Comments by "" (@pwillis1589) on "‘Handful of woke’: Welcome to Country ceremonies ‘conning’ Australians into activism" video.

@sebastianthomson87 Correct. It was the indigenous community that asked to be engaged with the Australian people through a document called “Uluṟu statement”. That document asked for a constitutional amendment to allow the indigenous community a say in matters pertaining to them. We spat in their face and said No.
1
@DaleRyan-g5r A straight out lie. The No result from the referendum means there can be no change to the constitution. The government completely accepted that result.
1
@bromeotorres6964 In a democracy debate and discussion are a key feature. That’s what we had, and a decision was made, democratically. We don’t all need to think the same. If that’s what you what move to Nth Korea.
1
@azzajames7661 why is the democratic process a waste of time?
1
@ashleytrout7452 More like $20 trillion.
1
@ Ahh, the old false dichotomy rhetoric. Hilariously you talk of the divisiveness you feel indigenous land rights allegedly has caused, and then immediately create one yourself. Your chutzpah is hilarious.
1
@ Easy I’ll simply use your own words “You're either Australian (call it New Holland, Van Diemen's Land, Terra Australis or whatever) and want better for ALL people BORN in AUstralia, or you're a traitor to the people of Australia and an operative of Government, spreading division.” That is virtually a perfect example of a false dichotomy. Indigenous rights is far more complicated than the simplistic view you put forward. All homo sapiens originally came from Africa. I fail to see what point you are trying to make that they possibly moved through India to get here. They no doubt moved through the entire land mass between Africa and here, so what? No doubt for the entire history of indigenous Australians (65000 +/- 5000 years) various groups have joined and separated and then joined together again. You can’t possibly expect indigenous groups to not use the tools available to them in a 21st century modern Australia. If forming a corporation gives a group influence/political power/resources I say good luck to them.
1
@MrAshyb87 You clearly have little to no understanding of the years long process of consolation, debate, and discussion that took place right throughout Australia prior to the Uluṟu statement. The indigenous community acknowledged at the time it was not universally accepted, very little ever is. You confuse political representation with constitutional recognition. There were no sovereignty issues with a constitutionally recognised voice. This was the opinion of numerous legal academics and several ex high court judges. Overall it nice you that you care so much about me to take an interest in my personal circumstances. Thankyou.
1
@azzajames7661 No your assertion is a complete falsehood and lacks any evidence or data. On the contrary where it could be established in remote locations and certain regions that are predominantly populated by indigenous people the yes vote overwhelming won. In some voting booths in regional NT, WA, and Queensland the yes vote was over 85% yes. You are factually wrong.
1
@azzajames7661 No you are quoting and using electoral seat data. I’m am referencing individual voting booths within electorates. These are far more accurate as they indicate far more detailed polling data. Many of these polling booths are only temporarily set up in remote communities when elections or referendum are required. I don’t dispute your data or the results of the referendum, but as stated previously in individual voting booths where it is easily identified the majority of voters were indigenous the overwhelming vote was yes. This data is easily accessible from the electoral commission. Polling stations right across the top end of Australia, particularly far north Queensland, the Kimberly, and most of the NT voted overwhelmingly in favour. Here are some examples: Hope Vale: 75.4% yes Remote Mobile team 22: 80.87% yes Fitzroy Crossing: 60.14%
1
@ No, you are referencing electorates, I was referencing individual polling stations within electorates. Where these can be established as being significantly indigenous voters the votes were overwhelmingly in favour of a yes vote.
1
@azzajames7661 Research is not required as the data I quoted is straight from the Electoral Commission website. So for example Palm Island which has indigenous population of 91% at the last census voted 75.1% yes despite Herbert the Electoral seat only voting 24%. Not only are you just factually wrong you are so ignorant you are even unable to understand the data. The chutzpah you display in calling me a liar is hilarious stupidity comedy of the finest order.
1
@azzajames7661 Another example Mornington Island polling station within the seat of Kennedy has an indigenous population of more than 80% and it delivered a yes vote of 78%. You citing some indigenous people you know is a classic anecdotal fallacy and is illogical nonsense.
1
@azzajames7661 Here is another example , the seat of Leichhardt only voted 33% yes, however the polling station Hope Vale within Leichhardt voted 75.4% yes. Hope Vales population is predominantly indigenous. You really do need to get your facts straight. It was embarrassing when you made it so easy to prove you wrong
1
@azzajames7661 Lockhart River 78% indigenous, voted 66% yes. Just another example of the majority of indigenous people voting yes You have provided no evidence, no data, no nothing to support your claim. I understand you think this is true but you opinion is to the opposite of what the data says. At least now you acknowledge I was not lieing as I have only presented AEC data.
1
@azzajames7661 Fitzroy Crossing 60% indigenous, voted 80% yes.
1
@azzajames7661 Remote Mobile Team 19, Maningrida NT. 87% yes vote. Remote Mobile Team 1, multiple sites 84% yes Both these polling stations are populated in the majority by indigenous people, but are located with the electoral seat of Lingiari NT which overall voted 56.46% No. I will grant you i have read some analysis that suggests indigenous voter turnout was lower than expected, but I have not seen any data that supports this.
1
@ I made no claim about the result of the referendum which showed a majority (over 60%) of Australians voted no. I completely accept that result. You made a claim that the majority of indigenous people voted no and I provided overwhelming amounts of data and evidence that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that your claim was clearly false. Yes the Labor government thought yes would get up and polling around the time suggested it would. The polling changed as the opposition ran a very successful no campaign. Sorry I hurt your feelings.
1