Welcome!

By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.

Sign Up Now!

Australian news and politics.

zimbos05 said:
No.

The constitution in 1901 in Section 127 read;



This was changed in 1967 to have this removed. However, it did not give them the right to vote, nor did it recognise them as the first people of the land. Therefore, Aboriginal people were removed entirely from the constitution, and their rights were not, and have never been enshrined within it. They are, by wording of the constitution, non-existent. They are not even recognised as Australian.

Now, I know your argument is that, "but we are all Australian regardless of race etc etc". To a hypothetical and sensical extent, true. But what that argument does, is diminish the First Nations people to be less than or not relevant. It also discards the decades of genocide, destruction, theft, and dispossession. A person who migrates to Australia next week has just as much, if not more, say on the land and what to do with it and who it belongs to. They can even have a say on First Nations matters, and no one would bat an eye. Essentially -to this day- First Nations people are being robbed of their status, and their rightful ownership of the land.

We are -if not mistaken- the only country on earth that does not recognise First Nations people. We are also one of the only that does not give First Nations people a voice. Even New Zealand has 7 Maori only seats in Parliament. Canada is currently on a path to a similar process. The Yes vote didn't give them power to change laws or rules. It would have given them power to have a say and voice on matters and issues pertaining to First Nations people only. Want to blow up the Jukkan Gorge for mining and then funnel all the money overseas? No. Want to teach First Nations culture in a school? Great, but you would need to consult with First Nations educators and develop resources that are accurate and relevant.

Giving First Nations people recognition and a voice does not take away any of your rights, nor does it make them have more than you. It simply levels the playing field, gives them some humanity, and makes the rest of us less of a cunt.
Click to expand...
Some things here are incorrect. Aboriginal Australians have had the right to vote since the first electoral laws were passed by the federal Parliament. Our Constitution actually punished states who didn't give the right to vote to Aborigines. It was some time before it was compulsary for Aborigines to vote due to the difficulties of keeping accurate electoral rolls for those in remote areas, but they always had the right to vote federally. A person who arrives in Australia next week doesn't have the same rights as the rest of us. They don't get a vote until they qualify for citizenship and that takes a minimum of 4 years (usually 5 or 6). We do recognise first Australians in law in Australia. We even have special programmes for them in a lot of areas. We don't give them representation in Parliament above what any other Australian gets. There is actually a higher percentage of first Australian Parliamentarians than there is in the general population so it's not as if they are silenced.

The referendum on "The Voice" was actually not necessary at all as Parliament could establish a voice under current constitutional powers. It has chosen not to. Even the proposed clause did very little as all the Parliament needed to do was appoint one person to be the voice and require them to table an annual report of 500 words maximum. That would have been enough to fulfil the constitutional requirement of a voice. The Constitution itself is a pretty dry document and all it does is establish the rules and powers for Parliament, The Executive Government, The Federal Judiciary and the relations between the States who established the federation and the Commonwealth Government.
 
Monoethnic Social Club said:
Pull the other one it plays jingle bells:

(2) A person commits an offence if:6 (a) the person commits an offence against subsection 80.2A(2),7 80.2B(2), 80.2BA(2), 80.2BB(2), 80.2BC(2), 80.2BD(2) or8 80.2BE(2) (the underlying offence); and9 (b) the conduct is engaged in by the person in the person’s10 capacity as:11 (i) a religious official; or12 (ii) a spiritual leader; or13 (iii) another leader (however described) of a group, who14 provides religious instruction or pastoral care (whether15 religious or secular).16 Penalty: Imprisonment for 10 years.17 (3) There is no fault element for the physical element of conduct18 described in paragraph (1)(a) or (2)(a) other than the fault elements19 (however described), if any, for the underlying offence.20 (4) To avoid doubt:21 (a) a person does not commit an underlying offence for the22 purposes of paragraph (1)(a) or (2)(a) if the person has a23 defence to the underlying offence; and24 (b) a person may be convicted of an offence against25 subsection (1) or (2) even if the person has not been26 convicted of the underlying offence.
Click to expand...

We will see.
 
Alex M said:
Some things here are incorrect. Aboriginal Australians have had the right to vote since the first electoral laws were passed by the federal Parliament. Our Constitution actually punished states who didn't give the right to vote to Aborigines. It was some time before it was compulsary for Aborigines to vote due to the difficulties of keeping accurate electoral rolls for those in remote areas, but they always had the right to vote federally.
Click to expand...
They got the right to vote through Commonwealth legislation, not constiutional reform.

Alex M said:
A person who arrives in Australia next week doesn't have the same rights as the rest of us. They don't get a vote until they qualify for citizenship and that takes a minimum of 4 years (usually 5 or 6).
Click to expand...
It was not about voting, but ownership of land and recognition of right to First Nations. A permanent resident can do things without consulting First Nations people. To clarify, I'm not saying we need to get permission on every single thing, but we have foreign entities destroying First Nations land for economic gain, and funnelling the money overseas, all without the approval, recognition, and rights of First Nations people.

We do recognise first Australians in law in Australia. We even have special programmes for them in a lot of areas. We don't give them representation in Parliament above what any other Australian gets. There is actually a higher percentage of first Australian Parliamentarians than there is in the general population so it's not as if they are silenced.
Click to expand...
It's not about law, it's about Constitution. Law can be changed, and we know that the right wing definitely keeps trying to change laws against First Nation. Constitutional reform enshrines protections and rights. It acknowledges the people as the rightful owners of the land. They may have representatives, but they are still silenced. We give them ceremonial representation, but we don't give them actual power to have their voice be heard on matters that affect them specifically. Right now, the whole of Australia gets to decide for them, and their population numbers are inferior, so they are always unheard.

You say special programmes like they get more benefit. The reality is that these programmes are needed as they were set hundred steps back compared to everyone else. They were systematically almost wiped out. Eventually when White Australia Policy ended, they were just left to their own, not given a helping hand despite the hundreds of years of oppression and colonialism.
Alex M said:
The referendum on "The Voice" was actually not necessary at all as Parliament could establish a voice under current constitutional powers. It has chosen not to. Even the proposed clause did very little as all the Parliament needed to do was appoint one person to be the voice and require them to table an annual report of 500 words maximum. That would have been enough to fulfil the constitutional requirement of a voice. The Constitution itself is a pretty dry document and all it does is establish the rules and powers for Parliament, The Executive Government, The Federal Judiciary and the relations between the States who established the federation and the Commonwealth Government.
Click to expand...

That's all incorrect. The Voice was not 1 person and it was not appointed by parliament. It was chosen by the First Nations peoples and was proposed to have 24 people sit as part of the Voice. The Voice reform was not simply about having a person give opinion, but it was about enshrining First Nations as the rightful owners and first peoples of the land, and giving them representation and voice that is protected from being removed. It was also about following through on the commitments and resolutions of the Uluru Statement. A voice under constitutional powers can be removed. So there would have been no security, no legitimacy and no permanence. A LNP party could be elected and immediately remove that voice. Constitutional reform would require a whole new referendum.
 
Last edited:
zimbos05 said:
They got the right to vote through Commonwealth legislation, not constiutional reform.


It was not about voting, but ownership of land and recognition of right to First Nations. A permanent resident can do things without consulting First Nations people. To clarify, I'm not saying we need to get permission on every single thing, but we have foreign entities destroying First Nations land for economic gain, and funnelling the money overseas, all without the approval, recognition, and rights of First Nations people.


It's not about law, it's about Constitution. Law can be changed, and we know that the right wing definitely keeps trying to change laws against First Nation. Constitutional reform enshrines protections and rights. It acknowledges the people as the rightful owners of the land. They may have representatives, but they are still silenced. We give them ceremonial representation, but we don't give them actual power to have their voice be heard on matters that affect them specifically. Right now, the whole of Australia gets to decide for them, and their population numbers are inferior, so they are always unheard.

You say special programmes like they get more benefit. The reality is that these programmes are needed as they were set hundred steps back compared to everyone else. They were systematically almost wiped out. Eventually when White Australia Policy ended, they were just left to their own, not given a helping hand despite the hundreds of years of oppression and colonialism.


That's all incorrect. The Voice was not 1 person and it was not appointed by parliament. It was chosen by the First Nations peoples and was proposed to have 24 people sit as part of the Voice. The Voice reform was not simply about having a person give opinion, but it was about enshrining First Nations as the rightful owners and first peoples of the land, and giving them representation and voice that is protected from being removed. It was also about following through on the commitments and resolutions of the Uluru Statement. A voice under constitutional powers can be removed. So there would have been no security, no legitimacy and no permanence. A LNP party could be elected and immediately remove that voice. Constitutional reform would require a whole new referendum.
Click to expand...
Everyone got the right to vote through legislation. The Constitution gave the right to vote to everyone who could vote under state law until the Parliament made its own laws which it did quite early on. There is no Constitutionally defined right to vote (See S30).

Under our laws there are some conflicting land titles and rights. These are recognised better now than they were at other times. The example you mentioned was one that shouldn't have happened, but it's not restricted to areas under native title that things get abused. Constitutional recognition (whatever form you think that should take) wouldn't prevent things like that taking place. Even laws don't, they can just say its illegal and outline potential punishments.

The special programmes haven't and are unlikely to remove disadvantage. They are however a recognition in law that there is a group of Australians who's ancestors have been here for a long time and also an attempt to address some of the disadvantage.

It's an example of what a Parliament could do under the proposed constitutional amendment. All the amendment would have done is create a body called the voice with its "composition, functions, powers and procedures" to be determined by the Parliament. The amendment would not have done any of the things you describe. Perhaps you should go back and read it.
 
Monoethnic Social Club said:
I know, all this finger pointing at one "subset" has to stop... its already caused one tragedy, do you want another?

Loading…

www.news.com.au
Click to expand...
So this has turned out to be 15 (yes 15) year old junkies on a crime spree.

Was every other crime they committed that week targeted at people cause of their race? Or just this one?

And the ‘sieg heil’ has not been proven. One kid said they saw it. At the moment it’s only alleged. Let’s see how this plays out. Just like the firebombing of the car.
 
Last edited:
It was so obvious the coalition was going to hang itself with their politicking of Bondi. Unelectable spastics.

They’ve had one decent leader, that was pesutto in Melbourne and they shafted him cause he wasn’t right enough.

One nation is now stealing and diluting their votes. You can guarantee a labor government for the next decade at this rate.
 
Wondering why members of the communities affected by Bondi are not publicaly calling out the Coalition like they have labor? It's absolutely clear they didn't give a fuck about them and demanded these laws for purely political reasons. And exploited it.

They demanded the laws, heaped pressure, then didn't want to vote for them and have torn themselves apart over it.

The laws were always problematic.

And they're now wasting 500 mil on a royal commission...just to try and land a blow on albanese.
 
Last edited:
tsf said:
One nation is now stealing and diluting their votes. You can guarantee a labor government for the next decade at this rate.
Click to expand...
Liberals are a bunch of fucking morons. Looks like gobbling Twiggy, suckholing to the gas cartel and having Gina sit on their collective faces and having a Sky Noose and Daily Toilet Paper as your propaganda organs really hasn't worked out for them.

One Nation will hoover up those votes, possibly get some more seats and Labor will do what it wants, and that isn't good for democracy.
 
Sorry I posted this in wrong thread.. We are NOT the only country to see this violence


“The facts the victims are Kurds, a powerless and ignore people, should not lead the Belgian authorities to characterise this act differently.

“They must not conceal this.

“The Belgian government must acknowledge that Kurds, even in Antwerp, are victims of hate speech and racist and jihadist-inspired violence.”
 
Monoethnic Social Club said:
Sorry I posted this in wrong thread.. We are NOT the only country to see this violence


“The facts the victims are Kurds, a powerless and ignore people, should not lead the Belgian authorities to characterise this act differently.

“They must not conceal this.

“The Belgian government must acknowledge that Kurds, even in Antwerp, are victims of hate speech and racist and jihadist-inspired violence.”
Click to expand...
Happening all over Germany with Kurdish groups attacking Syrian and Turkish businesses and vice versa. Then you've got Iran protests and side groups agitating and stabbing each other. Then you've got Palestine protests from the anarchist block in Leipzig attacking police and damaging property. They can all fuck off.
 
theFOOTBALLlover said:
You do realise Israel occupies Palestinian land? Israel has not withdrawn from Palestine. Gaza is part of Palestine.
Click to expand...
Do you realise that Jewish people have been farming and tilling the said land for 1000 years before jesus and long before islam. They have been invaded by a lot of tribes including the romans, but this is their land
 
erogenouszone said:
Liberals are a bunch of fucking morons. Looks like gobbling Twiggy, suckholing to the gas cartel and having Gina sit on their collective faces and having a Sky Noose and Daily Toilet Paper as your propaganda organs really hasn't worked out for them.

One Nation will hoover up those votes, possibly get some more seats and Labor will do what it wants, and that isn't good for democracy.
Click to expand...

Could not agree more.

Deadshits think one nation picking up votes will make some sort of difference for them.

The only thing it means is the coalition is fucked and as you say we have one government with all the power. Which is not good for anyone.
 
Jetsfan said:
Do you realise that Jewish people have been farming and tilling the said land for 1000 years before jesus and long before islam. They have been invaded by a lot of tribes including the romans, but this is their land
Click to expand...
If you read the bible you will see that the Jews weren't the original inhabitants of that land. They came from elsewhere (several times)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top