Comments by "" (@pwillis1589) on "Govt's commitment to an Indigenous Voice to Parliament facing 'some serious hurdles'" video.

The constitution currently divides on race in at least three sections. Why is it a waste of money, because your opinion will be shown to be irrelevant.
1
Your comment is an anecdotal fallacy and nonsensical by nature.
1
@TrickyBoyREAL Your comment would have some value if it in some way it remotely showed why my comment was not factually correct. Otherwise it is just giggerish nonsense.
1
@TheRealBobSmith. OMG you don't know what an anecdotal fallacy is. Your comment is a perfect example of it. Look it up on the internet.
1
@TheRealBobSmith. OMG do I have to spell it out for you. You saying you are aboriginal and don't what a voice has as much validity as me saying I am a d I do want a voice. It is just nonsensical gibberish.
1
I am aboriginal and I want a voice in the constitution.
1
@TheRealBobSmith. poor Bob you haven't a clue.
1
@TheRealBobSmith. Please Bob explain to me in your own words what a anecdotal fallacy is. Just try and see if in writing it down it sinks in.
1
Factually incorrect. An extensive consultation period preceded the “Statement from the Heart” signed by 250 elders from all indigenous groups. You comment is a lie.
1
@ArthurHugo A complete misunderstanding of a voice that had no veto power, no legislative capability, and no financial delegation. You haven't a clue what you are talking about.
1
@harryricochet8134 It doesn't take a genius to work out a voice is a modest request from the indigenous community for constitutional recognition, something they were denied at Federation and something that is clearly beyond your intellectual capacity to understand.
1
@harryricochet8134 You clearly have little to no understanding of the process, the formation of our constitution and the resulting Federation, which excluded any indigenous representation. Sections 25, 51(xxvi), and 127 all contributed to eliminating any indigenous representation in our constitution. 51 was amended and 127 repealed after the 67 referendum which enabled political representation, it did not provide constitutional recognition you are just mistaken or ignorant of this fact. LMFAO that you took offence to a personal insult you twit. Now that is real genius. A childish personal slur is not an ad hominem fallacy it is just an accurate description of your argument. There is currently no equity for indigenous peoples in the constitution a voice provides equity. The description of the voice is not my opinion it is the opinion of numerous expert constitutional lawyers you numbnuts and if you could get your head out of your arse and read you would know that. No genius required.
1
Three sections of the (original) constitution were race based. You haven’t got a clue what you are talking about.
1
@TrickyBoyREAL vacuous gibberish
1
@deejay7648 Read sections 25, 51 (xxvi) and 127 of the original constitution. All are explicitly racist in intent. 127 was repealed by the 67 referendum, however the other elements remain.
1
@deejay7648 If you wish to remain blissfully ignorant there is little i can say, so I will quote just two members of our federation founders. Our first PM and Edmund Barton and leader of the constitutional convention before Federation. This is Barton in his own words "Section 51 (xxvi) is necessary to provide the Commonwealth with the power to regulate the affairs of the people of coloured or inferior races who are in the Commonwealth". Or how about the words of the Chief Justice of the High Court Isaac Isaacs "Aboriginals have not the intelligence, interest, or capacity to vote". Yeah no racist intent there at all, all good according to you and the KKK . Ultimately our constitution is demonstratively racist as proved by the actions in enabling legislation to be passed that allowed the white Australia policy. Actions speak louder than words.
1
@lastjellyontheplate8828 All I'm hearing is mindless drivel. Do you actually have some point to make?
1
@Wide_Awake-k3i Just do a rudimentary internet search on polling for a voice.
1
@TrickyBoyREAL That's all you have personal slurs and emjois, real clever.
1
Yes I understand your limited intellectual capacity to understand a voice ultimately removes the inherent racist nature of our constitution.
1
@TrickyBoyREAL Thanks, bloody typo errors, not a good look when you have a go at someone for their stupid comment.
1
@daniellebcooper7160 OMG did you not learn Australian history at school? Section 25 Section 51 (xxvi) Section 127 These sections are all explicitly racist. They made aboriginals non citizens and allowed legislation to passed that was specifically racist in nature.
1
@daniellebcooper7160 OMG you literally have no understanding of the history of our constitution. Section 51 was specifically inserted to allow the Commonwealth to make laws based on race. The 67 referendum went some ways to fix this but didn't completely. Your ignorance is astonishing considering you seem free to comment on matters you clearly haven't a clue you're talking about. I admire your chutzpah.
1
You poor frightened little child. All your concerns have already been dealt with 30 years ago with the Mabo and Wik decisions and the legislation that followed. All you have done is create a ridiculously stupid strawman argument.
1