Comments by "" (@pwillis1589) on "Voting no for the ‘racist’ Indigenous Voice is ‘sensible’" video.

Why do you think it is race based? Race has nothing to do with it. A voice relates to the original inhabitants. Your comment has made it about race. Why?
2
That’s fine, and if the British had of declared that and under British law sort a treaty with defeated parties as they did elsewhere. Then we would be in a different situation, but they didn’t.
2
You misunderstand the difference between political representation and a constitutional voice. They are not the same thing.
2
This comment displays a breathtaking lack knowledge of Australian history and the formation of our country and its constitution.
2
And this is a reason to deny constitutional rights? Even if it was true which it isn’t.
2
@kirra7406 Are you seriously suggesting aboriginal culture did not develop the use of percussion instruments?
2
@info88w11 Your comment simply doesn’t purport to the accepted colonial history of Australia and is more just your slanted or biased opinion. Land rights has already been sorted through the Mabo and Wik court decisions and subsequent legislation. A voice has no veto power, no legislative ability, and no financial delegation. It is merely and advisory body. It has nothing to do with race and I am somewhat quizzical as to why you would raise it as an issue.
1
@MrDogsledder There is no voting block. A constitutional voice has no veto power, no legislative ability, and no financial delegation. It impossible for it to vote on anything, it is an advisory body only. Where did you get the idea it has voting rights. Paul Murray colon!
1
@MrDogsledder So I was right. Conservative commentators is your source of information.
1
@hc3657 Not sure. Our constitution was drafted, debated, and consulted on by white men, with a few women in SA and WA allowed to vote on it. So I know I'm well represented but other Australians not so much. It is time for all Australians to be included in our national document. It is not an infallible document that once written can't be amended.
1
@elizabethbradley4301 Families split apart. It was happening 10000 years ago and will happen every day in the future. Families have been splitting up over political issues since time, what is your point. Raising the issue of a constitutionally enshrined voice will bring divided Australians together not apart.
1
@hc3657 Why are all of the voices opponents continually raising race as an issue? A constitutional enshrined voice is about the original inhabitants specifically being excluded from our founding document. They were explicitly made non citizens and denied voting rights. That was racist, fixing that racist action is just being fair.
1
@elizabethbradley4301 Yes I understand frightened ignorance often leads to negativity, so I understand your reply.
1
@elizabethbradley4301 Yes I agree with you, however there are powerful elements of our society who consider indigenous peoples and their culture inferior and do not in any way shape or form consider them equal.
1
@elizabethbradley4301 You clearly have no real world experience. To say racism doesn't exist is mind boggling naivety, hence why you are part of the problem. Where were you educated? You need a refund.
1
Because you don’t understand the issue. When ignorant people always vote no.
1
No a constitutional voice merely squares the book.
1
Nothing is quite as pathetic as having a go at every Australian. I hope you aren’t able to vote in Australia.
1
@brianlowe3529 I was commenting on the original post. Not anything you said.
1
@micphoenix8200 The overwhelming scientific evidence is aboriginals were on the Australian mainland approximately 70000 years ago +/- 5000 years. This is supported by archaeological and carbon dating. What evidence do you have of the contrary?
1
@brianlowe3529 sorry didn't mean to come across as short.
1
@micphoenix8200 I'm not sure what point you are trying to make other than a whole heap of irrelevant crap. I never suggested science was conducted by consensus, that is just a nonsensical strawman and of course dates of inhabitation change as we learn more. You need to do some.
1
@micphoenix8200 No I was being dismissive of every single point you made. Nobody is suggesting the indigenous people of Australia were or are one homogeneous group. It is universally accepted there were and remain hundreds of groups. Just Strawman fallacy on your part. Who is the left, just an ad hominem fallacy on your part and more nonsensical gibberish. The history of the aboriginal and Torres Strait flags while accurate is irrelevant. I can quote you the history of the Union Jack as pointless as it would be. We are talking about constitutional reform, not legislative change. It is fundamentally different. You raise race as an issue, why, a voice has nothing to do with race, it is about original inhabitation of our land. Finally there are guidelines as to aboriginality, and of course it has to be somewhat fluid due to the intermixing of cultures. I'm sorry if it is too hard for you to comprehend this.
1
Early polling suggests Dean is wrong.
1
You fundamentally misunderstand. This has nothing to do with legislation. This is about constitutional reform. If you don’t understand the difference why make a comment that makes you sound stupid? At least read and learn.
1
“These people” don’t hold back on showing your cards.
1
The constitution is originally facist. You are wanting to keep it facist. You are the facist.
1
So a constitution that denies indigenous people citizenship and voting rights is ok by you?
1
@info88w11 With no veto power, no legislative power, and no financial delegation, just how will a voice achieve what you suggest?
1
@mawsoncasey7347 vacuous meaningless insults is a technique you use when you have no argument.
1
Because?
1
How is a constitution that denied citizenship and voting rights to the indigenous population fair or equal?
1
Why
1
Just a falsehood. A voice will have no veto power, no legislative ability, and no financial delegation. You are just factually wrong.
1