Comments by "" (@pwillis1589) on "Albanese government 'rattled' amid Voice debate" video.

Sections 25, 51 (xxvi), and 127 as per the original constitution were explicitly racist. Some of those sections have been amended, however some still remain. The constitution needs to change to remove all racist elements of our constitution and recognise indigenous peoples. I learnt all that with just a few minutes reading and learning.
3
@calvinsmith1295 So you refuted none of my points and provided no evidence of your claim. You have just made an unsubstantiated claim which is just opinion and dismissed as such.
2
@infidel202 No and no, neither of which is relevant to a discussion on indigenous recognition in the constitution.
2
@infidel202 Yes, hang on, between filling the green bin, organising admin for our next trip, sorting out a med certificate I have other stuff on. Am I married to you cause my wife nags me less.
2
@infidel202 Lighten up, I was having a joke, jeez.
1
@calvinsmith1295 So section 25 remains, however due to the racial discrimination act it no longer has any real effect, but still recognises that the constitution can discriminate on the basis of race. Section 51 xxiv was the race power and enabled the white Australia policy to be constitutionally legal. It has been amended but it too needs to be completely removed. Section 127 has been removed by the 67 referendum and was the section that excluded aboriginals from population counts for constitution purposes. Indigenous people need to be recognised in the constitution.
1
@infidel202 Your reply is comical on so many levels. Firstly, public recognition of the original inhabitants and thier continuing presence in our culture is not constitutional recognition. Public understanding and constitutional recognition are two completely seperate issues. On every data set you mentioned from housing to health, from education to employment indigenous peoples are well below the national average. I cite any closing the gap report as clear evidence of this claim. Because of this there are programs in place to help indigenous peoples reach parity, they receive no special treatment. Employment schemes and scholarships exsist for non indigenous peoples as well. Your point about political representation of indigenous is a fallacious argument called a non sequitur. Political representation is not remotely the same as constitutional recognition. You finished off with a nonsensical rant about bludgers and remote communities, none of which made any sense to me. Finally I suggest it is you who has thier head fully stuck up your rectal passage, so far it seems that your brain is getting its information from your upper colon.
1
@infidel202 So your reply was just nonsensical gibberish. I merely quoted factual data to support and make a logical argument for a constitutional enshrined voice. Your idiotic claims are completely unsubstantiated and are dismissed as such. Do you actually have a coherent argument against a voice?
1
@infidel202 I also find it somewhat amusing you recall a previous discussion and claim I provided no evidence and you then went on with a totally factless tirade full of misinformation about the voice.
1
@infidel202 You stupidity compare ASTIC to the voice without even understanding the fundamental differences between the two organisations. ASTIC was a service provider not unlike Australia Post. It was dissolved because of corruption allegations of the then current chairman. A voice is advisory body only with no financial delegation and hence unable to anything other than potentially effect government policy. Numerous closing the gap reports and all the data shows remote communities are and have been in crisis for the last 18 years. The indigenous community generally but not entirely believe a voice will provide government with the correct advice to improve the lives of all indigenous peoples.
1
@infidel202 You have presented a fallacious argument called anecdotal evidence it is a logical fallacy in argumentation and nonsensical.
1
@infidel202 A ridiculous assertion without a shred of evidence. All you have presented is unsubstantiated claims on top of personal opinion. Cite the source of your $1billion cost claim. I lived for 9 years in the NT, and while I never lived in a remote community do have some understanding of the difficulties these communities face. However your argument that you have and I haven’t is as explained earlier a fallacious one based on anecdotal evidence is a logical fallacy in argumentation.
1
@calvinsmith1295 G'day Calvin, good point. The reason the a Minister exists and a department is because parliament allocates a budget for service provision, no difference to why we have a Minister for defence and a defence budget. You still though do not understand the difference between political representation, that is voting for your local member who represents that electorate and his a member of a political party or possibly an independent and a constitutionally enshrined voice that is an advisory to the parliament and is non political in that it won't represent any particular political party just the interests of indigenous people, which our constitution currently doesn't.
1
@infidel202 fellatio, fallacious LMFAO funny reply.
1