Comments by "" (@pwillis1589) on "Linda Burney ‘conning voters’ in favour of Voice to Parliament" video.

Yep I’m running a warm bath right now, pills and a bottle of scotch in hand.
2
Even a rudimentary understanding of the data clearly shows indigenous people are behind on every count except rates of criminal prosecution and gaoling. The have worse health, education, and social outcomes. Have you even a clue about what you are commenting on?
1
@John Coinyer And obtaining land by illegal means is not "all about the money", I mean really what a pathetically shallow comment.
1
@patricksharp1063 So 100 years ago when surgeons in Australia were almost exclusively white men are you suggesting women were incapable of passing an exam or was it because they were excluded. Your point is ridiculous.
1
Both the ancient Egyptian and Greek cultures had medical facilities long before Christianity. The ancient Greeks were practicing science approximately 350 BCE long before any suggestion of Christianity. Medical research was being conducted by the ancient Greeks around 700 BCE long before Christianity.
1
@PJRayment Yes, fair point however hospitals also started popping up in East Asia around the 5th Century CE. Islamic hospitals in the early 6th Century CE.
1
@PJRayment Yeah those christians were most successful at those inquisitions. Scholarship however doesn't disagree, Ancient Greeks were theorising, experimenting, and deducing using novel testable predictions as early as 585 BCE to predict solar eclipses. Stark is just wrong. Mathematics and astronomy flourished under the ancient Greeks. To suggest christianity invented science is absurd, if anything the Christian church actively discouraged scientific advances initially denying the earth rotated around the sun (Copernicus was to frightened to publish his work till near death) and Giordano Bruno found that out the hard way. Galileo was instructed to stop discussing ideas that conflicted with the teachings of the church. It was called heresy and the church punished it severely. Kepler's predictions were 1500 years after the Greeks had achieved it. The first Islamic hospitals however do date to early 8th century around 706 CE, got my centuries mixed up there, but the point is still valid. Medieval science achievements were across a range of areas from mathematics, physics, chemistry, and cartography. To attempt to belittle its advances by putting it down to Jewish and Christian influences would require you to name those individuals.
1
So we have Medicare and public hospitals, public housing, and youth services, any rudimentary understanding of the health, housing, and youth data clearly shows beyond all doubt the indigenous population fall far behind on all counts. So additional resources are allocated in an attempt to restore equity. Race has nothing to do with it.
1
Your comment fundamentally misunderstands a voice which will have no voting rights, no veto power, no legislative capacity, and no financial delegation. It is a strawman argument born out of fear and ignorance.
1
Would that be Labour or our constitution that explicitly made aborigines non citizens and denied them any voice in the discussion, debate, and consultation in its writing or any say in our Federation. That’s real division not the one your concocting.
1
A voice merely restores parity to a culture that originally inhabited our country. Opponents continually raise race as an issue. Race is a human construct designed to create division. Raising race as an issue is being used by white supremacy to obscure a debate that is about restoring fairness to a indigenous community that they don’t see as equal.
1
@PJRayment No factually wrong Phil on all counts. Yes the Labor Party must accept some of the blame for the inherent racism of our constitution, but so must the Free Traders and the Protectionist parties. Basically anyone involved in writing the constitution. The Australian constitution was drafted over two conventions in the 1890s. Neither convention included any women or representatives of Australia's indigenous or ethnic community ie the large quantity of Chinese in the country at the time. Indigenous people played no part in the drafting process. Sections 25, 51(xxvi), and 127 are all specifically racist. Edmund Barton even stated at the 1898 convention that section 51(xxvi) was necessary to enable the Commonwealth to "regulate the affairs of the people of coloured or inferior races who are in the Commonwealth". These provisions in our constitution enabled the Immigration Restriction act of 1901 or more commonly known as the White Australia policy. Have you even a clue as to what you are discussing?
1
@PJRayment No you are not. The Constitution specifically excluded aboriginals "in reckoning the numbers of the people of the Commonwealth" The 67 referendum went some way to fixing the inherently racist beginnings of our constitution but did not fix it entirely. By conceding this point in your reply you have agreed to the constitution originally making them non citizens. The consultation, debates, and conventions that led to the constitution all excluded indigenous peoples, otherwise show evidence they did, you can't there is none. This was by action racist and deliberately so. You don't have to admitt to being racist it is proven in your actions. Section 25 specifically allows the states to disqualify people from voting in elections on account of race. Section 51 (xxvi) provided that the Parliament could legislate with respect to any race, other than the aboriginal race. This was the so called race power, and was amended by the 67 referendum. When it clearly states race to deny it is racist is just being obtuse. And finally Section 127 is where in reckoning the numbers Aboriginals were made non citizens. Specifically as "aboriginal natives". To deny the influence a racist who was the leader of the 1897-98 convention then our first PM and who immediately used the racist legal provisions in the constitution to legislate the white Australia policy (which I'm sure you will argue wasn't racist at all). One framer the Tasmanian AG suggested a US style equal protection of the laws was shot down as WA had laws on the books at the time to prevent Asians and Africans from obtaining a miners right or even go mining. So racism won the day. The racist constitution also enabled legislation to be passed to prevent aboriginals from voting this was the Commonwealth Franchise act 1902. To quote a future GG "Aboriginals have not the intelligence, interest or capacity to vote" or Henry Higgins later to become a Justice on our High court "It is utterly inappropriate to ask them to exercise an intelligent vote. By action the constitution allowed racist legislation and it was deliberately framed this way. Only significant constitutional change can remedy these racist provisions in our constitution. A voice enshrined is not racist but merely provides equality that has long been denied. It has no veto power, no legislative ability, and no financial delegation. It is a very modest proposal from the indigenous community and must be put to a referendum.
1