Australian Politics Forum - I'm Pretty Sure I Know How I'LL Be Voting.

Lisa Jones Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 39047 Sydney Gender:	Re: I'm Pretty Sure I Know How I'LL Be Voting. Reply #300 - Jun 26^th, 2023 at 10:00pm Lisa Jones wrote on Jun 26^th, 2023 at 9:25pm: It’s probably safer for Aussie (and all of Australia for that matter) if Aussie sticks to taxi cab driving. And for Five Foot Five Frodo to go back to dole bludging and living rent free through the Aboriginal Housing slush fund.
Back to top	If I let myself be bought then I am no longer free. HYPATIA - Greek philosopher, mathematician and astronomer (370 - 415) IP Logged

Dnarever Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 62132 Here Gender:	Re: I'm Pretty Sure I Know How I'LL Be Voting. Reply #301 - Jun 26^th, 2023 at 10:05pm .
Back to top	IP Logged

Gnads

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 33809
Gender: male

Re: I'm Pretty Sure I Know How I'LL Be Voting.
Reply #302 - Jun 27^th, 2023 at 8:32am

Aussie wrote on Jun 26^th, 2023 at 6:01pm:

Gnads wrote on Jun 26^th, 2023 at 5:58pm:

Aussie wrote on Jun 26^th, 2023 at 1:14pm:

Frank wrote on Jun 26^th, 2023 at 11:11am:

Aussie wrote on Jun 25^th, 2023 at 7:48pm:

There are those, no matter what is said to them, will be cowards and nothing will change that. Cower away.

I won't.

Brave, fearless Arssie does as he is told by the government and Big Abo! Radical!

Brandis makes good points that are systematically ignored by the Yes side:

FIRST - EVERY constitutional referendum, the burden of persuasion is on those wanting change.
But Albo, Arssie, Mothra, Bbwian et al have, in fact, reversed the onus – by insisting that the Voice is a self-evidently good thing, and by demanding that opponents or sceptics justify themselves. Scathing attacks on the No case are not just the opposite of the “respectful” debate Albo has said he wants; they are an insult to everyone who is not persuaded that the Voice is a good idea.
Burney is an unconvincing advocate at the best of times. As for Noel Pearson – is it any wonder that No campaigners are over the moon every time he opens his mouth? An angry, self-righteous proponent is never as persuasive as a courteous, methodical critic.

Second, quit the moral bullying. The wisdom of constitutional change is something about which reasonable people can differ. It is not about whose motives are purer or who is a better person. Burney captured the morally hectoring tone of the Yes campaign last week when she channelled not Clinton this time, but Michelle Obama: “When they go low, we go high.” People who are sceptical about the Voice are not taking the low road; they are merely exhibiting the same constitutional conservatism which has seen 36 of 44 referenda fail.

Third, at least pretend the debate is a level playing field. If this is to be an authentic national debate, both sides must be heard. Yet so far, virtually all we have had from the political establishment and its surrogates in business, sporting organisations, public broadcasters, churches and NGOs has been advocacy for the Yes case. Does anyone who watches the ABC have any doubt that it is barracking for Yes (notwithstanding its charter obligation of political neutrality)? I suspect one of the very reasons support for Yes is sinking is because Australians don’t like having the establishment force its view down our throats. We are famously contrary whenever we are told by politicians and community “leaders” what we ought to think.

https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/yes-campaign-s-in-deplorable-territory-these-seven-ideas-can-save-it-20230621-p5di91.html

There is no burden either way. People will listen to whatever is argued (or not) and decide.

The yes case is what I have been posting. The no case is hysterical baseless fearmongering mixed with absolute dishonest garbage and rubbish.

I maintain that those who vote no are being selfsh and do not want to see the black fella get anything not even a token recognition for the fact that they were violently dispossessed by a democracy they had no say in, and were denied a say in for SIX DECADES after Australia became a Nation in 1901. Further, it was not until 1984 that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people were finally treated like other voters and required to enrol and vote in elections.

By then, they were well and truly fuqqed over by whitey.

I can imagine that those who have posted their 'no vote' here would have been advocating that the black fella NOT be given that right to vote back in the early 60s, yes, Sore End.

It wasn't compulsory for them to vote or enroll to vote until 1984... they had a choice not to if they wished - without any consequences unlike for the rest of the citizenry.

The were pushed to enroll by people with an agenda wanting their vote.

When they enrolled it was then made compulsory for them to vote like everyone else.

There are many non Aboriginals that don't want to enroll or vote in elections.

So your point is moot.

Really? Link please.

Link for what?

It's oft said that voting shouldn't be compulsory, there are those who don't & make a choice not to register..... what rock have you been living under?

Back to top

"When you are dead, you do not know you are dead. It's only painful and difficult for others. The same applies when you are stupid." ~ Ricky Gervais

IP Logged

Aussie

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 39905
Gender: male

Re: I'm Pretty Sure I Know How I'LL Be Voting.
Reply #303 - Jun 27^th, 2023 at 8:33am

Frank wrote on Jun 26^th, 2023 at 9:58pm:

Professor Davis, a constitutional lawyer at the University of NSW, said individuals may decide to litigate particular matters related to the Voice in the High Court, “but you cannot prevent Australians from that access to review of decision-making”.

She said the Voice must be able to speak to both the parliament and the executive. Some critics of the draft constitutional amendment have hit out at the words “executive government”, saying its inclusion risks weakening the power of the Voice. Former High Court chief justice Robert French has argued there is little or no scope for constitutional litigation from the draft amendment.

“We do not want a hollowing out of the voice,” Professor Davis said. “The executive and in particular the bureaucracy make the bulk of decisions about First Nations peoples. The bulk of decisions are made through delegated legislation.”

She defended Mr Albanese’s approach to the Voice and pushed back on critics including Opposition Leader Peter Dutton demanding detail about the model.

“He’s not withholding detail, we are working on the detail. And we will release this detail in the next month or so when the referendum bill is stood up, and it goes to committee. That detail is forthcoming.“
https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/high-court-to-keep-voice-within-limits-of-power-20230222-p5cmm4#:~:text=Professor%20Davis%2C%20a%20constitutional%20lawyer,review%20of%20decision%2Dmaking%E2%80%9D.

That was in Feb.

The Voice is justiciable in the High Court. That is why they want it in the Constitution, not merely in legislation, to be justicable by Australia's constitutional court.

Amazing....Soren has just found out what the routine day to day job of the High Court is. FMD.

SMH.

Back to top

IP Logged

Aussie Gold Member Offline OzPolitic Posts: 39905 Gender:	Re: I'm Pretty Sure I Know How I'LL Be Voting. Reply #304 - Jun 27^th, 2023 at 8:35am Quote: Link for what? That "There are many non Aboriginals that don't want to enroll or vote in elections."
Back to top	IP Logged

Gnads

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 33809
Gender: male

Re: I'm Pretty Sure I Know How I'LL Be Voting.
Reply #305 - Jun 27^th, 2023 at 8:36am

John Smith wrote on Jun 26^th, 2023 at 7:02pm:

Gnads wrote on Jun 26^th, 2023 at 6:13pm:

John Smith wrote on Jun 26^th, 2023 at 6:03pm:

Gnads wrote on Jun 26^th, 2023 at 6:01pm:

John Smith wrote on Jun 26^th, 2023 at 5:54pm:

Gnads wrote on Jun 26^th, 2023 at 5:40pm:

John Smith wrote on Jun 26^th, 2023 at 8:35am:

UnSubRocky wrote on Jun 25^th, 2023 at 10:08pm:

I could not call Aussie "Uncle". I am not aboriginal.

It's not only aborigines who call their elders 'uncle' . Roll Eyes

Only close family friends who have been nominated a such usually by your parents.

Indians call all their elders aunty

I'm not .... & you're not phukkin Indian. Roll Eyes

I don't need to be Indian to know something about them. Unlike you, i get out in the real world.

Really?

Yeah really. What are you, retarded?

Seems you are.

Back to top

"When you are dead, you do not know you are dead. It's only painful and difficult for others. The same applies when you are stupid." ~ Ricky Gervais

IP Logged

Gnads

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 33809
Gender: male

Re: I'm Pretty Sure I Know How I'LL Be Voting.
Reply #306 - Jun 27^th, 2023 at 8:39am

John Smith wrote on Jun 26^th, 2023 at 7:05pm:

Setanta wrote on Jun 26^th, 2023 at 6:15pm:

John Smith wrote on Jun 26^th, 2023 at 5:54pm:

Gnads wrote on Jun 26^th, 2023 at 5:40pm:

John Smith wrote on Jun 26^th, 2023 at 8:35am:

UnSubRocky wrote on Jun 25^th, 2023 at 10:08pm:

I could not call Aussie "Uncle". I am not aboriginal.

It's not only aborigines who call their elders 'uncle' . Roll Eyes

Only close family friends who have been nominated a such usually by your parents.

Indians call all their elders aunty

So do Filipino/a/s, as much as I tried to dissuade it. My own niece never called me uncle, just my name. We did as this as kids but I never passed it on to my kids.

Many cultures do. Surprisingly, the English never picked it up

Not true dumbarse.

Many close family friend relationships children call their parents friends Aunty or Uncle.

Just not every Tom, Dick or Harriet who's as old as their parents.

Back to top

"When you are dead, you do not know you are dead. It's only painful and difficult for others. The same applies when you are stupid." ~ Ricky Gervais

IP Logged

Frank

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 59860
Gender: male

Re: I'm Pretty Sure I Know How I'LL Be Voting.
Reply #307 - Jun 27^th, 2023 at 8:48am

Aussie wrote on Jun 27^th, 2023 at 8:33am:

Frank wrote on Jun 26^th, 2023 at 9:58pm:

Professor Davis, a constitutional lawyer at the University of NSW, said individuals may decide to litigate particular matters related to the Voice in the High Court, “but you cannot prevent Australians from that access to review of decision-making”.

She said the Voice must be able to speak to both the parliament and the executive. Some critics of the draft constitutional amendment have hit out at the words “executive government”, saying its inclusion risks weakening the power of the Voice. Former High Court chief justice Robert French has argued there is little or no scope for constitutional litigation from the draft amendment.

“We do not want a hollowing out of the voice,” Professor Davis said. “The executive and in particular the bureaucracy make the bulk of decisions about First Nations peoples. The bulk of decisions are made through delegated legislation.”

She defended Mr Albanese’s approach to the Voice and pushed back on critics including Opposition Leader Peter Dutton demanding detail about the model.

“He’s not withholding detail, we are working on the detail. And we will release this detail in the next month or so when the referendum bill is stood up, and it goes to committee. That detail is forthcoming.“
https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/high-court-to-keep-voice-within-limits-of-power-20230222-p5cmm4#:~:text=Professor%20Davis%2C%20a%20constitutional%20lawyer,review%20of%20decision%2Dmaking%E2%80%9D.

That was in Feb.

The Voice is justiciable in the High Court. That is why they want it in the Constitution, not merely in legislation, to be justicable by Australia's constitutional court.

Amazing....Soren has just found out what the routine day to day job of the High Court is. FMD.

SMH.

Dont flout your stupidity, Arssie.

The hundreds of current Abo advisory quangos cannot run to the High Court now because they are not established in the constitution. The Voice would be and so it's FIRST port of call would always be the HC.

Significance? Unelected judges would ultimately ser the parameters of the Voice's powers. That is why the Abo aristocracy want the Voice in the Constitution and not merely in legislation.

Back to top

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.

IP Logged

Gnads

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 33809
Gender: male

Re: I'm Pretty Sure I Know How I'LL Be Voting.
Reply #308 - Jun 27^th, 2023 at 8:52am

John Smith wrote on Jun 26^th, 2023 at 9:47pm:

Frank wrote on Jun 26^th, 2023 at 9:23pm:

Aussie wrote on Jun 26^th, 2023 at 9:00pm:

Frank wrote on Jun 26^th, 2023 at 8:55pm:

Aussie wrote on Jun 26^th, 2023 at 8:50pm:

It elevates the boong nowhere, you idiot.

I reckon you might benefit from this. A military bloke I know pretty well had a military lawyer give him advice on a matter. The bloke ignored the lawyer and the lawyer got all uppity.

The bloke told the lawyer that he was there to give advice....nothing else, especially decision making capacity.

The lawyer limped off as he had zero capacity other than to send smoke signals which might be ignored by the person charged with decision making.

Which, of course, wouldn't have been the case if said lawyer had recourse to the High Court because his advice was constitutionally enshrined.

You are thick and dishonest in equal measure. Plus inebriated.

Do you know anything about the relevance the High Court must give to speeches in Parliament on the second reading of a Bill?

FYI...the only reason I am engaging with you is to demonstrate to other readers how ignorant and ill-informed you are on this matter. I know that you will vote no, no matter what. I am hoping others might see, by your example, just how bigotry works.

You are too stupid and ignorant, arssie.

If the government ignores the Voice, then the Voice may have a direct pathway to the High Court BECAUSE the Voice would be in the Constitution. No government can regulate constitutionally established access to the High Court.
The High Court is the first port of call in matters of Constitutional interpretation, treaties, or an injunction sought against an officer of the Commonwealth such as the Prime Minister, or any other high-ranking government officer, elected or otherwise - see sections 75 and 76 of the Constitution.

Now stop being stupid.

You should stop pretending you have a clue. Any appeals to the high courts will have to consider intent. It is well documented that the intention is that this is an advisory body only, with the parliament of the day free to act or ignore any advice as it sees fit.

You're out of your depth sore end

If that is correct then what is the actual point of the whole deceptive charade?

How will it better the govts attention to Aboriginal issues if it doesn't have any power to force an issue?

It's beyond naïve to even suggest that it will not be capable of going to the High Court if the Aboriginal Voice committee is not happy with the govts action or inaction on their advice.

What was the intent that allowed the High Court to rule on the MABO case?

Murray Island is not mainland Australia.

Back to top

"When you are dead, you do not know you are dead. It's only painful and difficult for others. The same applies when you are stupid." ~ Ricky Gervais

IP Logged

Gnads

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 33809
Gender: male

Re: I'm Pretty Sure I Know How I'LL Be Voting.
Reply #309 - Jun 27^th, 2023 at 8:59am

Aussie wrote on Jun 27^th, 2023 at 8:35am:

Quote:

Link for what?

That "There are many non Aboriginals that don't want to enroll or vote in elections."

So you're a reclusive hermit?

You've never heard anyone say that voting shouldn't be compulsory.

I don't have a problem with it ... it's my constitutional right & I exercise it at every election.

But there are others who don't, won't & believe it shouldn't be compulsory - like the Yank system.

Back to top

"When you are dead, you do not know you are dead. It's only painful and difficult for others. The same applies when you are stupid." ~ Ricky Gervais

IP Logged

Aussie

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 39905
Gender: male

Re: I'm Pretty Sure I Know How I'LL Be Voting.
Reply #310 - Jun 27^th, 2023 at 9:04am

Frank wrote on Jun 27^th, 2023 at 8:48am:

Aussie wrote on Jun 27^th, 2023 at 8:33am:

Frank wrote on Jun 26^th, 2023 at 9:58pm:

Professor Davis, a constitutional lawyer at the University of NSW, said individuals may decide to litigate particular matters related to the Voice in the High Court, “but you cannot prevent Australians from that access to review of decision-making”.

She said the Voice must be able to speak to both the parliament and the executive. Some critics of the draft constitutional amendment have hit out at the words “executive government”, saying its inclusion risks weakening the power of the Voice. Former High Court chief justice Robert French has argued there is little or no scope for constitutional litigation from the draft amendment.

“We do not want a hollowing out of the voice,” Professor Davis said. “The executive and in particular the bureaucracy make the bulk of decisions about First Nations peoples. The bulk of decisions are made through delegated legislation.”

She defended Mr Albanese’s approach to the Voice and pushed back on critics including Opposition Leader Peter Dutton demanding detail about the model.

“He’s not withholding detail, we are working on the detail. And we will release this detail in the next month or so when the referendum bill is stood up, and it goes to committee. That detail is forthcoming.“
https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/high-court-to-keep-voice-within-limits-of-power-20230222-p5cmm4#:~:text=Professor%20Davis%2C%20a%20constitutional%20lawyer,review%20of%20decision%2Dmaking%E2%80%9D.

That was in Feb.

The Voice is justiciable in the High Court. That is why they want it in the Constitution, not merely in legislation, to be justicable by Australia's constitutional court.

Amazing....Soren has just found out what the routine day to day job of the High Court is. FMD.

SMH.

Dont flout your stupidity, Arssie.

The hundreds of current Abo advisory quangos cannot run to the High Court now because they are not established in the constitution. The Voice would be and so it's FIRST port of call would always be the HC.

Significance? Unelected judges would ultimately ser the parameters of the Voice's powers. That is why the Abo aristocracy want the Voice in the Constitution and not merely in legislation.

Speaking of ignorance....you've never heard of legislation being challenged on a daily basis in the High Court?

Ima not at all surprised.

Back to top

IP Logged

Aussie

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 39905
Gender: male

Re: I'm Pretty Sure I Know How I'LL Be Voting.
Reply #311 - Jun 27^th, 2023 at 9:10am

Quote:

If that is correct then what is the actual point of the whole deceptive charade?

What Mr Smith is totally correct. It is what I have been saying all the time but it goes straight over your thick box head!

Quote:

How will it better the govts attention to Aboriginal issues if it doesn't have any power to force an issue?

Because it is sitting in a corner of Parliament House sending smoke signals.

Quote:

It's beyond naïve to even suggest that it will not be capable of going to the High Court if the Aboriginal Voice committee is not happy with the govts action or inaction on their advice.

Of course it can, and it will lose because the strict limits to The Voice have been made crystal clear during the second reading debate and that is what the High Court will take into account in deciding any issue The Voice might bring to it.

Ya know, you can go to the high Court if you like. It is what the bloody court is there for, FFS! Whether it lets you in or win is another question.

Quote:

What was the intent that allowed the High Court to rule on the MABO case?

Murray Island is not mainland Australia.

Completely irrelevant.

Back to top

IP Logged

Lisa Jones

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 39047
Sydney
Gender: female

Re: I'm Pretty Sure I Know How I'LL Be Voting.
Reply #312 - Jun 27^th, 2023 at 9:23am

Frank wrote on Jun 26^th, 2023 at 9:58pm:

Professor Davis, a constitutional lawyer at the University of NSW, said individuals may decide to litigate particular matters related to the Voice in the High Court, “but you cannot prevent Australians from that access to review of decision-making”.

She said the Voice must be able to speak to both the parliament and the executive. Some critics of the draft constitutional amendment have hit out at the words “executive government”, saying its inclusion risks weakening the power of the Voice. Former High Court chief justice Robert French has argued there is little or no scope for constitutional litigation from the draft amendment.

“We do not want a hollowing out of the voice,” Professor Davis said. “The executive and in particular the bureaucracy make the bulk of decisions about First Nations peoples. The bulk of decisions are made through delegated legislation.”

She defended Mr Albanese’s approach to the Voice and pushed back on critics including Opposition Leader Peter Dutton demanding detail about the model.

“He’s not withholding detail, we are working on the detail. And we will release this detail in the next month or so when the referendum bill is stood up, and it goes to committee. That detail is forthcoming.“

https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/high-court-to-keep-voice-within-limits-of-power-20230222-p5cmm4#:~:text=Professor%20Davis%2C%20a%20constitutional%20lawyer,review%20of%20decision%2Dmaking%E2%80%9D.

That was in Feb.

The Voice is justiciable in the High Court. That is why they want it in the Constitution, not merely in legislation, to be justicable by Australia's constitutional court.

In short Davis is a BS artist AND Albo’s PR rep. Her name AND anything she states on MMM needs to be thoroughly examined if only to determine her revolting level of fake sincerity.

Back to top

If I let myself be bought then I am no longer free.

HYPATIA - Greek philosopher, mathematician and astronomer (370 - 415)

IP Logged

Gnads

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 33809
Gender: male

Re: I'm Pretty Sure I Know How I'LL Be Voting.
Reply #313 - Jun 27^th, 2023 at 9:25am

Aussie wrote on Jun 27^th, 2023 at 9:10am:

Quote:

If that is correct then what is the actual point of the whole deceptive charade?

What Mr Smith is totally correct. It is what I have been saying all the time but it goes straight over your thick box head!

Quote:

How will it better the govts attention to Aboriginal issues if it doesn't have any power to force an issue?

Because it is sitting in a corner of Parliament House sending smoke signals.

Quote:

It's beyond naïve to even suggest that it will not be capable of going to the High Court if the Aboriginal Voice committee is not happy with the govts action or inaction on their advice.

Of course it can, and it will lose because the strict limits to The Voice have been made crystal clear during the second reading debate and that is what the High Court will take into account in deciding any issue The Voice might bring to it.

Ya know, you can go to the high Court if you like. It is what the bloody court is there for, FFS! Whether it lets you in or win is another question.

Quote:

What was the intent that allowed the High Court to rule on the MABO case?

Murray Island is not mainland Australia.

Completely irrelevant.

Of course its relevant - one man took his issue regarding his inherited claim to land on an island 185 klm off mainland Australia to the High Court ...

the High Court then made his claim applicable to all claims made on mainland Australia.

The is no way the Voice activists will accept your piece meal placation that you use to say the Voice is just there in an advisory capacity & nothing to worry about. Roll Eyes

Back to top

"When you are dead, you do not know you are dead. It's only painful and difficult for others. The same applies when you are stupid." ~ Ricky Gervais

IP Logged

Lisa Jones

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 39047
Sydney
Gender: female

Re: I'm Pretty Sure I Know How I'LL Be Voting.
Reply #314 - Jun 27^th, 2023 at 9:40am

While Gnads and Frank are busy educating Aussie ....the rest of us can move on with the reality of what is taking place/what is being openly stated:

A recap (which is proving to be both brutal and confronting) of what we now know :

1. Thomas Mayo let the cat out of the bag. Thomas Mayo is a militant union official who sits on the board of the Voice to Parliament’s ‘yes’ campaign.

2. He is a member of Anthony Albanese’s Voice advisory committee and stood by the PM’s side when the referendum wording was announced.

3. Thomas Mayo wrote the book on the Voice to Parliament.

4. Remember when Albo said the divisive Voice would be a “modest” change to your Constitution?

5. Well, Thomas Mayo has been busy telling the alarming truth. He has spoken candidly about the referendum’s aims, describing the Voice as a campaign tool to “punish politicians”, “abolish colonialist institutions” and “pay the rent, pay reparations and compensation”.

6. Rather than what the PM described as an “inspiring and unifying Australian moment”, Mayo told a conference of communists that “there is nothing that we can do that is more powerful than building a first nations' Voice, a black institution, a black political force to be reckoned with”.

7. At a 2021 Invasion Day protest where he described “the powers that be” as “murderers”, he said he was “sick of governments not listening to our voice” so planned “to use the rulebook of the nation to force them”.

8. Mayo revealed the divisive aims and radical origins behind the Voice. He spoke about them at Invasion Day and Black Lives Matter protests as well as in talks to the Search Foundation, which describes itself as the “successor organisation of the Communist Party of Australia”.

9. Now WE know the truth BECAUSE we heard it from the mouth of the man who wrote the book on the Voice to Parliament.

Bottom Line?

The Voice IS NOT a “modest request”.

The Voice is NOT “gracious”.

The Voice IS about power and money and influence.

The Voice IS about dividing Australians.

And Thomas Mayo (the Yes campaign’s most prominent advocate) said as much HIMSELF ffs!

👆 Aussie can’t bear to see this because it’s a terrible, traumatising and triggering truth!

Back to top

« Last Edit: Jun 27^th, 2023 at 9:57am by Lisa Jones »

If I let myself be bought then I am no longer free.

HYPATIA - Greek philosopher, mathematician and astronomer (370 - 415)

IP Logged