Comments by "" (@pwillis1589) on "The Voice referendum is ‘doomed’: PM has chosen the ‘most difficult’ of routes" video.

Your comment is deliberately mischievous and intentionally dishonest.
3
@saintsone7877 Easy, because it isn't a true statement. It is entirely false. Your first sentence is factually incorrect and a false statement. Our constitution was designed and written by privileged white Anglo men. It was explicitly written to accommodate their well being. You actually make an excellent case for a bill of rights to be included in our constitution that would accommodate all Australians. Please cite your evidence for 1000+ indigenous groups who lobby government. I do accept there are many. So what? Do you wish me to list the different groups that lobby the federal government? It is a long list, again so what? Do you wish me to list the different lobby groups that government s have refused to meet with? Again it's a long list. So what? And finally the Uluru statement which was signed by over 250 elders from all the regions and indigenous groups in Australia. I don't know where you got your information from but it is false. You are completely and totally misinformed.
2
All polling has the majority in favour of a yes vote so I’m not sure who’s rectum you are looking into Murray’s or a Credlins.
1
Factually wrong. A voice to government can be traced back through the indigenous peoples to at least the 1930s. Your comment is illogical nonsense.
1
@zympf Because multiple legal and constitutional experts including ex chief justice of the High Court Laurence Street and Anne Townmey the recognised foremost expert on our constitution both have publicly stated the voice does not afford any special privileges nor is it racist in any manner. So who do you believe a nobody on youtube comments or the finest legal brains in the country. Your opinion on this is literally worthless.
1
@saintsone7877 And yet you fail to name any. Making your entire reply just a nonsensical opinioned rant lacking any substance to a host of libellous claims. Just complete illogical nonsense.
1
@saintsone7877 So you completely fail to understand the difference between political representation and constitutional recognition. Until you understand the facts of the discussion there is little point in continuing. Go away and read and learn about this difference because you have based your entire argument on this point and it is completely fallacious.
1
@saintsone7877 On one other of you illogical points. 60% of those indigenous people who convened for the Uluṟu statement represented all clans and groups as one person is able to represent more than just one group. It’s not hard to work out. Also you don’t need 100% agreement to reach consensus. Your comment about the Uluṟu statement from the heart is illogical nonsense as well.
1
@zympf As I showed you your comment is illogical nonsense without a shred of evidence to support your claim.
1
@saintsone7877 Yes I understand that’s your opinion and that’s fine. However Kenneth Payne a former high court judge, George Williams Professor of law UNSW, and Amsi Wood constitutional professor ANU all have explicitly stated that the voice does not infer any special rights to indigenous people or take away any rights afforded to any Australians. Your opinion which you are perfectly entitled to is just factually wrong. I don’t need any help I merely accept the science.
1
@saintsone7877 Just creating a list of indigenous organisations proves nothing, other than they possibly exist, because there is list of these going around on social media and at least half a dozen of them no longer exist and one is a Canadian indigenous rights group. I suspect this is where you have gained your misinformation from. Hint; you can’t believe what you read on Instagram of Facebook. You misunderstand the word libellous and have used it incorrectly. Your opinion of indigenous people having the largest voice in the country is demonstrably wrong and any reading of the data proves indigenous people to be the most discriminated and disadvantaged group in Australia. Just read the last closing the gap report. You are just factually wrong again.
1
@saintsone7877 So once again you misrepresent the Uluru statement from the Heart which has almost universal acceptance in the indigenous community, and 100% agreement is not required for consensus. The Uluru statement was the end product of over 9 years of community consultation and debate across the entire country including all indigenous groups. Unfortunately you simply are unable to understand the difference between political representation and constitutional recognition. They are not even similar and the fact this obvious fact is beyond you limits your ability to provide a coherent argument.
1
@saintsone7877 Do you really need a civics lesson on the obvious difference between political representation and constitutional recognition. I mean you are just embarrassing yourself.
1
@saintsone7877 Here is an explanation of the constitution. This explains why it is different to political representation The Constitution is the legal and political foundation document of Australia. It was drafted following a series of constitutional conventions held in the 1890s and was passed by the British Parliament in 1900. It took effect on 1 January 1901. The Constitution is the Australian government’s ‘rulebook’. It establishes Australia as a federation and defines the national law-making powers of the Commonwealth or federal government. Every law passed by the federal Parliament must be empowered by the Australian Constitution—it must be based on what is a called a head of power set down in the Constitution, which is divided into sections. The Constitution distributes power between the Commonwealth and the States and Territories and sets out the roles of the federal Parliament and the executive (the government of the day). It empowers federal courts and establishes the High Court of Australia as the ultimate decision maker on questions about the meaning of the Constitution. It is essentially a structural plan for a federal system of government. By allocating and also limiting government powers, the Constitution protects certain rights and freedoms, but it is not a charter of human rights. The Australian Constitution, like all foundation documents, also says something about the values of our society. The drafters of the Constitution wanted to make sure it could be amended over time, but only with the clear consent of the Australian people. This consent is given through a referendum, when all Australians registered on the electoral roll cast a vote. Under section 128, a majority of Australian voters and a majority of voters in a majority of States (that is, in at least four out of the six States) must approve any proposed amendment. This is known as a double majority. People cast their votes by writing either a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ in response to specific questions put to them.
1
@saintsone7877 Ah right now I understand your objection to a voice. You think it is Labor based and it doesn't align with your political views. So your argument is one of selfishness. You personally don't like a voice. The history of a indigenous voice actually goes all the way back to the 1930s and attempted representations to the King at the time. A voice was and is rooted in indigenous origins. The Labor party had nothing to do with it, other than supporting it. You are misinformed once again. I understand you feel personally disenfranchised, too bad grow up and get over it. You are completely out of step with the indigenous people of this country.
1
@saintsone7877 Jeez a few things to address in your reply. 1) To equate a voice in our constitution with apartheid is either showing a level of ignorance or being deliberately mischievous. It is literally stupid to suggest an advisory body to parliament is the same as apartheid which was a system of government exclusion. It is ludicrous illogical nonsense. 2) You again fail to understand the significance of constitutional recognition which Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders clearly don't have. Unless of course you can reference the section in the constitution they are. 3) The PM never said if you are against the Voice you are racist. That is just a straight out lie on your behave or you are mistaken. Otherwise provide evidence. 4) two high court judges and numerous constitutional experts have all confirmed the description of the voice as a third chamber is false. Ex PM Turnbull has even admitted he was wrong to say that. 5) I assume nothing it is clear in your rhetoric you are just anti Labor. The LNP were ready to legislate a voice so political bipartisanship is close. You are a just a fringe dweller who is just living in fear. 6) Your argument is so lacking in facts you couldn't even get the funding right. $4.5 billion is over 4 years the annual funding of the IAS is approximately $1.2 billion. Absolutely comical, at least have the decency in a discussion to get your data correct. I can't believe I word you have said.
1