Comments by "" (@pwillis1589) on "Voice to Parliament will 'end up giving activists a near-veto' over government" video.

@dagwould Interesting the War Memorial has just announced the fountier wars will now be addressed as part of its new exhibitions. So yes finally some truth telling. I doubt very much though if you have any real interest in the actual reality of our colonial history and how the indigenous population were treated.
2
Yes all the power that the PM has in the ink of his pen to sack him.
1
Of course you would be happy with a racist constitution that has ingrained white male privilege. Just one simple question how many indigenous people were consulted when our constitution was written, no need to be accurate just in round figures will do, say to the nearest 50.
1
Good point and a treaty would achieve this. Well said.
1
@justice1902 The idea a voice is a chamber of parliament has been shot down by every constitutional expert in the country. It is ridiculous nonsensical fear mongering.
1
That is exactly what our current constitution does. Have you even a clue as to what you are commenting on?
1
I can't believe so many people are commenting on the constitution and not having a clue what they are talking about. Read these sections of the original constitution; Section 25 Section 51 (xxvi) Section 127. Holy crap did anyone study Australian history?
1
@PJRayment Yes the original constitution was explicitly racist. Section 51 was explicitly inserted to enable the Commonwealth to legislate based on race. Section 51 was used to legislate the white Australia policy which is explicitly racist.
1
@VeteranfromOz Your comment is ridiculous nonsense.
1
@justice1902 What is an opened end voice to parliament? Just a mindless comment. A voice is just that, no veto power, no legislative capacity, no financial delegation. All it does is provide equity to a constitution that was written to be specifically racist in sections 25, 51, and 127.
1
@echelon2k8 So I quote fact and reference sections of the constitution and you comment with some idiotic wishy washy slogan. I doubt you have ever learnt anything in your life.
1
@justice1902 You are confusing parliamentary or political representation with constitutional recognition. They are seperate bodies. All Australians have to lesser and greater degree political representation as you indicated. Indigenous Australians do not currently have constitutional recognition. A voice will provide that.
1
@PJRayment Yes the current constitution is still explicitly racist as sections 25 and 51 (xxvi) remain. Section 51 was specifically used to create racist legislation. The white Australia policy was based on this section of the constitution. Yes it is clearly racist and is evident from just a basic reading of Hansard of the early parliament. To deny it is just being obtuse. If you are unable to understand the 500 page detailed document accompanying the statement from the heart, that's not my fault. A concern about a possible High Court ruling is just a slippery slope fallacious argument. A voice provides balance and recognition in a constitution that the indigenous population were explicitly left out of. Provide the evidence indigenous people are recognised in the constitution. You confuse political representation with constitutional recognition. Once again you display a breathtaking lack of knowledge of Australian history and how federation and the constitution were formed.
1
@PJRayment Responding to a point is not the same as refuting it which you have been unable to do. Sections 25 and 51 remain racist elements of the constitution. You addressed section 51 but completely failed to refute it. You did not provide any reason at all that section 51 didn't provide the ability for racist legislation to be passed by the Commonwealth. The white Australia policy was legislated and remained government policy for approximately 70 years . The indigenous population where explicitly made non citizens by section 127. No aboriginals were allowed to debate or participate in any of the debates, consultations, or vote in the referendum for the Constitution. You are just lying in saying they were. I have to repeat myself as you continue to deny historical fact. You clearly are unable to distinguish the difference between political representation and constitutional recognition and just saying "no you didn't" is purile. On numerous occasions and in this short paragraph I have clearly demonstrated your lack of knowledge of Australian constitutional history.
1
@tonypepperoni3679 If you consider constitutional recognition for our nations first peoples rubbish and just brush it off, then there is little I can say. If you chose to endorse a demonstrably racist document that denied Aboriginals a say in our federation then you own it.
1
@PJRayment You have refuted nothing. Constitutional committees have recommended section 25 be removed due to its overtly racist nature. Your opinion is worthless. Putting racism in perspective is merely condoning it. I don't need to prove section 51 was racist the politics of the day demonstrated it. I provided racist quotes from Edmund Barton that clearly support the racist intent of section 51. I don't need to show 127 was racist as it was demonstratively proven when it was repealed for being such after the 67 referendum. You are just factually wrong. Read a history book. Read the list of those participating at the debates and conventions in the 1890s. No indigenous persons are listed. Telling you that you are lying is not an ad hominem fallacy it is just a personal attack on your integrity it is not a logical fallacy. You provide me with no confidence you do understand the difference between political representation and constitutional recognition which again constitutional committees attended by constitutional lawyers all agree indigenous peoples were not represented in the constitution other than to make them non citizens by section 127. You inability to comprehend Australia constitutional history requires repetition.
1
@tonypepperoni3679 If by beating you into agreement you mean you can clearly and demonstratively see the racist DNA in our constitution and continue to do nothing about then yes. As I said just own it. I not suggesting everybody or anybody who opposes a voice is racist, but there is an element of that in the discussion.
1
@MASC440 Why do you mention race. A voice has nothing to do with race. It is about the original owners and inhabitants of Australia and a constitution that ignored their say in our Federation other than denying them a vote and making them non citizens.
1
@skozzi2845 Somewhat correct, section 127 was repealed, section 51 amended, section 25 remains.. A voice is necessary as at Federation our constitution denied any representation to indigenous peoples. After many years of debate and consultation the indigenous community came together and provided the Uluru statement from the heart. It is a modest request for constitutional recognition. It is what the Indigenous community asked for and should be taken to a referendum for all Australians to decide. Too bad if if your feelings are hurt in a frank and open discussion about Aboriginal disadvantages. You make a good point about a whole range of different cultures and communities to be represented in our constitution. Make a case for it and run it as a political platform, I'll back you. I haven't a clue what you are on about with Aboriginal advantage, there isn't a single data set that supports your quite ludicrous claim. In short your comment is full of half truths, straight out misconceptions, and falsehoods.
1
Like section 127 did before it was repealed. Section 127 explicitly made indigenous people non citizens. So I assume you were happy having more rights than aborigines?
1
If you really believed that then why to you advocate for a racist constitution. Three sections were and two currently are racist why not change them, or are you just ignorant?
1
@PJRayment Noboby cares if you don't accept section 127 was racist as we had a referendum and it was repealed because it was racist. You are just factually wrong accept that. Section 127 was titled "Aborigines not to be counted in reckoning population" and stated "In reckoning the numbers of the people of the Commonwealth, or of a state or other part of the Commonwealth, aboriginal natives shall not be counted. Just sticking your head in the sand and pretending that's not racist is being deliberately disingenuous.
1
Have you ever thought to answer pathetic privileged white male?
1
A complete and total misunderstanding of a voice that has no veto power, no legislative capacity, and no financial delegation. You haven't got a clue about what you are commenting on or claiming.
1
LMFAO, Trump steaks went belly up years ago owing people millions, another failed Trump enterprise. It lasted all of two months in 2007. If you do have one it is mighty aged beef.
1