We are all racists in some way, but if we include this racism in our constitution then what will stop a future generation from reinstituting the white Australia policy that is just as racist?
If this leads to an overthrow of our form of government will it lead to a war between the two groups to bring back a one nation constitution as it was before Whitlam changed it without a referendum?
Then the current company, "Australia" could declare bankruptcy and we could become a solvent nation again too.
When self promotion is key, there’s nothing like a Labor leader to do it.
When Albanese announced the voice referendum a number of key questions and issues came to my mind.
First and foremost, how is “aboriginality” to be determined to qualify one for a seat on the sounding board? And if the answer is by DNA testing, who determines what percentage makes an
“aboriginal “. Can one “identify” as aboriginal without any blood line?
Secondly, in the constitution it is clear - Section 116 of the Constitution of Australia precludes the Commonwealth of Australia (i.e., the federal parliament) from making laws for establishing any religion, imposing any religious observance, or prohibiting the free exercise of any religion.
Seeing that much of aboriginal history, culture and jurisprudence is based on the worldview centred on “the Dreaming,” or “dream-time,” a complex and comprehensive concept embodying the past, present, and future as well as virtually every aspect of life. It includes the creative era at the dawn of time, when mythic beings shaped the land and populated it with flora, fauna, and human beings and left behind the rules for social life.
So, their culture which will inform the “sounding board” is based on a religion which posits a Creator being or beings. How’s that going to sit with S116 of the constitution and those of the naturalist, non-metaphysical worldview of the atheist left? And wii the detailed answers to these questions ever be asked or able to be asked without being censored by being labelled “hate speech”?
Final question, should this sounding board for a particular cultural group be successful, will other groups want their “unique” sounding board? I can imagine an LGBT- Heinz 57 sounding board or maybe,(tongue in cheek) a Christian sounding board.
According to the 2016 census far more Aborigines identify with Christianity than any other spirituality or religion. The preamble to the Constitution thus states a unifying statement of belief
The same divide by ethnicity is going on everywhere including at your neighbours place across the Tasman. But I’m reminded of the scripture that tells us in the days before Jesus’s return that ‘nation will rise against nation’ - no longer unified as one nation, but rather split along racial lines with virtue and guilt apportioned accordingly.
A great summary. Well done encapsulating the "voice " proposal to us. It is a very bad idea to divide us and trade mercilessly on the basic good will of Australians to the Aboriginal people. If the government so willed it the problems our aboriginal population face could be solved right now. But in solving it we deprive the forces that perpetuate the grievances with an issue to use to foist guilt and revolution on us. It would take way the reason to live for many of the revolutionary protagonists of this very bad idea. It would also deprive the PM of his legacy which would be a great idea. Whitlam is best forgotten and left in history as will this very vacuous and unintelligent PM we have somehow elected.
Very well written, James! You have certainly hit the nail on the head with this - thank you! This is yet another part of the Marxist agenda, designed to train us to submit to government control and happily give up our fundamental rights without questioning anything. It is also yet another way to go about humiliating us and ruining our western society through division and the deprivation of fundamental rights, based on race.
"Rarely, in my lifetime, have I seen the public treated with such contempt." Me too, James. Me too. This is so appalling and so hard to believe that this could occur in Australia.
About 3,000 years ago the Hindu's in India set up the caste system to protect the White rulers who had invaded from the mixing of race with the blacker natives. The whole society was divided into about 3,000 castes based on skin color. Each caste was given a work/ job they were to do and graded in social standing. Marriage was only to be with people of your own caste. No one was allowed to rise higher in the caste/ class system by ability/ wealth or marriage. The British took about 150 years to discover what the bottom caste was. The bottom caste were the people who washed the clothes of the untouchables, the next lowest class. They were never to be seen by anyone, so only went outside at night to collect and wash the clothes.
That system still functions today and has many effects on modern society and influences all Indians, even those in Australia in many ways.
Our govt now wants to create a caste system here. All Australians and another class of people called Aboriginals/ first nations people with different legal rights. If introduced it will be permanent. People classed as Aboriginal will be permanently different legally.
The difference with India will be it is not based on color as almost all aborigines today have many European or Asian ancestors. A great % of Aborigines can not be identified by racial features or their skin color because their % of pre 1788 ancestors is so low. Every decade the % declines even more as the rate of marriage/ sex between Aborigines and all others is so high. People with say 64 ancestors (1 great great great great grandparent, 6 generations ago who was Aboriginal and 63 non Aboriginal ancestors) can identify and call themselves Aboriginal. Under the proposed new constitutional changes a 1/ 64th person will qualify to get a 2nd voice to parliament. Go forward 100 years and say 4 generations, the 1/64th person could be a 1/ 1024th person claiming benefits and a 2nd vote. At present every citizen gets 1 vote to parliament.
2 other things are also being ignored. 1) ANY ONE CAN CLAIM TO BE Aboriginal eg author Bruce Pascoe. Who claims to.belong to no less than 3 tribes through his grandmother. Birth certificates show both his grandmothers were English and genuine Aboribinal elders deny he is a relative
2). This voice decision will do nothing to help those genuinely in need of govt assistance.
Great article James, you've just made one mistake.
"Some people, based on skin colour, are seen as a different people and get an extra voice."
Skin colour has nothing to do with this issue, most of the aboriginal activists are not discernibly aboriginal.
From my observations there's 4 types of aboriginal:
1. Endogamous : Full blood or near full blood, they have bred within mob, these are the ones most likely to live in remote communities with all the negative associations. They will retain some vestige of cultural heritage, language customs etc.
2. Rural Aboriginals: Racially blended with either Asian or European ancestry, discernibly aboriginal but divorced from culture.
3. Exogamous: Their families have actively bred 'outside' mob for generations, not discernibly aboriginal, often urban, educated and activist (think Lidia Thorpe).
4. Fauxboriginies: Not aboriginal at all (think Bruce Pascoe), have adopted an aboriginal identity and its attendant 'victim' status in order to suck from the public teat.
As you point out, the members of the 'Voice' will be selected NOT elected. Specifically they'll be selected from categories 3 and 4 and substantial benefits will accrue to them and their families. Aboriginals in categories 1 & 2 will derived no benefit from the 'Voice'.
Brilliant. I will be reposting this many times leading up to the referendum. Thank you.
This is one of the things I like about your articles, they help me with discussions on current issues & exposing the lies, hypocrisy, double standards, wokeism & just dumbness.
James there is a reason you have missed
All leasehold landholders will be at risk of having their leases terminated and you can imagine the flow on affect
Reduction in farming-the decline in regional towns- the impact on business that supply the farming & grazing sector of the economy etc
We are all racists in some way, but if we include this racism in our constitution then what will stop a future generation from reinstituting the white Australia policy that is just as racist?
If this leads to an overthrow of our form of government will it lead to a war between the two groups to bring back a one nation constitution as it was before Whitlam changed it without a referendum?
Then the current company, "Australia" could declare bankruptcy and we could become a solvent nation again too.
When self promotion is key, there’s nothing like a Labor leader to do it.
When Albanese announced the voice referendum a number of key questions and issues came to my mind.
First and foremost, how is “aboriginality” to be determined to qualify one for a seat on the sounding board? And if the answer is by DNA testing, who determines what percentage makes an
“aboriginal “. Can one “identify” as aboriginal without any blood line?
Secondly, in the constitution it is clear - Section 116 of the Constitution of Australia precludes the Commonwealth of Australia (i.e., the federal parliament) from making laws for establishing any religion, imposing any religious observance, or prohibiting the free exercise of any religion.
Seeing that much of aboriginal history, culture and jurisprudence is based on the worldview centred on “the Dreaming,” or “dream-time,” a complex and comprehensive concept embodying the past, present, and future as well as virtually every aspect of life. It includes the creative era at the dawn of time, when mythic beings shaped the land and populated it with flora, fauna, and human beings and left behind the rules for social life.
So, their culture which will inform the “sounding board” is based on a religion which posits a Creator being or beings. How’s that going to sit with S116 of the constitution and those of the naturalist, non-metaphysical worldview of the atheist left? And wii the detailed answers to these questions ever be asked or able to be asked without being censored by being labelled “hate speech”?
Final question, should this sounding board for a particular cultural group be successful, will other groups want their “unique” sounding board? I can imagine an LGBT- Heinz 57 sounding board or maybe,(tongue in cheek) a Christian sounding board.
Totally agree with your summary James!
So we'll written and said.
WE have Aboriginals in Parliament, surely they are there to represent all of Australians and with emphanise on the Aboriginal welfare ??
According to the 2016 census far more Aborigines identify with Christianity than any other spirituality or religion. The preamble to the Constitution thus states a unifying statement of belief
Well ‘said’ James, you nailed it!!
The same divide by ethnicity is going on everywhere including at your neighbours place across the Tasman. But I’m reminded of the scripture that tells us in the days before Jesus’s return that ‘nation will rise against nation’ - no longer unified as one nation, but rather split along racial lines with virtue and guilt apportioned accordingly.
A great summary. Well done encapsulating the "voice " proposal to us. It is a very bad idea to divide us and trade mercilessly on the basic good will of Australians to the Aboriginal people. If the government so willed it the problems our aboriginal population face could be solved right now. But in solving it we deprive the forces that perpetuate the grievances with an issue to use to foist guilt and revolution on us. It would take way the reason to live for many of the revolutionary protagonists of this very bad idea. It would also deprive the PM of his legacy which would be a great idea. Whitlam is best forgotten and left in history as will this very vacuous and unintelligent PM we have somehow elected.
Very well written, James! You have certainly hit the nail on the head with this - thank you! This is yet another part of the Marxist agenda, designed to train us to submit to government control and happily give up our fundamental rights without questioning anything. It is also yet another way to go about humiliating us and ruining our western society through division and the deprivation of fundamental rights, based on race.
"Rarely, in my lifetime, have I seen the public treated with such contempt." Me too, James. Me too. This is so appalling and so hard to believe that this could occur in Australia.
About 3,000 years ago the Hindu's in India set up the caste system to protect the White rulers who had invaded from the mixing of race with the blacker natives. The whole society was divided into about 3,000 castes based on skin color. Each caste was given a work/ job they were to do and graded in social standing. Marriage was only to be with people of your own caste. No one was allowed to rise higher in the caste/ class system by ability/ wealth or marriage. The British took about 150 years to discover what the bottom caste was. The bottom caste were the people who washed the clothes of the untouchables, the next lowest class. They were never to be seen by anyone, so only went outside at night to collect and wash the clothes.
That system still functions today and has many effects on modern society and influences all Indians, even those in Australia in many ways.
Our govt now wants to create a caste system here. All Australians and another class of people called Aboriginals/ first nations people with different legal rights. If introduced it will be permanent. People classed as Aboriginal will be permanently different legally.
The difference with India will be it is not based on color as almost all aborigines today have many European or Asian ancestors. A great % of Aborigines can not be identified by racial features or their skin color because their % of pre 1788 ancestors is so low. Every decade the % declines even more as the rate of marriage/ sex between Aborigines and all others is so high. People with say 64 ancestors (1 great great great great grandparent, 6 generations ago who was Aboriginal and 63 non Aboriginal ancestors) can identify and call themselves Aboriginal. Under the proposed new constitutional changes a 1/ 64th person will qualify to get a 2nd voice to parliament. Go forward 100 years and say 4 generations, the 1/64th person could be a 1/ 1024th person claiming benefits and a 2nd vote. At present every citizen gets 1 vote to parliament.
2 other things are also being ignored. 1) ANY ONE CAN CLAIM TO BE Aboriginal eg author Bruce Pascoe. Who claims to.belong to no less than 3 tribes through his grandmother. Birth certificates show both his grandmothers were English and genuine Aboribinal elders deny he is a relative
2). This voice decision will do nothing to help those genuinely in need of govt assistance.
A great article James. Well written and your reasoning explained in detail.
I am yet to see anyone write in support of the ‘Yes’ vote and back up their reasonings as precisely as you have done.
I will encourage all my contacts to spread your words.
The Voice has to be stopped.
Carlos, magnificent !!
Great article James, you've just made one mistake.
"Some people, based on skin colour, are seen as a different people and get an extra voice."
Skin colour has nothing to do with this issue, most of the aboriginal activists are not discernibly aboriginal.
From my observations there's 4 types of aboriginal:
1. Endogamous : Full blood or near full blood, they have bred within mob, these are the ones most likely to live in remote communities with all the negative associations. They will retain some vestige of cultural heritage, language customs etc.
2. Rural Aboriginals: Racially blended with either Asian or European ancestry, discernibly aboriginal but divorced from culture.
3. Exogamous: Their families have actively bred 'outside' mob for generations, not discernibly aboriginal, often urban, educated and activist (think Lidia Thorpe).
4. Fauxboriginies: Not aboriginal at all (think Bruce Pascoe), have adopted an aboriginal identity and its attendant 'victim' status in order to suck from the public teat.
As you point out, the members of the 'Voice' will be selected NOT elected. Specifically they'll be selected from categories 3 and 4 and substantial benefits will accrue to them and their families. Aboriginals in categories 1 & 2 will derived no benefit from the 'Voice'.
This is a useful summary of the situation and true but is never mentioned in public. Thanks for your comment.
Brilliant. I will be reposting this many times leading up to the referendum. Thank you.
This is one of the things I like about your articles, they help me with discussions on current issues & exposing the lies, hypocrisy, double standards, wokeism & just dumbness.
I love hearing that Linda. That’s exactly what I’m trying to achieve. Have a great new year