I'll attempt a good faith response, and we'll see how it goes.
(Again, I'm willing to edit out the 'good faith' if you can provide me with an alternative that you don't find 'abusive')Let's just start with a reminder of terms. The Voice,
despite what some people would claim, was not a generic term given to the attempt to install Aboriginal Supremacism.
The proposal was clear: an advisory body aimed at giving Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples a formal role in influencing policy and legislation affecting their communities in Australia.
It sought to create a constitutionally enshrined, permanent mechanism through which Indigenous peoples could offer their views and advice to the federal government, particularly on matters related to Indigenous affairs. That was the essence of it.
Yet, many opponents within Parliamen, the wider public and even this forum, claimed their objection wasn't to improve the lives of Indigenous Australians, but to the method: enshrining such a body in the Constitution.
Some, like Dutton, offered alternative promises, such as a second referendum on "regional voices" and the symbolic recognition of First Australians, should the Voice referendum fail. Predictably, once the referendum was defeated, these promises evaporated.
It was nothing but a deceitful tactic designed to placate those with reservations about constitutional change, assuring them that a "No" vote wouldn't mark the end of efforts to amplify Indigenous voices. But that promise was nothing more than a strategic lie.
Then there were those who opposed the Voice under the absurd belief that it would strip them of their rights and transfer them to Indigenous Australians, a ridiculous notion that defies logic, yet one that managed to gain traction.
Others exploited the debate to disguise their own white supremacist views, using the Voice referendum as a pretext for airing racially motivated arguments. Once the referendum concluded and the Voice was defeated, they were left scrambling to maintain that veneer of "genuine debate."
They now perpetuate the baseless narrative of an ongoing "Voice by stealth," desperate to resurrect the shield that masked their prejudice.
Turning to Grappler's point: since the referendum’s failure, there have been attempts to frame any legislative effort to help Indigenous Australians as the so-called "Voice by stealth."
Grappler, I pose this question to you: if Labor were indeed failing to listen to Indigenous voices, would you support legislative or policy changes if they were guided by Indigenous perspectives now?
Or would you continue to dismiss these efforts as just another manifestation of the Voice you opposed?
What exactly do you stand for - helping Indigenous communities or just opposing the mechanisms by which they might be heard?
Forum
Pages: 1 
