Comments by "" (@pwillis1589) on "‘Everyone’s vote should count’: Voice ballot tick and cross debacle continues" video.

Clearly you have never read the constitution. Section 25 is explicitly racist. Multiple sections of our constitution were specifically written with racist intent. Specifically to stop Africans and Chinese from owning gold leases in WA, prior to Federation. Are you even Australian, do you know any Australian history?
2
@Want0nS0up RDA 1975 is not repeat not constitutionally enshrined and can be repealed at any time or suspended as it was for the Howard government intervention. You are just factually wrong. The RDA does as you point out effectively nullify section 25 of an explicitly racist constitution, so thankyou for agreeing with me 100%.
1
@Want0nS0up So in your attempt to ignore the history of the formation of our constitution by deciding one section of it is obscure you conveniently gloss over section 51(xxiv) now amended but often referred to as the race power. This section of the constitution provided for the racist immigration act that immediately followed federation and was commonly known as the “white Australia policy”. Also section 125 now deleted (1967 referendum) but essentially made native Australians non citizens. So why are you being so deliberately mischievous with the historical fact? My point to the original commentator was that clearly they had never read the constitution or had any understanding of its explicitly racist history, and yes that needs to be completely remedied by constitutional change that acknowledges indigenous Australians, because currently it doesn’t. There is no racism in doing this or providing for a voice. This is not my opinion this is the opinion of the Solicitor General and three High court judges plus numerous other constitutional experts and academics. I have no understanding why having a basic knowledge of our history qualifies me as being a bush lawyer or is this an attempt to paint me as an elite if so thanks. Perhaps you should learn some Australian history.
1
@Want0nS0up I understand you think it is racist. Far superior legal and academic opinion is that it is not. I choose the Solicitor General and three High court judges legal opinion over yours. You provide no evidence constitutional recognition and an advisory body is racist. Constitutional recognition for the original occupants of this country merely levels the playing field of an original explicitly racist constitution. An indigenous advisory body is no different to the other numerous advisory bodies that current exist. In simply ignoring the racist intent and racist history of this country you are in fact perpetuating it.
1
If the era of electing dimwitted moronically stupid politicians is upon as in the US that is unfortunate.
1