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.