Comments by "" (@pwillis1589) on "Voice to Parliament will enshrine ‘racial privilege’" video.

Our constitution originally and still does enshrine division. It is fundamentally racist. A voice actually removes the racist elements of it.
1
@TheRealBobSmith. 6 to 1 High court “Mabo” decision proved beyond all reasonable doubt the legal and rightful claim to all land prior to European settlement by the indigenous inhabitants. Clear, precise, and undisputed.
1
@TheRealBobSmith. What a devastating reply. You asked for evidence it was provided in detail and all you have is an emoji. Thankyou for conceding the idiocy of your question.
1
@tavuzzipust7887 Yes we all understand that we use the word "Australia" has a convenient term to describe the land which we all acknowledge has had various names throughout history. This is how language is used and how we communicate.
1
If accepted as being indigenous, and there is a process, then yes you will be able to have an input. Regions and states with have committees and representatives. You may even choose to to put yourself forward and either get elected or appointed, again there will be a process. This is all in the detail attached to the Uluṟu statement.
1
@gregmatthies8128 There is a 500 page supporting document with all the detail. An attempt to remain willfufully ignorant is just being disingenuous and suggests some other motive
1
@gregmatthies8128 Turnbull’s weasel words are just his excuse to get out of saying he was just completely wrong in the first place. You complain of no detail and then complain there is too much detail. You were always voting no and have no intention whatsoever of changing your mind no matter what evidence is placed before you. You have no interest at all in removing the racist elements of our constitution.
1
@gregmatthies8128 You are right, I have absolutely no idea and can not conceive of any reason why somebody would not want to remove the racist sections of our constitution.
1
@gregmatthies8128 Yes you are correct. I wish to remove the racist sections of our constitution.
1
@gregmatthies8128 Typical conspiracy theory.
1
@gregmatthies8128 A fair comment once you start arguing greater expectations of power and subjugation of the population. I mean where do you get this stuff from?
1
@thinkingallowed7042 Sections 25, 51, and 127 in the original constitution were all explicitly racist. 127 was repealed in the 67 referendum, and 51 amended. However 25 and 51 still remain. As well indigenous people were not included in any of the debates, discussions, and conventions about the constitution. As well they were not allowed to vote on the constitution. All these past injustices can essentially be fixed by including an indigenous voice in the constitution. It will have no legislative capability, no veto power, and no financial delegation. It is nothing to be frightened of.
1
How is it racist?
1
@bradyfilm Race has absolutely got nothing to do with it. What do you think race is anyway? There is only one species of humans. This is about the constitutional recognition of the original inhabitants who were denied representation. We made them non citizens and denied them voting rights during the debates, consultation, and referendum that decided whether we should federate the 6 colonies. Why would even raise race, that's just weird.
1
Fallacious nonsense. With just the smallest amount of education anyone can learn the origins of a voice go back to 1936 and a petition from the indigenous community for constitutional recognition. The Labor party had nothing to do with it.
1
And your point is? Because it has nothing to do with constitutional recognition.
1
And your point is? Flags as used by the British were appropriated from Indian/Chinese culture who invented them some 3000 years ago. What a completely nonsensical comment.
1
@micphoenix8200 No it was definitely nonsensical.
1
@lupcokotevski2907 You are not following the thread of the discussion. The point I was making just so it is clear for you. Saying Aboriginals appropriated the concept of flags from the British is while technically correct is a nonsensical argument because the British appropriated the concept of flags from other cultures. In was just a stupid comment to make.
1
Tom Scott Unimportant and irrelevant to the point I was making. The first recoded use of flags date back to 1046-246 BCE on the Indian subcontinent or Zhou dynasty and it was probably the Romans who introduced flags/banners the the British isles either way it is Ludicrous to suggest the British invented flags, they appropriated them and there’s nothing wrong with that.
1
Tom Scott In fact one of the great strengths of Western civilisation of which I am most proud is its ability to appropriate elements of all cultures. We do it with language, music, art, technology. I don't think there is anything we won't use if we like it.
1
@micphoenix8200 No I understood from your first reply you were attempting to be facetious you just didn't achieve it. When I pointed out the nonsensical nature of the supposed facetious comment. You just doubled down. It remains nonsensical. It is also nonsensical to suggested just because a flag was designed in 1971 the knowledge to create one was only gained in that year. No doubt aboriginals has some knowledge of flags and the use of them from January 1788 onwards. They most probably gained that knowledge from the British but again whoever they did is irrelevant. See how brave you are and make a facetious comment about the Australian flag next year on April 25th, see how many laughs you get then.
1
Anecdotal experience is evidence of nothing. It is a fallacious argument. I know a bloke who under no circumstances will rent his properties to any indigenous people. There your argument has been canceled.
1
An argument from personal experience is by definition an anecdotal fallacy,
1
@nicholasmills6489 You might have a minuscule of a point if indigenous people were actually arrested and incarcerated at similar rates to the average, however the data and evidence shows the complete opposite. Do you really need me to quote the data, ……ah what the hell. Indigenous people are 17.3 times more likely to be arrested than non-indigenous. Indigenous people are 14.7 times more likely to be imprisoned than non indigenous. I’m sure your story is true, but your argument is fallacious nonsense that has no basis in reality.
1
@nicholasmills6489 Good to see you acknowledge your earlier statement and comments were completely wrong and totally unjustifiable. In what fantasy world do you live in were privilege is considered to be in gaol. If you can't see the fallacy in your argument, then there is little more to say, and we will leave it there.
1
@nicholasmills6489 The nonsensical hypocrisy of your statement is obvious to all. You claim privilege and yet all the data completely refutes your argument, and we will leave it there.
1