Tucker
Well-known member
80%?
Referendum 2023
- Thread starter Tucker
- Start date
- Status
Enmore_Tiger
Well-known member
Fair question, that is what is commonly quoted and I haven't seen anything else. Do you have a source with a more accurate number (genuinely interested)?
Tucker
Well-known member
It is stupid to bring up racism as the deciding factor when it is prevalent on both sides.
There is far more to the debate and thankfully most are sensible enough to debate real issues.
Kaito
Well-known member
Karvelas summarizes some points made here
pretty well I think. Particularly towards the end
pretty well I think. Particularly towards the end
Tucker
Well-known member
I don’t, but I will look for one as that sounds high based solely on interactions I’ve had.
Kaito
Well-known member
Experts spoken to by Fact Check pointed to two polls, conducted by Ipsos (in January) and YouGov (in March), which found support for the Voice among First Nations Australians was 80 per cent (margin of error +/- 7.3 per cent) and 83 per cent (+/- 2.3 per cent) respectively. Source found here:
Can't have a proper conversation with you if
You're not willing to concede that racism,
both historical & to a lesser degree in the
present has contributed to the plight of 1st
nations people, and that a number of no
voters (not yes voters) are inclined to vote
no based on their prejudices towards 1st
nation people. If you look back at my posts
I never inferred that it was a deciding factor
In the voice, and I've even condemned the
far-left for calling no voters racist wontonly.
Edit:
I agree that there is far more to the debate...
I'm happy to leave it there and move on too.
We've found middle ground on several other
issues, there's no point getting hung up on
this one. I've enjoyed your posts 4 the most
part and have nothing against you personally
Last edited:
earl
Well-known member
I did. I find stuff like this weirder than weird. I'm not being tricked. I don't care about some different version of the constitution and corporations in relation to Indigenous people in the context of what she is stating.
I suggest opinions like this don't help anyone at all. I also think it's the same argument Anthony Mundine makes which to me is a fantastic reason to take the opposite approach.
I'm glad you're not being tricked Earl. But then, if you were, you wouldn't know would you?
Each to their own. I thought this may help some on here who haven't heard from any Indigenous folk other than sports stars and entertainers.
This is an Inner city Activist led Referendum.
Isn't giving one set of people more than others because of what they lineage could possibly be Racist?
Can we at least check that these people claiming to be aboriginal are actually as such.
Isn't giving one set of people more than others because of what they lineage could possibly be Racist?
Can we at least check that these people claiming to be aboriginal are actually as such.
Mistymuzzle
Well-known member
There is actually a three part test that officially determines this.
TigerNeddyK
Well-known member
Dutton is perhaps the most vile, arrogant and despicable person to ever enter the Australian political arena. The no “campaign “ is entirely funded and supported as an extension of the LNPs mo of just saying no to anything that the ALP attempts to do in order to improve the lives of the Australian population.. YES …
TillLindemann
Well-known member
it can't be a very good one, given the proliferation of snow whites self-identifying as indigenous, including some of the loudest activists. It's the racial equivalent of transexuals. Bruce Pascoe for example quite likely has no Aboriginal ancestry at all.
Mistymuzzle
Well-known member
Im really nervous to post this but I think it is pertinent to the discussion and it does relate to some of my personal misgivings relating to the Voice being enshrined in the Constitution.
There is an interesting story today in the SMH relating to a very disadvantaged aboriginal man, William Bugmy who in 2011 attacked a prison guard when he was 29, permanently blinding him in one eye. Coming out of this case the prosecution appealed that his sentence was too light and the judge had taken too much consideration of the horribly disadvantaged upbringing that he had had (DV, addiction etc) and that consideration of this disadvantage fades over time. Bugmy took the case to the High Court and the high Court found that consideration of this disadvantage does not fade over time and this is now known as "Bugmy" considerations in most cases today.
12 years later, Bugmy has again been charged with murder. It is a very tragic story of a person with a horrific background that has obviously damaged him and resulted in a horrible wasted life but that has also damaged other peoples lives and alleged ended another. FWIW I agree with the High Court ruling that this disadvantage should be taken into consideration and that it wouldnt fade over time.
That is a horrible story,. but not the part that pertains to The Voice Referendum is the last couple of paragraphs in which the indigenous lawyer that led Bugmy's High Court case tells the ABC....
But Bellear, writing for the ABC in 2013, said the High Court decision was not a victory for Aboriginal Australians.
“The High Court ruling I’ll embrace is the one which finds that no Australian court has the right to sit in judgment of my people,” he said.
“And that’s fundamentally what this should be all about – sovereignty. The right of Aboriginal people to control Aboriginal lives.” Bellear said.
For me, the fact that The Voice is enshrined in our Constitution is so incredibly dangerous and IMO almost certainly divisive and again IMO will irreparably damage relations between indigenous and non indigenous Australians. The Yes counter will be "but The Voice has no power and is only an advisory body...." which is certainly true at inception, but what do you think is going to happen when an advisory board that is enshrined in the Constitution and was democratically voted in by the Australian people in a Referendum goes to the Parliament and says "What is good for aboriginal people is sovereignty/reparations?". How does Government counter that? How does Government counter that if opposition use it as a political tool (which will happen 100%). The answer is it will become a Federal Election issue which will tear this nation apart.
I totally understand people wanting to vote yes. Personally Im in favour of almost everything about the idea except the enshrining in the Constitution. I dont think many people dont want to help indigenous Australians but anyone who is thinking that this will just be an advisory body who will ask for help with education and health care are IMO naive. There is a massive activist industry and the entry bar to take cases to the High Court is extremely low.
www.smh.com.au
There is an interesting story today in the SMH relating to a very disadvantaged aboriginal man, William Bugmy who in 2011 attacked a prison guard when he was 29, permanently blinding him in one eye. Coming out of this case the prosecution appealed that his sentence was too light and the judge had taken too much consideration of the horribly disadvantaged upbringing that he had had (DV, addiction etc) and that consideration of this disadvantage fades over time. Bugmy took the case to the High Court and the high Court found that consideration of this disadvantage does not fade over time and this is now known as "Bugmy" considerations in most cases today.
12 years later, Bugmy has again been charged with murder. It is a very tragic story of a person with a horrific background that has obviously damaged him and resulted in a horrible wasted life but that has also damaged other peoples lives and alleged ended another. FWIW I agree with the High Court ruling that this disadvantage should be taken into consideration and that it wouldnt fade over time.
That is a horrible story,. but not the part that pertains to The Voice Referendum is the last couple of paragraphs in which the indigenous lawyer that led Bugmy's High Court case tells the ABC....
But Bellear, writing for the ABC in 2013, said the High Court decision was not a victory for Aboriginal Australians.
“The High Court ruling I’ll embrace is the one which finds that no Australian court has the right to sit in judgment of my people,” he said.
“And that’s fundamentally what this should be all about – sovereignty. The right of Aboriginal people to control Aboriginal lives.” Bellear said.
For me, the fact that The Voice is enshrined in our Constitution is so incredibly dangerous and IMO almost certainly divisive and again IMO will irreparably damage relations between indigenous and non indigenous Australians. The Yes counter will be "but The Voice has no power and is only an advisory body...." which is certainly true at inception, but what do you think is going to happen when an advisory board that is enshrined in the Constitution and was democratically voted in by the Australian people in a Referendum goes to the Parliament and says "What is good for aboriginal people is sovereignty/reparations?". How does Government counter that? How does Government counter that if opposition use it as a political tool (which will happen 100%). The answer is it will become a Federal Election issue which will tear this nation apart.
I totally understand people wanting to vote yes. Personally Im in favour of almost everything about the idea except the enshrining in the Constitution. I dont think many people dont want to help indigenous Australians but anyone who is thinking that this will just be an advisory body who will ask for help with education and health care are IMO naive. There is a massive activist industry and the entry bar to take cases to the High Court is extremely low.
His childhood transformed the NSW justice system. Now William is a man accused of murder
William Bugmy’s High Court case has shaped justice for the most vulnerable and deprived in NSW. A decade on he has been charged with a murder in Sydney’s inner west.
Mistymuzzle
Well-known member
Mate I personally know a girl who got into a very high ATAR Uni course based on her "aboriginality" that doesnt exist. Im sure others would as well. mind you I think the Aboriginal & Torres Strait islander discount for Uni acceptance is a fantastic idea and exactly the kind of initiative that will genuinely assist indigenous people.
Last edited:
hammertime
Well-known member
Incredibly articulate and well summed up Lauren.
hammertime
Well-known member
Yep, 100% Kaito. There will certainly be a contingent that is that way. A lot of the older generation for sure.
The challenge is getting the ultra-left to stop using it as an attack and label and trying to understand why people might feel that way. They're supposed to be altruistic and caring, but instead, they discriminate and label people whom they disagree with.
It sets us back massively
Tucker
Well-known member
Good points and well said.Im really nervous to post this but I think it is pertinent to the discussion and it does relate to some of my personal misgivings relating to the Voice being enshrined in the Constitution.
There is an interesting story today in the SMH relating to a very disadvantaged aboriginal man, William Bugmy who in 2011 attacked a prison guard when he was 29, permanently blinding him in one eye. Coming out of this case the prosecution appealed that his sentence was too light and the judge had taken too much consideration of the horribly disadvantaged upbringing that he had had (DV, addiction etc) and that consideration of this disadvantage fades over time. Bugmy took the case to the High Court and the high Court found that consideration of this disadvantage does not fade over time and this is now known as "Bugmy" considerations in most cases today.
12 years later, Bugmy has again been charged with murder. It is a very tragic story of a person with a horrific background that has obviously damaged him and resulted in a horrible wasted life but that has also damaged other peoples lives and alleged ended another. FWIW I agree with the High Court ruling that this disadvantage should be taken into consideration and that it wouldnt fade over time.
That is a horrible story,. but not the part that pertains to The Voice Referendum is the last couple of paragraphs in which the indigenous lawyer that led Bugmy's High Court case tells the ABC....
But Bellear, writing for the ABC in 2013, said the High Court decision was not a victory for Aboriginal Australians.
“The High Court ruling I’ll embrace is the one which finds that no Australian court has the right to sit in judgment of my people,” he said.
“And that’s fundamentally what this should be all about – sovereignty. The right of Aboriginal people to control Aboriginal lives.” Bellear said.
For me, the fact that The Voice is enshrined in our Constitution is so incredibly dangerous and IMO almost certainly divisive and again IMO will irreparably damage relations between indigenous and non indigenous Australians. The Yes counter will be "but The Voice has no power and is only an advisory body...." which is certainly true at inception, but what do you think is going to happen when an advisory board that is enshrined in the Constitution and was democratically voted in by the Australian people in a Referendum goes to the Parliament and says "What is good for aboriginal people is sovereignty/reparations?". How does Government counter that? How does Government counter that if opposition use it as a political tool (which will happen 100%). The answer is it will become a Federal Election issue which will tear this nation apart.
I totally understand people wanting to vote yes. Personally Im in favour of almost everything about the idea except the enshrining in the Constitution. I dont think many people dont want to help indigenous Australians but anyone who is thinking that this will just be an advisory body who will ask for help with education and health care are IMO naive. There is a massive activist industry and the entry bar to take cases to the High Court is extremely low.
His childhood transformed the NSW justice system. Now William is a man accused of murder
William Bugmy’s High Court case has shaped justice for the most vulnerable and deprived in NSW. A decade on he has been charged with a murder in Sydney’s inner west.
Tucker
Well-known member
It’s not that conclusive and fraudsters have been doing it for years.
1. You have to show ancestory descent. If you can find any gaps in your heritage you can fill it with Aboriginality and it’s extremely unlikely anyone will call you on it.
2. You have to identify as indigenous. If someone is faking it, they have probably been doing this for years already.
3. You have to be accepted by an Aboriginal community within which you live now or previously. If you have already decided to fake it, you have likely satisfied point 2 whilst ingratiating yourself in a local community and getting your story straight for point 1.
That’s it. What you look like and how you live your life are not taken into consideration. Satisfy those 3 points, get a letter of confirmation from a land council or incorporated organisation. and you are in.
Used to see the AHO rorted a bit as only one household member had to go through the process.
Enmore_Tiger
Well-known member
I've read a little about the history of Black Intergrationism v Black Nationalism in America. Martin Luther King was an Intergrationist and Malcome X a Nationalist for example.
The argument in this video appears to be that the Voice model is too Intergrationist in that it cedes Aboriginal sovereignty to the Federal Parliament. That's why Black Nationalists like Lidia Thorpe are against it.
Given the argument presented in the video is that the Voice model submits Aboriginal Australia to the Parliament, you might think more people might support it on that basis.
I note the previous post of a story how an Indiginoues person refused to recognise a Court on the basis of sovereignty, possibly the Voice would solve that issue based on the argument presented in the video.
(I'm not claiming any expertise here, just my quick thoughts in response to the video posted.)
- Status
Staff online
-
DempsModerator
Members online
- stephen
- Savvy
- Jolls
- Wiz
- Ecto-1
- Tigerwould
- Westoz
- AusTigers
- Tired Tiger
- Concords home
- Tigermars
- supercoach
- Antman
- coivtny
- hodgo
- steve2422
- Fish88
- boonboon
- mickkoso
- MightyTigerPies
- Sambo
- hsvjones
- Roar_Power
- Westie
- TigezTime
- AnonTiger
- Milky
- Tigers_Wests
- Roar-y
- Demps
- Tiger_Pete
- Viking Warrior
- NT_Tiger
- Telltails
- poopy_diaper
- Tiger4life43
- Year_of_the_Tiger
- markman
- TigerNeddyK
- Lestronge
- GCfan
- Raybannedman
- Jimmy Jazz
- CWWTF
- Rusty
- 88
- Coast_Tiger
- jmello
- KH1988
- Sunnycoast_tiger