No surprises of the freak shows at the no rally. 
Nazis 

Depends who these "others" are.

The gap narrows if you look at the lives of non-indigenous in low socio-economic areas in the outskirts of capital cities.  If you are middle class, live in the inner capital city, with the best infrastructure, schools, access to healthcare, public transport, and have nice  public service job then you can be forgiven for believing every other non-indigenous group has it just as good as you.  This is false. 

Just another mechanism to validate an increase to the army of mainly white middle class employees in the government to say "We're here to help", blow $billions, for no tangible improvement. 

Unfortunately you cannot assimilate a culture that does not want to be assimilated. 

Lets be honest about that at least.

So No from me.

"The Internationale" I was taught speaks to the workers of the world to unite against oppression and greed, never mentions ANYTHING about one race or nationality getting more than any other...... :)

Indeed Muz, argue the facts... Sorry I dont want to come across as having ANY affiliation with the NO or the YES campaign.. my "beef' Is with the lack of clarity in the messaging of both and what in essence is being debated here.... . 

Simple fact I would like cleared up for me. By both sides of the argument if possible.

Is this referendum we are voting on a voice to parliament for  ALL Australians or just ones of Aboriginal ancestry? If so how can a modern Australian who does NOT have any indigenous roots NOT feel racially excluded by virtue of NOT having their own direct  "voice" (based on whatever minority, religious, ethnic or sexual grouping they so choose to identify with).. Yes yes I know the argument that we do already as part of the normal parliamentary process but so do indigenous Australians.....  don't they? Positive racial division is STILL racial vilification, no matter how much it "feels good" to be doing something to right the wrongs of the "bad old days"... .... 

Or more likely they've said they'll vote yes to get you off their doorstep.

But kudos to you for being politically active 'comrade'.

We need more actively involved people in our democracy.

Can Muz have a crack?

Vote however you want but the disappointing aspect of the first referendum to be held in the social media age is the plethora of debunked misinformation that's getting spewed out. Particularly by the usual suspects. Looking at you One Nation and Sky news.

Argue long and hard but argue the facts. 

It's all reminiscent of the Mabo campaign for those that remember. The Aboriginals were all going to claim our backyards if Mabo got up. It was going to be the end of times. It was garbage then and it's garbage now.

5 minutes on Facebook or Twitter and you can see debunked claim after debunked claim. It really almost should be illegal.

Again I'm not saying ban free speech. I am saying have the argument based on facts. Once something has been debunked then it needs to be set aside.

Debunked by who I hear Rusty ask.

Why is it so hard?

Sorry Im not sure what the "Noalition" is but i assume some facile bon mot by the illluminated few? I wonder sometimes if political activists EVER live in the real world?
As for your presumption of my politics, what would ever make you think I would be comfortable with considering a person more or less Australian in this country because of their race, colour or religion? I have been arguing that very thing over and over and over again on these pages.... Aboriginal Australians, Anglo Australians, Greek Australian etc etc etc are all JUST AUSTRALIANS... 
BTW
You had to speak to an "indigenous comrade" to find out that racism still occurs in Australia in 2023??? There are millions of Aussies from the subcontinent ( thousands of times more than there are indigenous people) who get treated the same way every day, where is their "voice to parliament"? 

Excellent, I am all for this, but why does it need to be "enshrined in the Constitution"? And why is the language around what the advisory "powers' that will flow from this arent made clear before we all give our oppinion on whether or not it should go ahead? 
Also, do we not have a minster for indigenous affairs? What is it that they are mandated to achieve exactly? Why does this "First Nations" paradigm need a constitutional involvement when it is, from what I can understand a mainly health, facilities and education issue?

I think your beloved party has misread the room, again. The language used (by both sides of the argument to be fair) is abusive, jingoistic and unnecessarily polemic. You state in a previous post, Labor's surprise at ABC and SBS's support of the No vote...... what did you really expect? A fair Australian society is for all to benefit from and enjoy the freedoms of and has not time for talk of stolen lands, reparations and appropriating blame for past generational transgressions. 

And for the record, Im not a feeble minded child to have a wobble boarding, door knocking idiot preach to me about what my opinion should be on a particular topic and will take very poorly to being interrupted in my daily life by some numpty trying to convince me one way or another. And as for falling under the spell of Trump advisory marketing companies..... Ill ignore the implied insult.

The gap between Indigenous  folk and others in Aus are profound in education, health, housing and incarceration.

The Voice is a mechanism to close the gap. It is not for non-Indigenous Aussies to  find solutions and hand them down, but a  grass roots First Nations paradigm that Aboriginals have conceived and developing from Indigenous stakeholders on the ground.

This a typical right wing, conservative propaganda outlet. I expect it. 

However, the fact that many of us in the Yes camp concur that SBS ( not from as big a sample of reports) and ABC, are supporting the No case, is what is pretty tough to swallow.

An axiom in the Yes 23 milieu has been that the majority of Churches are supporting Yes.

I'll ask my area Yes 23 Campaign leader in the  next few days what his  sources are? I believe him.

Even though the Noalition has argued the Voice is nebulous and not specific, they use the same tactics the conservatives have over any past plebiscite or referendum.

Once The Voice is enshrined in the Constitution, the shape of it can evolve from there. It is simply an advisory body.

I was reading in the New Daily yesterday the No campaign has employed an American  company who have campaigned a lot for Trump, whose name I can't remember, to  devise strategies for  the No campaign.

In terms of being a progressive society, many of my Indigenous  comrades I've met through the Yes 23 Campaign,  claim they suffer inadvertent racism all the time - still. There is also supposedly a differential depending on which part of Australia one lives in terms of latent and blatant  racism.

The fact that you intend do vote No augurs poorly for the Yes campaign succeeding.  Given your previous posts over the years, I would have predicted you would vote Yes.

 It shows that the Trumpian  company's tactics  is indoctrinating Aussies successfully.

My main hope is on the doors, and the Pre- Poll booths, in the last 3 weeks until October 14th. There will be a plethora of Yes volunteers on Pre - Poll booths  for the early voters and voters on the day booths. Many won't  take up their mind until walking into the booths. Yes 23 has decidedly more volunteers than the likes of Advance Australia and the Noalition.  We will have more volunteers trying gto preside voters to vote Yes on the booths.

More and more Liberal MPs are supporting Yes. 

Many volunteers won't door knock, which has a  significant  impact. I've persuaded heaps of vacillating voters  to vote Yes knocking doors.

  It isn't 'white do-gooders' who've conceived The Voice. Many of us are supporting, and acting on, what over 80% of First Nations want. The First Nations conceived The Voice at the Uluru Statement of the Heart. 

 

In our churches, it is virtually 100% voting NO.

This video explains how to look past the propaganda-speak, and look to the basic core principles why some Christians will be voting NO.

When you click the link, it comes up with a Facebook login screen - but you don't have to log in. Just click the x to dismiss the login screen.

https://www.facebook.com/aussienewstonight/videos/1707463453104045/

The video is entitled, "A compelling Argument for the NO VOTE, and how the Government is attempting to deceive the Australian People by wording the.."

Think this is the first time Ive agreed with you Roosty..... 

Great work being done collecting people's political's preferences and entering into a  database....  Cant decide if your' lot are preparing for Stalin's Great Terror or Khrystallnacht.... 

So rather than federal and state funded health and social housing programs targeted at rectifying the imbalance of some of these "outcomes"  you support an ambiguous "voice" to parliament for a very small minority of population, whose purpose is to represent Australian citizens who are somehow different than other Australia citizens because of their race? Or is it their colour, or maybe religion?

Everyone wants to help the least fortunate amongst us Decentric (at least those with a heart and conscious do) but Im afraid your referendum will fail simply because we are a progressive society and, mostly, see past the racist garbage of the past....  If the question on the ballot paper was more along the lines of "Do you agree to increase funding on health and housing programs and, crisis centres to combat alcoholism and child abuse issues affecting disadvantaged indigenous people: the answer would have been a resounding YES.... A bunch of doo-gooders telling us that they see "Indegenous Australians" as a different type of Australian is morally reprehensible... Huge NO vote from me. 

The numbers are still looking good in Southern Tas on the doors and wobbleboarding at busy traffic intersections. Overall the state is looking good for over 20 000 doors knocked. One might get 2 out of 3 home in public housing unit blocks, but on suburban streets the average is 1 out of 3, or 4, voters at home.

I had my worst day doorknocking  a few days ago with 60% or a ratio of 3:2 favouring Yes (after convincing a few householders) and 40% intending to vote No. Most days it is a ratio of 3:1 or 2:1 in favour of Yes.

The state Yes 23 leaders are still compiling favourable stats.

Every house we knock we record the responses -

Yes,  Undecided or No;  

the address;

age;

 and gender of the voter.

Then they go into a state data base. Finally,  they are entered into a national data base.

I'm gobsmacked at the media's polls. The Guardian has started backing the Yes Campaign, so I assume that their  data used in articles taken from polling companies   are accurate, even though the methodology may be dodgy. However, the reputable Australia Institute, which I've had bit to do with, is ostensibly getting a majority of No which surprises me. Aus Inst is a progressive organisation.

In the second last  federal election when Scomo won, the polls were wrong. One of the  differences is  as doorknockers we persuade a lot of undecided overs to vote Yes when we  record stats at the end of each door knocked.

Many in the Yes 23 campaign are really vexed by the local ABC TV and SBS TV reporting. We think it is biased towards the No campaign.  I don't  even look at Rupert's media, but undoubtedly it will be supporting No. Although they surprisingly gave positive coverage for a local  Yes campaign launch.

If Yes doesn't get up I've never seen such a coalition of progressive forces working together as cohesively - Labor Party, union movement, Greens, Lambie Network,  climate and environmental activists, plus  civil liberties movement. These tend to be politically active.

There has also been support from churches, NGOs and business. However, these groups don't provide campaigners, but moral authority and money. Having said this, the  most seasoned political  activists knock doors, but often 70% won't.  Personally, I least favour phone banking!

The Indigenous leaders are overwhelmed with the support from non-indigenous  Aussies. They are also blown out by the enormous crowds in the Yes Walks last weekend. We got 5000 - 8000 in Hobart, which is large per capita head of population. There are only 3% of Indigenous Aussies. The Indigenous leaders addressing rallies have often been reduced to tears seeing so many Aussies  outside First Nations supporting them.

I might have misread your previous post!

Looks like you are Yes then.

There are some amazing stories on the doors. People stating they  intend to do what one wouldn't expect.

He's taking the piss. You've misread what he said.

Lydia Thorpe is campaigning for No.

 

For which reasons are you voting No, LFC?

First Nations have been greatly disadvantaged based on outcomes.

The Voice is an attempt to close the gap.

Ludicrous!

What the Plebiscite has done by legalising gay marriage,  has stopped  the persecution  of a large swathe of the population.

I'm as heterosexual as they come, but  one can't  help who they fall in love with.

Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

Conservatives use   similar arguments prior to any plebiscite or referendum - gay marriage or the republic referendum in 1999.

There are only 3 - 4% of the Aus population who are Aboriginal.

The Voice is the first stage before any Treaty.

I doubt it.

The current Liberals, under Dutton, had launched attacks falsely  on fabricated  African gangs. This is totally irresponsible. It was done for expedient reasons - which backfired. They lost the election!

Any government which repudiates advice from The Voice, should be able to  prepare a cogent argument for the position they've taken.  The government of the day   should have an adequate amount of time to prepare a defence  case to be prepared before any subsequent  election after the ignored advice. 

There are 250 groups who have signed the Uluru Statement.

 Like other organisations, including  the current Liberal Party, which has been taken over by religious extremists, any organisation can potentially be subject to takeovers. The former small L liberal leaders, John Hewson, Mal Turnbull, Andrew Peacock, etc, feel they've lost their party to the religious right, led by the likes of Dutton, Morrison and Abbott.

This is a lot to respond to, JS.

The good news for my side of Yes 23, is I can  strongly surmise that you aren't part of the Noalition knocking on doors, phone banking, Wobbleboarding, or letter boxing (not as effective) to actively persuade voters how to vote given the aforementioned info.  The Noalition can't galvanise people to be active and support the No case, because it is based on fear and cynicism. Hence, fear mongers and cynicism  comprise  No's support base.

 So in effect, you are having  no influence on the election. The Noalition is relying on money from the likes of Advance Australia to advance their arguments to the public. 

The Yes 23 team has 40 000  volunteers across the country. Even in Hobart it has exceeded 1000  - and is increasing fast.

The arguments you use have been borrowed by the Noalition from the Trumpian right wing  propaganda groups.  There is no way farmers are being targeted to have  land right claims placed on their land. 

The premise for the Uluru Statement is predicated on the fact there is a massive gap between First Nations, and other Aussies in education,  and health outcomes.

Also, incarceration is more likely to  occur to an Indigenous person than pursuing tertiary education. The Voice will advocate tribal elders to mentor  young potential offenders, or recidivist offenders. 

.

X2 

The fear is that is that the "advisory body" is, in effect, as you admitted, not just advice. The definition of "advice" is that the receiver can take it or leave it. But something that comes with the threat that, "If you ignore our ADVICE, we're going to force you be judged by this in an election". That's not advice. That is a powerful demand that falsely masquerades as advice. That is the biggest concern, that this so-called advisory body is not that. It is an advisory body in name only. In reality, it is giving enormous power to a segment of Australians entirely based on the colour of their skin, or the DNA of their heritage.

Calling it "advice" is just PR spin to try to fool the masses - because it has a lot more clout and power than mere advice. You yourself are telling us it is more than "advice". (If you know that, then you are intentionally trying to dupe people. If you cannot see that, then you are duped).

You yourself said that this so-called advice will come with the power to force a government, that ignores it, to become an election issue. Hence, the danger is that this "advisory body" can become inhabited by people with extreme views.

There will be people too scared to go against "the advice" of the council for fear of being called racist.

I ask you a direct two-part question - and if you cannot give me a straight yes/no answer, then you should stop attempting to influence people with rubbery arguments. The question is, if the "advisory body" becomes inhabited by extreme activists, and they so-called "advise" the government:
(a) to acknowledge that all land owned by other Australians is actually wrong-fully acquired, and that henceforth all land titles should list the original owners of the land as the rightful property owners, and
(b) that all Australians who live on a piece of property (i.e. all of us) have to pay a perpetual tax to the original land owners

my question is - and please answer yes/no -- are you prepared to pay a perpetual, annual or monthly tax -- And not just a fizzer percentage like Medicare - but something like akin to a rental amount owing to a landlord ... are you willing to abide with that?

You say this can never happen? But you, with your own words, acknowledge that if any government ignores the council's "advice" - then it will be forced to reckon with at an election. And if any government refuses, you can see they would be branded racist for going against the council.

What about what's happening in California, where Democrats are bringing in legislation so that everyone with African-American DNA gets $1million. (Do a search for - democrats California reparations million).

Remember, activists often don't just propose "reasonable" legislation. It is extremely common for extreme activist politicians to submit Bills where they know there's no chance of getting it through, but they do it to gain publicity and/or to make a point. Imagine if those activist get the power of the Australian Constitution where a Federal Government would not dare oppose it, for fear - as you said - that it would be forced to an election on that issue, or seen as racist.

I am a migrant to Australia, and I know hundreds of migrants, many Asian migrants. We migrants want a country where all people are equal, no matter the colour of their skin or their ancestry.

It is telling that the younger generation - who support the Voice - no longer advocate Martin Luther King's dream - and what they do is re-interpret it -- his dream: "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. I have a dream today."

Tell that MLK dream to many young people, and they will attack it, saying it doesn't mean what it says.

This is my final point to you: that the trait of human is to go from one extreme to the other. Yes, Australia's history was that it was once stacked in favour of white-skinned people. Somewhere in the 1990's I felt that the pendulum had come to centre, where Australians truly were getting colour-blind.

But what has happened in the past two decades is that activists are now swinging the pendulum to the other extreme, where it is being stacked against white-skinned people. And we see this activism particularly in the U.S. with the Democrats.

This is truth: that if person-A does something against person-B that is racist, then if person-B does it to person-C that is equally racist. Every race is capable of racism. Racism against blacks is racism. Racism against whites is racism.

Whereas, I spoke to a young person, and they are being taught at Australian universities that black people are incapable of being racist. That's rot. I've lived in Asia, and Asian people tell me of Asians being racist to other Asian races. Racisms is not limited to a certain race. The core of racism is the capacity for evil in every human heart. If we think that only whites can be racist, then that blindness will guarantee racism being imprinted again in Australian politics, except under a different guise.

I submit that you, by your arguments, are bringing the pendulum, away from centre, towards the other extreme.