Comments by "" (@pwillis1589) on "Voice referendum is 'race-based politics' being enshrined into the constitution" video.

@myday805 On a secondary note, section 25 of the constitution still allows for the federal government to legislate on the basis of race. That is explicitly racist. It has in effect been nullified by the Racial discrimination act. However it remains in our expressly designed original constitution. Did you study any Australian history at school?
2
Yeah nothing spells rort like offering dignity and independence to disabled people. It must really be gnawing on you seeing disabled people treated with respect.
2
Which is political representation, correct. It is not constitutional recognition.
1
@myday805 OMG you haven't got a clue about your own constitution. Read sections 25, 51(xxiv), and 127. They are all explicitly racist. You have entered a discussion on which you literally know nothing.
1
@tipofthespear7182 That was a nice bigoted rant, completely nonsensical and entirely factually incorrect.
1
@robot336 And RWNJs can't express themselves without yelling.
1
@myday805 Hurt your feelings did I. Your reply was a mixture of incoherent yelling, ranting and nonsensical personal slurs. Great argument so clever and brave. You still showed not the slightest iota about the subject. Ignorance clearly reins supreme in your household.
1
@shanehansen3705 I well written, thoughtful and polite letter or email should draw a response. If not approach the opposition.
1
@gregmatthies8128 And that's perfectly fine, that's what a referendum is for. Just don't carry on like a mad chook when a voice is adopted and the constitution amended.
1
@gregmatthies8128 I am perfectly happy to accept the will of the Australian people. Cleary you know better than they do.
1
@myday805 You just argued that a section, section 25 specifically written into the constitution is not constitutional. What sort of backward illogical thought is that? Section 51(xxiv) was explicitly racist in that it allowed the 1901 immigration act better known by its colloquial name "White Australia Policy". Section 127 was again explicitly racist in that it specifically prevented native aboriginals from voting and being included in census counts as Australians. You literally haven't got a clue about the subject on which you are commenting about. Your level of understanding of Australian history is extremely limited.
1
@myday805 Further incoherent yelling and ranting proves nothing. So let's cite the House standing committee on Legal and Constitutional affairs. Quote " Section 25 no longer has any significant legal effect, as the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 would prevent the states from discriminating against people on the grounds of race. Nevertheless, section 25 recognises that people might constitutionally be denied the franchise on the ground of race. You are factually wrong in your entire statement. Did you even read section 25?
1
@myday805 But don't take my word for it. How about you read the recommendations of the 2012 Expert panel on the Constitutional Recognition of Indigenous Australians. Anne Twomey on of our most acknowledged Constitutional experts agrees section 25 is racist and requires repealing. You are just factually wrong on your understanding of section 25.
1
@Phonehomefool Thankyou for your most kind remark. Any other earth shattering snippets of information to share?
1
@Phonehomefool I like to think of it as pathological narcissism.
1
OMG sovereign citizen wackjob
1
@paulkerr782 Disabled people are not elderly they have as much human rights as you do. The NDIS doesn’t pay for holidays you are factually incorrect. The NDIS will pay for the support required for someone to attend a holiday, but will not pay for the holiday. Are you suggesting that because someone is disabled they are not allowed or entitled to a holiday? That is just illogical. You need to gather your thoughts and spend a bit more time thinking, and then reply with a coherent argument, because what you have said so far is rubbish.
1