckers".

As Nietzsche/ Ayn Rand said thinking is the source of prosperity.

"Lead follow or get out of the way". Apparently they had issues releasing Idiocracy because certain people didn't want the message.

Very detailed movie- and a few easter eggs.

As Winston Smith said to Julia in Orwell's 1984 "we are the dead" before Big Brother kicked in the door to "love them to death"

When even life giving "thought institutions" are corrupted into supporting death- we are in dark times.

"The Voice represents an ending to the colonial
exclusion of Indigenous people from the fabric of
the nation. Many in the media fundamentally
misunderstand the referendum question, resulting
in inaccurate reporting. Why are journalists seeking
opinions on the Voice from people in government."

"The Voice is not an invitation from government. It's
a genuine invitation from 250 Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander people who were elected to go to the
first and only Indigenous National Constitutional
Convention at Uluru. During those dialogues ideas were
developed and refined into the Uluru Statement from the
Heart."

Spoken by Marcia Langdon.

She added that:

"If we have Constitutional recognition - we will have
dignity."

From the referendum, she hoped for a unified Australia
where Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are
empowered in a practical way to give advice that closes
the gap, ending their colonial exclusion.

She said, "I want everybody to wake up after the
referendum and feel proud to be Australian, and to know
that we have taken that extra step. To draw the line
in the sand with our colonial past, embedded in our\
constitution, and empower Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander people as the First People to have a say in
our own futures by making representations through the
Voice on laws and policies that affect us."

A very modest request.

"She [Marcia Langdon] added that:

"If we have Constitutional recognition - we will have
dignity."

Oh good. So she must be fully supportive of Dutton's proposal to give constitutional recognition? </snark off>

Farnam's gift of the "voice" is a poison pill. That song is so lame.

"Information you don't want to be true isn't the same as misinformation." mhaze.

And the information you want to be true, like a quote off a subreddit called Conservative Memes, isn't the same as it being true.

You really are in no position to lecture anyone on misinformation mate, either now or in the future.

Absolutely zero credibility on that score I'm afraid.

WTF?

So the best some can do is argue over their definition of what "statement" and "documents that provide some context" mean.

I have still yet to see anyone comment on the substance of these "documents that provide some context".

Where is the controversy?

Arguing over a definition. Not the definition provided by the author but by a TV commentator mind.

So for some this is the best they can do.

No substance but the arrogance to suggest that an author does not understand the structure of their own document.

a genuine invitation from 250 Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander people
Foxy,
How many of them are actually indigenous ?

WTF?

Here is a quote from the book:

"It is 15 pages long and includes three elements: the one-page pitch to the Australian people; 'our story' of the First Nations history of Australia; and the explanation of the legal reform."

No need to take anyone's word for it. You can read it for yourself:

https://www.bigw.com.au/product/our-voices-from-the-heart-by-professor-megan-davis-and-patricia-anderson-ao/p/385319?gclid=CjwKCAjwo9unBhBTEiwAipC1190z7JRgyN1GGF7VcnnxU1U9vLHElKrEfufgV19koEPg_y1Q9TctthoCEJYQAvD_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds

Foxy,

The Yes campaign claims that the voice will make a difference but there is zero evidence that this will make any more difference than the other 1000-odd aboriginal groups / advisory committees etc.

This is just a $ 300,000,000 Labor boondoggle.

Senator Jacqui Lambie words to both Albanese and Dutton on the Voice.

"Cause when it (The Voice) goes down, and at this stage it looks like it's gonna go down, the only people to blame - if you think you can walk away from this and leave all that unintended hurt that it's going to leave behind, I tell you I'm going to be holding you personally responsible."

I'm not a great supporter at times of Jacqui, but she does often have something worthwhile to say.

WTF seems to think its all in a name. But it doesn't matter what its called. Call it the Protocols of the Elders of Uluru for all I care. The point is that those who pushed this nonsense originally said the Statement (or whatever WTF wants to call it) was the full 26 page document and only tried to walk that back after it became clear that the full document contained things the Yes cultists didn't want discussed.

Things like a treaty. Things like recognising in the Australian constitution a separate aboriginal constitution. Things like "two sovereignties" co-existing.

Had all this been explained at the outset, the referendum would have never got off the ground because the polling would have been horrendous. So they, the Yes-terday crowd, have tried to hide the true intent of the changes.

The people, it would seem, aren't buying it.

It ought to be noted that, at this time, writs for the referendum have yet to be issued. Theoretically the government could back-track and announce that they've changed their minds about the date. Until writs are issued, the timing or even the fact of a referendum aren't set. No one seems to have a good explanation as to why the writs aren't yet issued. Curious.

Whatever. Albanese has now managed make his 32% government less popular than the opposition, according to the latest Newspoll.

When this racially divisive referendum goes down in flames while a few left-whingers might blame Dutton, the vast majority will hold Albozo responsible for this debacle.

The evidence is that this is happening already and that Albozo and his 40 thieves standing in the polls are already taking a hit from this cock-up and if the trend continues labor's second term might well evaporate.

I wouldn't get too carried away with the polls on the current government standing. Once this pantomime is in the rear-view mirror, the government will be able to (in the words of Keating) "flick the switch to vaudeville" and quickly recover these lost voters.

Whatismore, you should note that, although the polls show Labor's primary vote lagging the Libs, two-party preferred numbers are still heavy in Labor's favour.

Australia boasts that it is one of the world's mort
progressive societies. The upcoming Voice Referendum
is a chance to make history and show who we really are.
We've come to a turning point - "The time has come," to
quote the Walrus.

Of course there are cabbages among us, and with all due
respect to King Charles and for that matter Westminster,
we as a nation can't afford to limp along with voters
whose minds are still rooted in the 1950s.

In a nutshell, they can't imagine anything other than
what has been esconced to them from childhood, "it"
having already existed when they were born that if you
"buck the system" you'll pay a hefty price.

The way forward is - "education as a way of life,"
not the "systemic milking cow" it's been turned into.

This was done by people who on examination, don't appear
to be particularly well educated themselves.

The Constitution of 1901 gives Parliament the power to
write law, it gives
it power over us, hence the comfort zone of its bubble.

The Voice Referendum threatens that, because if they are
no longer The Lords of the Aboriginal Nation, how long
before they are not The Lords at all?

It is obvious what is going on in the hearts of a certain
"faction" of the nation's politics. Hopefully, a majority
will take up the chance to make history and Australia
will indeed become one of the world's most progressive
societies - inclusive not divisive, united, with a
"fair go," for all its people.

"education as a way of life,"
Foxy,
that's what got us to where we are now-the crossroads for the future of a society or, if educated experts are allowed to continue, two societies in the one land !
We don't need more intellectuals, we need people with brains & common sense !
We wouldn't even have this conversation if intellectuals were kept were their merit gets them.
Your idea of education is nothing more than more intellectuals !

"The Constitution of 1901 gives Parliament the power to
write law, it gives
it power over us, hence the comfort zone of its bubble."

If you thought that was unintelligible drivel, you should read the article Foxy lifted most of her post from....
http://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/voice-referendum-a-step-closer-to-an-australian-republic,17747

A bunch of words looking for a coherent thought.

It seems that, according to these people, anyone who isn't in the Yes camp "don't appear to be particularly well educated".

As the whole project unravels, I expect we'll see a lot more of these temper tantrums.

The 1967 referendum gave indigenous Australians equality. The 2023 referendum will make indigenous Australians dual citizens.

mhaze says: "Had all this been explained at the outset..."

Well it was - one of the authors explains:

"Professor Davis also rejected claims that the extra pages were kept "secret" until recently, noting that most have been publicly available for years, as they form part of the 2017 Final Report of the Referendum Council.

"That's the formal report. It's all in there … nothing hidden," she wrote on Wednesday. "It's been there for seven years."

Straight up denial and delusional contributions from some.

I wonder if it is because they have been schooled by an Indigenous woman?

The Prime Minister has made it quite clear that the
Uluru Statement is a "gracious request" one that
would give our First Nations people input into
policies that were particularly impacting them.

He said:

"Every Australian wants us to close the gap. Today
points the way to how we are going to do it. By
consulting the people on the ground, by working with
the people who live alongside these challenges. By
enshrining a Voice in our Constitution and by listening
to that Voice."

Arguments against the Voice and all sorts of wild and
whacky claims by opponents have since been disproved
although not quite disappeared from a small minorities
mindsets. Still that's to be expected in a colonised
country. However, with time, things will change.
Much already has. Australia today is different in so
many ways from what it once was - and it will
undoubtedly continue to grow and advance. A "fair go,"
will become more than just a slogan in the future.
At least one can live and hope - that decent people
will see to that. The others will end up pushing
cabbages. History will not be kind to them.

Here are the main arguments for and against the Voice:

http://sbs.com.au/news/article/yes-or-no-here-are-the-main-arguments-for-and-against-the-voice/2h82rx9tj

WTF,

Oh, it must be Wednesday

Today we're pretend that all 26 pages are the Statement and always were.

Yesterday (and tomorrow?) it was only the first page and everything else should be ignored.

Basically, their claim is that the extended Statement is a wonderous document in the same category as the Magna Carta, which contains all the detail as to the proposal that you need to know, and which should be completely ignored because it has nought to do with the referendum....or something.

The Yes camp have been trying, for obvious reasons, ever so hard to deny the extended Statement but then pretend that its all well known to the public.

WTF?

mhaze says: "their claim is that the extended Statement is a wonderous document in the same category as the Magna Carta, which contains all the detail as to the proposal that you need to know, and which should be completely ignored because it has nought to do with the referendum....or something."

Show us all where they make this claim.

I shouldn't do sarcasm.....it goes over the head of the slow.

mhaze,

Could you at least start using lubricants?

Can I suggest that there are two questions regarding the Uluru statement? One relates to the conspiracy theory that it is a secret document with a secret agenda, which strikes me as being false. The other is the PM announcing in parliament that the Uluru statement is one page long, which to me makes the said PM look as dumb as two sheep.

WTF?

So when mhaze gets called out for making unsubstantiated claims it is just sarcasm?

Like a booze-addled first year art student arguing at 3 in the morning, mhaze only has evidence lacking nonsense to argue with.

When called out it is just "sarcasm"

I think we all know what's going on here.

Fester,

"The Uluru Statement from the Heart is a ONE page
document, as confirmed by its authors. Papers
released under the Freedom Of Information contain the
statement, but also include 25 pages of background
information, including minutes of meetings held with
Indigenous communities which are NOT part of the Uluru
Statement from the Heart."

There's more at:

http://rmit.edu.au/news/factlab-meta/uluru-statement-from-the-heart-is-one-page#

Talking about the Prime Minister as a sheep?
According to an old adage - in a nation of sheep,
one brave man forms a majority.

Besides, I don't think that the Prime Minister likes to
be herded. (smile).

"The Uluru Statement from the Heart is a ONE page
document, as confirmed by its authors."

Well I linked above to a talk by one of the authors saying the exact opposite. But today must be one of those days when its a one page document. Tomorrow? Who knows.

I can recall more than a few times Foxy disputed claims there was no details to the Voice by pointing to the full Statement as proof there was plenty of detail.

As I said, its a one page document when they want it to be a one page document and its a 26 page document when they want it to be a 26 page document.

* There's plenty of detail about the Voice - look at the 26 page statement.

* So what if the 26 page document wants a treaty. Its got nothing to do with the Voice.

The truth is what is needed today. Tomorrow? Who knows

mhaze,

You hypocritically whine: "The truth is what is needed today. Tomorrow? Who knows"

Well you certainly do not. There was no truth in your claim that Biden's daughter rescheduled her showers to escape her father yet you repeatedly refused to acknowledge it was utter crap.

You have no idea what truth is in your post-truth Trumpian world view. You even mentioning the word is an affront.

And what does the Our Story addition to the one page statement have to do with the referendum on the Voice. The changes to the Constitution are clear and unambiguous. You lot of misinformation peddlers are trying to divert from what is an inspirational pathway for recognition of our FNP in the Constitution and a Voice to better inform the laws that impact them.

Zero credibility here now.

Go away.

The Voice as presented to Albo is one page, with the other pages as their agenda once established. Once they can override the Elected Government by the Constitution there is no stopping them making claims as to laws and Court orders. This is already happening in Koori courts tried in Victoria. They are not incarcerating criminal aboriginals under our laws but giving them good behavior bonds under Koori Courts. They reoffend without custody.

"In Koori Court, you will sit around a table – called the bar table – with the magistrate, Elders and Respected Persons, a Koori court officer, the prosecutor, community correction officer, your lawyer and family. Koori owned and controlled agencies may also be in attendance in the courtroom to contribute to the conversation and offer support.

Everyone is encouraged to take part in a sentencing conversation by having a yarn and avoid using legal language. Aboriginal Elders or respected persons may give cultural advice to help the magistrate make a judgment that:

is culturally appropriate
helps reduce the likelihood of reoffending."
http://www.mcv.vic.gov.au/about/koori-court#Step%201:%20Confirm%20Availability%20Eligibility

That is the Theory! Released on Bail with evidence. If it were Arch Pell without evidence, he would be crucified.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-05-19/robert-locky-eccles-warrnambool-magistrates-court-on-19-charges/102351118

As I said, we are likely to see increasingly over-wrought tantrums as we get closer to 14/10 if the polls remain as they are.....

SR, it seems, wants to restart a dispute from another thread. Of course, when I showed that his claim that I made things up was bunkum, SR rapidly exited stage left. Of course when I pointed out that his claims about the diary being unverified were bunkum, he couldn't change the subject quickly enough. But when he found one of my claims that I couldn't prove to his entire satisfaction, his standards suddenly changed. It seems that SR asserting I was wrong is the same as proving I was wrong. T'was always thus,

WTF seems upset that I was mocking his very mockable views on the Voice. I must say its endlessly fascinating that the flying monkeys of the left will take their cues from their gurus and become very distraught when challenged. But at the same time they'll assert as Foxy (or at least the people she plagiarised) did that the otherside are uneducated.

A bit more to be ignored....

"In a new book released last Wednesday by Harper Collins titled ‘Our Voices from the Heart’, Uluru Dialogue co-chairs Professor Megan Davis and Patricia Anderson write that the Uluru Statement is “15 pages long”. It also talks about a treaty, reparations, recognition of customary law, a percentage of GDP. I can't imagine why the Yes-terday clan would want that suppressed (that's sarcasm WTF).

I've already shown above that Megan Davis said that the long statement was indeed the statement, but the usual suspects decided (or was it decided for them?) to ignore that.

"Victorian Indigenous leader Ian Hunter, who said some of the demands made in the Yoorrook Justice Commission’s report, handed down on Monday, would result in an “apartheid” system with “one rule for blackfellas and another for everyone else.

mhaze,

You were wrong and you doubled down with gutter words to deflect.

This is pretty easy, just go to the moderator and ask that those posts, particularly the most egregious one, are removed.

Until then there is no moving on and any mention of you about the truth of something will get the same treatment. Any assertion you make on something will be judged on your behaviour in that thread.

Zero credibility.

Dear Foxy,

That is the same dodgy fact check discredited by the ABC. It was discredited because there are examples on the public record of the statement being much longer than a page(over 8000 words apparently). I think that Paul Barry was generous in determining the claim uncertain, especially as the contradictory statements were made after your cult leader had made a fool of himself in parliament.

Fester,

Here is a fact-check on the Uluru Statement - whether it is
one page or 26:

http://abc.net.au/news/2023-08-11/fact-check-uluru-statement-one-page-26/102714792

I have no control over what you decide to believe and whether
this will influence your vote.

The choice is up to you of course.

Fester,

Here is another link that's worth a read:

http://sbs.com.au/news/article/one-page-or-26-pages-and-does-it-actually-matter-the-uluru-statement-explained/epy384an8

Australia already has the beginnings of a Two State System, introduced by aboriginal activists. They lost the war that they believe the British waged against them and they will not accept the result and live and identify separately in the present society. We have two flags identifying two cultures, but they want the benefits and money created by the working culture.
Currently there are over 1,000 claims made to crown land, including Balmoral Beach and park, which is worth over $100,000,000 in the North Shore of Sydney. They want to restrict its use and receive payment for use.

SR,

Play whatever childish games suits your proclivities.
Deflect from your own demonstrable errors as much as you can.
Continue to reach for the fainting couch in your Victorian era hypocrisy. (I was gunna say, get your hand off it, but that'd probably cause more fake fainting)

No skin off my nose.

But please continue to tell me I'm wrong on this or that. Its one of the ways I confirm that I'm right.

"They lost the war that they believe the British waged against them"

There was no war. Its a recently created myth. Just like the stolen generation, and welcome to country malarkey.

mhaze,

What you decide to focus on, where you spend your time
and your attention says a lot about who you are.
Try to remember that broken crayons still colour.

Dear Foxy,

Again you use a discredited fact check.

https://www.skynews.com.au/australia-news/abc-media-watch-disputes-rmit-fact-check-finding-on-uluru-statement-from-the-heart-says-facebook-should-have-branded-it-disputed-not-false-information/news-story/30b53950848bc89c12fcb06ae7e9b1d1

I think it better not to rely on others to check your facts.

Fester,

I backed it up with one from SBS - which gave full
information as well as asking - does it really matter?
Your link is from Sky News - which is notorious for
its misinformation. Peta Credlin has been discredited
fairly and squarely by a wide variety of sources.

Anyhoo - what and who you believe is your choice of
course. I can see that you've already made up your mind
on the subject. As have I. Lets leave it at that.

Marcia Langton and Thomas Mayo and Thea Reid are communists and work with secret agenda's
http://www.msn.com/en-au/news/other/andrew-bolt-fact-checks-marcia-langton-s-falsehoods/ar-AA1gk0kS?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=e45ef8c9f0934149adca8692a72f337d&ei=13

SBS is unreliable as source information, I know the people behind the media platform, and their views are unreliable.

I read an article by Dean Parkin and watched his
interview with Julie Bishop in Perth.

What was made clear was that "primarily the Voice is
about recognition. Recognition that will pave the
way for real change."

"Recognising our Indigenous people as the First people
of this nation is in itself an important thing and says
a lot about who we are as a nation. That we're welcoming
and diverse and honest. Hearing that every Australian
can connect their story to the history of this country."

There will be fewer misdirected resources. The Referendum
is the result of extensive consultation with Indigenous
communities.

It's such a modest request from our First Nations people.
How could we say no?

mhaze,

You quoted something which you scraped from a rightwing subreddit, in which even members of that subreddit said was false, and without blushing you put it in front of us as fact.

You really are at ttbn level now. Absolutely zero regard for the truth of anything just pumping out RWNJ talking points.

Look at this from you: "There was no war. Its a recently created myth. Just like the stolen generation, and welcome to country malarkey."

Why do right-wingers so often end up right down the rabbit hole? It is a comfort thing for you? No need to back up your arguments with valid sources anymore, just easy street all round.

Pathetic.

Dear Steele,

To paraphrase Robert Kennedy:

Ultimately Australia's answer to the intolerant person
is diversity, the very diversity which this country's
colonial heritage has not inspired. Our Constitution
was written for supposedly moral and religious people.
But it was selective not inclusive.

We now have the opportunity to set things right.

SR,

The data about her attitude to the showers has been around for ages. I read and wrote on that. I didn't get it from reddit cos I don't read reddit. However the place I got it from no long exists (as I showed you) so I couldn't prove the story. But when you falsely, maliciously and falsely accused me of "making it up" (and after I'd picked myself u from the fainting couch) I just used the reddit link to show that it was well known around the web. Hence I didn't make it up.....apology accepted - again!

Equally of course, it was well known around the web that the diary was unverified as you falsely and maliciously and falsely claimed. It just that that assertion was debunked which you've yet to own up to and will, I assume, never own up to, at least on this site.

" No need to back up your arguments with valid sources anymore,"

I can't prove a war didn't exist, in the same way I can't prove the south pole of Pluto isn't yoghurt. I could show that there was no fighting in this place or that, but that's doesn't prove there wasn't fighting elsewhere and the SR's of the world who are past-masters at deflection would use that excuse with alacrity. It's up to those who make the claim that there were wars to show the evidence. Of course we'll have to leave you out of that project because it might take more than 30 minutes of research.

But for people like you, the wars existed because you want to believe the wars existed and that's all that matters. But those of us who actually studied this, know that, although there were some skirmishes and one or two clans who briefly resisted, there was no organised resistance worthy of the name.

You gotta laugh at mhaze; "the place I got it (the evidence) from no long exists (as I showed you by giving you a dead link)"

Steele, didn't you access that dead link from mhaze, and see for yourself that the evidence that was there is no longer there. That proves everything! I'm sure mhaze was in my class at school, the dumb kid with the excuse; "Miss me truly did me homework, but the dog ate me homework miss....I'm not lie n' miss, it did, believe me, it was the dogs fault, he liked my homework, and ate it" Miss; "mhaze! you have used that excuse already this week, and last week, and the week before....come up with something new...DETENTION!"

reading on, me thinks mhaze is in the wars!

mhaze, I said previously, just as I have no liking for TRUMP THE GRUB, I don't like BIDEN THE LIAR either. I say all American politicisation are grubs and warmongers, a pox on the lot. You as a committed TRUMPSTER, you can use that unsubstantiated crap against SLEEPY OLD JOE anytime you like. What was that about Pluto and its south pole being yogurt, surly you can prove that with another one of your dodgy links.

Dear Paul,

I'm so looking forward to the Referendum.

I have faith in this country and its people.
I know that they will do the right thing.
This is such a modest request. It's a first
step. But, a big and important one. I'm sure
that the people will not let our First People
down.

As for mhaze?

Know what? - Dog butt!

That's pretty funny Paul. Mr I-never-provide-proof says I should provide proof. And from his post he shows he couldn't even follow the thread of the discussion.

Meanwhile Foxy, shows yet again that even though she's the first to claim that we should be more civil, she's also the first into the gutter. "Know what? - Dog butt!" Or perhaps we shouldn't blame her. She plagiarises so much of her posting, perhaps she just copied that from someone else without fully understanding it.

mhaze,

I never said you should provide evidence, the fact you didn't/couldn't is up to you. As a TRUMPSTER you can say what you like. BTW, did you find it a bit upsetting that PROUD BOY Fearless Leader Enrique Tarrio got 22 years in the slammer. At one time the Forums Usual Suspects had high hopes of forming their very own Aussie chapter of THE PROUD BOYS, the fact they're all octos was neither here nor there, old blokes having fun, now its all gone pear shaped.

Dear Foxy,

"I backed it up with one from SBS - which gave full
information as well as asking - does it really matter?"

I can see that logical reasoning isn't one of your strong points. What was noted was that several parties made contradictory statements about the length of the Uluru statement. Does it matter how long the statement is? When the guy heading the "Yes" campaign has no idea how long the statement is, has not even read it in its entirety, and makes a complete tit of himself on the floor of parliament, I would think it does matter.

Anyhoo, here is a link to the full statement as released by the NIAA in response to an FOI request:

https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/national/full-uluru-statement-read-the-entire-document-about-the-voice/news-story/eb57fdae8e4d5f4fe31d18376192630b

"The data about her attitude to the showers has been around for ages." mhaze.

You are trying to call it "data" now? It is no such bloody thing you twat. It is vicious made up rubbish.

You claim: "However the place I got it from no long exists (as I showed you) so I couldn't prove the story."

Absolute rubbish. Rather than some 'other site', you said it was: "Actually taken from Biden's daughter's diary. You can actually read the story in her own handwriting if you were of a mind to see the truth. I've linked it here before."

You never read it at all did you. If you had you would have seen her rescheduling her showers was never in her own handwriting. It was quoted as being on pages 65-67. it isn't.

I hadn't wanted to post a link to someone's private diary but it is reproduced in full here: http://www.scribd.com/document/548463188/Ashley-Biden-s-Diary

I haven't read it but show us which pages contains anything about her being so afraid to take showers with her father that she rescheduled them.

All on you.

Pathetic.

Fester,

The length of the Uluru Statement has been explained on
various websites on the web. It's your choice which
source you prefer to believe. Sky News, or the Daily
Telegraph doesn't do it for me.

In "crucial" Tasmania, two opposing aboriginal organisations who never agree on anything have combined to fight the Voice together. They agree that the Voice would do "more harm than good".

Dear Foxy,

Contradictory statements about the length of the Uluru statement by prominent yes campaigners are on the public record and have nothing to do with any media organisation.

Contradictory statements bring into question the integrity of people making them as you can be fairly confident that at least one of the statements made is false.

Contradictory statements are a red flag when you are making a decision based on reason, whereas for members of a cult they are a test of loyalty.

Fester,

As I said - Your choice who you believe.

http://theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/aug/09/indigenous-australians-agency-refutes-jacinta-prices-claim-that-uluru-statement-is-26-pages

Read the link I gave above. The Indigenous Agency
refutes the claim that the Uluru Statement is 26
pages. So it's up to you who you believe. The Murdoch
media or Indigenous people and agencies.

Your choice.

Dear Foxy,

Yes, people and entities have said one thing after saying the opposite regarding the Uluru statement's length. You do realise that this cultist treatment of facts is part of the reason that the yes campaign is losing 160,000 votes a week?

https://www.spectator.com.au/2023/09/uluru-itself-needs-some-truth-telliing/

Dear Foxy,

It appears that Murdoch mischief will next have people not understanding the difference between a bible and a concordance.

They really are sheep aren't they.

Dear Steele,

Thank you.

The Spectator is politically conservative. It keeps
publishing people like Alan Jones, Andrew Bolt,
Tony Abbott, allowing them to launder their extremist
views. As for Fester? - whatever rocks his boat.

I just get very frustrated, with deliberate attempts
at misinformation.

The statement is 26 pages long. Its always been 26 pages long.

BUT..... much of the information in the report is unacceptable to the majority of voters so the leaders of the Yes-terday cult have been trying to suppress that extra data by pretending the report is 1 page long. And of course their slack-jawed followers have accepted that without demur.

1 page long or 26 pages long. Its a storm in a tea-cup. But after the Voice fails, the Yes-terday clan will claim this was the reason for the failure....hint: it isn't.

Still, it you want to see what they have in store for us, or at hope to have in store for us, read the whole 26 pages, especially since they'd prefer you didn't.

"I hadn't wanted to post a link to someone's private diary but it is reproduced in full here:"

But, but but....the diary is unverified </grin>

And it is still unverified you tosser.

But it is the diary you were supposedly quoting from. "You can actually read the story in her own handwriting if you were of a mind to see the truth."

Truth?

You really have lost all grasp of what the truth is.

You have repeatedly fail to show, aside from a meme posted on Reddit, that Biden's daughter was avoiding showers as a youngster with her father.

You repeatedly claimed it was there but the link had been mysteriously taken down.

Now, after I provided you with a working link and asked you to back up your rubbish claims you have decided to divert yet again.

Pathetic.

In spite all this noise and attempts at deflection
in this discussion its good to remember that prior
to marriage equality we were told that heterosexual
marriages would be under threat and that it would
change a great deal of the way things worked.

The same happened with Wik, Mabo, the apology, the
stolen generations, where opponents of any landmark
Indigenous affairs have pushed against their
development for ages.

The fear campaigns have not been realised.

Former Liberal Foreign Affairs Minister, Julie Bishop has
strongly backed the Voice in her role as the Australian
National University's Chancellor.

She can see the value of the Voice and tells us that:

"We've done a great deal of research and analysis on the
Uluru Statement from the Heart, the YES campaign, the
Referendum, and we believe that this is an opportunity to get
things right."

She said when asked what a NO vote would mean? She said she'd
be "most concerned at the message it would send the world."

"It's not a front-of-mind issue for most people, but I know
that Australia's international reputation
can be affected by a NO vote.
I have not doubt that it would send a very negative
message about the openness and the empathy and the respect
and responsibility that the Australian people have for
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders."

Foxy,

It was the liberals that brought in gay marriage after Labor rejected it.

The liberals offered to work with Albozo if he put in protections, but he spat in their faces and is now paying the price.

Albozo is the bud light of politicians. This is a cock up of his own making.

To quote Mel Brooks,

If you're just a wacko, a mashugana, a crazy guy,
you're not clever, or brave - you're
nuts!"

It's extremism that's frightening.
Religious fundamentalism and wacko-right and extreme
left-wingers, are both to be avoided.

Peter O'Brien writes that John Farnham's endorsement has not slowed the slide in the Yes vote, so what's next from the pro-Voice "circus and its ringmasters?"

Actually, endorsement of any product is a bit dicey, particularly when the endorser doesn't know much about the product he or she is endorsing.

Back in the day, a well-known sportswoman came under fire for endorsing a product that turned out to be a real dud, no good for the purpose it was advertised for at all. There are laws against such errors of judgement, but I suppose that as long as you don't take money for doing the endorsement, you would just look like a fool, and suffer a loss of any respect you might have once enjoyed previously.

Poor, naive old John - good bloke, good song - is already copping flak on social media, apparently. Uncalled for of course, but that's what you get when you involve yourself in politics - particularly the race based and divisive sort more than half the population now thinks is a threat to the Australian democracy and easy-going acceptance of all people, no matter their race or origins.

O'Brien goes pretty easy on Farnham; but not on the "coward" Albanese, who won't debate and tell the truth, but ducks and weaves, and relies on the likes of a singer, Big Sport and Big Business to do the talking for him.

Peter O'Brien is not on his own in saying that, having seen the best of Australia, he is now "living in the era of the worst federal minister (Chris ‘renewables are the cheapest form of energy’ Bowen) and the most feckless Prime Minister in our history".

"And it is still unverified "

I'm pretty sure that if someone is prosecuted for stealing Ashley Biden's diary, then it is Ashley Biden's diary.

“The past was alterable. The past never had been altered. Oceania was at war with Eastasia. Oceania had always been at war with Eastasia.”

George Orwell, 1984

The Statement from the Heart is 1 page; it was always one page.

26 pages? Memory holed.

The past is alterable - at least for some.

mhaze,

Just like the people who were prosecuted for peddling the false Hitler Diaries, they must have been genuine diaries. Agree? I've got a few Picasso's going cheap, they're fakes so there's no chance of being prosecuted.

We are now getting the scare campaign from the YES camp, that a NO Vote would put Australia in the bad Books with the rest of the World. Yes, the rest of the World would see us in a bad light because we are not adopting the New World Order of Communism. Which Thomas Mayo, Marcia Langton, and Thea Reid want to impose on Australia with their Voice.

The 'rest of the world' has its own problems. It has no interest in what Australia does. Unless you crawled out from under a rock, you had parents who, when you played up, exhorted you to think what 'other people' would think about your behaviour.

It's that same paternalistic, ineffectual nanny-knows-best nonsense that the domineering, tinpot dictators of the Yes side are trying to bluff us with now. How pathetic!

I'm sure there are genuine concerned citizens advocating for a 'NO' vote, folk who don't have a racists bone in their body. Its just a bit hard to tell the genuine from the bigoted, race hating kind, who also advocate a 'NO' vote.

Lenore Taylor points out that "Australians have six
weeks to make a decision on the Voice. It needs to
be based on facts, not fear."

Unfortunately, the modest proposal that our Indigenous
Australians be recognised in the Constitution and is
empowered to advise policy makers on issues affecting
them is tangled up in polarising attacks and unrelated
allegations that threaten to derail the decades of work
towards reconciliation.

Taylor points out that when our Prime Minister announced
the proposed wording at Garma 2022 flanked by then
Opposition Indigenous Affairs Spokesman, Julian Leeser,
"in a spirit of bipartisanship", it was hard to imagine
just how politicised and divisive the "debate" would become.

Taylor tells us that at first the questions raised were
genuine points of discussion. Some Constitutional
Conservatives fretted that a Constiutionally embedded Voice
would open the door to legal challenges. A legit point to
examine as Taylor says.

However, this was countered by a majority of Constitutional
Law experts and the Solicitor-General. Others like Lidia
Thorpe railed at the plan being "ineffective" and not going
far enough. But when Peter Dutton locked the Coalition
against the Voice - people of the NO campaign as Taylor
says - "appeared to take the advice of Frank Underwood -
the fictional President in the TV drama - The House of
Cards."

When things weren't going his way - he said - "If you
don't like the table, turn over the table."

Taylor validly argues that "the modest straight forward
referendum questions were stripped of context and meaning
and conflated with unrelated, racially charged assertions,"
the end result being that the actual pros and cons were
lost in the confusion.

cont'd

cont'd

We're told that "advised by slick US-based conservative
marketing and fund raising campaigners and
enthusiastically amplified by right-wing Australian
media - the NO case created a wild-fire of online
outrage, simplistic misrepresentation and false charges
of hidden intent."

Claims that the Voice would be a "Canberra" body
populated by "elites" they said. Even though the whole
idea was to give true representation to communities.

Then we had the accusation that the Voice concealed
a "secret" plan to negotiate a treaty - given that
the slogan of the Uluru Statement was - "Voice, Treaty,
Truth" this inspiration was hardly secret or hidden.
It was always a separate possible future process.

Then there was the assertion that the Voice would
require landowners to "pay the rent" to "Aboriginal
Councils." It was alleged even though the idea has
nothing to do with the Referendum and that the Voice
would be a non-binding advisory body which would
never be able to enforce such a suggestion were it
ever to be made.

There's more at the following:

http://theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/aug/30/australians-have-six-weeks-to-make-a-decision-on-the-voice-it-needs-to-be-based-on-facts-not-fear

Dear Paul,

Yes, it is pathetic - that all this is happening in
a country supposedly supporting a "Fair Go."

We can only hope and trust that the nay sayers are
a minority and won't succeed. Though not for want of trying.

Foxy, Paul1405, Steeleredux et al,
You people are running too fast with ignorance for wisdom to ever catch up with you !

And on it goes.

"I'm pretty sure that if someone is prosecuted for stealing Ashley Biden's diary, then it is Ashley Biden's diary."
mhaze

Yet he was repeatedly adamant it wasn't stolen.

The ultimate truth deficit poster.

Zero credibility.

"The Statement from the Heart is 1 page; it was always one page. 26 pages? Memory holed." mhaze

There is a single paged statement from the Heart.

The other, 15, 18, 23, 26, 112 (take you pick) do not look like a statement, are not formatted like a statement, do not read like a statement.

The actual statement looks like a statement, is formatted like a statement, reads like a statement, is signed off as a statement. It is the bloody statement.

This argument is just so pathetic and being advanced by pathetic people for pathetic reasons.

It is evident that Foxy and her ilk are so Labor entrenched they cannot understand what the Uluru Statement proposed by the Communists like Marcia Langton, and Thomas Mayo who led the thinking of the Uluru Constitution gathering were wanting. They want control of Lands, waterways, beaches, and resources. It has little to do with health, housing, services, education, and employment, as all those Uluru Lawyers pushing the Voice have all these resources. All these are short-term goals and do not need to be put into a permanent constitution.

The Voice is not merely recognition of aboriginal past history, it is a say in the future of Government, and control of lands, waterways, resources, laws, beaches.

Josephus

Of course the people you refer to agree with the communists - because they themselves are communists. Even if they are not aware that they are communists, they fit the ideology to a tee. They are not normal, socially conservative Laborites, and they barely get over the Green line, so extreme, or stupid are they.

You don't have to take any notice of them, you know. You have no influence over them; arguing with them is pointless; and nothing about them can make any difference to your life.

Take heart from the fact that most posters here are not like them, and that most Australians who don't bother to tell other people what they think are definitely not like them. They just go and vote.

And, at this referendum, and at the next election, as they are struggling with the price of electricity and cost of living generally, they will be aware that if it's not aborigines of overseas travel, Albanese is just not interested.

Dear Foxy,

One can be as certain that the Uluru statement is longer than one page as they can be certain that when they hear the phrase "police do not suspect terrorism as a motive" in a news bulletin it indicates that a man has been indiscriminately wielding a deadly weapon in public whilst shouting "Allah hu akbar!".

Well Folks, Josephus in his posts continues to attack
the modest, straight forward referendum questions
with unrelated, racially charged assertions. With
simplistic misrepresentations and false charges.
Even bringing in outdated political allegations of
Communism no less.

False charges of "hidden intent" Even though nothing is
hidden and his false accusations have nothing to do
with the Referendum. The Voice would be a non-binding
advisory body which would never be able to enforce any
such accusations were the YES campaign won.

Even though nothing is
hidden
Foxy,
Either you're with it or you're allergic to common sense but The Voice is Australian for 'Anti-White" !
Nothing to do with better conditions for indigenous because if the people who are pushing it were interested in "their people" they would have done so over the past 50 years during which they manipulated this industry ! Where have the Billions gone ? Hypocritic white, black & brindle bureaudroids of the Paul1405 calibre have been at the helm of that wreck with nothing to show for it apart from helping them being self-funded retirees !

Hi Foxy,

Proud Boy Jose' is well and truly off the planet with his belief that all this VOICE nonsense is being orchestrated by the "Communists", folk like Marcia Langton, and Thomas Mayo, good decent Australians. If that's what Proud Boy believes, what's he contributed in his 100 years on the planet, and I have no reason not to think otherwise, he is truly an out and out nut job racists. He is the forums number one racist in my book, but several others come mighty close to taking the title from him.

I once let it be known to Indy that I have a small amount of Aboriginal blood (a great grandfather on my mothers side was half Aboriginal, his mother was full blood, his father a white farmer, with a devoted wife and children, she doing her wifely duty whilst the old fella was popping his pencil with the local Aboriginal women, a good Christian fella was he) with that Indy labelled me a "CONCRETE JUNGLE BUNNY" a derogatory term applied by racists generally to African Americans living in big cities, New York, Chicago etc. Indy knew I once lived in Sydney, now in Brisbane, so he though he would racially vilify me by slagging me off with his description. SEE, the type of grubs we have to deal with on the forum, bigots and racists.

Not sure to the reference of the Voice being
"Anti White?"

We're not longer a "White Australia." Since
W#WII and especially since the dropping of
the "White Australia Policy", the story of
Australia has been one of ever increasing
ethnic and cultural diversity.

Successive governments have maintained a large
program of multi-ethnic immigration from many
continents,

Arguments about the Voice being anti-White
are false. Any meaningful conversation about
race in Australia needs to acknowledge that
racism has been a major feature in shaping
our society, its structures, laws and
institutions.

Entrenched racism has subjected Indigenous
Australians to systemic discrimination for
generations.

This has lead to significant disadvantages in
areas such as health, education, employment,
and justice.

Money has been controlled by governments
without consultation of the communities.
The Voice therefore would play a role in
addressing the complex problems.

The Referendum for us provides an opportunity
to finally recognise and acknowledge the
unique rights of Indigenous Australians as the
First people of this continent. The oldest
continuous culture in the world. This would
be a very powerful act of national unity.

By giving First Nations people a say in the
decisions that affect their lives, the Voice
will help to ensure that their problems and
priorities are taken into account in the
development of policies and laws.

This would help to address the history and
ongoing injustices that Indigenous Australians
have faced and continue to face daily and it is
a step towards achieving racial equality to help us
heal and move forward as a nation.

Dear Paul,

Thank You.

I cannot afford for health reasons to pay much
attention to the comments of some posters on
this Forum. They are simply too stressful
and toxic and I can't allow the comments to
be taken to heart. Although it's not always
easy to ignore them. However, Doctor's Orders -
I must try.

However, there's enough of a choice on this Forum
of rational people to communicate with, and that
helps. I don't look for opinions that agree with
my own - what gets to me though is unrelated,
racially charged assertions and simplistic
misrepresentations and totally false charges
against a modest straight-forward request.

Voters should hear the arguments on the proposition
before them not on slogans and memes. As Lenore
Taylor pointed out:

A year ago opinion polls showed the Indigenous Voice
Referendum had overwhelming voter approval.
She says that "Now the modest proposal that
Indigenous Australians be recognised in the
Constitution and is empowered to advise policy
makers on issues affecting them is tangled in
polarising attacks and unrelated allegations that
threaten to derail decades of work towards
reconciliation."

It would be dreadful if these nay sayers, these
spiritual beggars succeeded.

Paul1405,
You're demeaning real Indigenous by attempting to align yourself with them when you're clearly not one of them !
You really should apologise for embarrassing them !

"Just like the people who were prosecuted for peddling the false Hitler Diaries,"

Nup. They were prosecuted for faking the diaries. See the difference?

Oh sorry, its Paul we're talking to here, so of course he doesn't see the difference.

_____________________________________________________________________
"Yet he was repeatedly adamant it wasn't stolen."

Nup. I agreed it was stolen in a legal sense. But not in common usage sense

Indy,

I have never claimed to be Aboriginal, I've said in the past that I identify as an Australian, with predominately European (British and Irish) ancestry. You being ashamed of your ancestry, not willing to disclose it publicly, for fear of being labelled something or other. BTW you bang on against Aboriginal people, are you an Australian citizen? I have my doubts. If you were born o/s as were both of your parents, you are not recognised as an Australian unless you take out citizenship, which you have most likely never done. Most likely just a permanent resident living here for years creaming off public welfare, hummmm?

As I said earlier, as it becomes increasingly likely that the Yes-terday clan are gunna lose, they will become increasingly deranged and their tantrums will become increasingly irrelevant. And so it has come to pass.

We are now told that a No win will prove how racist we are. Of course, aboriginals are also voting No so they are obviously racist as well.

"Lenore Taylor points out that "Australians have six
weeks to make a decision on the Voice. It needs to
be based on facts, not fear.""

Lenore Taylor, who hasn't ever seen a leftwing trope she would support and exaggerate. "it needs to be based on facts". The trouble is they confuse opinion with fact. They think their opinions are fact and the other side's facts are opinion.

And they'll never understand the difference.

Let 'em whine and just bring on the vote

The referendum is about is about constitutionally dividing the nation on the basis of ancestral heritage and giving one group a democratic privilege. It is not a "modest proposal". It is a corruption of democracy and should be rejected. The "Yes" case is not failing because of alleged misinformation. It is failing because people are seeing the truth behind the vibe.

mhaze,

Are you saying those who faked the 'Hitler Diaries' were better faksters that the Trumpsters who faked the Biden Girl Diary.

p/s, How disappointing for you that the Hitler Diaries were fakes, you would have been eagerly awaiting their publication, believing you would at long last get to read the words of the Fuhrer himself, sorry you missed out. Oh! well the fake Biden Girl Diary will have to do.

I get it now, fakes are okay by you as your fake hero, Dangerous Doctor Donald, is always prattling on about fake news. You Trumpster's love anything fake!

poor Paul. Hitler didn't confirm the diaries were his. Biden did confirm the diaries were hers. The difference will elude poor Paul.

like most things.

" The "Yes" case is not failing because of alleged misinformation. It is failing because people are seeing the truth behind the vibe."

Never a truer word. The whole thing summed up in two simple sentences.

My god the hypocrisy.

You published a fake quote from an unverified diary. Even if the thing is Ms Biden's you went completely off the reservation claiming that something was there in "her own handwriting" when it wasn't.

You are the purveyor of lies. Even when shown the truth you refused to back down.

You have no right to be holier than thou towards anyone on this forum. You have disgraced yourself and any claim you think you had toward the truth.

But But But....I showed you the page in her handwriting showing she was forced to have inappropriate showers with her daddy AND that she thought this was a cause of her later problems in life.

Quick, someone is using facts against Biden.... exterminate!

It seems that the Yes people believe that the more and longer their tedious posts are, the more chance they will get what they want. I mean, how many times do you need to say how you are going to vote!

None of the shite posted here will make any difference to the referendum result; that will be decided by people not chuntering away on OLO, who are fed up to the back teeth of Albanese and his mob banging on about it.

Nobody knows what the result will be until it has been voted on, but it is usual that the more people get pissed off by continuous earbashing, the more likely they are to oppose it.

The claim that the Voice would divide the nation
is again a falsehood. The Voice would be a
non-binding advisory body which would never be
able to enforce anything because Parliament will
detail its operation.

Prof. Marcia Langton fears that a NO vote and a
failure to establish a Voice would lead governments
to give up on reforms to improve the lives of
Indigenous people.

I don't think that is something that most Australian
voters would want.

Foxy,
Slow down & give reality & common sense a chance to catch up with you !

Indyvidual,

After you old chap.

Show us all what you're capable of.

Opposition Leader Dutton’s threat to have (another!) referendum to recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in the Constitution is a grave mistake.

Unfortunately, one politician is as bad, and as self-serving, as another these days, and it is thought that there might be votes in it; although why non-aborigines would want 3% of the population to be recognised in the Constitution (if they really do) is inexplicable.

Back in John Howard's day, the idea of recognising one race of people in a preamble to the Constitution received a 60% NO vote: 5% more that the NO to a republic got.

Recognition has been tried and rejected once. If the Voice is rejected as it should be, Dutton would be a fool - and a very unpopular one - to subject Australians to another expensive race-based referendum.

Of course, if the Liberal Party is not completely shot, it will be seriously looking for a new leader before the next election - and ridding itself of the other wets in the process.

Show us all what you're capable of.
Foxy,
You're far too intellectual to ever understand !

Oh the contradictions!

The Voice is needed to solve problems but it wont have any power to make any changes let alone enforce them (so why bother debasing our democracy?).

We already know how to solve all the problems in indigenous communities (so why not implement the solutions now?).

According to the same entities, some media organisations and educational institutions, the Uluru statement is either one page or more than one page depending on whether you asked before or after Albo's clown act in parliament, although the ABC now hold the quasi-religious stance of believing the statement to be one page and of unknown length simultaneously.

Can we step away from this "your vote is indicative of your moral character" thing? Senator McCarthy had his day. We should do our best to stop him having another.

ttbn,

If the Voice referendum fails, and there's every likelihood it will. Sometime in the future either a Labor or Coalition government will pass legislation giving a consultative voice to Aboriginal people by law. Then the same government will put forward another referendum with bipartisan support, which will enshrining recognition of Aboriginals as the first peoples of this continent, that will be within the Constitution. For all intention purposes the outcome will be the same, a voice with recognition.

What I thought would be difficult is "Treaty", but it appears now with states making the running, "Treaty" in the future at a national level will be a far easier thing to achieve than most would have anticipated. Of course with your arch conservatism you're not going to support any of that, but you'll fine yourself if you're still around, confined to a very small minority. The world moves on, Australia moves on. Like it, or lump it.

Foxy,

You are making bold statements that you know are not true. Firstly, because as you acknowledge the shape of the voice has not been clarified and given that it will advise every level of government, it looks like it is a huge monolithic entity all funded by the taxpayer.

Albozo has consistently lied to Australia and now no one believes a word he says.

The voice is dead after Oct 14 will be the funeral.

SM

The far Left is made up entirely of liars, from Albanese down to the dregs here. I don't understand why you and other sensible posters keep reading their rubbish, let alone respond to it and encourage them.

If the Voice is defeated, it'll be due to Langton, Mayo, Pearson & the lesser known activists as they've unwittingly made themselves the Voice's benchmark. Regurgitation of pontificated fails are not a basis to build a better society on !

Even more people than a month ago are intending to vote NO to the race-based Voice, according to polling. Aborigines should no be treated as an homogeneous group or as victims; it is insulting to them.

The sentiment is now 61% NO, to 39% YES. Victoria is the only state in favour.

Victoria is the only state in favour.
ttbn,
That concurs with my earlier suspicion of Sept. 9

Australia today - is not what it once was. It
is no longer - "White Australia." The identity
that the founding fathers of federation had hoped
to maintain by legislation. Today we are a majority
migration nation. Our nation will continue to become
more diverse every year.

The face of the nation has changed. In the decades
after WWII migrants began to shape our nation.
Upon arrival they convinced Australians in a heart-beat
to take up different cultures and cuisines.
Supplementing tea with coffee, pasta instead of potatoes.
Chinese food became
popular, and so on. Deli's opened up as did milk bars,
restaurants, food stores, and other conveniences.

Architecture changed - based on other principles than
English designs. Picking up the best practices
and habits of the newly arrived.
Showing that Australians really are pliable people
willing to learn. That they are well
experienced in taking folks from overseas and
absorbing the best their cultures have to offer. And,
learning to create opportunities for migrants to
interact with the established population as equals
in social and professional situations was crucial.

Now this country of ours has an opportunity to show who
we are becoming. To show who we truly are - and accept
the invitation being extended to us by our First Nations
People to settle once and for all the unfinished business
of their disadvantage.

I refuse to believe that the majority of Australians would
turn them down. I have a higher belief in Australians.
In choosing to campaign against the Voice on behalf of a
shrinking part of the electorate - Opposition Leader -
Peter Dutton and his supporters, risks turning the Party
of Menzies which governed Australia for 51 of the past
74 years, into a
Protest Party of permanent opposition.

If the Voice is defeated - sadly our Constitution will
speak only to who we were, without the effective power
to stop some of whom we sadly be becoming.

I hope this does not happen. I would hate to see the
"White Australia," mentality returned.

This is the article Foxy lifted most of her last post from....
http://www.themonthly.com.au/issue/2023/september/george-megalogenis/demographics-and-voice#mtr

It was written by George Megalogenis, ex-husband of Annastacia Palaszczuk....I wonder where his political allegiances lay?

Essentially the article is saying the Libs should support the 'Yes' so that they won't lose too many seats in the next parliament....or something. In other words, they shouldn't do what they think is right for the nation, just do what they think will give them the most political advantage...ie become more like Labor.

Thankfully, it seems, the deplorables are better than that.

I would hate to see the "White Australia," mentality returned.
Foxy,
That is a pathetic & hypocritic remark because this "White" Australia has deliberately been misquoted as it would have really have implied a "Western" Nation rather than just white.
I don't suppose you'd have the sense to contemplate the alternative still hidden behind the Voice !
If you want to drag up past things & past thinking then do so by using past mentality ! Judging past mentality with the luxury of modern society benefits is something only stupid hypocrites do !

Foxy did not lift most of her last post from
the George Megalogenis link given by mhaze.

Back to the topic.

Guardian's Essential Poll released on Tuesday showed:

47% - against the Voice.
43% - for the Voice.
10% - unsure.

Hopefully there will be a swing in sentiment for the YES
vote. Fingers-crossed.

I watched the interview with Noel Pearson on
the "Insiders," this morning. It was so
moving. And as he explained just how much time
and effort has been put into the Uluru Statement
from the Heart. How much work, and thought, has gone
into all this for so many years. How on earth can
any decent Australian refuse the invitation being
made by their country's First Nations people is
really hard to understand.

Hopefully a refusal won't be on the cards. And the
shrinking nay sayers will simply not matter in
the general scheme of things.

Indyvidual,

When was the "White Australia" policy disbanded?

Do you know?

Foxy believes we should just lie down to the New World Order under Communism, so we can be accepted as progressive with this statement.

"Now this country of ours has an opportunity to show who
we are becoming. To show who we truly are - and accept
the invitation being extended to us by our First Nations
People to settle once and for all the unfinished business
of their disadvantage.'

She wants us to believe Megan Davis, Marcia Langton, Linda Burney, Thomas Mayo, etc and those who formulated the Voice and requested from Albanese the Voice are gravely disadvantaged. Once the Voice comes in all their disadvantages will be overcome, and the Voice remains so it unites us all and we feed their permanent disadvantage. Because the Voice in the Constution is permanent.

"Foxy did not lift most of her last post from
the George Megalogenis link given by mhaze."

Well everyone's free to read each and make up their own mind. eg

Foxy wrote: "In choosing to campaign against the Voice on behalf of a shrinking part of the electorate - Opposition Leader - Peter Dutton and his supporters, risks turning the Party of Menzies which governed Australia for 51 of the past 74 years, into a Protest Party of permanent opposition."

Whereas Megalogenis wrote: "In choosing to campaign against the Voice on behalf of a shrinking part of the electorate, Dutton risks turning the party of Menzies, which governed Australia for 51 of the past 74 years, into a protest party of permanent opposition."

Completely different dontcha know.

Guardian's Essential poll shows Yes 42%, No - 48%. Last month it was Yes- 43%, No - 47%. No swing there.

Indyvidual,

Here is a link from the National Museum:

http://nma.gov.au/defining-moments/resources/end-of-white-australia-policy#

There's nothing honourable or reasonable in giving a pass
to those who want to continue to discriminate.

Josephus,

Urging a country to be inclusive is not an attack. It's
progress.

_____________________________________________________________

mhaze,

Another attempt to douse with gasoline and fan the flames.

Bad show.

A few sentences do not make - "most".

Hi Foxy,

You are trying to impart an important message of understanding to a group of hateful old men, we are well aware of their dispositions from what they post. Unfortunately such effort is a lost cause, just as the skunk cannot lose his obnoxious odour, the bigot cannot lose his obnoxious disposition.

If the Voice is lost, and there is every possibility it will be, then the struggle for Australia's First Nations people will continue. Its defeat will be a set back for all who support the cause, but it wont result in a total capitulation, it my be a defeat in battle, but it wont result in the loss of the war, the struggle will continue as it has everyday since 1788.

Dear Paul,

I will be crushed if the Referendum loses.
I have always tried to remain positive about the people
in this country despite the many hurdles that my parents
had to overcome. I've had the support of so many wonderful
people. From neighbours, teachers, colleagues, friends,
and the list goes on. I came to believe that this is the
best country in the world - having travelled widely and
worked overseas.

Anyway, I will still retain the hope I have for this
Referendum succeeding in my heart. I refuse to allow the
nay sayers to drag my hopes down. And that goes for people
who like to bite - while having a bad day. As we know -
fear grow in places unlit by knowledge. People who discriminate
claiming its "tradition."

Here's a few quotes from Noel Pearson:

He said the Voice was "claiming the right to take
responsibility."

"By all means, blame us, but give us a say in the
decisions that are made about us before you do."

"This is the message of the Voice. By having a Voice,
we will be responsible for closing the gap."

Pearson pointed out that the power to legislate on
the basis of race already existed in the Constitution.
"So it makes sense to establish a body to advise on the
exercise of that power."

"Recognition through the Voice will provide a new
power for Parliament to legislate the Voice that is
not based on race but rather on recognition of our
unique position as First Peoples of the country," he said.

NO. The latest poll is 61% NO, 39% NO.

Try to keep up.

The YES vote has now dropped another 1% to 38%; and Jacinta Price is not warming to Dutton’s wacky 'recognition' nonsense. Maybe the pendulum really is turning, but no money on it yet.

That's the difference. If a party leader acts like a nong the other members can indicate as much and put an end to it. With a cult leader everyone has to go along with it lest they be seen as disloyal. Truth is a better master than loyalty.

When was the "White Australia" policy disbanded?
Foxy,
I don't know when that happened, most likely before I arrived. It wasn't until years later that it was mentioned more & more by those doing less & less. Anyhow, it was after the Caucasians built all the infrastructure needed for new migrants not to have to live in sheds like their predecessors & work in manner foreign to the intellectual elites of every complexion.
You say Pearson's speech was moving, was that when he explained what happened to the many millions of $'s provided for his clever school project ?

Indy said;

before I (Indy) arrived..... after the Caucasians built all the infrastructure needed for new migrants (like me) not to have to live in sheds." Yep gotta agree, when the freeload arrived we put him into a free house, so he didn't have to live in a mud hut, like the joint he came from, which he's always very careful not to name.

I will be delighted when Labor's racist voice to parliament is consigned to the trash heap of history.

Just heard a Yes proponent woman on ABC Radio how she'd like future generations not to have to grapple with this issue.
If she really means that then why does she advocate to vote Yes ?

Indy,

A rather ambiguous statement on your part. One might assume a 'YES'vote would relieve future generations of a vexing problem in the here and now. Like with the gay marriage question the bigots then claimed the sky would fall if it was approve, it didn't, the bigots and racists advocating a 'NO' vote are saying the same, if the 'YES' vote is successful, its all based on lies and misinformation on their part. ' As an alien non citizen you can't vote anyway, so what's your problem!

"When was the "White Australia" policy disbanded?"

There was no particular moment which can be pointed to. Small changes to immigration policy which were started in 1947 and largely expanded by the Menzies Liberal government throughout the 1950s meant that by the time the Holt government finally abandoned the policy in 1966, it was already effectively dead.

Yes Indy, The problems will just begin if yes gets up. We can see this in State Labor legislation such as proposed by WA government. There are 40,000 land claims pending on Crown lands for exclusive tribal use. These must go through the High Court, so the taxpayer money flows. The States are responsible for treaties, repatriations, and truth telling, since their settlements. They will close all coal mining, gas mining, forest logging and restrict agriculture. The income that currently enhances Australia's productivity and push back to dependency on Communism for survival. This is part of the New World order to reduce population and pollution.

.

Dear Foxy,

.

We Australians are, generally speaking, a pretty easy-going, nonchalant lot. We even tend to be fairly lackadaisical when it comes to matters completely off our radar. “No problem, mate. Don’t worry about it !”

It seems that most of us have what researchers describe as an “implicit or unconscious [negative] bias toward first Australians”. We continue to see them as an inferior race. Many of us are also inclined to agree with Senator Pauline Hanson that the First Nations minority group already benefits from privileges that are denied to all other Australians.

In addition, the authors of our old colonial constitution have equipped it with a quasi-impenetrable protective system to prevent it from being modified – for better or for worse.

Whatever the referendum, the NO vote wins, on average, 82% of the time.

The fact is, we Aussies rarely vote for governments or their proposals. We usually vote against them. We do not choose who we want to govern us. We choose who we don’t want to govern us and vote for somebody else. We are governed by whoever is left after we have successfully eliminated whoever we did not want.

Therefore, for any referendum to have a chance of producing a positive outcome, the referendum question should be couched in negative terms – the ensuing vote also being negative, the two negatives make a positive !

By application of this principle, the question for the Voice referendum should be as follows :

« A Proposed Law: to alter the Constitution to recognise the First Peoples of Australia by establishing an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice. Do you disapprove of this proposed alteration ? »

Response :

NO – 82%

YES – 12%

Result : positive – 82% of voters do not disapprove of the proposed alteration. They approve it !

The proposed law is adopted.

.

Noticed on the news last night that odious individual, Noel Pearson, thinking that he can get away with suddenly seeming to be nice and reasonable when the chips are down.

Dear Banjo,

Thank you.

I loved your Referendum proposal.

I'm still staying positive though. I have high hopes
that the YES vote will succeed this time round because
same-sex marriage succeeded when it wasn't supposed to.
Then we had issues like Wik, Mabo, the Apology for the
Stolen Generations, and now hopefully - the Voice will
follow suit.

I'm hoping that the majority of Australians will
overwhelmingly endorse the YES vote.

I refuse to believe that they won't and that the colonial
mentality will win in this day and age in this country of
a "Fair Go."

It is unfortunate that this historic attempt of
trying to deal with what many have called
"unfinished business," has come to be so
controversial and at times nasty, and heated.
Even sadder to have an Opposition Leader
actively campaigning against Indigenous People
and binding his front benchers to do the same.

Noel Pearson said:

"Dutton sees his own political future tied up with
getting this referendum to fail. This is about his
calculations rather than what's good for the country."

"He doesn't mind chucking Indigenous Australians
and the future of this country under the bus so he
can preserve his miserable political hide."

Strong words indeed.

Pearson in his interview with journalist David Spears
on the Sunday program - "Insiders" dismissed Dutton's
proposal of a second referendum as a "mirage."
" A Judas betrayal of Australia." And he urged
Australians to back the coming referendum, to once
and for all settle "unfinished business."

Pearson called the Opposition leader as an "undertaker
preparing the grave to bury Uluru."

I believe in Resurrection and an after-life, -
and I hope and pray that
so do the majority of Australians - who will vote YES

"Noel Pearson said:"

Well he's a rooly-trooly aboriginal so we'd better do what he says otherwise we might be called (gasp!!) racists.

Meanwhile in the adult world, writs have now been issued. Today was the last possible day to do it if they wanted a 14/10 vote. I suspect that Albanese et al were pondering whether to continue the shambles of a vote right up to the last minute and were seriously considering taking up Dutton's suggestion of delaying it and changing the wording to something more amenable to the plebs.

But with the mayhem going on with the government's protection racket for Qantas and the continuing unravelling of the economy, a five week distraction in a lost cause referendum was worth it. As Keating advised back in the 1990s, if things aren't going well, "chuck a bloody big piece of meat in the other direction". The referendum is now that distraction.

Foxy,

Pearson was clearly lying. Dutton was prepared to support the voice the split came when Albozo refused to compromise on either enabling the voice access to every civil servant in the country and refused to consider any guarantees against judicial activism.

As no constitutional referendum has ever succeeded without bipartisan support, it was incumbent on Albozo to find common ground. The failure of the referendum will be entirely on his head.

This is the future of YES under aboriginal claims.
http://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/native-title-claim-over-redlands-coast-in-brisbane-casts-doubt-on-ownership-of-urban-public-spaces-and-amenities-across-australia/ar-AA1gv8rw?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=645f7130db084cceacf9af54ce5f7171&ei=9
Quote:
"Australia's first major native title claim of a large urban area is clouding the future of popular scenic areas, parks, playgrounds, cemeteries and even council buildings.

The claim could infer native title rights on approximately 3,500 council-owned or managed properties in the Redlands coastal area of Brisbane, which is home to 165,000 people.
Redland City Council Mayor Karen Williams said the claim, which was lodged in 2017 by the Quandamooka Yoolooburrabee Aboriginal Corporation, is a landmark case all Australians should pay attention to.

'It is the first time such a title claim has been made over an urban area in such quantity,' she told Daily Mail Australia on Thursday.
Some of those areas we will defend vigorously because they are important, a very important part, such as the coastal points in particular and cemeteries where, might I add, a lot of forebears and pioneers are buried.'

Cr Williams said the claim could deprive locals and visitors of access to popular scenic and recreational spots, which could be turned over for exclusive use by the claimants.

This is the country's first referendum in 24 years.

The question to be asked is:

"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?"

The Prime Minister said, "That's the question, before
the Australian people, nothing more, but nothing less."

"This moment has been a very long time in the making,
yet they have shown such patience, and optimism through
the process. And that spirit of co-operation and thoughtful
respectful dialogue has been so important at arriving at
this point in such a united fashion."

The Prime Minister re-assured that the "wording of this
year's vote was devised during months of consultation
with Indigenous groups and legal experts."

It is good to learn that quite a few Liberal politicians
are supporting the YES vote along with the supporters in
their electorates. The final outcome is still unknown.
Just as is Peter Dutton's leadership.

The Yoorrook Commission in Victoria, of which 4 of the 5 Commissioners are aboriginal or part thereof or identity as aboriginal, has been set up to "indict and attack the white population of Victoria for its alleged crimes against the local Aboriginal population".

There will be no witnesses, no testimony, and no recognition of the good that happened to aboriginal lives through white settlement.

A "show trial worthy of a dictatorship, whose outcome has been largely decided before its proceedings have begun." A witch hunt. No right of reply.

Shades of things to come if the vile Voice was to get up.

Josephus,

This might help clarify things:

http://www.qld.gov.au/firstnations/environment-land-use-native-title/what-it-means-for-queensland

Foxy,

The question gives absolutely no indication as to what the voice is. It is a blank cheque something that Labor should never have.

Dear Shadow Minister,

I totally reject your statements because parliament
will detail the operation of the Voice. The Voice
will be a non-binding advisory body which will
never be able to enforce anything. The exact details
of the Indigenous Committee will be set by parliament.

Noel Pearson said:

"Recognition through the Voice will provide a new
power for parliament to legislate the Voice that is not
based on race but rather a recognition of our unique
position as First Peoples of the country."

There is nothing honourable or reasonable in giving
a pass to those who want to continue to discriminate.

War is Peace

Freedom is Slavery

Ignorance is Strength

— George Orwell, 1984

" the Voice that is not based on race", but represents just one race.

Honestly, these people will fall for anything.

"Who controls the past controls the future,
Who controls the present controls the past."
(George Orwell).

In a nation of sheep, one brave man forms a majority.
(Edward Abbey.)

Our Prime Minister does not like to be herded.

That's why the dogs are barking.

The Voice represents an end to the colonial exclusion
of Indigenous people from the fabric of the nation.

Sadly, some people don't want this to change.

Hi Foxy,

The redneck racists are frothing at the mouth; "How dare they give those Darkies a say in the decision making process on matters affecting them! The Whitman always know what't best, its so unfair!" Yet for almost 200 years the same rednecks were happy to exclude first nations people from even being recognised as part of Australia's make up. That's why I find their arguments against the Voice as being rather hypocritical.

Wow, Foxy shows she DOES know how to do quotes....even the ones she doesn't understand.

Foxy speaks to herself believing this nonsense -
"The Voice represents an end to the colonial exclusion
of Indigenous people from the fabric of the nation.
Sadly, some people don't want this to change."

All aboriginals without exclusion who have entered modern society benefit from colonial institutions including arts, and sports.

I fully support tribal land rights where aboriginals have continually lived on their lands and practiced their culture. However, those that have adopted Western lifestyles do not have continuing occupation of their cultural lands and continuing live culture.

Aussie Anne
9 September at 19:49 ·
—facts of Aboriginal History
•Dot painting was invented in 1971 by Geoffrey Bardon who then taught the style to aborigines. •There are no dot paintings in caves.
•The Welcome to Country Ceremony was invented in 1976 by Ernie Dingo and Richard Walley to welcome Maori performers.
•There is no aboriginal word for a Welcome To Country like the Maori's Haka.
•How can it be an 'ancient Ceremony' if there is no word for it.
•How could someone say 'Who's going to perform the welcome to country ceremony’?
•The Acknowledgement of Country was invented in the 1990s.
•The Smoking Ceremony is also a recent invention.
•There is no film or video evidence of any of these ceremonies at important events such as royal tours, the 1956 Olympics etc., prior to the 1970s & 1990s.
•’ Walkabout; is also considered an offensive term, since it implies someone is lazy or laye, despite it being an integral part of initiation ceremonies.
•The' oldest living culture' is not just factually incorrect, it defies logic.
•The branch of the tree cannot be older than the tree itself.
•Humans evolved in Africa.
•There are African tribes who live exactly as they did 100,000 years ago, without mobile phones, 4WDs, or welfare, etc.
•Aborigines are descended from these tribes as humans moved out of Africa around the world.
—As such, Aboriginal culture cannot possibly be older than the cultures from which it evolved.

What screwed up logic is behind this;

"I fully support tribal land rights where aboriginals have continually lived on their lands and practiced their culture. However, those that have adopted Western lifestyles do not have continuing occupation of their cultural lands and continuing live culture."

I get it, first the colonial invader forces the indigenous off their land, placing the land into the colonisers possession . Then the coloniser places the displaced people into his world, alas being at the bottom of the social-economic ladder. The displaced has to work for, and rely upon the coloniser and his decedents for his existence. Then when the indigenous tries to justly retake the land his forebears were disposed of, the cry from the colonisers decedents is "Sorry darkie your too late, your relative shouldn't have given up the land in the first place!" Good one Proud Boy.

Dear Paul,

Primarily the Voice is about recognition.
And recognition that will pave the way for real
change. Recognising our Indigenous as the First
People of this nation is in itself an important
thing and will say a lot about who we are as a
nation.

That's why it is so exciting that we've finally
arrived at this juncture. I am so glad to be
alive to witness it.

Prof. Marcia Langton said it beautifully:

"I want everybody to wake up after the Referendum and
feel proud to be Australian and to know that we
have taken this extra step. To draw the line in the
sand with our colonial past, embedded in our Constitution
and empower Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people
as the First Peoples to have a say in our own
futures by making representations through the Voice
on laws and policies that affect us."

As for what some are trying to do on this discussion.?
Don't read what they post. They are not important enough or
relevant to worry about. They frankly don't matter at all.
And will end up on the dung heap of history. The country
will move on without them.

Primarily the Voice is about recognition.

Foxy,
If this was so, we wouldn't be asked to answer two questions with one answer !
Recognition would result in a 110% YES !
It literally is an entrapment of good will !

No23- Vote No.

.

Dear Foxy,

.

Peter Dutton is a fellow Queenslander but, apart from that, I can’t say I have much in common with him.

His first job after leaving school was working as a policeman with the Queensland Police Force for about ten years until he nearly killed himself in a car accident and resigned.

I can’t say I share his political ideology. He is noted to be aligned with the "National Right" faction of the Liberal Party which he leads. He is described as a right-wing populist opposed to an Australian republic. In December 2018, he told Sky News that for the prior seventeen years, he had regarded "parliament as a disadvantage for sitting governments".

I don’t know what his forte is, but I have serious doubts that it could possibly be democracy.

Most of all, I find shameful the inhumane treatment of boat people seeking asylum in Australia whom he and his boss, Scott Morrison, despicably and dishonestly labelled “illegal” immigrants, knowing full well that Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) stipulates:

« Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution. »

Particularly since Australia was a founding member of the UN and played a prominent role in the negotiation of the UN Charter in 1945. Australia was also one of eight nations involved in drafting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights – due to the influential leadership of Dr. Herbert Vere Evatt, the head of Australia’s delegation to the UN. In 1948, Dr. Evatt became President of the UN General Assembly. That same year he oversaw the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights – including Article 14 which Peter Dutton and Scott Morrison chose to ignore.
.

Despite all that, I consider that Dutton’s proposal of a second referendum on Indigenous recognition in our federal constitution would be a perfectly viable alternative in the event of failure of the Voice referendum in October.

If plan B were to succeed, the Voice constituent could be established by subsequent legislation in our federal parliament.

.

The green racists are frothing at the mouth, their attempt at installing a race-based veto is failing.

Foxy,

You contradict yourself "I totally reject your statements because parliament will detail the operation of the Voice"

My point is that parliament has not yet detailed anything and a yes vote gives them a blank cheque. Your assumptions of what the voice is are your beliefs only and carry no weight whatsoever.

Hi BP,

Dutton is not sincere in his proposal of "recognition" of Aboriginal people, it is a patronising sop without merit. He thinks by burying a few meaningless words of endearment in the Constitution, that the status quo will be maintained. For Dutton its about maintaining power and authority over Aboriginal people, which the European has held since 1788.

I was surprised with the Uluru Statement from the Heart, it is a rather benign request, for one, recognition, and two, consultation, there is no demand for power sharing in decision making. The statement has no malicious intention contained within it, but you wouldn't think so judging by the over the top reaction from the hard right of society.

If the referendum is defeated, and there is every possibility it will be, the extreme will dance around in exaltation at their great "victory", and moderate progressives will be most disappointed with "defeat". For me defeat of this referendum will be nothing more that a minor setback in what has been a enormous struggle for Aboriginal people for well over 200 years. The fight will continue, the right of politics will believe defeat of the referendum gives them a new mandate to take an even tougher line with such things as treaty and sovereignty. The fight will go on no matter what the referendum outcome is.

Banjo,

Another left whinge delusional I see. No problem with the 1200 people that drowned due to Labor's idiotic policies?

The term illegal immigrant refers to anyone entering the country in a fashion contrary to legal statutes which coming in with human traffickers is not legal.

Secondly, many of these illegals shredded all their documents precisely because they had no legitimate right to claim asylum.

A new poll from SMH - Yes 43%, No 57%. The same poll was 46/54 a month ago.

Even worse for the Yes-terday crowd, more No voters say they definitely will vote in the referendum. Surprisingly, only 86% of people say they are likely to vote, even though its compulsory. That might change once they hear about the fines.

For those interested, applications for postal votes are now open and will remain so until 11 October. In person pre-poll voting will start on 2 October (3 October in NSW).

Thankfully, it is expected that the counting will give a definitive answer on the night of 14 October although precise counting will continue into the following week or two. Once this malarkey is all over, the nation will be able to move onto more important issues

Foxy is confused, in one sentence she is claiming the Voice is merely about recognition and in the other she quotes the Communist Marcia Langton who stated.
"Prof. Marcia Langton said it beautifully:

"I want everybody to wake up after the Referendum and
feel proud to be Australian and to know that we
have taken this extra step. To draw the line in the
sand with our colonial past, embedded in our Constitution
and empower Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people
as the First Peoples to have a say in our own
futures by making representations through the Voice
on laws and policies that affect us."

The Communist Langton wants to remove the Westminster system and install aboriginal ownership and Government. Note her words, end the colonial past, and empower aboriginals!

Unfortunately, Foxy is blind to the real agenda of the Communists.

I note those that are now attacking Peter Dutton are ignorant of what a constitution is. It is not a Person it is a Governing contract, and those who are desperate losers want to make the debate based on a Person, not the facts of Governmen

Dear Banjo,

Thank you for your comments.

It is a shame that it has come to this. That things are
being politicised. That an opposition leader is
actively campaigning against the Indigenous Voice and
binding his party members to do the same. From what I can
see Dutton sees his own political future tied up with
getting this referendum to fail.

This morning I received an email from the Liberal federal
member of my electorate - which is a safe Liberal seat.
It was telling me everything negative about the upcoming
Voice referendum - fear mongering at its worse. Shame on the
man - and he's lost my support on this issue.

The posters on this Forum who are coming up with all sorts
of false accusations - don't impress. The detail is there for
them to find. All they have to do is Google it. Their other
scare tactics are sad.

I still have every hope that the referendum will succeed.
I refuse to believe that it won't. I for one will not stand
in the way of the aspirations of our First Nations people.

But then I am accepting their invitation and not listening
to the nay sayers - who still cling to the colonial
mentality of a bygone era.

"Australian voter dissatisfaction with Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s performance is growing and support for his signature Indigenous Voice to Parliament proposal is declining amid increased frustration over rising living costs." (Bloomberg today).

The world is watching our suicidal stupidity. Race-based wars taking precedence over cost living, lack of housing etc.

Wow - 36 pagers and counting.

I will be voting via post and will not be here for the Referendum date nor the aftermath.

I'll be voting YES.

Hopefully, the YES vote will prevail.

Dear Foxy,

My hope is that people consider the question and vote as they see fit, as is appropriate in a democracy. As you pointed out, some coalition identities are voting yes, and good for them. I also note that nearly a third of Labor voters are voting no. It makes me wonder how many Labor identities/pollies are voting no. Do you know Foxy.

Even Al-Jazeera reports that Voice support has plunged in the last 5 months, just as even more money and hysterical emotion is being poured into it. What will the world think of us, the yes-yappers gasp.

Well, they already think that we are bloody idiots for tearing our country apart.

Hi Fester,

I know you have stated you are a 'NO' voter, but you are in a minority, the majority will most likely vote 'NO' but unlike you they have not made a judgement call based on the information available, they will do so based on fear and misinformation. Some will vote 'NO' because of their innate racism, others because of their radical views, believing the question is too soft. Most raciest are not goosestepping, cross burning, white sheet wearing haters, in fact their racism is based on some misguided prejudicism towards Aboriginal people, built up over the years through stereotyping, and being influenced by negative accounts of behaviour. So be it.

Cheers Paul. You know that many of us are in danger of becoming Don Quixote in our dotage don't you? I'm sure it happens here.

Fester,

I don't pay attention to the polls. I prefer to stay
positive and think that the majority of Australians
will vote YES. In fact I'm counting on it.

I will be crushed if they don't. It's too awful to
contemplate that when given a chance to support our
First Nations people - Australians declined.

Too awful to think about.

This whole debacle is down to one person - Anthony Albanese. Since its inception, this stupid little man has done nothing but bungle and lie. He has divided and angered the country like no-one before him.

The NO vote will be against Albanese himself as much it is against the truly rotten idea of the Voice.

The man actually said this month that a Yes vote was a vote for an "idea"!

An idea! A bloody silly idea with no substance and no clue of what it would achieve, if anything.

Albanese has told us straight out that we common people should vote yes because Big Business and Big Sport have endorsed the rotten "idea".

Like being insulted, do we? Like the idea of the biggest change EVER to our Constitution being based on a crummy "idea"? The change would be forever. And the referendum is costing $260,000 - the price of quite a bit of public housing for the needy.

Well now, Albanese : Woolworths pulled their Voice rubbish when not only customers, but also staff, complained about it. And, the AFL has said that it has pulled any mention of it at the Grand Final.

And, as well, your personal popularity is nose-diving with that of the Voice itself.

Paul,

Not all greens are fascist Nazi's some are just idiotic socialist racists that believe dividing the country by race (apartheid) is a good thing.

It could be that they were dropped on their heads as infants, or they are just creating a gravy train for the ages.

"And the referendum is costing $260,000"

I think you left off a few zeros there... more like at least $260,000,000.

The last federal election cost $522million and although this isn't quite as complex at that, most of the fixed costs like rental of polling locations and paying staff remain the same. So at least $260 million ++.

We know that a lot of work has been done to tell
people what the Voice is, what it will look like
like and how it will work.

Yet despite all of this there are people who still
persist in attacking and questioning what the
proposal means and blaming our Prime Minister when
all he's doing is keeping his election promise.

This proposal comes as a request from our First
Nations people who have called for a Voice to be
put into the Constitution. It's a shame that this
simple request has become so politicised by people
with their own agendas and others who simply want
to fight and whine. The pub-fighter mentality still exists
today it seems. Social media and discussion forums are
notorious for the people it attracts. Keyboard warriors
galore.

The following link explains further the
Indigenous Voice to Parliament:

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

My apologies.

Here's the link again:

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

Here is a link that everybody should read:

http://smh.com.au/politics/federal/watch-out-for-the-big-little-lies-on-the-voice-20230830-p5eOrn.html

My apologies.

Here's the link again:

http://smh.com.au/politics/federal/watch-out-for-the-big-little-lies-on-the-voice-20230830-p5e0rn.html

I am quite disgusted - I've received emails from my favourite
Liberal Senators trying to influence me on the Voice
referendum. and telling me that if I'm "unsure" to vote NO.

They should be telling me that if I'm unsure - to get the
facts. That would make more sense instead of trying to sway
my vote. Not a good look at all. Shame on them! Nobody from
Labor has contacted me. Which makes a better impression.

Foxy tells us :"Here is a link that everybody should read" and after she finally worked out 0 isn't the same as O, she provides the link.

Somehow Foxy thinks that supplying a never-ending list of highly partisan articles, proves something. Well it does....that she can find a never-ending list of highly partisan articles and somehow never comes across a pro-No article she thinks is worth reading.

Still, this one does provide one piece of useful information....

"The conservatives are correct with one big claim. “We’ve got a prime minister who is deliberately keeping detail from the Australian public until after the vote takes place,” said Dutton on Wednesday. True. Albanese has chosen to campaign on the idea and leave the details for parliament next year. This is a deliberate strategy that defines – and constrains – the debate over the weeks ahead.

Is Albanese being dishonest? No. The details have not been decided ..."

Whenever someone here points out that the details aren't decided and that, therefore, that's a valid reason for voting No, Foxy asserts that all the details are known if only people were as well-read as she. But here's her link setting it out in black and white that Foxy is talking through her well worn hat.

In this thread, Foxy quoted, without understanding , from Orwell's 1984. In that same book, comes the concept of doublethink being the ability, indeed the necessity, of believing two entirely contradictory notions at the same time and thinking they are both right.

You know like the belief that all the details are completely known and the belief that the details haven't yet been decided.

If they had decided and published and set in concrete all the details, there was a chance I'd have voted Yes, depending on the nature of those details. As it is the government wants the people to give them a blank cheque as regards the Voice and it seems the people are declining to do so.

Frankly, it shows how out of touch with the plebs the ALP elite are these days.

I firmly believe that the Voice campaign will surge
ahead because of the true nature and sewer tactics
used by the NO campaigners.

The harder they try - only shows that the YES
vote is a threat to them. It won't work. Voters will
not be that easily influenced. This has been a long
time coming - and giving up is not an option.

To many of us - Life is not about waiting for the storm
to pass. It's about learning to dance in the rain!

Vote YES and come dance with us.

Here is another link for you:

http://smh.com.au/politics/federal/complicit-in-this-lie-labor-demands-dutton-denounce-no-tactics-20230912-p5e3wc.html

Reparation payments are what those who proposed the Uluru Statement envisaged - They will be made at State level, which is why the Yes campaign under Albanese does not see it attached to the Voice. Land claims and reparations for loss of land is their claim at State level.

Nobody from
Labor has contacted me. Which makes a better impression.
Foxy,
For the sake of the future of this Nation I pray that there are no more than two or three with your mentality in this country !

The gorgeous Marcia Langton has been caught labelling we NO voters 'racist' or 'stupid'. I don't think that will convert many stupid racists to change their vote. More likely to induce the underdecided to vote NO.

Must say, most of the 'NO' advocates are in good company with their opposition to 'THE VOICE'. Far right extremist like JIM SALEAM from the racists AUSTRALIA FIRST PARTY is advocating strongly for a 'NO' vote. SALEAM is out there peddling a bigoted racists hate message towards Aboriginal people. PETER DUTTON and others are certainly in good company, SALEAM, HANSON, etc.

Josephus said "Unfortunately, Foxy is blind to the real agenda of the Communists."

Answer- From what I can see Foxy is a communist she does doesn't want to be labelled one.

"Foxy is a communist"

Only to a wacko nut job, using an anonymous forum would associate a moderate poster like Foxy with the likes of Stalin and Mao, two of the great mass murderers of the 20th century. Foxy, think nothing of this fool as he tries to degenerate you in this way. There is something abnormal about such a strange fella, he sees "reds under the beds" at every turn.

BTW, its only a twist on Godwin's Rule, The Kudos Kid, can't invoke Hitler and Fascism for obvious reasons, so he continually resorts to calling others communist.

When I read the quality of Paul1405's rationality it makes me very happy to know that Paul1405 labels me "a wacko nut job" and a "fool". I wonder what Paul1405 has to say about the principles of Marx and other communists like Trotsky, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Saul Alinsky, Herbert Marcuse, many others. There is a reason why we are still reading Plato and Aristotle two thousand years later- I hope we will not still be talking about socialism and communism in two thousand years from now and my civilization manages to survive long enough to see it- rather than being wiped out by genocidal competitors. I think my culture has created more than enough structural value as an example to humanity to deserve it's continued existence.

Sadly there are those that try to adopt certain principles end up creating totalitarian hell's without really intending do so. On the other hand there are those that just want to see the world burn. And those that gain power in the name of freedom.

1. A desire to create stability and safety can result in slavery
2. A desire to solve the problem of entrenched powerlessness and inequality can result in scarcity, inequality, and more powerlessness.
3. A desire to curb the power of business results merely transfers this power to a political class- probably one that doesn't accept limits to their own power- and doesn't know how to translate resources into produced goods- and the political class is drawn from a narrower section of the community (probably academia) than the business class.
4. Those that believe they know better than others might believe that those that disagree with them are evil and need to be enslaved rather than allowing others to live in a world of their own making

My view of Paul1405 is to let him create a nested sandbox world of his own making and bring all his friends and he will prove the functionality of his sandbox world or destroy himself and his friends in the process- and leave others to create their own sandbox worlds- but Paul1405 doesn't seem to want to let us have this power over our own destiny. In my view this is Totalitarianism and will result in bloodshed.

Cause and effect/ desire and result.

.

Dear Paul1405,

.

You wrote :

« Dutton is not sincere in his proposal of "recognition" of Aboriginal people, it is a patronising sop without merit. He thinks by burying a few meaningless words of endearment in the Constitution, that the status quo will be maintained. For Dutton, it’s about maintaining power and authority over Aboriginal people, which the Europeans have held since 1788. »
.

Peter Dutton is reported as having declared that recognition of First Australians in the constitution was long-standing Coalition policy, but not a constitutionally enshrined Voice to Parliament, adding :

« I think it is right and respectful to recognise Indigenous Australians in the constitution and we will work with the Labor Party to find common ground. »
.

It’s amply clear that that is just a lot of hot air. The Coalition was in power from 2013 to 2022 and did nothing to implement its promise to hold a referendum on Indigenous recognition. Its total inaction simply illustrates the old adage : “Election promises are only binding on those who believe them”.

In my view, Dutton’s political career has been compromised by his Trumpian tactics of misinformation, disinformation, and outright lies. He is doomed to end up sitting alongside his old boss and mentor, Scott Morrison, on the backbench of the House of Representatives at Parliament House in Canberra.

That said, criticising Dutton is one thing, criticising the ideas he expresses is another. His declarations may be hollow, insincere and hypocritical, but that does not mean the ideas he expresses are worthless. The idea of recognising Indigenous Australians in the constitution is neither original nor worthless.

It germinated in 1958, with the creation in Adelaide of the Federal Council for Aboriginal Advancement, the first united national Aboriginal advocacy group, which began a campaign to change the Constitution. Their efforts culminated in the success of the 1967 Australian referendum (Aboriginals), which changed the Constitution to include Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in population counts.

The upcoming referendum is the second stage leading to full Constitutional recognition – plan A or B ?

.

Hi BP,

Of course I see merit in recognition of Aboriginal people in the Constitution, its long overdue, 122 years overdue in fact. The entire referendum question has significant merit, and therefore I will be voting 'YES'. In my opinion Dutton and the Tory Party in general in claiming they are in favour of recognition only, have looked for an "out"...."give them something that doesn't negate our position of power" the answer is "recognition", its has feel good sentiment attached to it, but its benign and ineffectual in itself. That's why I referred to it as a sop, I can not find any sincerity in the overall Coalition attitude.

All Australians are equal democratically whatever their heritage or how long they have been here. There is already a sizeable budget to address indigenous problems, and like any budget, it can always be spent more wisely. It is believed that solutions to indigenous problems are already available and could be implemented now. Further, if the referendum fails it could be legislated.

For these reasons I see no reason to support the referendum, nor do they help me understand why it is being pushed so hard.

"All Australians are equal democratically whatever their heritage or how long they have been here."

Not a according to Albanese and Yes voters they are not. Aboriginal Australians are not equal; they are not capable of leading their own lives like all other Australians. Even $40 billion a year hasn't made any difference. Just like the Voice wouldn't make any difference.

None of this rubbish has anything to do with aboriginal Australians. It is a power grab by the likes of Albanese and a handful of activists - all of whom are Communists in all but name.

Until Australians take interest in their future and that of their country, and make governments frightened of them - not the other way around - they deserve to be stuck with trash like Albanese and his creeping totalitarianism.

I can not find any sincerity in the overall Coalition attitude.
Paul1405,
I hope that most Australians can see the lack of sincerity in the Guilt industry & vote accordingly for what's best to help those in need, remote community Aborigines included !
Labor & what it calls integrity is out there for all to see & judge !

Stay on the subject please !

While this absurd, divisive Voice thing is occupying most of Albanese’s time (when he isn't overseas), millions of Australians struggle with the cost-of-living crisis; some desperately needing Centrelink support they are not getting it.

Well done Albanese and supporters of the Voice. You won't want to be around to read what historians write about you.

"Marcia Langton has been caught labelling we NO voters 'racist' or 'stupid'."

Part of the problem for the Yes-keteers both here and in the wider community is that they really don't understand the arguments for No. Hell, they barely understand their own arguments - witness Foxy's struggles with the issue of whether the details for the Voice are decided or not.

So people like Langdon and our own coterie of Yes-men (Paul, Foxy, SR etc), not being able to follow the arguments for No, and lacking the intellectual curiosity to investigate further, put it all down to that catch-all excuse - racism.

The thinking goes that since I'm in favour or the Voice and I'm not racist, anyone who disagrees with me must be racist. No further thought required.

This is a large part of the reason why the Voice is struggling - that lack of understanding and addressing the views and arguments of the other side. They've just tried to barge their policies through in the belief that there are no counter-arguments and now can't fathom why the majority of the populace refuses to be strong-armed.

One wonders if they'll learn anything from the coming humiliation.

Being treated equally and having a say are important. There was objection to elected officials reading a prayer at the start of sittings, but I have less concern with the rules that people choose for themselves than with what is foist on me without consultation. Welcome to country/acknowledgement of country have no compulsion that I am aware of, yet the use of them seems coercive to me, not least as it gives indigenous Australians a special status in a country where we are all supposed to be equal.

Dear Paul,

I'll repeat what I posted earlier.

A lot of work has been done to outline what
the Voice will look like and how it will work.
Despite this some people still insist on
attacking and questioning what the proposal
means. And also bringing in personal attacks.

It's our First Nations people who have called for
a Voice to be put into the Constitution.
The Prime Minister is keeping his election
promise.

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

Thank you for your concerns about the personal
attacks on me. None of us need to win arguments
with strangers. And we shouldn't care what nasty
things some idiot says about us. I'm frankly too
awesome to play a victim (smile).

As for being called a communist?

That's standard fare from a bad dog. Dogs bark
at strangers. That's what they do. Especially
ill-bred ones.

Not sure how to respond to that accusation?

Should I roll up my sleeve to expose my Hammer
and Sickle tattoo?

______________________________________________________________

Dear Banjo,

Thank you for your continued rational comments.

They are greatly appreciated.

Foxy adores Marcia Langton for her Communist views to overthrow the Westminster Government [a colonial institution] and replace it with an Unelected Aboriginal Republic. Those that do not want to follow Marcia are stupid Racists. This is part of the guilt industry; you should feel guilty for giving aboriginals such a hard life. They should have full control of their lands, waterways, resources, beaches, all this was stolen from them by the British.

The Communists believe these must be reinstated to give them self determination. Of course, they received no benefits from British settlement.

I listened to Langton this morning on the ABC Radio where she refuted saying so & her explanation come excuse was so,so in the convincing stakes !
I'd let her get away with it this time but her history shows otherwise !

My apologies.

Here is the link again:

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

Foxy,

You claim "A lot of work has been done to outline what the Voice will look like and how it will work."

The problem is that none of them are worth the paper they are printed on as it will be decided by the labor party which means it could be anything.

Given that Mr Albanese and Labor are 100% behind the Voice, I think that he should legislate a Voice whether or not it gets up.

Foxy wrote: "Here is the link again:"

A word of advice. You wouldn't have these problems if you just did a cut and paste of the URL.

Alternatively, you could check whether the link works before posting. As you know, you have to 'Preview' the comment prior to posting. You can check the efficacy of the link at that point. So before hitting the 'Post Comment/Port Revision' button, click the link in the preview window to see if it works. If it doesn't then correct it at that point, rather than posting it willy-nilly and then needing to correct it later.

Dear Shadow Minister,

I don't understand your concern with our current
parliament doing its job. The exact shape of the
Voice will be determined by the parliament following
the referendum.

This allows for the shape to be changed by parliaments
over time according to the conditions of the day.

The following link may clarify this for you:

http://wentworthforthevoice.com.au/where_is_detail

Foxy,

I am concerned with Albozo and his 40 clowns not doing their jobs. I wouldn't trust these twits at the end of a barge pole. They have had plenty of time to draw up the legislation, the only reason they haven't shown it is because it will piss off everyone.

" I think that he should legislate a Voice whether or not it gets up."

He should and he probably will. Some of us have been calling for this from the outset. But in reality they don't just want a legislated body. They want body that is constitutionally protected to give it outsized prestige and invulnerability to governmental or popular over-sight.

Albanese has previously said that he wouldn't go down this path (a legislated body if the referendum fails), but we should take that with a grain of salt. Increasingly we are seeing that this PM is wont to say one thing and do another as required, while his loyal cheer-squad cover for him.

Hi Fester,

That is a reasonable suggestion on your part, I suggested that sometime back, or at the very least produce draft legislation for debate. Its getting a bit late in the day, but hopefully it would take the wind out of some 'NO' proponents sails. However I believe the likes of Dutton is not interested in conciliation, its all a sham, regardless of what ever is offered he will find new reasons to object.

Hi Foxy,

I had a woman this morning telling all and sundry why everyone should vote "No'. She went through the whole gambit of cynicism and scorn, heaping derision on Aboriginal people, she peddled the usual hogwash of lies and misinformation. I listened in silence until the end, when in a most condescending manner she said; "I have real sympathy for genuine Aboriginals, we have to look after them, they can't look after themselves" I then said; "That's so nice of you, after all you are the lady of the manor when it comes to these things." She just looked at me, with a puzzled expression on her face, saying "What did I say wrong, someone please tell me"...I said; "If you don't know, you'll never know, just leave it at that".

Dear Paul,

I really don't like all this in-fighting.
We're all better than that. I don't like
having the worst brought up in people,
myself included.

I've recently got into an email war of
words with two politicians in my electorate.
One federal, and one state against my
better judgement.

I can see that this is bringing out some very
heated emotions.

Also the fact that my eyesight is deteriorating
makes me short-tempered. Still I rely on this
forum so much now because I am restricted to
how far I can travel.

On a positive note - we've found a new doctor.
Our medical practitioner is retiring. He was
absolutely the best. We've found a doctor from
Iran - who appears lovely. So fingers-crossed.
He's got big shoes to fill.

Hi Foxy,

I found this woman so sanctimonious, so full of self-righteousness, but what's infuriating is she thinks she can unload all she likes, with her verbal diarrhoea, but woe be tide should anyone have the audacity to question her. I glared at her while she was pontificating, occasionally she would glance at me, then she would look away, all the while carrying on with her outrageous nonsense.

Indyvidual

Liar Langton cannot refute anything. She was clearly seen and heard, on TV, referring to NO vote voters as racists or stupid.

These people are so used to lying that they lie about their lies.

No. She cannot be allowed to get away with it.

Writer Timothy Cootes reckons history will show that most of the work for the NO case was done by the likes of Langton, Albanese and the YES side, as they embarrassed and discredited themselves.

. Albanese appealed to 'good manners'.
. Thomas Mayo evoked the Communist Party.
. Megan Davis couldn't count the number of pages she helped draft.
. Marcia Langton blabs on TV that NO voters are stupid racists,
then lied about it. She has raved on about "subconscious racism
before the latest outburst.

Then there are the gullible, ideology-crazed puppy dogs in the media, piddling all over the place, and those goofs on social media and OLO.

Starting with Langton the Yes crowd is now resorting to entrapment tactics ! It'll be interesting how Pearson & Mayo et al will attempt this !
Mayo has actually become conspicuous by his absence in the media lately, too much mouthing off with the true agenda I suppose !

ttbn,

I don't believe Marcia Langton would ever accuse you and several other OLO 'NO' proponents of being bigoted racists. Reading yours and the others even handed comments here, and with your track record speaking for itself, how could anyone possibly entertain such a notion, that there are silly racists advocating a 'NO' vote. Such people just don't exist! Agree?

Dear Paul,

I'm sorry that this woman upset you.
As the old adage tells us:

The dogs may bark, but the caravan moves on.

Or as Bruce Robinson stated:

If you're a junkyard dog,
you assume that's what life is -
all chained up, barking all day.

People who have actually read the Uluru Statement from the Heart say that if the document was to be renamed 'The Uluru Manifesto', like the Communist Manifesto of Marx and Engels, it would be quite appropriate because "it is a document declaring a revolutionary political plan of action."

There are fourteen documents totalling 112 pages.

Aboriginal activism had its "genesis" in the Communist Party: revealed in two books, Geoff McDonald’s 'Red over Black' (1982), and 'The Evidence' (1983).

An article, 'The Hidden Documents Behind the Uluru Voice', by Chris Battle and Keith Windschuttle in Quadrant Online 23/9/33 (FREE READ) deals with:-

Chris Battle - Document 14 of 26 pages containing the "the essential bones, muscles, nerves, organs, blood and guts that animate the whole."

Battle believes that Document 14 is essential reading before voting, "particularly when Prime Minister Albanese just waves the page one Statement around …".

The 13 other documents that record the meeting records of the thirteen Regional Dialogues that "dispel any illusions that the Referendum is just about establishing a non-binding advisory body to Parliament concerning proposed laws that might affect Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders, as the Yes campaigners would have us believe."

Keith Windschuttle also reveals information that wasn't meant to be made public, but which was procured via FOI.

It is a long article requiring concentration. I doubt that many posters will take the trouble to read it; but there is information. You just won't get it from Albanese and his gang.

"Farnham Gives You're the Voice song to the Voice to Parliament YES Campaign."

I wonder if that was his idea or if others approached him and pressured him to do it, not that it matters either way.

'Farnam refuses song use. Farnam hates indigenous'
Would headlines to that effect have been posted all over social media if he said no?
He seems like a pretty decent person, but I'm not sure he had much choice once asked, honestly.
But I guess his song will get a new lease on life.

Refusal could well be considered racist, by some.
"Farnam, you side with the racists!"

I bring it up, because it would be just like the Yes campaign to apply pressure the same way they've been doing so to everyone else.

They're quick to try to push their point of view with their own manipulation.
"This is one chance in a generation, it's the right thing to do", they say.
(That's manipulation btw, twice)
- "But don't listen to the No campaign, they sell fear and lies" they also say.

The government Yes campaign engages in the exact same kind of poor coercive behavior they are complaining the other side is supposedly doing.
- But it's no different than the coercive behavior the other government did during COVID.

The whole referendum is a pretty stupid waste of money if you ask me.
They made it too complicated for people to support it, and the message whatever it is has been poorly rolled out
-n but really what more should we ever expect from the incompetent political class.
Just a new breed of snouts wanting to get a share of the trough.

Dear Josephus,

You vomit up: "Foxy adores Marcia Langton for her Communist views to overthrow the Westminster Government [a colonial institution] and replace it with an Unelected Aboriginal Republic."

What is wrong with you people? How do you function normally? I mean you must engage with others in your day to day dealings. Or is this something you reserve for the anonymity of the forum, when you can squeeze your berserk little bile ducts to your heart's content?

What utter nonsense. Most people would be embarrassed thinking this much less writing it. How do you reconcile this internally?

Just so you know from here it just comes off as deranged idiocy. Rethink your life choices for gods sake.

The Institute of Public Affairs has received legal advice that the Voice question could be unconstitutional and misleads the voters, has a serious deficiency and could put the referendum itself in doubt.
https://youtu.be/nrBEQCRRxaQ?si=YGyyjvxrjASEvMsk

A far right mouth piece, The Institute of Public Affairs has received legal advice from one of their own legal eagles that the Voice question could be unconstitutional. The answer is simple, if they believe that, then why not test it in the High Court.

why not test it in the High Court.
Paul1405,
More ignorance involvement is not a solution !

Indy,

As an alien in Australia, you don't have voting rights. BTW, back in the un-named Old County, in between throwing bombs at each other, did you ever vote on anything? Me thinks not. When are you going to name your Old Country, it must be a real shocker, that's why you keep it hidden!

.

The objective of this referendum is to allow our indigenous peoples to have a greater say in the management of their lives with all due respect for the laws and responsibilities of Australian citizenship.

I see no reason why that should be refused to them. Like every other Australian, it seems only justice that they too should have “a fair go”.

Our indigenous peoples were the innocent victims of British colonisation, and we are its beneficiaries – “cui bono”, as Lucius Cassius, reputed to be a wise and honest ancient Roman judge, used to say : "To whom might it be for a benefit ?".

They paid a heavy toll :

• 70% of the Aboriginal population was wiped out by a smallpox epidemic that broke out in the Sydney area in 1789, 15 months after the First Fleet arrived.

• They were chased off their land and parked in Aboriginal reserves, missions, and stations.

• Many were massacred, flogged, raped, and enslaved.

• Children were forcibly removed from their families and fostered out under government assimilation policies.

We are all aware of that, even if we ignore all the gory details. It doesn’t seem to worry us too much. We don’t lose any sleep over it.

According to the latest Real Concerns Index (2022), the three main concerns of Australians were :

1. The rising cost of living – 75.8

2. Cost of energy, food, and fuel – 74.5

3. International relations and global instability – 71.8

According to the latest poll, published by the Sydney Morning Herald :

“The NO vote for the Voice is ahead 56-44 per cent nationally, now leading in every state and territory”.

Perhaps there is a general sentiment of injustice in the favours accorded indigenous people to which all Australians do not have access – a feeling that enough is enough.

It could also reflect the findings of the 2020 study by an ANU researcher that 75% of Australians hold an implicit bias against indigenous peoples, many of whom live in untenable, sordid conditions on the margins of society.

.

75% of Australians hold an implicit bias against indigenous peoples, many of whom live in untenable, sordid conditions on the margins of society.
Banjo Paterson,
Did this ANU researcher give any explanation as to what the reasons are ? It'd be very interesting to read for those non-indigenous who have lived in such communities !

Indyvidual

Whatever you say, you will be insulted and called names by the 3 lunatic Left posters; and some of the just plain wets.

It's not worth it mate. Ignore the buggers. They get only one vote the same as we do, and there are a lot of people like us who have never heard of these rabbits and their rants.

Al-Jazeera again, today reporting that "Corporate Australia fails to sway public as Indigenous Voice faces defeat".

One would certainly hope that sensible, Australian patriots would not be swayed by corporations in cahoots with the Socialist - teetering on Communist - government.

The views of big business in Australia are increasingly an echo of the government of the day.

. 9 out of 10 if the largest public companies are in sectors tightly regulated and heavily policed by the government.

. In Australia, once a business reaches a certain size, success is as much a product of political preferment as it is of expertise or innovation.

. As the reach of government grows chief executives have no alternative but to spend their time dealing not with the people who buy their goods and services but with politicians.

Big Business is probably arrogantly confident that it will have the influence it believes it had on the SSM vote.

We need to remember that corporatism plus government equals Fascism.