The Australian Human Rights Commission ( definition of Racism),: "Racism is the process by which systems and policies, actions and attitudes, create inequitable opportunities for people, based on race." This could also effictively be the definition for the "voice".
Complaints about the incumbent government's racist regime should be directed to the AHRC! What a merrygoround that would be or perhaps a revolving door would be more apt
Cogent clarity! Thankyou John Anderson! Why vote NO: 1. Voice has No agency to represent diversity of aboriginal nations. 2. Emotionally charged divisive proposal 3. Nation's constitution should not single out anyone based on race, creed, cultural background.
The frightening part is that the Voice cannot be defined. There are those who have asked for the Voice to be defined in parliament but without adequate result.
I also heard raised they will work out the details after the referendum, which seems like a dangerous way to go. I can’t recall to cite here where, but I think was a recording on a YT video some time ago of the people proposing it.
Just like anything woke these days. Completely based on people's feelings and nobody can explain how anything is supposed to work or even define their own standpoints.
@@mindwarp4818 Parliament will debate and then decide on the details such as how many members, how often they will meet etc. And this is in line with any other referenda that has succeeded in the past.
@@anthonycarr7466 it’s Pandora’s box, it’s one thing with the voice getting passed and I’m not totally against that but there is no detail as to what and how it’s administrated or what enforceable controls they have in parliament Do you really want a non elected committee to make decisions, make the rules up, potentially overriding elected senators/parliamentary vote with no consequences for the outcomes they produce hard written in to the constitution. For me it’s not just yes or no, we the people have to know what that vote means for every citizen.
As had already been said, the treaty in New Zealand started off as 'just an advisory board', but now after the court cases it influences and controls EVERY aspect of New Zealand life for the benefit of the Maori. A county divide by race.
You can also look at Malaysia, Fiji, Zimbabwe, South Africa and indeed USA for countries where special provisions based on race have lead to diviseness and disenfranchisement of the people bringing the most prosperity to the countries.
New Zealand will undoubtedly suffer as a nation because of their decision! It is definitely no longer the affordable and peaceful oudoor space destination for overseas migrants or visitors any more! The whole economy could be destroyed by the increasingly violent disputes and strong majority Maori rule! 🧐
@@somethingelse9535 there are numerous race based policies within the USA that occur at the state or city level, or outside of government at corporation and university levels. Examples: race based criteria for medical treatments or university admissions. Often the most affected are people of various Asian backgrounds such as Chinese or Indian. I have no criticism of the USA based on its foundational documents, more on the creeping and increasing examples of race based criteria for inequality across its broader society. It’s obviously a very diverse country with a wide variety of policies reflecting its unification of many states built into the name. Some places I’m sure are not as divisive, but undoubtedly many others are.
@@AlexSmith-gr4hp They are laws that can be changed, as opposed to the constitution, that needs a national referendum to alter. Its a really dumb idea to enshrine race advantage in a constitution, it makes racism permanent.
One person One vote One representation You can’t get fairer than that And that is what we already have in Australia. Putting in race lessen the document for all. It’s a no for me.
The most puzzling thing is that "one person, one vote" is meant to be a core tenet of the Labor party, which is why it's always wanted to abolish upper houses of parliament like it did in Queensland.
Well said John, I can't see this working on any level let alone improving quality of life in indigenous communities. I will vote no and I tell family and friends why.
When there is any doubt - vote NO. Anderson knows his facts or in this case that there are few if any facts relating to the Voice. All Australians should be enrirely equal under the Crown.
Even though I am leaning towards voting 'yes' (see my comment elsewhere as to why), I completely agree with this logic. While I believe it is the civic duty if every voting citizen to make a decent attempt to understand what the proposal means, and both the arguments 'for' and 'against', as a matter of principle, if a voter still is unsure as to whether to change the Constitution or unsure on the nature of the question, I believe they are morally obliged to vote 'no'. There is onus on the proponents of the referendum to humbly and respectfully provide a compelling case to the voting citizens of Australia. And compelling based on the merits of the proposal, not some emotionally charged white guilt virtue signalling that is not grounded in compelling moral argument.
I just think that this issue is being overthought by the usual fear mongering cohorts. I guarantee that if the LNP had been on board and didn't treat it like a political football there would not be such a divide. The thing is that Aboriginals have really NOT been treated equally at anytime in our 200 odd years of European history. Things are better in individual circumstances now but overall there is a divide and a lack of understanding and consideration of the Aboriginal thinking and how THEY need policies and decisions to be enacted to help them walk with US. The current regimes simply haven't been working! It's a disgrace! Voting YES is a reasonable thing to do to God's sake! I recall all the rubbish spoken associated with the MABO case . All a smoke screen and thank goodness it went through.
Aborigines are Australians like the rest of us. They vote and they pay taxes. I have met an Aborigine who sat in the Federal Parliament so I can't see why they need extra representation unless they want to pay twice the tax that the rest of us do.
I do not want a Caucasian Voice, or an African Voice. or an Asian Voice, a Catholic Voice, a Jewish Voice, or an Indigenous Voice to Parliament.
The Government's job is to represent the interests of the people, I say to the Government, "do your job, do not abrogate that job to some council or other". Vote No.
Spot on. Couldn't have articulated it better. Unfortunately it seems we have an activist, rather than a statesman, for a Prime Minister. Can't see it leading anywhere good.
@@henryjames5663 What defines an immigrant? Someone who arrived yesterday? 10 years ago, 100 years ago, 30-60,000 years ago? I was taught in primary school back in the 60s, that successive waves of aboriginal people migrating to the Australian continent, forcefully pushing the aboriginal people already here before them further south, and west, as different groups made their way to this continent. Since man started to walk this earth, we have been migrating, and it will never stop. So! What defines an immigrant?
I've been saying this since the voice'first came on the news. I was looking at it through the lens of Magna Carta you'll see if the king could divide any of his subjects then he would have leverage points to then create a fresh wall every time these people who were pushing for such things for really have no understanding of not just English history but history in general
The indigenous ‘nations’ are not nations at all. They’re tribes. Nomadic tribes across a vast continent that rarely integrated with other tribes and were still tribes when the English landed in Sydney
They only met up to fight, eat the losing side, party and graze! Rather like New Guinea natives actually! 🤨 Exactly, the English only landed in Sydney, with chained convicts, women and children, and a few soldiers to guard them - no suitable foodstuffs nor shelter! Bloody pathetic army of invaders, don't you agree!?? 😏
Tribes that fought and went to war with each other and did nothing nothing but descend on an area, eat it barren and run away from the fires they set after that. Where are all the giant marsupials that evolved here?? They died out a little less than 60,000 years ago, strange coincidence of dates that. Did the marsupials lament when their land was invaded 60,000 years ago?
That's entirely correct. The concepts of nations and sovereignty is alien to the indigenous tribal groups. It's just another aspect of cultural appropriation.
truth be told there were no aboriginal nations in colonial era Australia in the conventional sense, but rather hundreds of essentially nomadic tribal groups of various sizes, many of whom were warring with and contesting the territory of others.
yes, many murders took place, child brides, slavery of other tribal women and cannibalism of the competing tribal men. This didnt happen in all tribes but in a fair number of them.
This isnt what they teach today in schools.. its a total farce, my kids think they were Australias "first scientists, inventors and mathematicians" .. they didnt even invent the wheel for themselves... they were the only indigenous population to fail to invent the bow and arrow... i mean come on guys...its a wheel..
"The very model of equality is to make sure no one is singled out" - brilliant. And the debate has been insanely emotionally charged, to the point where I do wonder if we'll be faced with enormous riots and protests if the Voice doesn't succeed.
Your statement makes little sense! The whole point is that there has been NO equality when it comes to the Aboriginals in this country. Take the time to read the history of European take over of the country. Whilst the British Govt directed that there was to be no killing or harmi g of the indigenous people there was no way this was able to be implemented being 12,000 miles away from Britain, How could there be equality when the people living here had nowhere to successfully move to as their land was taken and possessed and fenced etc etc. This has gone on from day one. After the WWars there was NO equality for the returned servicemen Aboriginal. Since 1930' s William Cooper tried and tried to,persuade the govts of the daybto listen to his people, to be included, to have a fair go etc, And so,it goes and still the same negativity is being peddled by the ignorance and the racial discrimination. It is time to say YES and let the Aboriginals be listened to from their communities! It won't hurt anybody, What is there to be somfearful of. After the debacle of the previous corrupt LNP govt it couldn't be worse
@@beepbeep6861 My bet is we will be badgered for reparations, schools will be forced to change class content, businesses will be hounded to support the 'right' causes. In short, it'll undermine democracy because it will give disproportionate power to activists.
Today, 'Equality' is being replaced with 'Equity', which does not necessarily mean 'Equality'. Under 'Equality' everyone gets an equal share of the 'Pie'. Under 'Equity', the disadvantaged get a bigger share of the 'Pie' to compensate for their disadvantage.
Every First Nation on the planet (possibly does not apply as a term in this instance) has a representative body that is democratically voted on, one person one vote. The proposed Voice to Parliament will not be a democratic vote but rather one of ancestry. It is impossible for me, personally, to vote for an undemocratic body to have power in a democratic country.
My reason for voting no is based on experience growing up and working in Alice. ATSIC failed. It failed not only because it was exploited but because of the different indigenous nations (as you so eloquently put) could not come to agreements on where help was needed more. This caused alot of discussions and caused a few tribal fights. But their feelings when ATSIC failed them will always stick with me. To have this permanently put into our constitution it worries me to what will happen to those indigenous who vote no. Will it still be fair? Resentment and restlessness is what this voice has done. We dont know in the future how it will affect Australians. There are those Indigenous that would like to use it to revenge the colonial Democracy I think they think the Voice is about more than recognition. This is so messy that I will vote no.
That is the clearest explanation I have heard so far--supplementing my own conclusion that a sound NO vote is the best outcome for democracy and a voice for all ‘nations’ within our single AUSTRALIAN Nation.
God forbid, that embarrassment of a senator, elected by a bunch of rubes, will likely force her way onto that voice body. Same as that communist oxygen thief Thomas Mayo.
The only thing in a republic (democracy), that at its core is equality before the law, that can destroy a cohesive and coherent constitutional society is codifying the concept of “protected class” in its law or constitution.
Thank you Francis and Konstantin for having John. Well said John! I’m voting NO. There is just no evidence that this will improve the lives of indigenous Aussies; on the contrary. If there is evidence, why not legislate it first and enshrine later after a proven track record? Well we know better from actual experience with similar advisory groups, so NO because: (1) I do not want to further disadvantage indigenous Aussies by entrenching the rich elites in their community especially not those who only identify as Aboriginal but don’t actually live on the ground in the countryside where the gap is glaring; (2) I do not want to undermine the efficient working of the government by having the same elites force the hand of parliament through the courts to further their own interests (not the interests of those they are supposed to represent, we’ve seen that before); and (3) I do not want to enshrine in the constitution what we already know to have failed indigenous Aussies in the past-thinking that the failures of doing more of the same can be rectified by doing more of the same only permanently is silly, quite frankly. 😔
Well said. The whole point of democracy was equality. But that's not what today's leftists want. They want all people to be equal but also want some to be more equal than others. And those who are more equal than others are determined based on immutable traits, like gender, race, etc. and it's antithetical to democracy. It's social policy that has failed everywhere in the world it was tried. Making a special status for Indigenous peoples in Canada has not worked. Those who live on reserves live in what can accurately be described as poverty. There is no accountability on the money given to them, and they have the lowest high school completions and highest suicide rates of any other subgroup in Canada. And this is with 1) not paying taxes, 2) getting university for free, and 3) getting unlimited hunting and fishing licenses. None of those things have changed the other stats, and they have led to a great deal of social resentment. I cannot choose to be Indigenous, I have to be born Indigenous, and based on that lottery of birth I'm treated differently by law: 1) I have to pay taxes, 2) I have to pay for school and 3) I have get hunting and fishing licenses. I think we need to call it day on special status based on how Indigenous a person is, and just let them be normal citizens like the rest of us and make up their own futures without government handouts. They can only claim government funding if they stay stuck in time, being clients of the federal government does not give a sh!t about their welfare by being "good little victims" (my own words). They forfeit many of the niceties of modern life and the chance at making a better life in exchange for "more say" in Parliament and a special status with a few privileges and more drawbacks than most of face statistically. Only no one in Canada has the political balls to go do that. I'm certain some people reading this comment think I'm a racist. Let me tell you: I want Indigenous communities to maximize their own gains on their dime just like every other person in Canada has to. That's called equality, not racism. In my version of Canada, I think we can address their poverty, their suicide rate and their failing in school by taking away the special status and welcoming them into the modern era. I call that being humane. My opponents call it racism, which is really saying they want Indigenous people to stay victims so they can pretend to give a sh!t about them while doing nothing to help them.
If you can vote you already have a voice. That’s the fairest way we know and it isn’t racist if everyone is allied to do it. Vote NO to this racist and divisive referendum
1 of the things i,m worried about is the south africans are gonna try to sue us for cultural appropriation by stealing their apartheid idea which the voice represents
If the Voice won't really do anything then it does not need to be in the Constitution; if it will have powers then they need to clearly define them ahead of time.
Australians just don't want this Voice. They are waking up to what is going on here. If you don't understand it, vote NO.... and if you do understand it you would vote NO anyway.
One of the best Deputy Prime Ministers of Australia of all time, & a decent bloke, clever & from the country. A junior member in the coalition so not to be more than an acting PM … & on that no scuttllebut. I was a fan of Hawke/Keating but even they knew he was a man of integrity.
Encouraging racism and discrimination is not a model for governance. If they want a government position they should put their best foot forward, instead of both feet or FI let's get shedded.
A political voice is the absolute worst - politicians “of the day” are NEVER held to account for any policy decisions - look at the residential school system in Canada - endless apologies and money thrown at it for over 100 years by the citizens who had NO VOICE in the creation of the system, just handed all the animosity and an ongoing invoice to pay for every actual or perceived slight into perpetuity
I’ve been leaning to vote No, but genuinely open to listen to arguments to vote Yes. Unfortunately, apart from “it’s the right thing to do” (which in my mind is not an argument), I’ve yet to hear anything to convince me. I will however, keep my mind open until the day of the referendum.
The simplest question to help you decide in any referendum. Does the constitution need changing? Can the same outcome be achieved through other measures.
So true. Canada, I think, has quite strict requirements which if applied here would exclude the vast majority of those that call themselves aborigines.
"We" didn't take anything. Our ancestors settled a land with the approval of the local population in return for tea, tobacco, sugar and flour. Why work hard hunting and gathering when there is effectively free food? Today's aborigines are, I think, ashamed at how easily their ancestors gave up. But they are hypocrites as very few, if any, would enjoy a truly traditional way of life. Certainly not the 85% that live in cities and towns.
"Race, gender, wealth, position in society" and I guess we might add religion to that and consider some of the troubles in the Middle East, Israel included...dictatorships like Dubai wouldn't bear too much scrutiny either.
No they weren't. Even within a tribe there was no single leader or even group. Everyone had a role and in every situation someone was inferior and the other superior.
@@beepbeep6861No it doesn't. A country belongs to whoever has the power to control it. In 100 years or less this land will be controlled by China or India or someother power. It will matter not at all who was here first or even second.
Reason two is that ‘I don’t think it’s going to work ‘. Doesn’t explain why. Unless that’s left to the other two reasons. In other words he has two reasons to vote No.
Basic VOICE questions are ignored about vital issues like how the crew of 24(?) untouchable omni-powerful "VOICE REPS" will be selected? Who are they? Will it be a Indigenous only "continental democratic" separatist vote? So how do we split the Australian Electoral Rolls according to Albo's 3-flagation race Apartheid? One problem with this "race split" is that thousands of Australians have no birth certificates (Est ~400K) because the parents never registered their birthday and many of them are likely to be Indigenous. Hospitals never did do birthday-regos, and often too far to track for busy mothers to do a proper registration maybe? Incidentally, prominent indigenous organisation's recently indicated on SBS TV that up to 1/3 of Aboriginal "identifiers" like Melbourne Uni Professor Bruce Pascoe etc. are greedy delusional "race-shifting dreamtimers", so that's just another complicating problem in a woke Australian apartheid 3-flag future. "What to be or not to be, that is the question..." Don't mention appearance, (Black can be very White today!) or DNA or even language skills! Modern Australia replaces science with a "tick-box self-identification" that is good enough to migrate to the indigenous race! Then we have the Torres Strait Islanders that can all speak "language" i.e. the great Pan-Pacific language vs Aboriginals fighting each other with hundreds of primitive and deficient para-languages. The true traditional Pacific Islanders may actually NOT be interested in a separatist VOICE in bed with their traditionally disrespected culturally inferior continental Aboriginals. (Only a few greedy opportunistic Pacific islanders are expected.) In fact, the Islanders are in every way vastly more culturally advanced and have always despised the scattered quarrelsome mainland Aboriginals that can't talk to each other. Look at their culturally relevant flag and notice that they don't even share a single common symbolic colour! Note that the Blue colour is a exclusive feature of historically advanced cultures across the Earth! What is that telling you about a "unifying VOICE" ? Have anyone bothered to ask the "Mabo Mob" how keen they really are? The BLAK HOUSE OF LORDS (or noisy "VOICE") promoters are mainly black-hat Angloboriginal from the wealthy woke Urban Areas where Torres Strait people do not go. Maybe these amazing seafaring islanders may still like their very own proud traditional cultural too much? This weird Mr Albo has open up a can full of divisive and poisonous worms...splitting our once unified 3-flag nation!
They are already recognised in our constitution under freedom of religion! When God made them he said stay there and don’t to anything till I get back.
Thank you for raising this, John.
Vote NO.
If the YES vote gets up.... Australia will be a Dictatorship... would you like to live in a Labour Dictatorship...
The Australian Human Rights Commission ( definition of Racism),: "Racism is the process by which systems and policies, actions and attitudes, create inequitable opportunities for people, based on race." This could also effictively be the definition for the "voice".
Complaints about the incumbent government's racist regime should be directed to the AHRC! What a merrygoround that would be or perhaps a revolving door would be more apt
"The voice" pffft i hate that karaoke BS nonsense show
Cogent clarity! Thankyou John Anderson!
Why vote NO:
1. Voice has No agency to represent diversity of aboriginal nations.
2. Emotionally charged divisive proposal
3. Nation's constitution should not single out anyone based on race, creed, cultural background.
John Anderson's retirement was a massive b;ow to the civility IQ and competence of the Australian Parliament
They want home owners to "Pay the Rent". Search that term. Basically they want Aussie home owners to pay a weekly rent.
Spot on!
Thank you, John. It’s a No vote from me.
England looks nice !!
Still serving your country John. Very grateful for that. Thank you.
A true patriot!
Perfectly Said John ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺
Absolutely agree. Especially your comments on equality.
The frightening part is that the Voice cannot be defined. There are those who have asked for the Voice to be defined in parliament but without adequate result.
I also heard raised they will work out the details after the referendum, which seems like a dangerous way to go. I can’t recall to cite here where, but I think was a recording on a YT video some time ago of the people proposing it.
Just like anything woke these days. Completely based on people's feelings and nobody can explain how anything is supposed to work or even define their own standpoints.
@@mindwarp4818 Parliament will debate and then decide on the details such as how many members, how often they will meet etc. And this is in line with any other referenda that has succeeded in the past.
@@anthonycarr7466 it’s Pandora’s box, it’s one thing with the voice getting passed and I’m not totally against that but there is no detail as to what and how it’s administrated or what enforceable controls they have in parliament Do you really want a non elected committee to make decisions, make the rules up, potentially overriding elected senators/parliamentary vote with no consequences for the outcomes they produce hard written in to the constitution. For me it’s not just yes or no, we the people have to know what that vote means for every citizen.
You just are not listening !
As had already been said, the treaty in New Zealand started off as 'just an advisory board', but now after the court cases it influences and controls EVERY aspect of New Zealand life for the benefit of the Maori. A county divide by race.
You can also look at Malaysia, Fiji, Zimbabwe, South Africa and indeed USA for countries where special provisions based on race have lead to diviseness and disenfranchisement of the people bringing the most prosperity to the countries.
@@AlexSmith-gr4hp For a start, there is no reference to race, colour or creed in the US constitution.
New Zealand will undoubtedly suffer as a nation because of their decision! It is definitely no longer the affordable and peaceful oudoor space destination for overseas migrants or visitors any more! The whole economy could be destroyed by the increasingly violent disputes and strong majority Maori rule! 🧐
@@somethingelse9535 there are numerous race based policies within the USA that occur at the state or city level, or outside of government at corporation and university levels. Examples: race based criteria for medical treatments or university admissions. Often the most affected are people of various Asian backgrounds such as Chinese or Indian. I have no criticism of the USA based on its foundational documents, more on the creeping and increasing examples of race based criteria for inequality across its broader society. It’s obviously a very diverse country with a wide variety of policies reflecting its unification of many states built into the name. Some places I’m sure are not as divisive, but undoubtedly many others are.
@@AlexSmith-gr4hp They are laws that can be changed, as opposed to the constitution, that needs a national referendum to alter. Its a really dumb idea to enshrine race advantage in a constitution, it makes racism permanent.
One person
One vote
One representation
You can’t get fairer than that
And that is what we already have in Australia.
Putting in race lessen the document for all.
It’s a no for me.
The most puzzling thing is that "one person, one vote" is meant to be a core tenet of the Labor party, which is why it's always wanted to abolish upper houses of parliament like it did in Queensland.
According to you It's one person per vote for 120 years.
Then everything then must be OK.
There's obviously no dysfunction with your logic.
@@banta-pd8zj No of course there are problems. The constitution is just the wrong mechanism.
Well said John, I can't see this working on any level let alone improving quality of life in indigenous communities. I will vote no and I tell family and friends why.
Big NO from me….I don’t need an unelected overlord that we can’t get rid of dictating to me and mine.
Vote no to apartheid. One Australia, one people.
Spoken like a true bigot.
Apartheid.
You are utterly unaware of irony.
This country was founded on racism, just like any other country.
When there is any doubt - vote NO. Anderson knows his facts or in this case that there are few if any facts relating to the Voice. All Australians should be enrirely equal under the Crown.
That’s what Captain Phillip said after also saying that Australia was ‘terra nullius’!
Even though I am leaning towards voting 'yes' (see my comment elsewhere as to why), I completely agree with this logic.
While I believe it is the civic duty if every voting citizen to make a decent attempt to understand what the proposal means, and both the arguments 'for' and 'against', as a matter of principle, if a voter still is unsure as to whether to change the Constitution or unsure on the nature of the question, I believe they are morally obliged to vote 'no'.
There is onus on the proponents of the referendum to humbly and respectfully provide a compelling case to the voting citizens of Australia. And compelling based on the merits of the proposal, not some emotionally charged white guilt virtue signalling that is not grounded in compelling moral argument.
If the YES vote gets up.... Australia will be a Dictatorship... would you like to live in a Labour Dictatorship...
I just think that this issue is being overthought by the usual fear mongering cohorts. I guarantee that if the LNP had been on board and didn't treat it like a political football there would not be such a divide. The thing is that Aboriginals have really NOT been treated equally at anytime in our 200 odd years of European history. Things are better in individual circumstances now but overall there is a divide and a lack of understanding and consideration of the Aboriginal thinking and how THEY need policies and decisions to be enacted to help them walk with US. The current regimes simply haven't been working! It's a disgrace! Voting YES is a reasonable thing to do to God's sake! I recall all the rubbish spoken associated with the MABO case . All a smoke screen and thank goodness it went through.
Should say about the voice to the government bodies which is the legal danger!
Also yes is the racist vote!
Vote NO to apartheid!
Aborigines are Australians like the rest of us. They vote and they pay taxes. I have met an Aborigine who sat in the Federal Parliament so I can't see why they need extra representation unless they want to pay twice the tax that the rest of us do.
Um. They don’t pay taxes.
I do not want a Caucasian Voice, or an African Voice. or an Asian Voice, a Catholic Voice, a Jewish Voice, or an Indigenous Voice to Parliament.
The Government's job is to represent the interests of the people, I say to the Government, "do your job, do not abrogate that job to some council or other".
Vote No.
Spot on. Couldn't have articulated it better. Unfortunately it seems we have an activist, rather than a statesman, for a Prime Minister. Can't see it leading anywhere good.
You must be an immigrant to Australia, what was wrong from whence you came !!
@@henryjames5663multi cultural madness
@@henryjames5663
What defines an immigrant?
Someone who arrived yesterday? 10 years ago, 100 years ago, 30-60,000 years ago?
I was taught in primary school back in the 60s, that successive waves of aboriginal people migrating to the Australian continent, forcefully pushing the aboriginal people already here before them further south, and west, as different groups made their way to this continent.
Since man started to walk this earth, we have been migrating, and it will never stop.
So! What defines an immigrant?
@@Invictus357Well said!
So very well said
I've been saying this since the voice'first came on the news. I was looking at it through the lens of Magna Carta you'll see if the king could divide any of his subjects then he would have leverage points to then create a fresh wall every time these people who were pushing for such things for really have no understanding of not just English history but history in general
The indigenous ‘nations’ are not nations at all. They’re tribes. Nomadic tribes across a vast continent that rarely integrated with other tribes and were still tribes when the English landed in Sydney
They only met up to fight, eat the losing side, party and graze! Rather like New Guinea natives actually! 🤨 Exactly, the English only landed in Sydney, with chained convicts, women and children, and a few soldiers to guard them - no suitable foodstuffs nor shelter! Bloody pathetic army of invaders, don't you agree!?? 😏
Tribes that fought and went to war with each other and did nothing nothing but descend on an area, eat it barren and run away from the fires they set after that.
Where are all the giant marsupials that evolved here?? They died out a little less than 60,000 years ago, strange coincidence of dates that.
Did the marsupials lament when their land was invaded 60,000 years ago?
@@johnfisher9692 🤔😂😁👏
That's entirely correct. The concepts of nations and sovereignty is alien to the indigenous tribal groups. It's just another aspect of cultural appropriation.
@@Rn-pp9et Just like the idea of owning land stone aged people didnt have that concept!
truth be told there were no aboriginal nations in colonial era Australia in the conventional sense, but rather hundreds of essentially nomadic tribal groups of various sizes, many of whom were warring with and contesting the territory of others.
yes, many murders took place, child brides, slavery of other tribal women and cannibalism of the competing tribal men. This didnt happen in all tribes but in a fair number of them.
This isnt what they teach today in schools.. its a total farce, my kids think they were Australias "first scientists, inventors and mathematicians" .. they didnt even invent the wheel for themselves... they were the only indigenous population to fail to invent the bow and arrow... i mean come on guys...its a wheel..
Great articulation!
"The very model of equality is to make sure no one is singled out" - brilliant. And the debate has been insanely emotionally charged, to the point where I do wonder if we'll be faced with enormous riots and protests if the Voice doesn't succeed.
There may be some recreational rioting like there was during covid. But it will be short and only harm their cause.
Your statement makes little sense! The whole point is that there has been NO equality when it comes to the Aboriginals in this country. Take the time to read the history of European take over of the country. Whilst the British Govt directed that there was to be no killing or harmi g of the indigenous people there was no way this was able to be implemented being 12,000 miles away from Britain, How could there be equality when the people living here had nowhere to successfully move to as their land was taken and possessed and fenced etc etc. This has gone on from day one. After the WWars there was NO equality for the returned servicemen Aboriginal. Since 1930' s William Cooper tried and tried to,persuade the govts of the daybto listen to his people, to be included, to have a fair go etc, And so,it goes and still the same negativity is being peddled by the ignorance and the racial discrimination. It is time to say YES and let the Aboriginals be listened to from their communities! It won't hurt anybody, What is there to be somfearful of. After the debacle of the previous corrupt LNP govt it couldn't be worse
Civil war I hope not but a chance
@@lynmews2856you obviously haven't heard what THOMAS MAYO or KEELY REid have been promoting
The voice is about creating a Billion Dollar Bureaucracy for consultants to feed at with a few crumbs falling off the table.
💯 and 80
Evidence please.
If it happens it will be endless activism.
If it happens, will we accept and get over it.
@@beepbeep6861 My bet is we will be badgered for reparations, schools will be forced to change class content, businesses will be hounded to support the 'right' causes. In short, it'll undermine democracy because it will give disproportionate power to activists.
Today, 'Equality' is being replaced with 'Equity', which does not necessarily mean 'Equality'.
Under 'Equality' everyone gets an equal share of the 'Pie'.
Under 'Equity', the disadvantaged get a bigger share of the 'Pie' to compensate for their disadvantage.
Every First Nation on the planet (possibly does not apply as a term in this instance) has a representative body that is democratically voted on, one person one vote. The proposed Voice to Parliament will not be a democratic vote but rather one of ancestry. It is impossible for me, personally, to vote for an undemocratic body to have power in a democratic country.
My reason for voting no is based on experience growing up and working in Alice. ATSIC failed. It failed not only because it was exploited but because of the different indigenous nations (as you so eloquently put) could not come to agreements on where help was needed more. This caused alot of discussions and caused a few tribal fights. But their feelings when ATSIC failed them will always stick with me. To have this permanently put into our constitution it worries me to what will happen to those indigenous who vote no. Will it still be fair? Resentment and restlessness is what this voice has done. We dont know in the future how it will affect Australians. There are those Indigenous that would like to use it to revenge the colonial Democracy I think they think the Voice is about more than recognition. This is so messy that I will vote no.
Thanks for mentioning ATSIC.Few people recall that it was so bad both the ALP and LNP voted to be rid of it.
That is the clearest explanation I have heard so far--supplementing my own conclusion that a sound NO vote is the best outcome for democracy and a voice for all ‘nations’ within our single AUSTRALIAN Nation.
This man should still be in polatics
Well said John Anderson
YOU WANT TRUTH TELLING
THERE IT IS.
VOTING NO TO RACISM, DIVISION & APARTHIED
Learn how to spell before commenting, it's politics not polatics. SMH
@@beepbeep6861 must be a yes voter
TOSSER
He was in polatics.
Thankyou again John for clarity of thought and reason.
Freedom , equality, Democracy , 3 of the greatest illusion feed to fools because they simply do not exist
Excellent. Let’s scuttle this undemocratic proposal in October. ✌
Well said John
If the voice has the power to remove Lydia Thorpe from government, then I'll vote yes 🤣
That woman’s eyes are too close together. She’s an activist teenager in a woman’s body. Just embarrassing.
God forbid, that embarrassment of a senator, elected by a bunch of rubes, will likely force her way onto that voice body.
Same as that communist oxygen thief Thomas Mayo.
@@patriciasanderson2171how DARE you??!!
shes part of the no vote campaign so that would be funny
@@zoddsonofthor5576 it's not a No "campaign". She wants a full separation from the government, she wants sedition. She wants war.
thankyou Jonno
I agree John
Absolutely correct I'm with John Anderson on this. The voice is going to divide Australia. Not good.
Brilliant
VOTE NO.
I can listen to this great man talk all day.
The only thing in a republic (democracy), that at its core is equality before the law, that can destroy a cohesive and coherent constitutional society is codifying the concept of “protected class” in its law or constitution.
That's right. No codifying 10% of the population owning the majority of the wealth.
You idiots are incapable of listening to yourselves.
We need YOU as prime minister. Your intelligence, eloquence and leadership clearly shows. You sir, are a dream I hope comes true.
Well said.
John anderson ... voice of reason. The Voice ... division and acrimony
Well said John Anderson.
Thank you Francis and Konstantin for having John. Well said John! I’m voting NO. There is just no evidence that this will improve the lives of indigenous Aussies; on the contrary. If there is evidence, why not legislate it first and enshrine later after a proven track record? Well we know better from actual experience with similar advisory groups, so NO because: (1) I do not want to further disadvantage indigenous Aussies by entrenching the rich elites in their community especially not those who only identify as Aboriginal but don’t actually live on the ground in the countryside where the gap is glaring; (2) I do not want to undermine the efficient working of the government by having the same elites force the hand of parliament through the courts to further their own interests (not the interests of those they are supposed to represent, we’ve seen that before); and (3) I do not want to enshrine in the constitution what we already know to have failed indigenous Aussies in the past-thinking that the failures of doing more of the same can be rectified by doing more of the same only permanently is silly, quite frankly. 😔
Well said.
The whole point of democracy was equality. But that's not what today's leftists want. They want all people to be equal but also want some to be more equal than others. And those who are more equal than others are determined based on immutable traits, like gender, race, etc. and it's antithetical to democracy. It's social policy that has failed everywhere in the world it was tried.
Making a special status for Indigenous peoples in Canada has not worked. Those who live on reserves live in what can accurately be described as poverty. There is no accountability on the money given to them, and they have the lowest high school completions and highest suicide rates of any other subgroup in Canada. And this is with 1) not paying taxes, 2) getting university for free, and 3) getting unlimited hunting and fishing licenses. None of those things have changed the other stats, and they have led to a great deal of social resentment. I cannot choose to be Indigenous, I have to be born Indigenous, and based on that lottery of birth I'm treated differently by law: 1) I have to pay taxes, 2) I have to pay for school and 3) I have get hunting and fishing licenses.
I think we need to call it day on special status based on how Indigenous a person is, and just let them be normal citizens like the rest of us and make up their own futures without government handouts. They can only claim government funding if they stay stuck in time, being clients of the federal government does not give a sh!t about their welfare by being "good little victims" (my own words). They forfeit many of the niceties of modern life and the chance at making a better life in exchange for "more say" in Parliament and a special status with a few privileges and more drawbacks than most of face statistically.
Only no one in Canada has the political balls to go do that. I'm certain some people reading this comment think I'm a racist. Let me tell you: I want Indigenous communities to maximize their own gains on their dime just like every other person in Canada has to. That's called equality, not racism. In my version of Canada, I think we can address their poverty, their suicide rate and their failing in school by taking away the special status and welcoming them into the modern era.
I call that being humane.
My opponents call it racism, which is really saying they want Indigenous people to stay victims so they can pretend to give a sh!t about them while doing nothing to help them.
Perfectly succinct
Spoken like the privileged who doesn't need something else to cloud his day.
If you can vote you already have a voice. That’s the fairest way we know and it isn’t racist if everyone is allied to do it. Vote NO to this racist and divisive referendum
1 of the things i,m worried about is the south africans are gonna try to sue us for cultural appropriation by stealing their apartheid idea which the voice represents
Well said.
If the Voice won't really do anything then it does not need to be in the Constitution; if it will have powers then they need to clearly define them ahead of time.
Perfectly summed up, John.
? THE VOICE
is
DEVISIVE !!!!
Plain the simple
If in doubt, bloody VOTE NO!
If in doubt, vote 4 self education.
Hi John. Love your tie. It's Ancient Anderson tartan. As an Anderson myself, I have that tie.
I will be voting no.
Australians just don't want this Voice.
They are waking up to what is going on here.
If you don't understand it, vote NO.... and if you do understand it you would vote NO anyway.
Please explain it to me.
Agreed
Amen.
VOTE NO
No!
One of the best Deputy Prime Ministers of Australia of all time, & a decent bloke, clever & from the country. A junior member in the coalition so not to be more than an acting PM … & on that no scuttllebut. I was a fan of Hawke/Keating but even they knew he was a man of integrity.
The only person who is single out in our constitution is Queen Victoria who died 22 days after Australia became a nation.
Norfolk Islanders still celebrate Queen Victoria as their Queen - some traditions just work! 😄
Its a NO from me, simply wont work
I'll be voting NO, because ALL Australians should be treated equally.
Why are first nations people asking for power, obviously because they haven't got any, they shouldn't be asking as it's their given rights isn't it.
Just vote no.
Encouraging racism and discrimination is not a model for governance. If they want a government position they should put their best foot forward, instead of both feet or FI let's get shedded.
We need a voice like we need a hole in the head. There are more important issues.
If it's not important then just vote yes.
you sir have put it in a nutshell.
A political voice is the absolute worst - politicians “of the day” are NEVER held to account for any policy decisions - look at the residential school system in Canada - endless apologies and money thrown at it for over 100 years by the citizens who had NO VOICE in the creation of the system, just handed all the animosity and an ongoing invoice to pay for every actual or perceived slight into perpetuity
It will never help those in most need. Vote NO will I.🙏🇦🇺👍
I’ve been leaning to vote No, but genuinely open to listen to arguments to vote Yes.
Unfortunately, apart from “it’s the right thing to do” (which in my mind is not an argument), I’ve yet to hear anything to convince me.
I will however, keep my mind open until the day of the referendum.
The simplest question to help you decide in any referendum.
Does the constitution need changing?
Can the same outcome be achieved through other measures.
Don't do a senator Molan. His open mind on climate change caused his brain to fall out.
I just object to it because it's racist.
Why are you afraid?
The reality is that the WA Gov't with the heritage tax has shown what could possibly go wrong with the voice wow control of the waterways who knew
waste of taxpayers money
The major problem with the Voice is, how do you objectively define an aborigine?
So true. Canada, I think, has quite strict requirements which if applied here would exclude the vast majority of those that call themselves aborigines.
This guy want to be our PM again (well upgrade from Deputy)?
Well summated and said sir.
It’s a no from me.
In conclusion...we Aussies said NO
I was happy with the 60% no
You took their land John Anderson. So arrogant .vote yes.
"We" didn't take anything. Our ancestors settled a land with the approval of the local population in return for tea, tobacco, sugar and flour. Why work hard hunting and gathering when there is effectively free food?
Today's aborigines are, I think, ashamed at how easily their ancestors gave up. But they are hypocrites as very few, if any, would enjoy a truly traditional way of life. Certainly not the 85% that live in cities and towns.
Matt my boy. You are utterly delusional.
Learn some history son.
"Race, gender, wealth, position in society" and I guess we might add religion to that and consider some of the troubles in the Middle East, Israel included...dictatorships like Dubai wouldn't bear too much scrutiny either.
Opposed to individuals getting a vote on an issue? We should have more referendums where the people decide, not the elites
No, no and No. It is just legalised apartheid.
We'll said.
🇮🇹🇮🇹🇮🇹🇮🇹🇮🇹🇮🇹FIRMA per
🌟REFERENDUM RIPUDIA LA GUERRA 🌟
Where is the whole interview? Please just keep it simple and not with dozens of links.
Were tribes of nomadic aborigines ever 'nations'?
Either way, this country belongs to them.
No they weren't. Even within a tribe there was no single leader or even group. Everyone had a role and in every situation someone was inferior and the other superior.
@@beepbeep6861No it doesn't. A country belongs to whoever has the power to control it.
In 100 years or less this land will be controlled by China or India or someother power. It will matter not at all who was here first or even second.
@@beepbeep6861 ANY country belongs to the people who were born there or grew up there.
Never to dead people!
@@mattmcguire1577 We, the present population must make sure this country is not taken over by force - nor by excessive immigration!
Yeah, pretty much.
Reason two is that ‘I don’t think it’s going to work ‘. Doesn’t explain why. Unless that’s left to the other two reasons. In other words he has two reasons to vote No.
Oh anthony, what an anthonyCARD!
Hilarious mate.
Only one reason you should vote NO for the voice and that is because it is racist!
Isn't the white Australia policy racist?.
@@beepbeep6861The white Australia policy no longer even exists.
@@mattmcguire1577 Since when has it ceased.
I don’t care about British politics.
John Anderson is a retired Australian politician not British.
@@chrismckell5353What happened to the white Australia policy?.
Basic VOICE questions are ignored about vital issues like how the crew of 24(?) untouchable omni-powerful "VOICE REPS" will be selected? Who are they? Will it be a Indigenous only "continental democratic" separatist vote? So how do we split the Australian Electoral Rolls according to Albo's 3-flagation race Apartheid?
One problem with this "race split" is that thousands of Australians have no birth certificates (Est ~400K) because the parents never registered their birthday and many of them are likely to be Indigenous. Hospitals never did do birthday-regos, and often too far to track for busy mothers to do a proper registration maybe?
Incidentally, prominent indigenous organisation's recently indicated on SBS TV that up to 1/3 of Aboriginal "identifiers" like Melbourne Uni Professor Bruce Pascoe etc. are greedy delusional "race-shifting dreamtimers", so that's just another complicating problem in a woke Australian apartheid 3-flag future. "What to be or not to be, that is the question..."
Don't mention appearance, (Black can be very White today!) or DNA or even language skills! Modern Australia replaces science with a "tick-box self-identification" that is good enough to migrate to the indigenous race!
Then we have the Torres Strait Islanders that can all speak "language" i.e. the great Pan-Pacific language vs Aboriginals fighting each other with hundreds of primitive and deficient para-languages. The true traditional Pacific Islanders may actually NOT be interested in a separatist VOICE in bed with their traditionally disrespected culturally inferior continental Aboriginals. (Only a few greedy opportunistic Pacific islanders are expected.)
In fact, the Islanders are in every way vastly more culturally advanced and have always despised the scattered quarrelsome mainland Aboriginals that can't talk to each other. Look at their culturally relevant flag and notice that they don't even share a single common symbolic colour! Note that the Blue colour is a exclusive feature of historically advanced cultures across the Earth! What is that telling you about a "unifying VOICE" ? Have anyone bothered to ask the "Mabo Mob" how keen they really are? The BLAK HOUSE OF LORDS (or noisy "VOICE") promoters are mainly black-hat Angloboriginal from the wealthy woke Urban Areas where Torres Strait people do not go. Maybe these amazing seafaring islanders may still like their very own proud traditional cultural too much? This weird Mr Albo has open up a can full of divisive and poisonous worms...splitting our once unified 3-flag nation!
They are already recognised in our constitution under freedom of religion! When God made them he said stay there and don’t to anything till I get back.
Vote no to protect australians!
The correct answer is yes on the Referendum. We promise to keep thumping the English in Cricket.