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

[Meclazine for Israel]

Oh and another question. Are there also "reserves" in Australia for aboriginal people like there are in Canada and America?

Not anymore. Instead there is Native Title which is... complicated but basically any land that's never been used by the white man can revert to original aboriginal ownership through the courts.

That is incorrect.

There are Aboriginal reserves in Western Australia. I have worked on them.

No alcohol can be consumed by anyone camping on the Reserves, indigenous or otherwise. The communities there are quite tight and don't stop and chat when they go to town for fuel/food etc.

I was not allowed to take any photography of the residents of the Reserve, they believe their soul gets trapped on photographic film.

They have old-school traditions, men's areas and maintain their customs free of the problems plaguing outback WA towns.

Native Title is not complicated. It is simply based on history on the land. I work in Native Title claims in mineral exploration.

Any Aboriginal group (through a Land Council or Aboriginal Corporation) can lay claim on any land where they have heritage and history. The outcomes are made through negotiation based on proven heritage, project land use and entitlements to proceeds/profits.

[oldtimer]

Oh and another question. Are there also "reserves" in Australia for aboriginal people like there are in Canada and America?

Not anymore. Instead there is Native Title which is... complicated but basically any land that's never been used by the white man can revert to original aboriginal ownership through the courts.

That is incorrect.

There are Aboriginal reserves in Western Australia. I have worked on them.

No alcohol can be consumed by anyone camping on the Reserves, indigenous or otherwise. The communities there are quite tight and don't stop and chat when they go to town for fuel/food etc.

I was not allowed to take any photography of the residents of the Reserve, they believe their soul gets trapped on photographic film.

They have old-school traditions, men's areas and maintain their customs free of the problems plaguing outback WA towns.

Native Title is not complicated. It is simply based on history on the land. I work in Native Title claims in mineral exploration.

Any Aboriginal group (through a land council) can lay claim on any land where they have heritage and history. The outcomes are made through negotiation based on proven heritage, project land use and entitlements to proceeds/profits.

What are their beliefs on video ?

[Meclazine for Israel]

It's becoming difficult to find people who like the concept of the Voice to Parliament.

So difficult! Other than the entire Labor party, most crossbenchers, 80-90% of Aboriginals, and ~45% of the general public who even likes the Voice?

Turns out it was difficult. Only 39% of the population voted YES for the Voice, and only half of those liked the the concept. I know YES voters who did not have a clue about the concept.

The concept was, evidently, flawed. This was my initial point.

[Meclazine for Israel]

Oh and another question. Are there also "reserves" in Australia for aboriginal people like there are in Canada and America?

Not anymore. Instead there is Native Title which is... complicated but basically any land that's never been used by the white man can revert to original aboriginal ownership through the courts.

That is incorrect.

There are Aboriginal reserves in Western Australia. I have worked on them.

No alcohol can be consumed by anyone camping on the Reserves, indigenous or otherwise. The communities there are quite tight and don't stop and chat when they go to town for fuel/food etc.

I was not allowed to take any photography of the residents of the Reserve, they believe their soul gets trapped on photographic film.

They have old-school traditions, men's areas and maintain their customs free of the problems plaguing outback WA towns.

Native Title is not complicated. It is simply based on history on the land. I work in Native Title claims in mineral exploration.

Any Aboriginal group (through a land council) can lay claim on any land where they have heritage and history. The outcomes are made through negotiation based on proven heritage, project land use and entitlements to proceeds/profits.

What are their beliefs on video ?

No photography. No video. Video would in fact be more offensive.

It's called "capturing their spirit".

If you photograph or make a video of an Aboriginal person (depending on tribe or group), then when they die, their spirit is trapped. They cannot live in their afterlife freely if imagery of their life is portrayed on TV or in photographs in this World.

This is why ABC starts with a warning for Aboriginal viewers on TV (from the ABC website):

1. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander [viewers, listeners, readers] are advised that the following program may contain images and voices of people who have died.

This warning should be used when it cannot be clearly established that an Indigenous Australian featured in the content is living.

It should also be used when archival material containing names, images, songs, voices or recordings of Indigenous Australians is featured in the content.

2. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander [viewers, listeners, readers] are advised that the following program contains images and voices of people who have died.

This warning should be used when content is known to feature a deceased Indigenous Australian.

The above are ABC’s standard wordings, however there may be occasions where a community will request specific wording or text. ABC remains open to these alternatives if requested.

https://www.abc.net.au/edpols/respecting-indigenous-people-and-culture-in-abc-content/13633944

If an Aboriginal is killed by an Aboriginal tribe for committing a serious crime, they are buried 'wrong'.

Their spirit can never be at peace. The body could be buried upside down or without their head, depending on tradition. Some groups will remove a bad persons feet before burial meaning they cannot walk in the afterlife. Removing their hands means they cannot fight or hunt in the afterlife. There are hundreds of idiosyncrasies within each group depending on location and history.

I have been working on or near Aboriginal Reserves for over 20-25 years in Western Australia. Started in 1996. If you are lucky and they like you, they will take you on "men's activities" (unless you are female) - cool hunting episodes which I went on with them a couple of times with our exploration team as part of 'cultural learnings'. They just like 'good-vibe' people.

They would like OC for example. He has that positive vibe without the ripples. He doesn't offend anyone.

The most fun you will ever have is chasing a lizard or a kangaroo as a pack of humans, it's extraordinary - you need to be able to run fast and have exceptional hand eye co-ordination. It is like hunting with a wolf pack, and really well organised with circling prey etc.

No photography was allowed during my experience. Not every group is the same, but it is a general rule.

[Meclazine for Israel]

Silver Tail Inner City Elites

Left wing virtue signallers who have never gone outback to see Aboriginal culture voting out of guilt living in $4M real estate whilst Aboriginals live in squalor.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-10-14/how-your-electorate-voted-on-the-voice-results/102956942#NSW

This is basically a high-wealth real estate map.

Sydney



Melbourne



Brisbane



Perth

[lfromnj]

Silver Tail Inner City Elites

Left wing virtue signallers who have never gone outback to see Aboriginal culture voting out of guilt living in $4M real estate whilst Aboriginals live in squalor.

Do you have a link?

[Meclazine for Israel]

Silver Tail Inner City Elites

Left wing virtue signallers who have never gone outback to see Aboriginal culture voting out of guilt living in $4M real estate whilst Aboriginals live in squalor.

Do you have a link?

Just added for you.

[PSOL]

Well the ruckus is over, time to move on.

[Death of a Salesman]

At least the benefit of this is confirming again why direct democracy does not work in today's world.

This referendum is a good example of why direct democracy is bad & stupid.

What equality? There is no equality for the indigenous population. They have worse outcomes in everything because of the historic neglect they have lived under since this country began. No one wants to hear about that though, because it might cause us to take a second look at our history and think that we weren't the angels we pretend to be.

To clarify, the position of our resident socialists is that the voters of Australia are too stupid for self-governance, and so we need to hand over more power to Australia's most dysfunctional group? What exactly is the justification there?

[Mike88]

100.00% of polling stations reporting:

60.25% No, 7,833,783 votes
39.75% Yes, 5,167,425

  1.07% Blank/Invalid, 140,145

74.34% Turnout, 13,141,403

(I assume that there may be a few thousands postal votes yet to count.)

[Logical]

Is this the lowest ever turnout in Australia under compulsory voting?

[Epaminondas]

What exactly is the justification there?

Either referenda are used a proper political instrument, used on all topics to foster negociation, tradeoff and engagement (like in Switzerland), or they should not be used at all. The purpose of indirect democracy is to pay specialists full time to know about a topic rather than ask a full time 9 to 6 worker with no free time to inform themselves on legislative minutiae.

Referenda on only for the most emotionally loaded topics, as is done now, only incentivizes negative partisanship, fearmongering and bitterness, by conflating a given issue and current opinion on the sitting government.
They end up harming the greater number to the benefit of a few ruthless elected ghouls, usually in the name of "conservatism".

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Reminds me of the media meltdown here in the UK after the EU referendum.

And that vote was also definitely worth it, wasn't it. No Leave voter has ever regretted their vote since.
It'll be the same here, indigenous people deserve special recognition.

At least the benefit of this is confirming again why direct democracy does not work in today's world.
Leave decisions to the pros, not the scared sheep unable to cope with the cognitive dissonance of having had bloodthirsty, looting ancestors in the past.

It would be inaccurate to describe early settlers as bloodthirsty-there were attempts made to rwach out peacefully before things went downhill. Hell, we only acknowledged indigenous people as people in 1967.

However, I do agree that Australian people have a great sensitivity about their history; even more than Americans. If you dare try to suggest that we committed major crimes against Indigenous people, then Sky and their drones like Shaula and Meclazine will put out a fatwa on you.

Even a lot of American conservatives will basically agree with the premise that the United States government committed terrible crimes against Native Americans. Why do Australia and Canada seem to have so much more anti-indigenous racism?

[Dan the Roman]

What exactly is the justification there?

Either referenda are used a proper political instrument, used on all topics to foster negociation, tradeoff and engagement (like in Switzerland), or they should not be used at all. The purpose of indirect democracy is to pay specialists full time to know about a topic rather than ask a full time 9 to 6 worker with no free time to inform themselves on legislative minutiae.

Referenda on only for the most emotionally loaded topics, as is done now, only incentivizes negative partisanship, fearmongering and bitterness, by conflating a given issue and current opinion on the sitting government.
They end up harming the greater number to the benefit of a few ruthless elected ghouls, usually in the name of "conservatism".

Constitutions or laws are merely scraps of  paper without the buyin and understanding of the electorate. The France had the most elaborate Constitutions imaginable during the 1790s and Latin American states works of art. But They were unworkable because experts are the worst people to write laws and policy imaginable. The US Constitution only worked because it was so short and simple.

The more elitist ideas that snuck(Prohibition the closest to a for your own good) didn't work.

If you want elite led governance then you need elite institutions to coerce elected ones. That leaves you at risk if you have ANY intraelite disagreements of losing control. See the United States Supreme Court.

Anyway the attitude towards conservatism is inherently anti-democratic and human as conservatism is the natural state of the vast majority of humanity on the vast majority of issues. Most humans are conservative except on one or two specific issues. People who genuinely support change for its own sake, or who lack am ingrained attachment to the status quo that is merely overridden by overwhelming circumstance are fringe for a reason.

Re the Voice it losing this badly is a sign it was a bad idea. Not in abstract but if that many people opposed it, then it would have been at odds with the elected government charged with implementing it

[Logical]

Reminds me of the media meltdown here in the UK after the EU referendum.

And that vote was also definitely worth it, wasn't it. No Leave voter has ever regretted their vote since.
It'll be the same here, indigenous people deserve special recognition.

At least the benefit of this is confirming again why direct democracy does not work in today's world.
Leave decisions to the pros, not the scared sheep unable to cope with the cognitive dissonance of having had bloodthirsty, looting ancestors in the past.

It would be inaccurate to describe early settlers as bloodthirsty-there were attempts made to rwach out peacefully before things went downhill. Hell, we only acknowledged indigenous people as people in 1967.

However, I do agree that Australian people have a great sensitivity about their history; even more than Americans. If you dare try to suggest that we committed major crimes against Indigenous people, then Sky and their drones like Shaula and Meclazine will put out a fatwa on you.

Even a lot of American conservatives will basically agree with the premise that the United States government committed terrible crimes against Native Americans. Why do Australia and Canada seem to have so much more anti-indigenous racism?

Two main reasons I think, long history of coexistence and romanticisation of Native American lives. The Australian frontier wars were in contrast extremely brutal wars of extermination, where Indigenous Australians are seen as pests to be eradicated.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Good lord, the Voice lost by near-double digits in Victoria.

[Aurelius2]

We're nearly there.  I'm predicting a national vote around 41-59 (with a little room for margin of error, of course).
NSW, Vic, SA, QLD, WA - No
ACT - Yes
Northern Territory & Tasmania - No idea!

You may now collect your accolades.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

In all fairness to Australia, I'm not sure a similar referendum would pass in the United States.

[GoTfan]

At least the benefit of this is confirming again why direct democracy does not work in today's world.

This referendum is a good example of why direct democracy is bad & stupid.

What equality? There is no equality for the indigenous population. They have worse outcomes in everything because of the historic neglect they have lived under since this country began. No one wants to hear about that though, because it might cause us to take a second look at our history and think that we weren't the angels we pretend to be.

To clarify, the position of our resident socialists is that the voters of Australia are too stupid for self-governance, and so we need to hand over more power to Australia's most dysfunctional group? What exactly is the justification there?

I never said that, so don't pretend I did, thank you very much.

Also, Meclazine continuing his belief that "Anyone who doesn't say exactly what I say=left wing" by claiming the Teals are left wing. They are not. They are centrist.

Certainly does show how far off to one side he is, I'll say that much.

It's becoming difficult to find people who like the concept of the Voice to Parliament.

So difficult! Other than the entire Labor party, most crossbenchers, 80-90% of Aboriginals, and ~45% of the general public who even likes the Voice?

Turns out it was difficult. Only 39% of the population voted YES for the Voice, and only half of those liked the the concept. I know YES voters who did not have a clue about the concept.

The concept was, evidently, flawed. This was my initial point.

Not really. There is only one side that told Indigenous people that they don't deserve a voice and that they should just shut up and be grateful for what they get. It's fine to disagree, but continuing to claim that there was no information is intellectually lazy.

At least I can now guess with some certainty how you would have voted in 1967.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

In all fairness to Australia, I'm not sure a similar referendum would pass in the United States.

It definitely wouldn't. Australian legal norms (as they are now) over title etc. would also be fiercely resisted.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

In all fairness to Australia, I'm not sure a similar referendum would pass in the United States.

It definitely wouldn't. Australian legal norms (as they are now) over title etc. would also be fiercely resisted.

They absolutely would.

[SnowLabrador]

In all fairness to Australia, I'm not sure a similar referendum would pass in the United States.

It would fail by a much wider margin.

[It's Perro Sanxe wot won it]

I suppose a side effect of this defeat might be no referendum on the monarchy being held for another decade (or even longer). At least Albanese will have little appetite to risk another failed constitutional reform attempt during his premiership.

[Kahane's Grave Is A Gender-Neutral Bathroom]

In all fairness to Australia, I'm not sure a similar referendum would pass in the United States.

It would fail by a much wider margin.

Australia's record on indigenous people is far worse than America's.

[ηєω ƒяσηтιєя]

If this referendum and results happened in the US, many Australians would be calling Americans "racist".

That's all I have to say (I'm not speaking on my opinion of the referendum).