Comments by "" (@pwillis1589) on "‘Troubling signs’ Labor is ‘chasing an agenda it didn’t take to the Australian people’ with new ACMA" video.

You argue freedom of speech is disappearing then argue freedom of speech for indigenous people should be stopped, and that makes sense to you?
1
@mtscott Nope that is exactly what Keith Mitchell said in his comment. I am deflecting nothing. You are confusing political representation which you described correctly and constitutional recognition.
1
@mtscott OMG read his comment I quote “the voice that is coming from Alice Springs at present should certainly put the final nail in the coffin of the voice coming up in Parliament.” In raising the current crime wave in Alice Springs and hoping these current events will cause people to vote no in the referendum he is advocating for the restriction of freedom of speech rights for indigenous people. That is what he said in plain language. You are however absolutely correct our constitution in its original format and still is explicitly racist. Section 25, 51(xxiv), and 127 are all racist by your definition in that they called out and are able to call out any particular group they want. Did you study any Australian history at school?
1
@mtscott The chutzpah in claiming I'm being disingenuous in my use of the word "voice" when clearly in the original comment Mitchell deliberately uses the same word for two different meanings in an attempt to be derogatory. Mitchell clearly doesn't want indigenous people having a free speech avenue to parliament. It is you that is deliberately and deceitfully trying to misconstrue Mitchell's words.
1
@johncorlett3699 Yes they can and that is called political representation. Constitutional recognition is different and is what indigenous people don't have.
1
@johncorlett3699 Yes they should. You make a sound case for a "Bill of Rights"
1
@keithmitchell3282 You use the word voice to mean so many different things. However you have made a sound argument for a "bill or rights" so all Australians are represented in our constitution. Good on you.
1
@robharris6874 I have not accused or claimed anybody of being racist.
1
@mtscott Fair enough and yet in Mitchell's reply he claims the only voice being heard is the indigenous one which is factually and demonstratively false. A 2 minute search of the MSM opinion proves this.
1
@robharris6874 You idiot I didn't say or suggest what the MSM was saying was the truth only that it was clearly and loudly being said. You need to read more carefully the thread of the discussion you dunce.
1
@robharris6874 Once again for the dummies I have accused no one of being racist. You have twice now claimed I am. Prove it. Quote my text where I told someone they were racist or said anything that could be construed to be racist, or STFU.
1
@keithmitchell3282 You are absolutely correct. Sections 25, 51(xxiv), and 127 of our constitution were and are explicitly racist and made aboriginals non citizens. Time to correct that inequality well said. I'm glad you agree.
1
@iggyblitz8739 I’m not sure of the point of your comment. I never suggested indigenous peoples don’t have freedom of speech, unlike the original comment that suggested they not be allowed freedom of speech rights. You need to read the thread of the discussion. Free speech rights, political representation, and constitutional recognition are three separate issues.
1