Brian Ross wrote on Jul 4^th, 2023 at 5:30pm:


No, I don't know what the "Aid to the Civil Power" entails. So, I googled a pdf of the article: http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/AUCrimPCF/1983/2.pdf

Without having read the 5 pages of information related, unless you find that this article does not have relevance to what you are talking about, I can assume at best that the army can be used to prevent large-scale domestic violence issues in a certain region.

And I have witnessed the army being used to conduct this matter, about 23 or 24 years ago in Rockhampton. Can't remember? I can. It was part of the reason why Rockhamptonites started having the white supremacist tag attached to the community. Just recently, the label had been reattached to the community with the vigilante groups going around harassing alleged car thieves.

I have even posted this as a form of unbiased analysis of threatening to use the military against indigenous people:
Quote:


I am actually surprised that you called "bullshit" on that, Brian. International condemnation would fall upon Australians for allowing this kind of violence to take place. If the army is required to quell rioting by indigenous people, it is obvious that the local police are not equipped to handle something large scale. And even if the army and the police use body camera footage to video document the suppression of violence among indigenous people, internationally, the world will react with accusations of genocide if more than one indigenous person gets killed.

I do not know what kind of perception you have of Australians. However, we Australians are a pretty egalitarian bunch of people. A considerable number of Australian people would side with the underdog getting done over, if it came down to 50/50 justifications of violence conducted by the army/police.

Setanta wrote on Jul 4^th, 2023 at 7:06pm:


Garbage.  What details are lacking?

Belgarion wrote on Jul 4^th, 2023 at 7:41pm:


Skynews rubbish.  Nothing in that where anything lost is explained.  Just Andrew Bolt text delivered in Andrew Bolt style by a blonde bimbo.

If it is going to a referendum, then there is more to it than just a few word changes to the constitution.

Aussie wrote on Jul 4^th, 2023 at 4:35pm:



It can exist .... but not in the Constitution.

As to what "they lose" - The rest of Australians will not be represented equally under the Constitution.

It will be a "them & us" -  it's divisive.

John Smith wrote on Jul 5^th, 2023 at 8:10am:


One poorly worded question with a sting in it's tail.

It's one thing to recognise ATSI people in the Constitution ... it's completely another to enshrine a body, advisory or not(short on working detail) in the Constitution based on race.

Maybe the referendum should be split into 2 questions?

1. One about recognition -

2. One about the Voice body -

I'd vote 1. yes 2. No

Aussie wrote on Jul 5^th, 2023 at 8:31am:



They are actually over represented per head of population compared to non Aboriginal Australians.

And Shyster many of those non Aboriginal Australians aren't white & they're migrants.

You're just a virtue signaling shyster.

Aussie wrote on Jul 5^th, 2023 at 8:06am:


Hardly Sky News rubbish.  Forget your ad homs on the presenter and Andrew Bolt and listen to what Mayo is saying..... Demanding compensation from white Australians, demanding a say in government legislation, talking about punishing any politician who opposes these demands.....  Mao is one of the key players in the 'voice' and has the ear of the PM... tell us again how we will not be disadvantaged.