Gnads wrote on Oct 17^th, 2024 at 6:19pm:


Ok, let me stop you there.

Labor's plan was to implement the comprehensive reforms outlined in the Uluru Statement from the Heart, which consists of several parts.

Voice: This was the first step - calling for a constitutionally enshrined Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice to Parliament. The idea was to give Indigenous peoples a direct role in advising the government on laws and policies that affect their communities.

Treaty (Makarrata Commission): The second step envisioned by the Uluru Statement is the establishment of a Makarrata Commission to supervise a process of treaty-making between Indigenous peoples and the Australian government. The term Makarrata refers to a Yolngu word meaning "coming together after a struggle" and symbolises reconciliation and the settling of disputes. The goal of the treaty would be to formalise the relationship between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians, acknowledging sovereignty and rights, while setting out obligations and future directions.

Truth-telling: The third element called for a national process of truth-telling about the history and treatment of Indigenous Australians, including the dispossession, violence, and marginalisation experienced since European colonisation. Truth-telling is seen as critical for national healing, promoting understanding, and fostering reconciliation.

The referendum addressed solely the issue of the Voice, as a vote was required due to the constitutional amendment it proposed. The other two elements of the Uluru Statement, treaty and truth-telling, were not part of the referendum and remain separate from the constitutional question.

Therefore, if any government continues to pursue those additional aspects, it cannot be characterised as being done "by stealth." These intentions were openly communicated from the outset. The rejection of constitutional change for the Voice has no bearing whatsoever on the pursuit of the remaining reforms.

Quote:


The real issue here is the disingenuous attempt by you, and others like you, to conflate every element of the Uluru Statement with "The Voice." Worse still, some go as far as labelling any effort to assist or even mention Indigenous Australians as "The Voice." This deliberate misrepresentation is precisely the problem.

Especially when some concede,

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Jul 11^th, 2024 at 11:35pm:


You are free to oppose measures that support Indigenous Australians, but what you cannot do is cloak that opposition under the false pretext that it’s all about "The Voice" or that it's somehow undemocratic because the No vote prevailed. That’s nothing more than cowardice and intellectual dishonesty, both on your part and among those who share your position.

Quote:


Alright, let me pose a question to you, or to anyone bold enough to answer. Let's settle this once and for all.

If Albanese had never put the Voice referendum to the people, if we had never held the vote, would you now be supporting the very policies you’re complaining about as "The Voice by stealth"?

Would your objections vanish, or are you just using the referendum result as a convenient shield for your broader resistance to any genuine progress on Indigenous issues?

A government cannot make treaty with its own citizens.

If these are separate issues, and impact on rights of all equally - then they must be put to a vote of the people, not just pushed through over the people.

No politician or public servant since Hitler has had the right to simply impose on the people in this way.

The answer is NO!

Put it to a vote of the people before you steal their rights.

Easy then - equal dealing under the law requires that all have the right of 'Inalienable Freehold Title' to any piece of land their ancestors walked over.  anything else is apartheid - two sets of laws for two separate but equal groups.

Don't know how the Recent Imports are going to handle that though... and since the people had no say in this, it is clear tyranny and a direct assault on our unwritten constitution that demands equal treatment under law, and must therefore be treated as such and the culprits hanged.

SadKangaroo wrote on Oct 17^th, 2024 at 9:17pm:


It seems you're too much of a coward to confront this question as well.

John Smith wrote on Oct 19^th, 2024 at 8:57am:


I can't imagine it being much worse than now...  He's been complaining like he lost this whole time.

Which in a way, he did.

The Voice only mattered to him because it was a cover to spew his racist rhetoric under the guise of legitimate debate.

That ended the moment the vote was defeated.

Or at least, it should have ended there. Instead, he persists in extending his veneer of legitimacy by labelling any and all news related to Indigenous Australians as "the voice by stealth."

He has orchestrated multiple threads, alleging instances of "Lawfare" aimed at implementing this so-called "voice by stealth," all in a calculated effort to maintain the guise of engaging in "legitimate debate."

In reality, it is nothing more than a strategy to perpetuate his hateful rhetoric while attempting to evade accountability.

That's all that's been happening and why he hates me so much, because I won't allow it to go unchallenged.

He knows I’m right, and he’s fully aware that no one truly believes his fabrications. The chorus of individuals feigning agreement does so only because they seek the same protective cover he craves. To them, he’s nothing more than a useful idiot, serving their interests while deluding himself into thinking he has their genuine support.

If you examine just a few of the issues he’s been lamenting over, you’re forced to ask: what relevance do the following have to Lawfare or this so-called "Voice by stealth"?

• Increased tourism to Uluru
• The coroner concluding that an Indigenous death in custody was avoidable
• Recouping unspent funds budgeted for Indigenous legal defence
• The possibility of improved housing for Indigenous Australians, especially women and children fleeing violence

The answer is, nothing.

In reality, it's simply this,

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Jul 11^th, 2024 at 11:35pm:


To perpetuate the discussion by falsely attributing these examples to the idea of subverting democracy by going against the will of the people, he's trying to paint himself as the victim while at the same time hide under that banner of "legitimate debate" to continue to spew his racist rhetoric.

Ultimately, that is the essence of these tears.

"Waaaaaa I can't be racist anymore without being held to account for it, waaaaa!"



He wails even louder when you point out that this very foundation of his arguments renders any good-faith debate with him utterly impossible. His pathetic attempt to label this accurate assessment of his behaviour as "abusive" is laughable.

Oh, poor didums! He’s such a victim, isn’t he? We should all shower him with the sympathy and attention he desperately craves, ignoring the need for any critical examination of his claims and letting trivial matters like facts fall by the wayside.

Boohoo.

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Oct 19^th, 2024 at 12:15pm:


If you care so much about an informed public, why do you consistently lie about The Voice, Lawfare, the Uluru Statement from the Heart?

Should I start responding to you with the same dismissive contempt you show me whenever I attempt a good-faith discussion,where I actually present facts and back them up with real evidence? Why is it that the truth seems utterly poisonous to you?

And who are these poppets? Do you think you have an audience like Sir Baz?

Oh, you poor thing.

.