Comments by "" (@pwillis1589) on "‘Unlikely’ Voice to Parliament will help vulnerable Indigenous Australians" video.

  1. You haven’t even read the proposed structure have you? The proposed structure is representatives from all parts of Australia. I mean it’s in the document and is in the public domain. How lazy are you, you haven’t even tried to inform yourself
    1
  2.  @kiecraig4894  Who said anything about race. Nobody mentioned race, until you did. This is about equal rights for the original inhabitants of the continent. Why would you even mention race? Interesting.
    1
  3.  @kiecraig4894  This discussion is about the issue of a constitutional recognition for the indigenous people of Australia and their legal ownership of the land as the first inhabitants. It includes a voice and a Makkaratta truth commission. Yes dignity is an element of the end result, but I have no clue why you think race, which is a social construct has anything to do with it. We are just all one human species.
    1
  4.  @JC-lu4se  Nothing special about it. The legal ownership of the continent was denied to the original inhabitants when our constitution was written. Now it’s time to fix it. It is not a special right it is just an equal right that is missing. Constitutional recognition provides that equality. It provides nothing extra.
    1
  5.  @starcorpvncj  classic straw-man and renders you point illogical nonsense. Nobody says First Nation, the term is First Nations and acknowledges the multiple seperate groups that make up the Indigenous population. Nationhood as a concept is relatively a new idea in human history anyway, Australians didn’t even see themselves as a separate nation until the late 19th century CE.
    1
  6.  @stopthemediaswaronmen3029  Factually incorrect and as evidence I produce the High Court 6 to 1 decision in the “Mabo” case. I understand it is your opinion that the continent was an uncivilised rock, however the overwhelming legal opinion is you are demonstrably wrong. You are of course entitled to your opinion but it is based in fantasy.
    1
  7.  @starcorpvncj  Thankyou for so strongly arguing and proving my case. City states Roman empires neither of which were formalised nations with clear precise boundaries. Once again Nationalism and the concept of nationhood is something that developed late in the enlightenment. You don't understand the term straw man fallacy hence why you don't understand the irrelevance of your comment. The indigenous population didn't need to have a sense of nationhood to claim land ownership rights. This has been tested in the courts and is standard English common law. It was called the "Mabo decision" look it up. Your understanding of the history of federation is quite poor as well. Debates and consultation started around 1890 that is late 19th century CE. In summary I'm not sure why you replied? Apart from agreeing with about Nationalism the rest of your comment was fallacious nonsense.
    1
  8.  @starcorpvncj  See you’re creating straw-man fallacies again. I did not say aboriginal groups prior to 1770 had a sense of nationhood. I said English common law attributed them land rights prior to 1770. Prior to the start of discussions in the late 19th century as I correctly stated before (I appreciate you acknowledging that you were wrong on this point and also about nationalism) neither did the rest of the Australian people as we we 6 colonies. You are just fixated on the language of “nation”and blissfully ignore the actual practice of empires and early civilisation. Treaties were struck with the individual Indian tribes of the US at the same time Britain was illegally using “Terra Nullis” to claim land in Australia. We then denied any indigenous representation in the discussion debates and referendum on Federation and then wrote them out of the constitution and all you want to discuss is the pedantry around the concept of nationhood.
    1
  9. And your point is?
    1
  10.  @jamiechippett1566  Nice rant, however what is your point? Are you suggesting that by colonising Australia we brought the advantages of western civilisation?
    1
  11.  @jamiechippett1566  Simple question which you seem to be totally unable to answer. Try and put together a couple of coherent sentences together to explain your position. That's all I asked.
    1
  12.  @lifelongbachelor3651  Niceties WTF? murder, rape, theft. Yeah sure real nice. What are you even talking about?
    1
  13.  @JC-lu4se  Yes Australia is a wonderful country why wouldn't people want to migrant here?
    1
  14.  @lifelongbachelor3651  And your point is what?
    1
  15.  @lifelongbachelor3651  Right so I never argued against the advantages western technology has given civilisation. Again so what is your point?
    1
  16.  @jamiechippett1566  more incoherent rantings. Just state simply what point you are trying to make.
    1
  17.  @jamiechippett1566  So when you are unable to mount a coherent argument you stick your fingers in your ears and yell “bot” what a assclown of a reply to a simple question.
    1
  18. 225 comments and at least now only 99% are now racist.
    1
  19. No, just straight out racism no reversing of anything.
    1
  20.  @jimlofts5433  No anyone is allowed a racist opinion, just own it.
    1
  21. It’s a Makkaratta truth commission, and the fact you have deliberately and mischievous described it as retribution shows you haven’t a clue what you are talking about.
    1
  22.  @benjamin4894  A Makkaratta is simply a gathering of all parties and then acknowledging the wrong done by all sides. The Makkaratta proposed by the Uluṟu statement is nothing more than that. It won’t have any sort of legal or legislative ability to conduct “retribution”. You are looking at it from a western civilisation perspective (which is understandable as I made the same mistake) this is from the indigenous perspective and is what they have asked for.
    1
  23.  @benjamin4894  Never suggested it was. The Uluru statement from the Heart was almost 10 years of consultation with thousands of individuals from the indigenous community in all parts of Australia and finally co-signed by 250 elders. Nobody has argued it is one autonomous body, that is just a strawman in an attempt to mischievously obfuscate the now overwhelming support in the indigenous community for a voice. You only need consensus, not 100% compliance.
    1
  24.  @derekhowells1020  Adult discussion to hard for you to grasp?
    1
  25. It’s all in the public domain. The structure, how the representatives would form the voice, it’s all there. You just chose to remain ignorant.
    1
  26. 106 comments and mostly racist
    1
  27.  @gregsims  Why is a voice racist?
    1
  28.  @gregsims  No it doesn't. It recognises the original inhabitants of the continent. Nothing to do with race whatsoever. Why would you even raise race as an issue? There is only one species of humans, race is a social construct.
    1
  29.  @gregsims  I have no clue to what Aboriginal history you are referring to but there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever of human inhabitants on the mainland of Australia as we know it now any more than 70000 + or - 5000 years. Otherwise present your evidence.
    1
  30.  @gregsims  As mentioned before because of their legal entitlement as the original inhabitants of the continent. Nothing special about it.
    1
  31.  @gregsims  Your inability to provide any evidence is telling. Heresay is evidence of nothing. Please tell me your not quoting dreamtime stories. If all you are suggesting is there were numerous groups of aboriginals here prior to British colonisation, so what, everyone acknowledges this fact. It is irrelevant to a voice to parliament.
    1
  32.  @gregsims  Seriously!!!! The indigenous people have "Dreaming" and while I remain respectful of Aboriginal culture the idea that Ancestoral spirits came down and created the world and remained in scared places, is fanciful and has literally no basis in reality. We know exactly how the earth was formed 4.2 billion years ago. If you are going to believe word of mouth passed down over hundreds of generations as fact, then come to Sydney I have a bridge to sell you
    1
  33.  @gregsims  Novel testable predictions. Using a thermal ionisation mass spectrometer rock has been radiometric dated in multiple experiments. This data matches exactly with samples from other parts of the solar system. So in answer to your question technically I was there as the age of the earth is observable today. This is just basic science.
    1
  34. Factually incorrect on all counts. Where did you get this shit from? Your imagination.
    1
  35. What has telling the US President to f&$k off got anything to do with Australian domestic politics? Unless you were deliberately trying to prove the idiocy of your comment.
    1
  36. Nonsense.
    1
  37.  @echelon2k8  You are off with the fairies. You are a classic case of the uneducated bush lawyer who thinks they have found a glitch in the system. Your legal analysis of how the British claimed Australia and subsequent land ownership decisions is childlike it its manner. Tell you what put your case publicly in a court of law and let me know so I can laugh along as you are laughed out of every court in the land. I take my high court opinion over your gut feeling anytime.
    1
  38. The exact reason a voice to parliament provides.
    1
  39.  @markhill9275  A voice to parliament restores parity because as a group they were explicitly denied representation in our founding constitution. An advisory body to parliament is nothing more than that. It will have no legislative ability, no veto power, and no financial delegation. All it does is provide equity to the original inhabitants and land owners.
    1
  40.  @dorianshadesofgray  You are confusing constitutional recognition with political representation. Do you need me to explain the difference as it may come across as slightly condescending.
    1
  41. @Blacksky59 You to are confusing political representation with constitutional recognition. This appears to be a general error with people who are against a voice and explains why they are as a lack of knowledge does make people fearful of change.Dont worry as you learn more about the process you will change your opinion, I mark that's just commonsense isn't it.
    1
  42. @Blacksky59 See even your language is extremist, as it is either wilful ignorance or deliberately mischievous. All the recent polls, newspoll, essential, compass have support for a voice at over 66%. I don't know where you get your data from but it is wrong.
    1
  43.  @dorianshadesofgray  if you don't understand that a voice merely restores parity then you are confused.
    1
  44.  @dorianshadesofgray  That is an argument from authority fallacy and renders your comment nonsensical gibberish, and I suppose we will leave it at that. Of course the personal slur is a ad hominem fallacy as well, but what the hell your argument was so full of holes you had to go down the fallacious reasoning route eventually.
    1
  45.  @markhill9275  You fundamentally misunderstand the difference between political representation and constitutional recognition. They are not the same. The indigenous population where explicitly left out of our founding document "the constitution" this means in practical terms we are not equal as we have more constitutional rights than the indigenous population. All recognition does is restore equality. It grants indigenous people nothing extra. It merely grants a voice long denied. Answer this question, how many indigenous people were allowed to vote in the referendum for federation?
    1
  46.  @markhill9275  I have in every comment recognised one vote one person this is what political representation is which is why I have mentioned several times. You on the other hand sheepishly avoided my question because you don't like the answer. It is beyond reasonable doubt the original inhabitants of Australia were the Aboriginal population. Their existence was specifically and explicitly left out of the constitution, and for some reason you are incapable of understanding this. They were explicitly left out of a voice in our constitution and us becoming a federation. This is documented historical fact. Why are you denying this?
    1
  47.  @markhill9275  In my 3rd reply comment I explicitly mentioned political representation then again in my 4th comment and again in my 7th comment. It is not my fault you don't understand what political representation means. We have absolute archaeological evidence in the Kimberley region of Aboriginal inhabitants dating back approximately 70000 years. If you know differently present your evidence. WTF I can do an internet search and find the entire document entitled Australian Constitution and the fact you even deny its existence is the end of this discussion. You deny thier existence, you deny their land rights, and you deny them say in our constitution which isn't surprising as you deny its existence as well. You are even confused with Federation and Australia day which are two completely seperate dates celebrating two completely different events. Once again constitutional recognition (denied to Aboriginal people) and political representation are two separate issues unrelated. There is nothing special about it. No the indigenous people to not deserve a greater say they deserve the same as everyone. Answer my question. How many Aboriginal people were consulted and allowed to vote on Federation?
    1
  48.  @markhill9275  Oh yes it is simply in a more general sense, if you misunderstood it then that’s your problem.
    1
  49.  @markhill9275 DNA sequencing in a 100 year old lock of hair has proved that he was a direct descendant of migration out of Asia 75000 years ago. Archaeology has humans inhabiting the Kimberley region around 60000 years from carbon dated ochre paintings it is a site called Madjedbebe. On Rottnest Island we have stone tools dated at 50000 years. The evidence is overwhelming and is just a couple of minutes search on the internet. You can even read the scientific papers if you chose to. Mungo man alone is dated at 40000 years.
    1
  50.  @markhill9275  WTF are you even Australian? January 26th celebrates the arrival of the first fleet in 1788 and the beginning of British settlement. It has absolutely nothing to do with Federation. OMG every child in Australia is taught this in primary school.
    1
  51.  @markhill9275  You are so confused you are making ridiculous statements and creating strawman arguments. I never suggested in any way Australia was a nation prior to federation on the 1 Jan 1901. That is the 1 January 1901.
    1
  52.  @markhill9275  I answered your questions succinctly with "yes" and "no" responses. You completely avoided my question which lies at the heart of the issue and just ranted nonsensical giggerish, and we will leave it at that.
    1
  53.  @markhill9275  You asked me do Aboriginal peoples require special treatment and I answered "no" I asked you how many Aboriginal peoples voted for federation and were consulted about our constitution. You are unable or unwilling to answer those two simple questions, which I understand because you simply lack that knowledge. I have avoided nothing. Constitutional recognition is not a special privilege it is only granting the same rights you have, nothing extra. You don't understand that I that's OK it's not your fault. I mean you thought January 26th was federation day, and we will leave it there.
    1
  54.  @markhill9275  I answered those questions, you just didn’t like the answers. No Aborigines do not have any special land rights they have English common law land rights as per the Mabo and Wik decisions. You are just mistaken. The largest land owner in Australia is actually Gina Rineheart at 9.2 million hectares. You are just factually wrong. You continue with illogical fallacious arguments. I never suggested or implied you or I should feel personally guilty for anything. Once again constitutional recognition is not about fixing past perceived wrong doing it is about fixing current inequality as the indigenous people of Australia were ignored in our founding document and federation. Simple stuff and we will leave it there.
    1
  55.  @markhill9275  I mentioned nothing about Arnhem Land or argued that there isn’t indigenous communities that require permits to enter, only that individuals own vast tracts of land where you aren’t allowed onto either. Your point is just nonsensical. I haven’t mentioned race at all, but you seem fixated on it. Once again how many aboriginal people were allowed to vote in the referendum that decided federation and our constitution, just a rough round number will do, how many do you think? It was zero, not a one as they were explicitly made non citizens with no voting rights. You haven’t a clue about your own countries history. Is there any point in continuing when you just lack the basic facts.
    1