🇦🇺 Australian Indigenous Voice to Parliament Referendum (October 14th)

[GoTfan]

And meanwhile, the No side's slogan "Don't know, vote no" is a typical right-wing appeal to ignorance.

I'm not Australian, of course, but it seems to me that it's intended to point out the extreme vagueness of the referendum question.

The only people still confused about it likely are too lazy to actually read it and simply swallow whatever bile Credlin decides to spew up. We're literally selling copies of it in the bookstore I work for less than $3. Sorry, but if you're too lazy to find out-and simply decide to tune out whenever someone tries to tell you what it is-then you're stuck in a bubble.

[TheTide]

And meanwhile, the No side's slogan "Don't know, vote no" is a typical right-wing appeal to ignorance.

I'm not Australian, of course, but it seems to me that it's intended to point out the extreme vagueness of the referendum question.

The only people still confused about it likely are too lazy to actually read it and simply swallow whatever bile Credlin decides to spew up. We're literally selling copies of it in the bookstore I work for less than $3. Sorry, but if you're too lazy to find out-and simply decide to tune out whenever someone tries to tell you what it is-then you're stuck in a bubble.

Copies of what?

[GoTfan]

And meanwhile, the No side's slogan "Don't know, vote no" is a typical right-wing appeal to ignorance.

I'm not Australian, of course, but it seems to me that it's intended to point out the extreme vagueness of the referendum question.

The only people still confused about it likely are too lazy to actually read it and simply swallow whatever bile Credlin decides to spew up. We're literally selling copies of it in the bookstore I work for less than $3. Sorry, but if you're too lazy to find out-and simply decide to tune out whenever someone tries to tell you what it is-then you're stuck in a bubble.

Copies of what?

The Uluru Statement from the Heart.

[Ebowed]

The only people still confused about it likely are too lazy to actually read it and simply swallow whatever bile Credlin decides to spew up.

I think you vastly, vastly overestimate the influence that Peta Credlin has.

[Хahar 🤔]

And meanwhile, the No side's slogan "Don't know, vote no" is a typical right-wing appeal to ignorance.

I'm not Australian, of course, but it seems to me that it's intended to point out the extreme vagueness of the referendum question.

The only people still confused about it likely are too lazy to actually read it and simply swallow whatever bile Credlin decides to spew up. We're literally selling copies of it in the bookstore I work for less than $3. Sorry, but if you're too lazy to find out-and simply decide to tune out whenever someone tries to tell you what it is-then you're stuck in a bubble.

Copies of what?

The Uluru Statement from the Heart.

Neither the referendum question nor the actual amendment to be voted on mention the Uluru Statement from the Heart, so I'm not sure why that would be relevant here.

[Meclazine for Israel]

The trend for the YES campaign according to 9 News is falling lower.

VOICE Support Falls

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOjodOMdLqY

[Meclazine for Israel]

MC Hammer likes YES.

US rapper throws his weight behind the YES campaign.

https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/australia-its-time-mc-hammer-weighs-in-on-the-voice-to-parliament/b3oh62txg

Kamahl votes NO, then YES, then NO.

Famous Tamil singer discussed his ideas about the Aboriginal VOICE.

Kamahl On The Voice

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FSkWZB__0I

[GoTfan]

And meanwhile, the No side's slogan "Don't know, vote no" is a typical right-wing appeal to ignorance.

I'm not Australian, of course, but it seems to me that it's intended to point out the extreme vagueness of the referendum question.

The only people still confused about it likely are too lazy to actually read it and simply swallow whatever bile Credlin decides to spew up. We're literally selling copies of it in the bookstore I work for less than $3. Sorry, but if you're too lazy to find out-and simply decide to tune out whenever someone tries to tell you what it is-then you're stuck in a bubble.

Copies of what?

The Uluru Statement from the Heart.

Neither the referendum question nor the actual amendment to be voted on mention the Uluru Statement from the Heart, so I'm not sure why that would be relevant here.

The Voice was born out of the Uluru Statement.

[Meclazine for Israel]

Avi Yemeni, right wing Israeli reporter from Melbourne interviews Australian's about the Voice Referendum.

People Respond In Melbourne

https://fb.watch/njOxbq8OzX/

SBS the Feed

https://www.instagram.com/reel/CxpjBHAy8P-/

I think the common theme is people not having enough information about the VOICE to make a decision.

It appears vague at this stage.

[Хahar 🤔]

And meanwhile, the No side's slogan "Don't know, vote no" is a typical right-wing appeal to ignorance.

I'm not Australian, of course, but it seems to me that it's intended to point out the extreme vagueness of the referendum question.

The only people still confused about it likely are too lazy to actually read it and simply swallow whatever bile Credlin decides to spew up. We're literally selling copies of it in the bookstore I work for less than $3. Sorry, but if you're too lazy to find out-and simply decide to tune out whenever someone tries to tell you what it is-then you're stuck in a bubble.

Copies of what?

The Uluru Statement from the Heart.

Neither the referendum question nor the actual amendment to be voted on mention the Uluru Statement from the Heart, so I'm not sure why that would be relevant here.

The Voice was born out of the Uluru Statement.

That doesn't at all address what I said. One can understand why the political strategy here was to leave details deliberately vague, since it was the details that killed the republic referendum, but it is just a political strategy. Claiming that any questioning of that strategy constitutes an illegitimate "appeal to ignorance" and that this is what the racists want you to do is...actually pretty instructive as to why the campaign has gone the way it has.

[Meclazine for Israel]

The use of the word 'racism' has enter the vocabulary of the lefty ABC journalists.

They just love saying it.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-09-28/voice-to-parliament-yes-no-result/102907302

The whole idea of the VOICE now appears to be a $450M waste of tax payer funds.

But ...'racism'.

That is all we got for $450M.

[Aurelius2]

Maybe I've been focusing overly much on the disastrous 'heritage' bill that got passed, and then quickly repealed, in Western Australia. Regardless, it seems like something that would have a pretty pivotal impact on this campaign. My understanding is that this bill was drafted based on extensive consultation with Aboriginal groups, and once passed it turned out that under the new rules people would have to pay thousands of dollars to fancy consultants to get the all-clear to even do things as simple as put up a fence or dig a hole.

The proponents of the Voice, from what I have seen, have been hammering hard on the fact that the proposed body would be a nonbinding consultative entity (let's ignore for the sake of argument that there is precedent for such nonbinding entities gaining significant powers over the years - look at the Waitangi Tribunal in NZ). The fact that the most thorough attempt at such legislative consultation that I am aware of was such a disaster would seem to indicate that the Voice is a disaster waiting to happen. Has the No campaign made this a major issue, and has the Yes campaign done anything to refute this argument or distance themselves from the WA law?

[AustralianSwingVoter]

The WA heritage law helped turn WA very hard No early in the campaign, but it never became national news. WA is just so far away their local political stories rarely break the national consciousness.

[Meclazine for Israel]

ABC Journalists' Imagination

https://www.instagram.com/reel/Cxjx-HysMJu/

[Meclazine for Israel]

Maybe I've been focusing overly much on the disastrous 'heritage' bill that got passed, and then quickly repealed, in Western Australia. Regardless, it seems like something that would have a pretty pivotal impact on this campaign. My understanding is that this bill was drafted based on extensive consultation with Aboriginal groups, and once passed it turned out that under the new rules people would have to pay thousands of dollars to fancy consultants to get the all-clear to even do things as simple as put up a fence or dig a hole.

The proponents of the Voice, from what I have seen, have been hammering hard on the fact that the proposed body would be a nonbinding consultative entity (let's ignore for the sake of argument that there is precedent for such nonbinding entities gaining significant powers over the years - look at the Waitangi Tribunal in NZ). The fact that the most thorough attempt at such legislative consultation that I am aware of was such a disaster would seem to indicate that the Voice is a disaster waiting to happen. Has the No campaign made this a major issue, and has the Yes campaign done anything to refute this argument or distance themselves from the WA law?

You are nearly there.

Based on the WA situation, a local council wanted to plant $4,000 worth of seedlings near the Swan river in areas designed to prevent erosion.

The Aboriginal Land Council asked for a $2.5 million dollar payment to approve the planting of these $4,000 of trees.

The VOICE will become just another bureaucratic layer costing hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not millions, and causing red tape and confusion for land development including mining, exploration, farming and property development.

The VOICE should have been introduced through normal legislation to see if it functions properly first.

Clearly in the case of WA, the legislation was a complete disaster and Aboriginal Land groups used it to hold councils to ransom.

It was literally the first thing they did.

Cash, No Cash.......Here, No Cash......Cash, No

https://youtu.be/J964uJZgOWI

[warandwar]

Maybe I've been focusing overly much on the disastrous 'heritage' bill that got passed, and then quickly repealed, in Western Australia. Regardless, it seems like something that would have a pretty pivotal impact on this campaign. My understanding is that this bill was drafted based on extensive consultation with Aboriginal groups, and once passed it turned out that under the new rules people would have to pay thousands of dollars to fancy consultants to get the all-clear to even do things as simple as put up a fence or dig a hole.

The proponents of the Voice, from what I have seen, have been hammering hard on the fact that the proposed body would be a nonbinding consultative entity (let's ignore for the sake of argument that there is precedent for such nonbinding entities gaining significant powers over the years - look at the Waitangi Tribunal in NZ). The fact that the most thorough attempt at such legislative consultation that I am aware of was such a disaster would seem to indicate that the Voice is a disaster waiting to happen. Has the No campaign made this a major issue, and has the Yes campaign done anything to refute this argument or distance themselves from the WA law?

You are nearly there.

Based on the WA situation, a local council wanted to plant $4,000 worth of seedlings near the Swan river in areas designed to prevent erosion.

The Aboriginal Land Council asked for a $2.5 million dollar payment to approve the planting of these $4,000 of trees.

The VOICE will become just another bureaucratic layer costing hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not millions, and causing red tape and confusion for land development including mining, exploration, farming and property development.

The VOICE should have been introduced through normal legislation to see if it functions properly first.

Clearly in the case of WA, the legislation was a complete disaster and Aboriginal Land groups used it to hold councils to ransom.

It was literally the first thing they did.

Cash, No Cash.......Here, No Cash......Cash, No

https://youtu.be/J964uJZgOWI

How much money and bureaucracy was spent when the property owners of Uluru wanted to make a simple alteration to footpaths on their property?

[GoTfan]

And meanwhile, the No side's slogan "Don't know, vote no" is a typical right-wing appeal to ignorance.

I'm not Australian, of course, but it seems to me that it's intended to point out the extreme vagueness of the referendum question.

The only people still confused about it likely are too lazy to actually read it and simply swallow whatever bile Credlin decides to spew up. We're literally selling copies of it in the bookstore I work for less than $3. Sorry, but if you're too lazy to find out-and simply decide to tune out whenever someone tries to tell you what it is-then you're stuck in a bubble.

Copies of what?

The Uluru Statement from the Heart.

Neither the referendum question nor the actual amendment to be voted on mention the Uluru Statement from the Heart, so I'm not sure why that would be relevant here.

The Voice was born out of the Uluru Statement.

That doesn't at all address what I said. One can understand why the political strategy here was to leave details deliberately vague, since it was the details that killed the republic referendum, but it is just a political strategy. Claiming that any questioning of that strategy constitutes an illegitimate "appeal to ignorance" and that this is what the racists want you to do is...actually pretty instructive as to why the campaign has gone the way it has.

The details are not vague; that's a lie the media's been pushing because they want people to stay lazy. It's literally written out that the Voice will be an advisory body for Indigenous affairs and will have no policymaking power.

It is an appeal to ignorance, and if you think it's not, then you're not much better than Meclazine is, quite frankly.

[GoTfan]

The use of the word 'racism' has enter the vocabulary of the lefty ABC journalists.

They just love saying it.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-09-28/voice-to-parliament-yes-no-result/102907302

The whole idea of the VOICE now appears to be a $450M waste of tax payer funds.

But ...'racism'.

That is all we got for $450M.

Hey, idiot, the ABC is not 'lefty' despite what you think. Quite the opposite actually. Then again, you're also someone who believes that Dutton would not repeal it if it were introduced by legislation, so congrats! You're the exact sort of idiot NewsCorp loves.

[Meclazine for Israel]

Pundits from both sides of the Voice debate campaigned in Canberra this weekend.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-09-30/canberra-voice-no-campaigners-rally-ahead-of-election/102920672


Black People's Union (BPU) vice president Leah House describes her position as a progressive No.(ABC News: Jade Toomey)

NO campaigners were pushing back against the "fun feeling of unity".

"Grassroots organisation Black People's Union (BPU) identifies as a "progressive No" movement that opposes the premise of the referendum to enshrine a First Nations voice in the Constitution.

"I don't believe that 97 per cent of the population that's non-Indigenous should be deciding what 3 per cent of the population's political role, as a sovereign people, should be and what our relationship should be with our oppressors," BPU Vice President Leah House said.

The Ngambri woman, 30, said "it would be "ignorant" for people to assume the referendum would solve systemic Indigenous disadvantage."

Canberra residents have no vote in the second half of the referendum as they don't live in a State of Australia, but rather a Territory.

[GoTfan]

Pundits from both sides of the Voice debate campaigned in Canberra this weekend.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-09-30/canberra-voice-no-campaigners-rally-ahead-of-election/102920672


Black People's Union (BPU) vice president Leah House describes her position as a progressive No.(ABC News: Jade Toomey)

NO campaigners were pushing back against the "fun feeling of unity".

"Grassroots organisation Black People's Union (BPU) identifies as a "progressive No" movement that opposes the premise of the referendum to enshrine a First Nations voice in the Constitution.

"I don't believe that 97 per cent of the population that's non-Indigenous should be deciding what 3 per cent of the population's political role, as a sovereign people, should be and what our relationship should be with our oppressors," BPU Vice President Leah House said.

The Ngambri woman, 30, said "it would be "ignorant" for people to assume the referendum would solve systemic Indigenous disadvantage."

Canberra residents have no vote in the second half of the referendum as they don't live in a State of Australia, but rather a Territory.

Territory voters should have a say in every part of the referendum. As it is, their Senators are limited to three years only, which is just dumb.

[Peeperkorn]

"I don't believe that 97 per cent of the population that's non-Indigenous should be deciding what 3 per cent of the population's political role, as a sovereign people, should be and what our relationship should be with our oppressors," BPU Vice President Leah House said.

lmao

[Filuwaúrdjan]

So, a serious question. How is the issue playing amongst non-Aboriginal minorities? Because they're a pretty sizeable share of the population in some states now, and the history doesn't mean as much to them.

[Intell]

So, a serious question. How is the issue playing amongst non-Aboriginal minorities? Because they're a pretty sizeable share of the population in some states now, and the history doesn't mean as much to them.

Polls show they support it, and I think the younger nature of immigrant vote will mean they lean more in favour. But considering the referendum is failing 65-35, they probably still vote against in but by less, than white Australians.

From personal experience, there are people who support 'yes' and people who are completely apathetic/think it's useless in a COL crisis and those people would probably not vote/don't want to vote, but because the referendum is mandatory, they'll probably turn up to vote no.

[Intell]

Extending upon the previous point, I think mandatory voting doomed this to fail because everyone who is apathetic on the referendum who would otherwise not vote, is voting no.

[Meclazine for Israel]

ABC Q&A - 2 Oct 2023

Malarndirri McCarthy pleading with Australian's to vote YES. She was very disappointed that some of her colleagues, including Wesley Aird are going to vote NO.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-10-03/malarndirri-mccarthy-voice-yes-plea-disadvantage-fears/102926678

Indigenous man and Director of the Centre for Indigenous Training, Wesley Aird, said the Voice would simply enshrine Indigenous disadvantage into the Australian Constitution.

"What the Voice is going to do is lock disadvantage into the constitution in perpetuity," Mr Aird said.

Malarndirri McCarthy went on to say that the 2007 intervention by Prime Minister John Howard was the low point of her political life.

In 2006-07, Government research discovered the abundance of alcohol, drug abuse and child sexual assault at high levels in remote Aboriginal communities. The evidence included sexual transmitted diseases in 3-4 year old children.
 
Australia was appalled. Similar to gun control following the Port Arthur massacre, Prime Minister John Howard reacted swiftly with an intervention.

Amongst a range of measures, the Federal Government banned alcohol and pornography in remote communities.


No Porn, No Booze

"John Howard as prime minister intervened so dramatically into the Northern Territory in 2007, people have forever remained traumatised by that piece of legislation," she said.

I hope Malarndirri is not saying the lack of pornography, drugs and alcohol had caused trauma to her community.

Malarndirri has literally had 16 years to do something about it, and, low and behold, all three issues have only surged to extreme levels in remote Aboriginal communities, both in Northern Territory and northern Western Australia.

https://thewest.com.au/news/wa/wa-violence-video-aims-to-shock-pm-ng-b88561650z

Malarndirri is trying to sell the story that the Voice will change these endemic social issues.