Linus
Senior Member
Offline
Australian Politics
Posts: 471
Gender: 
|
Frank wrote on Aug 3 rd, 2023 at 10:19pm: Linus wrote on Aug 3 rd, 2023 at 10:06pm: Frank wrote on Aug 3 rd, 2023 at 9:30pm: Linus wrote on Aug 3 rd, 2023 at 9:24pm: Frank wrote on Aug 3 rd, 2023 at 4:13pm: Linus wrote on Aug 3 rd, 2023 at 11:55am: Frank wrote on Aug 3 rd, 2023 at 11:41am: Linus wrote on Aug 3 rd, 2023 at 10:26am: I still maintain your personal life will go on just the same, Grappler.
In any case, the current Constitution is flawed as it was founded on the concept of terra nullius, which denied recognition to the Indigenous owners of this land. The failure to acknowledge their rights has perpetuated historical injustices and social inequalities.
As we are aware, the doctrine of terra nullius was rightfully overturned in the landmark Mabo case, which recognized the existence of native title and the ongoing connection of Indigenous peoples to their traditional lands. This legal precedent provides strong justification for amending the Constitution to formally acknowledge and honor the traditional owners of Australia.
By recognizing Indigenous rights within the Constitution, we take a crucial step towards reconciliation and healing the wounds of the past. It sends a powerful message of respect, inclusivity, and acknowledgment of the First Nations' custodianship of this land for thousands of years.
Moreover, constitutional recognition can provide a framework for collaboration and consultation with Indigenous communities on important national matters, including policies affecting their lands, cultures, and well-being. A constitutionally enshrined Voice to Parliament, as proposed by many, would promote genuine dialogue and meaningful representation for Indigenous Australians in decision-making processes.
Just like in any household, where all members should have a say in decisions that affect them, it is reasonable and just for Indigenous Australians to be actively involved in shaping policies and decisions that impact their lives, communities, and culture. The establishment of the Voice to Parliament offers a genuine opportunity for reconciliation and represents a step towards building a more equitable and respectful nation. What do you make of Aborigines who are against the Voice in the Constitution? And prominent lawyers, public figures? Nothing that virtually nobody opposes recognition in the Constitution, first proposed by Howard and Abbott. In every community, there are diverse opinions. We can plainly see that here. I've stated mine, and others have stated their opinions. How you vote on this issue is a matter for your conscience and moral compass. You avoided the question of what you make of Aborigines who oppose the Voice in parliament? Your emotional words are obviously not sufficient to sway them. Are they, do you think, against reconciliation, full Aboriginal participation in public life, against respect, against dialogue against improving the lives of Aborigines? Do they lack your moral refinement and nobility of character?
I said every community has diverse opinions, Frank, in the same way we do here in this forum. If they agree with you, and I don't agree with you, you can make the logical inference. It shouldn't make any difference as to who anyone is, Frank. So whose Voice would the Aboriginal voice be? In the Constitution? There is NO Aboriginal Voice. It is a guilt ridden, ignorant, self-flagellating whitey's idea that Abos are homogenous, with a single Voice, Alien 777. It is certainly NOT an Aboriginal idea, with their 300 different tribes that STILL have not made peace, makarate-schmakarara with each other. Why not, FFS! Where's the ****ing makarata among all the Abo tribes and clans?? It is THEIR bloody idea and custom but they haven't managed the bloody thing among themselves?? In 60,000 years!!! Tellembuggerem. Frank, every group contains people with differing views. In spite of this, consensus is often reached on issues. This might help you, scroll down to the section which describes how The Voice arose. https://www.unsw.edu.au/newsroom/news/2023/03/the-voice--what-is-it--where-did-i... So we have a parliament for the variety of views. Democratically elected. The Aboriginal voice is not democratically elected, and it is IN ADDITION to the democratically elected Aboriginal voices in parliament. What can an undemocratic Voice say that a democratic parliament with democratically elected Aborigines cannot? Not to mention the myriad other Aboriginal voices, organisations, corporations, ministries, councils, services, departments. No constitutional change will have ANY effect on the savage, brutal, disgusting treatment some - not all - Aborigines visit on each other,their wives and children every day. Frank, you're going off on a tanget but suffice it to say that domestic violence is not limited to Indigenous Australians.
|
Forum
Pages: 
THE REAL VOICE AGENDA FINALLY REVEALED (Read 2369 times)
