I mentioned the word “Makaratta” to a few University-educated types the other day at the office, asking them what it is. They’d never heard of it, nevermind that it’s mentioned at least twice on the Uluru Statement “1-pager” that’s actually 26 pages. It’s the “treaty” commission that comes after the Voice is enshrined, and will set off all manner of reparations, separate development and other UN-inspired horrors that will divide and enthrall the nation. The idea that the “Voice” ends in some sort of idyllic recognition of symbolic unity and utopia is so laughable, but the average normie quite literally has absolutely no idea what any of this is about, but they get to pat themselves on the back by reminding each other just how virtuous and amazing they are for caring about aboriginals because they truly swallow every bit of mainstream bullshit imaginable.
"The idea that the “Voice” ends in some sort of idyllic recognition of symbolic unity and utopia is so laughable"
Well akshilly... the most ancient texts are from the Hindu metaphysic take on reality, which comes from us- the ancient Aryans. Hindus comes from Indus, ie. the Indus Valley.
What they are really saying is the Voice is OM, or an eternal principle that opens the mind in the Iron Age. Problem is, nobody believes it because as Yuri Bezmenov said, nobody can come back from complete demoralisation.
So depending on where ones mind is at- the Voice is some ridiculous BS, or the Voice is what they say it is; an idyllic recognition of symbolic unity and utopia.
It's an electrical principle too, that is why they chose Georg Ohm to represent electrical resistance. Sounds, voice, vibration, it all starts from there.
If and when there is a genuine movement preaching peace and harmony, completely unaffiliated with government of any kind, devoid of corporatised influence and evidencing genuine “awake” sentiment to move this country forward towards reconciliation etc, i would be quite happy to at least consider it. But seeing as a bunch of corrupt scoundrels have their dirty fingerprints over every aspect of this racket, and it’s the usual “profiting from division while we increase centralised control” scheme we see in every aspect of modern politics, I’ll give it a firm “No” this time around.
Brilliant piece of unbiased social research there. Sarcasm, of course, from me. Is it impossible to make a point rationally without revealing one’s own hyperbolic prejudice? It would appear not.
First, the comment of ‘a few university educated types’. What does this actually mean? What is a ‘university educated type’? Are you referring to Doctors, lawyers, nurses, historians, psychologists, psychiatrists, social workers, occupational therapists, accountants, engineers …….. and so on? Is there just one ‘type’ of person at university? Are all of these occupations identical? Do they all share the same characteristics?
Second, ‘will set off all manner of reparations, separate development and other UN-inspired horrors that will divide and enthrall the nation’. Is this so? You know this how! UN inspired horrors???? Such as what? Any rough idea would be nice.
Third, ‘the average normie’, by which I guess you mean the average normal person. As opposed to what? The average university type - who is what? Not normal? Tell your GP next time that they are not normal.
Fourth, ‘….but they get to pat themselves on the back by reminding each other just how virtuous and amazing they are for caring about aboriginals because they truly swallow every bit of mainstream bullshit imaginable.’ This one is particularly interesting. It seems to be a characteristic of humans that they cannot but think that their own view of the world is correct and other people’s views are illogical, irrational, made in haste, not appreciating the full complexity of the picture and so on. We typically view others as troublemakers, insincere, lacking in understanding. Strangely, none of these descriptions ever apply to us.
Lastly, don’t imagine that I am voting for or against the Voice.
A few months back I wrote to the Australian Electoral Commission inquiring whether we will be voting on between John Farnham' The Voice and Yothu Yindi's Treaty, I got a serious but bemused reply!
The linking of two consequences to one question is fraudulent and the referendum should not even go forward until it is honesty defined.
My fear is that the corrupt AEC will show a miraculous wing to Yes, and the treasonous fraud will continue to empower the Globalist war against humanity.
I don't think it's fraudulent to pose a double-barrelled question, but it's a lot to ask of people, and people who are Yes to one and No to other have no choice but to choose No for the both. One question at a time would have been more successful I would think.
Australians fail to realise this is *not* a vote about Aboriginal recognition, but about constitutionally altering how the allegedly 'democractic' process occurs in Australia. Read the amendment! Its 100% about giving the Federal Government MORE POWERS it doesnt currently have, namely, the power to create a new BODY which can only be populated by one racial group and whose functions are utterly undefined. "The Voice," whatever it ends up being, is slated to become Australia's 4th branch of constitutionally-derived power, alongside Legislative, Executive and Judicial.
We need a referendum vote to STRIP power from the last 6 years of accursed governments who brought us the COVAX CON and more besides. They most certainly *do not* deserve more constitutional powers.
The Yes answer to your point is that the Voice body has no legislative power. It can only give advice.
The No answer to that is that while the Voice doesn't have outright legislative power, there will be strong cultural pressure for elected officials to kowtow to Voice directives/wishes on all manner of issues.
The Yes answer to this is that the issues are tightly defined, and that cultural pressure is not an edict.
The No answer to this is that because the purview of the Voice is not legislated yet (and may never be), and because Voice advocates have made all sorts of bold claims about what they consider to be Indigenous issues, often contradicting other Voice advocates who say the opposite, nothing is guaranteed, and it's best to play it safe. Additionally, politicians are always beholden to cultural pressure, so why should we expect that this case would be any different?
The Yes answer to this is racist bigot have you no heart?
Here's another "NO" answer: according to my reading of the FOI document, the Voice architects need it to be written into the Constitution so that they can mount legal challenges if the Voice "advice" is not heeded in the way they want.
And of course, we the taxpayers will be funding both sides of these coming legal battles...
The "Yes" people in my immediate family circle seem to be taking the position of "Let's be nice and give them/it a go" - with no understanding that this could be a risky experiment, almost impossible to reverse. Plus of course the one dedicated activist who is calling all opposition "racist".
There is nothing in the proposal saying anything about the race of those that would be appointed to the new body. The composition could just be one white male that is a former justices of the high court or a retired head of the armed forces or war hero. You know, a man of high integrity that is above reproach like they trot out for Royal Commisions or Covid Commander that knows what’s best for the indigenous people. I’m sure even Dutton would vote yes to this 😀
I personally would prefer "The Voice" to be an advisory body to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. This requires no constitutional amendment, nor the wasting of millions of dollars on a useless referendum or vomit-worthy propaganda campaigns.
I sort of agree but that would not be a permanent voice. That advisory body could just be scrapped at any time or even the Minister for Indigenous Australians could be scrapped depending on the wishes of the Government of the day.
When it comes to politics, as in nuclear war, the best outcome is not to play.
Politics is theatre. Maybe it wasn't always, but now it is. Now's the time to go inside the mind and explore, instead of being distracted by the inanity outside of it.
Politicians wouldn't know truth or honour if it fell on them and killed them.
p.s. The Voice is an eternal principle. They're trying to tell everyone to meditate on truth, not find it in political theatre.
Sep 5, 2023·edited Sep 5, 2023Liked by Rebekah Barnett
Holding politicians - and the corporations that they serve - ought to be held accountable for all the trouble and misery and deaths that they've caused.
However I've lost all faith in the present judiciary system
I think they will find the "shy Tory effect" in play amongst the lower-level university mob (Bachelors and Masters). Those who universitymax in the hard sciences at the highest level are a HELL NO and not shy at all about it.
Dear Rebekah, Our Heroine, who brings us the actual deeper truths of current affairs in Australia!
In case you missed it, and thanks to the finding by one of your great readers, Marsha McGuire please have a listen to this Original and her absolutely excellent summary of and warning over the YES Campaign:
Based on the results so far, I suspect that people are reading your poll question incorrectly (or I am) because I think most people would support recognition in the constitution preamble but certainly not a constitutionally enshrined voice which is a 'blank cheque'.
'Recognition' will be another blank cheque. We need a Bill of Rights for all citizens that cannot be suspended in an emergency that also includes cash as permanent legal tender.
The Originals do not need "RECOGNITION" in the Constitution of this evil system, they are ALREADY recognized and KNOWN as the true custodians of the land no matter what. This "R"ecognition entire thing is a scam by the usual culprits to bring them INTO THE SYSTEM and MAKE THEM SUBJECT TO IT. There are many Originals who truly understand this and from the outset decade ago when this suspect "R" campaign started with its in-your-face R logo of a hot iron used to brand R on slaves, they instead formed the "S" campaign for SOVEREIGNTY. Only of course no one heard about all this because the S campaign wasn't given a voice, was Original and not a cooked up Agenda by the usual culprits. Please do NOT fall for this 'recognition' -- of course it plays on the "right" thing to do of course to "RECOGNIZE" but it is a road to hell, it is far better for Originals if they are NOT recognized and subject to the Constitution, as currently they are NOT. This is why it has to be all about many negotiated treaties, and not with fake Originals who have bought into the system as has started to happen more. The reason Originals were not in parliament wasn't, in more recent times due to being banned, but because they did NOT RECOGNIZE this sytem and did not want any part in it, out of principle and not to surrender their inalienable rights forever. As soon as they RECOGNIZE the system, and the system RECOGNIZING them is a big step in that direction, they are lost forever as they have entered into a legally binding contract.
They already have their own government departments that no other group has, so what do they want? I know, the suppression of the white race. Our Prime Minister, is an intellectual nit-wit. People voted for him.
I would imagine that many Indigenous people genuinely believe that a Voice, Treaty and Truth Telling process will provide the healing that they are seeking. I don't believe all of the people behind the Uluru Statement and the Yes campaign are out to oppress other Australians, although some may be. Regardless, based on the referendum question and the context covered in this article and my previous articles, I personally cannot vote Yes, and I don't believe that the Voice will achieve reconciliation.
The problem is that we apologised and we keep doing so snd there is no forgiveness. The divisions whatever they are are deepening every time that Moron in charge utters his vacuous statements.
In a perfect world the Voice could be a positive change. In the real world it is a political ploy that will ensure Labour stays in power for a very long time...
Please note that the rules for passing a referendum are a hard hurdle to jump over.
The rules relating to referendums
Section 128 of the Constitution provides for the ‘mode of altering the Constitution’.
Specifically, it requires:
A law be passed by an absolute majority of each House of the Parliament (that is, half or more of all the members of each chamber), or under certain conditions, a law be passed by a majority of either House twice within three months.
The proposal be put to the electors qualified to vote in elections for the House of Representatives between two and six months after the passage of the law.
A majority of Australians vote to approve the change, as a total and in a majority of the six states (this is referred to as the ‘double majority’).[1]
The Constitution leaves the details of the voting process to ‘such manner as the Parliament prescribes’. Accordingly, the Parliament prescribed this via the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984 (the Act).[2]
Emboldened by the general acceptance of and passivity before the false pandemic's absurdities and contradictions, even when these were revealed as such, commentators of all stripes now seem to believe they can say anything and the public will fall for it. They're not far wrong, are they?
French clinical psychologist Ariane Bilheran, author of a work on the psychopathology of totalitarianism, has remarked that the individual psyche will accept any sort of official misinformation/disinformation once it has swallowed the big lies of SARS-Cov-2. Chinese videos of people dropping dead in the streets Blind Freddy could see were fakes. Science-fiction "super spreaders" and "asymptomatics". Mass testing, false positives and, hey presto! "cases" by the thousands. The unprecedented lock-down of entire (non-prison) populations. "Safe and effective" experimental gene therapies that neither protected against transmission nor infection nor, contrary to an adjustment of those lies that went unremarked by the hypnotized vaccinated, prevented serious illness or death. An "epidemic of the unvaccinated". Deaths FROM not WITH covid of patients with two, even three comorbidities, or who died in car accidents. A mortality rate less than the annual flu, but millions of modeled deaths that never were and lives never saved by the so-called health measures. Masked mania and hysteria of those who continue to wear the useless, harmful things...
So that now the gormless nonentity who replaced the Wicked Witch of the South Seas as New Zealand's Prime Minister has the temerity to claim that the fellow-citizens his government blackmailed into being vaccinated or lose their jobs were given a choice. Hobson's! Worse, he may actually believe it. And here's Aussie PM Elbow recycling the tactic we've seen used time and again over the past three years - the flinging accusations of "extreme right-wing", "antisemitic" or "conspiracy theorist" at anyone who questions the narrative of the moment. But seriously: "Q-Anon"? Elbow's choice of this dried- and worn-out foreign mud (likely a psy-op orchestrated by US government intelligence agents) only shows his arrogant complacency. He KNOWS he can spout any old Q-anonsense and be applauded by the same bien pensants/useful idiots currently hypnotized by Woke, Trans and Climate.
Woke Aboriginal militants and lawyers, and the Cobble Cobble Woman professor, have grasped that in post-Truth times when Reality is abolished they have a golden opportunity to advance their project. And who can blame them? That they refer to themselves as "mob" I find curiously apropos and ironic. For it's as one big MOB, in the general pejorative sense of the word, that we are all of us being herded, black and white. And even were they to obtain some semblance or illusion of historical and social justice, it would surely be perverted and brought to naught by the imminent transformation of Australia and the rest of the industrialized world into a network of globally governed, fascist non-states, where the rule of law, including tribal/traditional law, will be entirely absent, and no one, black or white, will be "welcome in country".
Repeating the Covid playbook is working a treat on the usual woke do -gooder types, the bleeding hearts. I know a few. It’s like they are programmed zombies.
So, the Far Left Indigenous are with the Global Marxists pushing The Voice. And Pfizer is out in front supporting The Voice.
And the Indigenous being demonised as "Far Right" are protesting alongside with the anti-vax.
Processing...
When the community Indigenous came out in video against forced vaccination I didn't see Left Wing twitter show any interest in their voice. You'd think that the people pushing The Voice would be listening, but they're 'our way or the highway'. .
The people running The Voice have a political ideology that is not interested in NON-COMPLIANT voices.
Tell me The Voice isn't part of the new techno-totalitarian takeover.
[BELOW are all good excerpts NOT my words but I know some of those voices and this is why the Pathocracy represented by Albino & Co are looking at and wanting to focus on only ONE page.]
Group 5 – Agreement Making/Treaty
Working Group Leader – The whole group presented back to the Plenary
Vs constitutional recognition – Treaty is the best form of recognition. Treaties are already possible without constitutional change.
Where do we start and who with?
o Beginning process in constitution Benefit: government brought in
Risk: we are enclosed by government
Needs rights to land and sovereignty – not just constitutional recognition.
The 7th state concept of a defined territory in Australia made up of Aboriginal- owned or native title lands; an elected Assembly with powers of State governments; having its own constitution; etc.
Need to look at the international community, learn from best practice.
I am sick of these governments. All they have ever done is steal our country. This land belongs to the First Nations of this country. You have a lot of imposters in Parliament – they are not the sovereign peoples of this country.
Let’s make our own constitution, the Yolngu Constitution. We’ve been too much pushed around by their constitution. We’ve been pushed around like a leaf when the tide goes out and the tide comes in.
My big question – why are we going for the constitution? I’ve already been recognised. 1967 was recognition. Mabo was a form of recognition. The apology was recognition.
I look at when they said ‘Sorry’, yes, it was a great acknowledgement, and helped through healing process but if we don’t educate the country, we’ll be back in 25 years doing the same thing.
The government will always try to find a way to break you or beat you down. That doesn’t mean that we’re any weaker as Indigenous people because we lost. We’ve only lost in their eyes, they don’t know what we have underneath.
I’m pretty emotional on this issue. I’ve been with it for a long time. It’s unfinished business. We have to stay focussed.
The question here is why are we all talking, our past elders have been through this. Now it is up to us.
Delegates preferred the word ‘reform’ to ‘recognition’.
A Bill of Rights should precede constitutional reform.
I am not a supporter of the Recognise campaign. They are not a grassroots campaign. It is a mainstream brand. They have a lot of money and here we have a council [the Referendum Council] struggling to get the funds to bring the community together. There should be an army behind this council going from community to community. As far as I’m concerned, Recognise should be scrapped and the money devoted to this process.
Get the Indigenous Advisory Council to resign. They are handpicked people who don’t represent us.
For the last 50 years we’ve had countrymen down south who talk for us. We’re grateful for that but today, now, we in remote communities want to be involved in consultation with governments. We can’t be left out. We want our voice to be heard.
I hope they don’t go along the lines of separating the Aboriginal peoples across the nation. I want to stay as a collective and talk as a collective.
I don’t trust this government to do the right thing.
“We’ve got to continue the fight for the unwritten constitutions. We know there were 260 language groups, and in each language group there were unwritten constitutions. ... Prior to white man coming, there were 260 unwritten constitutions, rules, policies, procedures governing Aboriginal People and their lands.
The Voice to Parliament could take many forms. The Voice is connected to the affirmation that First Nations people have never ceded their sovereignty.
The meeting strongly affirmed that Aboriginal people have never ceded their sovereignty. Some delegates said they were concerned about being involved in a process that might result in sovereignty being ceded. Some people objected to the Constitution and the basis on which it is built.
“We have never, ever ceded our sovereignty. ... People need to get serious about our sovereign rights. Not other watered down rights.”
“They developed a Constitution that is not traditional to us as Aboriginal people.”
“Putting us in the Constitution is going to do nothing for us.”
“Section 51(26) is a race power. That race power has never given us equal rights to whitefellas.”
“Before you make decisions on the constitution we need to understand what we are giving up.”
A number of delegates expressed support for pursuing a Treaty because they said it would recognise Aboriginal sovereignty.
“Treaty is about sovereign rights. Treaty is about being real in sitting down and speaking to us as equals, about our customs, our country, our future, our kids’ and our grandkids’ future.”
A number of delegates expressed concern that politicians were seeking constitutional recognition to appease their own conscience, to make the Constitution “look nice”, and that constitutional change will only benefit the government, and not Aboriginal people. A lot of distrust was expressed about the government and the Constitution, and that under non-Aboriginal law there have been killings, massacres, genocide, the stealing of land, the introduction of disease, and the taking of children. The question was raised as to whether constitutional recognition would diminish racism, or make any difference to Aboriginal people, or whether it would give government greater control over Aboriginal people.
Delegates objected that when native title rights came in, Aboriginal people were told by government they had to prove connection and continuation with culture, history and bloodline. Another delegate stated that the change to the races power in 1967 didn’t achieve equal rights for Aboriginal people.
Another suggestion was to establish an Aboriginal Parliament, and an Aboriginal Constitution. It was said that before ATSIC was abolished, Aboriginal people did have the right to make decisions for themselves. Delegates spoke of the need to assert our right to self-determination.
Another idea that was put forward was a Bill of Rights that identifies Aboriginal people as the First People of this country.
“A Bill of Rights that sits comfortably within the Constitution will give us a greater say in our own rights and where we want to go.”
Some were angry about the millions of dollars that have been spent by the government on ‘Closing The Gap’,“but the gap has gotten wider”.
Some concerns were expressed that if a package was chosen, even though the different options might work together and strengthen each other, the weaker options might be cherry-picked by the politicians, watered down, and the government might pursue a minimalist approach.
A number of delegates expressed different concerns about process. There were concerns expressed about the work of the Recognise campaign, for example, that there was lots of money spent on the campaign, and that Recognise will push ahead regardless of the outcome of this regional dialogue process.
Some delegates expressed concern that the process was too rushed, without the ability to consult with traditional owners, elders and communities. Some demands were made that the process be opened to all Aboriginal people. It was said that many people in communities wouldn’t understand the concepts that were being talked about, and how important it is to reach out to people in the bush to ensure their voices are captured. Others also explained that government often says they are going to consult with the mob, but that “who really consults with the mob?” and that often there are language barriers that prevent this from happening.
Concerns were expressed that there were only two dialogues scheduled in New South Wales, which was not representative of the size of the Aboriginal population in the state. Another delegate expressed concern that there was no dialogue scheduled to be held in the Australian Capital Territory.
Intergenerational trauma was highlighted. There was a belief that our children are affected by the past because the struggle is multi-generational.
This applies even to people who have been educated. The scars are still there and they’re raw and red.
People repeatedly emphasised the need for truth and justice, and for non-Aboriginal Australians to take responsibility for that history and this legacy it has created:
“Government needs to be told truth of how people got to there. They need to admit to that and sort that out.”
There was anger that things had not improved and that current policies would make things worse:
“The government keeps our people locked up in prison, they take our kids away, they want to remove essential services in Western Australia and the Northern Territory. They are making welfare cuts and cuts that affect the poorest and the most disadvantaged. Not just Aboriginal people, but we are the poorest and the most disadvantaged. Our elders have already had these discussions. They have answered these questions many times over. Why are we repeating ourselves?”
Other people wanted to talk about the risks or dangers of making treaties. They were critical of the way they have been breached in overseas countries, for example by letting pipelines through on traditional lands, and that some countries with treaties still had appalling conditions amongst their First Nations communities.
There was discussion of what a treaty could contain, including recognition of sovereignty and reparations for past wrongs. Others picked up the theme of reparations and compensation as re-empowering people, rebuilding families and communities and recognising their sovereign connection to the land and its resources. There were comments about the campaign to ‘pay the rent’:
“This government and the previous government and the previous one and the colonial governments before them have been pulling resources out of the ground and they are still doing it. Trillions of dollars, how many zeros I dunno. We want to talk about sovereignty. If we talk about ‘pay the rent’ how about all these multinational corporations start to give us 1%, 2%, 5%. It’s about time they started paying the rent. How about an open cheque book so we can take back our children and do what we have to do with education and health, and so our elders can be placed in a proper home. The backbone of a strong society is the family unit.”
One of the concerns expressed was that putting Aboriginal people into the Constitution would endanger Aboriginal sovereignty. Others were concerned that anything in the Constitution would be left to politicians to interpret and they had shown they could not be trusted in the past – for example the Racial Discrimination Act has been suspended three times by the federal parliament. There was concern that constitutional recognition would be too superficial and that the 1967 referendum had not delivered on its promise:
“We are hearing about these meetings about changing the Constitution. Is it for our benefit? In 1967 people were marching for rights. But in actual fact what they got was being counted in the population and also the Commonwealth making laws for Aboriginal people rather than the states. We were a bit conned there because we didn’t get rights out of that. This far down the track we are still asking for recognition? For what? We know we are sovereign owners for this country.”
One person raised the idea that Aboriginal people need to put up a list of demands – a timeline for our liberation, to be completed by 2020. This would include international scrutiny and accountability for the Australian government.
Political empowerment was a major priority:
“If we are going to have a political approach then let’s have our political voice heard.”
“I want Aboriginal people to have a voice. I don’t know how we’re going to do that, whether it is part of this constitution or a treaty, but we have to get serious about something. Because our future in this country is to be recognised as First Peoples, proud descendants of those who they murdered, raped and tried to assimilate out. We are resilient, still fighting the fight. But no one is listening to us.”
The group also said that constitutional reform could be pursued in the form of a Bill of Rights, which would represent a broader reform for the country that could be presented as a “gift” to the wider community.
“It is important to continue this conversation, it can’t just stop at Uluru.”
A second group formed at the dialogue. Their statement was as follows:
Document 7
“We as the sovereign First Peoples demand a Sovereign Treaty and a Sovereign Treaty Commission.
Moved by Elders
“No one gives you sovereignty, you go out there and practice it and go out there and enforce it. But we are in a position that there are certain laws that mean we can’t go out and practise our sovereignty.”
People spoke of their frustration about lack of authority and ownership over their land
Question raised as to whether the changes even needed constitutional reform, or whether they could be achieved through the legislative and legal framework that it is in place now.
Other ideas also came forward in this initial discussion including the idea of a seventh state and a treaty. Some people expressed skepticism that constitutional change would achieve anything on the ground, and that treaty should be pursued instead. It was remembered that part of the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation Report that was given to John Howard was a recommendation for a Treaty. One participant said “I’m a Treaty man ... I’m a T man not an R man.”
The connection between constitutional reform that recognised Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and the struggle for the bigger concept of human rights was raised.
Delegates expressed that there was confusion about the role of the Recognise campaign, which has lead to confusion about constitutional reform generally .
Some groups were concerned that a statement of acknowledgement could be a weak or tokenistic form of recognition. One group had consensus that a statement of acknowledgment was unacceptable.
"It's the most beautiful social structure in the world when you belong to your cultural identity.”
“Having a preamble is just like a good story. The government says we tell a good story about you. What we want is to be embedded in the Constitution, embedded forever. Get Constitutional reform first then talk about sovereignty and Treaty.” Delegates were not interested in symbolism or poetry “That’s just telling a good story about our people, but that's not what we want.
“Aboriginal People have always had a structural governance, what we have to do is put it alongside the governance of mainstream.”
“I want to see us continue the decolonisation of Australia.”
“We want Australia to take a giant leap in humanity. This is about truth-telling. Whether it is constitutional change or Treaty. It is not about colour. It is about truth- telling and justice.”
“When it comes to signing a treaty, we need a treaty that can’t be broken. Why sign a treaty with a country that can still pass racist laws. It’s like signing a contract with a person who has two fingers crossed behind their back.”
“Jay Weatherill put us into the Constitution. What did we get? Nothing.”
People spoke of the need for ambition, energy and activism in the fight for reform. They stressed the importance of reaching out to people in communities and finding creative ways to attract young people to the discussion of these important issues. It was said that young people need to be on the boards of the representative organisations. People also praised the leadership of elders and freedom fighters (past and present) for reform who had gone before them and acknowledged their own responsibility to step up, unify and make change happen:
“[translated] We always seem to be behind the government. We are the people we should be in front.”
“We gotta let the whole world know. Not just the Australian people. Let’s shut the gate together at Uluru (with the approval of traditional owners) and let the whole world know what we are doing.”
People stressed that government attempts to divide and conquor the community need to be met with unity from Aboriginal people moving forward. This process needs to be driven by people power because it will determine the success of the movement.
There was some confusion about the Recognise campaign and the Referendum Council. It was explained that Recognise is an taxpayer funded awareness or education campaign and has nothing to do with the options for constitutional change and cannot exercise any influence over the reforms and have no role in the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander leadership on reforms.
“If we go for a weak option, we will never have another go in this lifetime”
Self-determination remained a priority for all groups. There was strong support for a mechanism that would seek agreement for a percentage of GDP to be allocated to and administered by First Nations.
We need to remember that “if there is no struggle there is no progress (Frederick Douglas)”
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples in Australia could create their own constitution and their own parliament. The group spoke about the Sami Parliaments that had been created by the Sami people in Finland, Norway and Sweden. “We need to be looking at our own parliament. Not reinventing the wheel. The Sami people have it already.”
Members of the group felt that, in order for meaningful change to happen, Australian society generally needs to ‘work on itself’ and to know the truth of its own history. ‘They see us as disadvantaged, but the white people are more disadvantaged because they live in a country that is not their own. They’re living a lie'
to be more than just advisory. It needed to be able to provide free and informed prior consent that is binding on the government. There was some concern that an ineffective body put into the Constitution would undermine the ability to pursue more effective reforms later.
The meeting recognised that there were limits to what constitutional reform could achieve.
“With those sovereignty issues, is that we don’t put our sovereign rights into the referendum process. It is asking white people to decide whether our sovereignty is part and parcel of our life in this country.”
Why aren’t we looking at dissolving the constitution. I don’t want to be bound as a subject of the Crown.
With the above 3 comments, all excerpts from among the 26 pages, I hope to show many positive points within those pages, among also many naive if well-intentioned ones, and that there is no way that Albino & Co would be supporting most of the above comments and warnings contained in the full summary, which is presumably why he says it is only 1 page. They want to get OUT of a future problem they have by attempting to co-opt and do exactly what was warned about here.
Thank you! I downloaded the report and intend reading the full 26 pages but you present an excellent precis that facilitates a judgement of its worth. And it does seem worthy to me, if ultimately redundant the way things are going not just in Australia but around the world. I can certainly see, however, why the government and perhaps even its principle authors (I don't find the reports on Substack conclusive in regard of the latter) preferred to dissimulate the remaining 25 pages. The open (and, yes, possibly naive) internal debate, sincere and quite rational despite the strangeness to many white Australians of some of the thinking that the "missing" pages represent is more than revealing. But above all their honest disagreements and mild but overt criticism of government and white Australian society would be anathema to bureaucrats, politicians and their spin doctors.
The tragedy in my view is that as with everything nowadays, whether decent or wicked, it will be deformed and assimilated into the totalitarian dystopia whose growing shadow is being cast over the entire world and not just Australia, and the establishment of which will owe less than nothing to any perceived "fuzziness" or loopholes in the Uluru statement - contrary to the predictably ignorant and slanted Sky News item, whose title includes the risible claim that it's the report that menaces us with a "totalitarian dystopia". How ironical, one might say.
It could be a woke Trojan Horse, but the Greeks are already inside the city anyway, plundering away.
Excellent analysis of the situation. Regarding the Uluru Statement from the Heart, I did select views that aligned with mine and were presented by those of mine who were present, to show that there was not consensus on trusting the regime and the system, on the contrary. The Statement itself would appear to be one page and was presumably arrived at by consensus.
I think the only reason the govern-ment is going for this is virtue signalling to look good in the face of a very bad human rights record at the inter-national level, and so that it can speak louder at the UN as advocate of the "Rules Based Order" (New World Order).
The NO vote will be from the masses of f-wits who fear anything empowering to the Originals, and the very different group people such as us, who are certainly in favour of the Statement but NOT at all having any faith that the regime will not misuse and abuse it.
It would be a clear-cut win for NO in my view, except for the fact that the huge overwhelming majority of f-wits will put a cross on the poorly designed voting form of the e-wit AEC. This might result in a YES victory for the regime.
On the other hand, if it is a NO win, this can be used to sow division and highlight the racism in Australia and the regime can position itself as the "good side" with "R2P Responsibility to Protect" - for those that don't know, this policy designed by an Australien evil monster was precisely used for the War is Peace non-stop bombing of Libya throughout 2011 and the desturction of the self-governing direct-democracy grass-roots consensus Jamahiriya, which was an inspiration also, importantly, to at least one of those who voiced some of those quotes I excerpted from the Statement above.
If it is a YES win then again it can be used to shame the NO voters. Again of importance is that The Green Book - Solution to the Problem of Democracy ( refer to bit.ly/greenvirus ) highlights in a section "Plebicites" exactly why any YES or NO voting is dictatorship and not democracy. It is a violation of our human rights to be forced to vote YES -OR- NO, for those that vote YES should state WHY they are voting yes and those that vote NO should state WHY they are voting no, and then the entire result is likely to be very different.
And of course who would the regime select to be on the Referendum Council (when referenda have been knocked down as only serving the agenda of their authors, nothing to do with actual democratic outcomes, as mentioned above) but the evil Stan Grant. This larger than life beta-male coconut mangina f-wit is as original as I could throw him. A nasty shit rotten coconut he is, I wonder if Karla was vicim of psychopathic abuse before she divorced him.
Fantastic discovery, it is exactly what I've been trying to say but from one who is manifestly qualified and has far greater experience. I hope Rebekah will get to hear it as her research and highlighting of this topic is a great service. Thank you, I'm glad I clicked the link.
I mentioned the word “Makaratta” to a few University-educated types the other day at the office, asking them what it is. They’d never heard of it, nevermind that it’s mentioned at least twice on the Uluru Statement “1-pager” that’s actually 26 pages. It’s the “treaty” commission that comes after the Voice is enshrined, and will set off all manner of reparations, separate development and other UN-inspired horrors that will divide and enthrall the nation. The idea that the “Voice” ends in some sort of idyllic recognition of symbolic unity and utopia is so laughable, but the average normie quite literally has absolutely no idea what any of this is about, but they get to pat themselves on the back by reminding each other just how virtuous and amazing they are for caring about aboriginals because they truly swallow every bit of mainstream bullshit imaginable.
"The idea that the “Voice” ends in some sort of idyllic recognition of symbolic unity and utopia is so laughable"
Well akshilly... the most ancient texts are from the Hindu metaphysic take on reality, which comes from us- the ancient Aryans. Hindus comes from Indus, ie. the Indus Valley.
What they are really saying is the Voice is OM, or an eternal principle that opens the mind in the Iron Age. Problem is, nobody believes it because as Yuri Bezmenov said, nobody can come back from complete demoralisation.
So depending on where ones mind is at- the Voice is some ridiculous BS, or the Voice is what they say it is; an idyllic recognition of symbolic unity and utopia.
It's an electrical principle too, that is why they chose Georg Ohm to represent electrical resistance. Sounds, voice, vibration, it all starts from there.
If and when there is a genuine movement preaching peace and harmony, completely unaffiliated with government of any kind, devoid of corporatised influence and evidencing genuine “awake” sentiment to move this country forward towards reconciliation etc, i would be quite happy to at least consider it. But seeing as a bunch of corrupt scoundrels have their dirty fingerprints over every aspect of this racket, and it’s the usual “profiting from division while we increase centralised control” scheme we see in every aspect of modern politics, I’ll give it a firm “No” this time around.
I'm not sure what you're saying no to. I'm not asking anything.
Go well. :)
No to the Voice ;)
"...a bunch of corrupt scoundrels have their dirty fingerprints over every aspect of this racket". Best summation yet!
Brilliant piece of unbiased social research there. Sarcasm, of course, from me. Is it impossible to make a point rationally without revealing one’s own hyperbolic prejudice? It would appear not.
Enlighten me, Tony, what sort of prejudice to you perceive from my comment?
Thank you.
First, the comment of ‘a few university educated types’. What does this actually mean? What is a ‘university educated type’? Are you referring to Doctors, lawyers, nurses, historians, psychologists, psychiatrists, social workers, occupational therapists, accountants, engineers …….. and so on? Is there just one ‘type’ of person at university? Are all of these occupations identical? Do they all share the same characteristics?
Second, ‘will set off all manner of reparations, separate development and other UN-inspired horrors that will divide and enthrall the nation’. Is this so? You know this how! UN inspired horrors???? Such as what? Any rough idea would be nice.
Third, ‘the average normie’, by which I guess you mean the average normal person. As opposed to what? The average university type - who is what? Not normal? Tell your GP next time that they are not normal.
Fourth, ‘….but they get to pat themselves on the back by reminding each other just how virtuous and amazing they are for caring about aboriginals because they truly swallow every bit of mainstream bullshit imaginable.’ This one is particularly interesting. It seems to be a characteristic of humans that they cannot but think that their own view of the world is correct and other people’s views are illogical, irrational, made in haste, not appreciating the full complexity of the picture and so on. We typically view others as troublemakers, insincere, lacking in understanding. Strangely, none of these descriptions ever apply to us.
Lastly, don’t imagine that I am voting for or against the Voice.
A few months back I wrote to the Australian Electoral Commission inquiring whether we will be voting on between John Farnham' The Voice and Yothu Yindi's Treaty, I got a serious but bemused reply!
The linking of two consequences to one question is fraudulent and the referendum should not even go forward until it is honesty defined.
My fear is that the corrupt AEC will show a miraculous wing to Yes, and the treasonous fraud will continue to empower the Globalist war against humanity.
I don't think it's fraudulent to pose a double-barrelled question, but it's a lot to ask of people, and people who are Yes to one and No to other have no choice but to choose No for the both. One question at a time would have been more successful I would think.
Australians fail to realise this is *not* a vote about Aboriginal recognition, but about constitutionally altering how the allegedly 'democractic' process occurs in Australia. Read the amendment! Its 100% about giving the Federal Government MORE POWERS it doesnt currently have, namely, the power to create a new BODY which can only be populated by one racial group and whose functions are utterly undefined. "The Voice," whatever it ends up being, is slated to become Australia's 4th branch of constitutionally-derived power, alongside Legislative, Executive and Judicial.
We need a referendum vote to STRIP power from the last 6 years of accursed governments who brought us the COVAX CON and more besides. They most certainly *do not* deserve more constitutional powers.
The Yes answer to your point is that the Voice body has no legislative power. It can only give advice.
The No answer to that is that while the Voice doesn't have outright legislative power, there will be strong cultural pressure for elected officials to kowtow to Voice directives/wishes on all manner of issues.
The Yes answer to this is that the issues are tightly defined, and that cultural pressure is not an edict.
The No answer to this is that because the purview of the Voice is not legislated yet (and may never be), and because Voice advocates have made all sorts of bold claims about what they consider to be Indigenous issues, often contradicting other Voice advocates who say the opposite, nothing is guaranteed, and it's best to play it safe. Additionally, politicians are always beholden to cultural pressure, so why should we expect that this case would be any different?
The Yes answer to this is racist bigot have you no heart?
The No answer to this is fuck off, NO.
😂😂😂
I wasn’t expecting the last line.
But does the Federal Government deserve MORE constitutionally-derived powers? *That* is the heart of the issue for me.
Here's another "NO" answer: according to my reading of the FOI document, the Voice architects need it to be written into the Constitution so that they can mount legal challenges if the Voice "advice" is not heeded in the way they want.
And of course, we the taxpayers will be funding both sides of these coming legal battles...
The "Yes" people in my immediate family circle seem to be taking the position of "Let's be nice and give them/it a go" - with no understanding that this could be a risky experiment, almost impossible to reverse. Plus of course the one dedicated activist who is calling all opposition "racist".
Not a new body populated by one racial group but a new body populated by people who ‘identify’ as a particular racial group
There is nothing in the proposal saying anything about the race of those that would be appointed to the new body. The composition could just be one white male that is a former justices of the high court or a retired head of the armed forces or war hero. You know, a man of high integrity that is above reproach like they trot out for Royal Commisions or Covid Commander that knows what’s best for the indigenous people. I’m sure even Dutton would vote yes to this 😀
I personally would prefer "The Voice" to be an advisory body to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. This requires no constitutional amendment, nor the wasting of millions of dollars on a useless referendum or vomit-worthy propaganda campaigns.
I sort of agree but that would not be a permanent voice. That advisory body could just be scrapped at any time or even the Minister for Indigenous Australians could be scrapped depending on the wishes of the Government of the day.
We are not allowed to have war heroes but otherwise well said
When it comes to politics, as in nuclear war, the best outcome is not to play.
Politics is theatre. Maybe it wasn't always, but now it is. Now's the time to go inside the mind and explore, instead of being distracted by the inanity outside of it.
Politicians wouldn't know truth or honour if it fell on them and killed them.
p.s. The Voice is an eternal principle. They're trying to tell everyone to meditate on truth, not find it in political theatre.
Holding politicians - and the corporations that they serve - ought to be held accountable for all the trouble and misery and deaths that they've caused.
However I've lost all faith in the present judiciary system
>and those with a University education
I think they will find the "shy Tory effect" in play amongst the lower-level university mob (Bachelors and Masters). Those who universitymax in the hard sciences at the highest level are a HELL NO and not shy at all about it.
Dear Rebekah, Our Heroine, who brings us the actual deeper truths of current affairs in Australia!
In case you missed it, and thanks to the finding by one of your great readers, Marsha McGuire please have a listen to this Original and her absolutely excellent summary of and warning over the YES Campaign:
http://2smsupernetwork.com/audio/laws/PDCALLER.mp3?mibextid=Zxz2cZ
IT SAYS IT ALL!
Based on the results so far, I suspect that people are reading your poll question incorrectly (or I am) because I think most people would support recognition in the constitution preamble but certainly not a constitutionally enshrined voice which is a 'blank cheque'.
Personally, I will be voting no to the blank cheque, but if offered the opportunity, I would vote yes for recognition.
Yes, I am voting no to the blank cheque, too, but I would be happy to vote yes for recognition
'Recognition' will be another blank cheque. We need a Bill of Rights for all citizens that cannot be suspended in an emergency that also includes cash as permanent legal tender.
The Originals do not need "RECOGNITION" in the Constitution of this evil system, they are ALREADY recognized and KNOWN as the true custodians of the land no matter what. This "R"ecognition entire thing is a scam by the usual culprits to bring them INTO THE SYSTEM and MAKE THEM SUBJECT TO IT. There are many Originals who truly understand this and from the outset decade ago when this suspect "R" campaign started with its in-your-face R logo of a hot iron used to brand R on slaves, they instead formed the "S" campaign for SOVEREIGNTY. Only of course no one heard about all this because the S campaign wasn't given a voice, was Original and not a cooked up Agenda by the usual culprits. Please do NOT fall for this 'recognition' -- of course it plays on the "right" thing to do of course to "RECOGNIZE" but it is a road to hell, it is far better for Originals if they are NOT recognized and subject to the Constitution, as currently they are NOT. This is why it has to be all about many negotiated treaties, and not with fake Originals who have bought into the system as has started to happen more. The reason Originals were not in parliament wasn't, in more recent times due to being banned, but because they did NOT RECOGNIZE this sytem and did not want any part in it, out of principle and not to surrender their inalienable rights forever. As soon as they RECOGNIZE the system, and the system RECOGNIZING them is a big step in that direction, they are lost forever as they have entered into a legally binding contract.
I would vote no to both and will do. I am very unhappy about anyone who changes the constitution. I understood the question.
They already have their own government departments that no other group has, so what do they want? I know, the suppression of the white race. Our Prime Minister, is an intellectual nit-wit. People voted for him.
I would imagine that many Indigenous people genuinely believe that a Voice, Treaty and Truth Telling process will provide the healing that they are seeking. I don't believe all of the people behind the Uluru Statement and the Yes campaign are out to oppress other Australians, although some may be. Regardless, based on the referendum question and the context covered in this article and my previous articles, I personally cannot vote Yes, and I don't believe that the Voice will achieve reconciliation.
The problem is that we apologised and we keep doing so snd there is no forgiveness. The divisions whatever they are are deepening every time that Moron in charge utters his vacuous statements.
In a perfect world the Voice could be a positive change. In the real world it is a political ploy that will ensure Labour stays in power for a very long time...
Please note that the rules for passing a referendum are a hard hurdle to jump over.
The rules relating to referendums
Section 128 of the Constitution provides for the ‘mode of altering the Constitution’.
Specifically, it requires:
A law be passed by an absolute majority of each House of the Parliament (that is, half or more of all the members of each chamber), or under certain conditions, a law be passed by a majority of either House twice within three months.
The proposal be put to the electors qualified to vote in elections for the House of Representatives between two and six months after the passage of the law.
A majority of Australians vote to approve the change, as a total and in a majority of the six states (this is referred to as the ‘double majority’).[1]
The Constitution leaves the details of the voting process to ‘such manner as the Parliament prescribes’. Accordingly, the Parliament prescribed this via the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984 (the Act).[2]
https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp2223/Quick_Guides/ConstitutionalReferendumsAustralia
Emboldened by the general acceptance of and passivity before the false pandemic's absurdities and contradictions, even when these were revealed as such, commentators of all stripes now seem to believe they can say anything and the public will fall for it. They're not far wrong, are they?
French clinical psychologist Ariane Bilheran, author of a work on the psychopathology of totalitarianism, has remarked that the individual psyche will accept any sort of official misinformation/disinformation once it has swallowed the big lies of SARS-Cov-2. Chinese videos of people dropping dead in the streets Blind Freddy could see were fakes. Science-fiction "super spreaders" and "asymptomatics". Mass testing, false positives and, hey presto! "cases" by the thousands. The unprecedented lock-down of entire (non-prison) populations. "Safe and effective" experimental gene therapies that neither protected against transmission nor infection nor, contrary to an adjustment of those lies that went unremarked by the hypnotized vaccinated, prevented serious illness or death. An "epidemic of the unvaccinated". Deaths FROM not WITH covid of patients with two, even three comorbidities, or who died in car accidents. A mortality rate less than the annual flu, but millions of modeled deaths that never were and lives never saved by the so-called health measures. Masked mania and hysteria of those who continue to wear the useless, harmful things...
So that now the gormless nonentity who replaced the Wicked Witch of the South Seas as New Zealand's Prime Minister has the temerity to claim that the fellow-citizens his government blackmailed into being vaccinated or lose their jobs were given a choice. Hobson's! Worse, he may actually believe it. And here's Aussie PM Elbow recycling the tactic we've seen used time and again over the past three years - the flinging accusations of "extreme right-wing", "antisemitic" or "conspiracy theorist" at anyone who questions the narrative of the moment. But seriously: "Q-Anon"? Elbow's choice of this dried- and worn-out foreign mud (likely a psy-op orchestrated by US government intelligence agents) only shows his arrogant complacency. He KNOWS he can spout any old Q-anonsense and be applauded by the same bien pensants/useful idiots currently hypnotized by Woke, Trans and Climate.
Woke Aboriginal militants and lawyers, and the Cobble Cobble Woman professor, have grasped that in post-Truth times when Reality is abolished they have a golden opportunity to advance their project. And who can blame them? That they refer to themselves as "mob" I find curiously apropos and ironic. For it's as one big MOB, in the general pejorative sense of the word, that we are all of us being herded, black and white. And even were they to obtain some semblance or illusion of historical and social justice, it would surely be perverted and brought to naught by the imminent transformation of Australia and the rest of the industrialized world into a network of globally governed, fascist non-states, where the rule of law, including tribal/traditional law, will be entirely absent, and no one, black or white, will be "welcome in country".
Repeating the Covid playbook is working a treat on the usual woke do -gooder types, the bleeding hearts. I know a few. It’s like they are programmed zombies.
From Igor's blog I've begun pulling this more together, beginning...
Indigenous people identify on every political line. The political party "Informed Medical Options Party (IMOP)" has a strong Indigenous contingent. I think they (accidentally?) set fire to Old Parliament House at anti-vax protest during the mandates, but perhaps that was agent provocateurs. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/dec/31/old-parliament-house-fire-protesters-linked-to-anti-vaccine-and-conspiracy-groups
Also described here as "Far-Right Provocateurs" :D https://www.sydneycriminallawyers.com.au/blog/far-right-provocateurs-have-descended-upon-old-parliament-house/
So, the Far Left Indigenous are with the Global Marxists pushing The Voice. And Pfizer is out in front supporting The Voice.
And the Indigenous being demonised as "Far Right" are protesting alongside with the anti-vax.
Processing...
When the community Indigenous came out in video against forced vaccination I didn't see Left Wing twitter show any interest in their voice. You'd think that the people pushing The Voice would be listening, but they're 'our way or the highway'. .
The people running The Voice have a political ideology that is not interested in NON-COMPLIANT voices.
Tell me The Voice isn't part of the new techno-totalitarian takeover.
[BELOW are all good excerpts NOT my words but I know some of those voices and this is why the Pathocracy represented by Albino & Co are looking at and wanting to focus on only ONE page.]
Group 5 – Agreement Making/Treaty
Working Group Leader – The whole group presented back to the Plenary
Vs constitutional recognition – Treaty is the best form of recognition. Treaties are already possible without constitutional change.
Where do we start and who with?
o Beginning process in constitution Benefit: government brought in
Risk: we are enclosed by government
Needs rights to land and sovereignty – not just constitutional recognition.
The 7th state concept of a defined territory in Australia made up of Aboriginal- owned or native title lands; an elected Assembly with powers of State governments; having its own constitution; etc.
Need to look at the international community, learn from best practice.
I am sick of these governments. All they have ever done is steal our country. This land belongs to the First Nations of this country. You have a lot of imposters in Parliament – they are not the sovereign peoples of this country.
Let’s make our own constitution, the Yolngu Constitution. We’ve been too much pushed around by their constitution. We’ve been pushed around like a leaf when the tide goes out and the tide comes in.
My big question – why are we going for the constitution? I’ve already been recognised. 1967 was recognition. Mabo was a form of recognition. The apology was recognition.
I look at when they said ‘Sorry’, yes, it was a great acknowledgement, and helped through healing process but if we don’t educate the country, we’ll be back in 25 years doing the same thing.
The government will always try to find a way to break you or beat you down. That doesn’t mean that we’re any weaker as Indigenous people because we lost. We’ve only lost in their eyes, they don’t know what we have underneath.
I’m pretty emotional on this issue. I’ve been with it for a long time. It’s unfinished business. We have to stay focussed.
The question here is why are we all talking, our past elders have been through this. Now it is up to us.
Delegates preferred the word ‘reform’ to ‘recognition’.
A Bill of Rights should precede constitutional reform.
I am not a supporter of the Recognise campaign. They are not a grassroots campaign. It is a mainstream brand. They have a lot of money and here we have a council [the Referendum Council] struggling to get the funds to bring the community together. There should be an army behind this council going from community to community. As far as I’m concerned, Recognise should be scrapped and the money devoted to this process.
Get the Indigenous Advisory Council to resign. They are handpicked people who don’t represent us.
For the last 50 years we’ve had countrymen down south who talk for us. We’re grateful for that but today, now, we in remote communities want to be involved in consultation with governments. We can’t be left out. We want our voice to be heard.
I hope they don’t go along the lines of separating the Aboriginal peoples across the nation. I want to stay as a collective and talk as a collective.
I don’t trust this government to do the right thing.
“We’ve got to continue the fight for the unwritten constitutions. We know there were 260 language groups, and in each language group there were unwritten constitutions. ... Prior to white man coming, there were 260 unwritten constitutions, rules, policies, procedures governing Aboriginal People and their lands.
The Voice to Parliament could take many forms. The Voice is connected to the affirmation that First Nations people have never ceded their sovereignty.
The meeting strongly affirmed that Aboriginal people have never ceded their sovereignty. Some delegates said they were concerned about being involved in a process that might result in sovereignty being ceded. Some people objected to the Constitution and the basis on which it is built.
“We have never, ever ceded our sovereignty. ... People need to get serious about our sovereign rights. Not other watered down rights.”
“They developed a Constitution that is not traditional to us as Aboriginal people.”
“Putting us in the Constitution is going to do nothing for us.”
“Section 51(26) is a race power. That race power has never given us equal rights to whitefellas.”
“Before you make decisions on the constitution we need to understand what we are giving up.”
A number of delegates expressed support for pursuing a Treaty because they said it would recognise Aboriginal sovereignty.
“Treaty is about sovereign rights. Treaty is about being real in sitting down and speaking to us as equals, about our customs, our country, our future, our kids’ and our grandkids’ future.”
A number of delegates expressed concern that politicians were seeking constitutional recognition to appease their own conscience, to make the Constitution “look nice”, and that constitutional change will only benefit the government, and not Aboriginal people. A lot of distrust was expressed about the government and the Constitution, and that under non-Aboriginal law there have been killings, massacres, genocide, the stealing of land, the introduction of disease, and the taking of children. The question was raised as to whether constitutional recognition would diminish racism, or make any difference to Aboriginal people, or whether it would give government greater control over Aboriginal people.
Delegates objected that when native title rights came in, Aboriginal people were told by government they had to prove connection and continuation with culture, history and bloodline. Another delegate stated that the change to the races power in 1967 didn’t achieve equal rights for Aboriginal people.
Another suggestion was to establish an Aboriginal Parliament, and an Aboriginal Constitution. It was said that before ATSIC was abolished, Aboriginal people did have the right to make decisions for themselves. Delegates spoke of the need to assert our right to self-determination.
Another idea that was put forward was a Bill of Rights that identifies Aboriginal people as the First People of this country.
“A Bill of Rights that sits comfortably within the Constitution will give us a greater say in our own rights and where we want to go.”
Some were angry about the millions of dollars that have been spent by the government on ‘Closing The Gap’,“but the gap has gotten wider”.
Some concerns were expressed that if a package was chosen, even though the different options might work together and strengthen each other, the weaker options might be cherry-picked by the politicians, watered down, and the government might pursue a minimalist approach.
A number of delegates expressed different concerns about process. There were concerns expressed about the work of the Recognise campaign, for example, that there was lots of money spent on the campaign, and that Recognise will push ahead regardless of the outcome of this regional dialogue process.
Some delegates expressed concern that the process was too rushed, without the ability to consult with traditional owners, elders and communities. Some demands were made that the process be opened to all Aboriginal people. It was said that many people in communities wouldn’t understand the concepts that were being talked about, and how important it is to reach out to people in the bush to ensure their voices are captured. Others also explained that government often says they are going to consult with the mob, but that “who really consults with the mob?” and that often there are language barriers that prevent this from happening.
Concerns were expressed that there were only two dialogues scheduled in New South Wales, which was not representative of the size of the Aboriginal population in the state. Another delegate expressed concern that there was no dialogue scheduled to be held in the Australian Capital Territory.
Intergenerational trauma was highlighted. There was a belief that our children are affected by the past because the struggle is multi-generational.
This applies even to people who have been educated. The scars are still there and they’re raw and red.
People repeatedly emphasised the need for truth and justice, and for non-Aboriginal Australians to take responsibility for that history and this legacy it has created:
“Government needs to be told truth of how people got to there. They need to admit to that and sort that out.”
There was anger that things had not improved and that current policies would make things worse:
“The government keeps our people locked up in prison, they take our kids away, they want to remove essential services in Western Australia and the Northern Territory. They are making welfare cuts and cuts that affect the poorest and the most disadvantaged. Not just Aboriginal people, but we are the poorest and the most disadvantaged. Our elders have already had these discussions. They have answered these questions many times over. Why are we repeating ourselves?”
Other people wanted to talk about the risks or dangers of making treaties. They were critical of the way they have been breached in overseas countries, for example by letting pipelines through on traditional lands, and that some countries with treaties still had appalling conditions amongst their First Nations communities.
There was discussion of what a treaty could contain, including recognition of sovereignty and reparations for past wrongs. Others picked up the theme of reparations and compensation as re-empowering people, rebuilding families and communities and recognising their sovereign connection to the land and its resources. There were comments about the campaign to ‘pay the rent’:
“This government and the previous government and the previous one and the colonial governments before them have been pulling resources out of the ground and they are still doing it. Trillions of dollars, how many zeros I dunno. We want to talk about sovereignty. If we talk about ‘pay the rent’ how about all these multinational corporations start to give us 1%, 2%, 5%. It’s about time they started paying the rent. How about an open cheque book so we can take back our children and do what we have to do with education and health, and so our elders can be placed in a proper home. The backbone of a strong society is the family unit.”
One of the concerns expressed was that putting Aboriginal people into the Constitution would endanger Aboriginal sovereignty. Others were concerned that anything in the Constitution would be left to politicians to interpret and they had shown they could not be trusted in the past – for example the Racial Discrimination Act has been suspended three times by the federal parliament. There was concern that constitutional recognition would be too superficial and that the 1967 referendum had not delivered on its promise:
“We are hearing about these meetings about changing the Constitution. Is it for our benefit? In 1967 people were marching for rights. But in actual fact what they got was being counted in the population and also the Commonwealth making laws for Aboriginal people rather than the states. We were a bit conned there because we didn’t get rights out of that. This far down the track we are still asking for recognition? For what? We know we are sovereign owners for this country.”
One person raised the idea that Aboriginal people need to put up a list of demands – a timeline for our liberation, to be completed by 2020. This would include international scrutiny and accountability for the Australian government.
Political empowerment was a major priority:
“If we are going to have a political approach then let’s have our political voice heard.”
“I want Aboriginal people to have a voice. I don’t know how we’re going to do that, whether it is part of this constitution or a treaty, but we have to get serious about something. Because our future in this country is to be recognised as First Peoples, proud descendants of those who they murdered, raped and tried to assimilate out. We are resilient, still fighting the fight. But no one is listening to us.”
The group also said that constitutional reform could be pursued in the form of a Bill of Rights, which would represent a broader reform for the country that could be presented as a “gift” to the wider community.
“It is important to continue this conversation, it can’t just stop at Uluru.”
A second group formed at the dialogue. Their statement was as follows:
Document 7
“We as the sovereign First Peoples demand a Sovereign Treaty and a Sovereign Treaty Commission.
Moved by Elders
“No one gives you sovereignty, you go out there and practice it and go out there and enforce it. But we are in a position that there are certain laws that mean we can’t go out and practise our sovereignty.”
People spoke of their frustration about lack of authority and ownership over their land
Question raised as to whether the changes even needed constitutional reform, or whether they could be achieved through the legislative and legal framework that it is in place now.
Other ideas also came forward in this initial discussion including the idea of a seventh state and a treaty. Some people expressed skepticism that constitutional change would achieve anything on the ground, and that treaty should be pursued instead. It was remembered that part of the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation Report that was given to John Howard was a recommendation for a Treaty. One participant said “I’m a Treaty man ... I’m a T man not an R man.”
The connection between constitutional reform that recognised Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and the struggle for the bigger concept of human rights was raised.
Delegates expressed that there was confusion about the role of the Recognise campaign, which has lead to confusion about constitutional reform generally .
Some groups were concerned that a statement of acknowledgement could be a weak or tokenistic form of recognition. One group had consensus that a statement of acknowledgment was unacceptable.
"It's the most beautiful social structure in the world when you belong to your cultural identity.”
“Having a preamble is just like a good story. The government says we tell a good story about you. What we want is to be embedded in the Constitution, embedded forever. Get Constitutional reform first then talk about sovereignty and Treaty.” Delegates were not interested in symbolism or poetry “That’s just telling a good story about our people, but that's not what we want.
“Aboriginal People have always had a structural governance, what we have to do is put it alongside the governance of mainstream.”
“I want to see us continue the decolonisation of Australia.”
“We want Australia to take a giant leap in humanity. This is about truth-telling. Whether it is constitutional change or Treaty. It is not about colour. It is about truth- telling and justice.”
“When it comes to signing a treaty, we need a treaty that can’t be broken. Why sign a treaty with a country that can still pass racist laws. It’s like signing a contract with a person who has two fingers crossed behind their back.”
“Jay Weatherill put us into the Constitution. What did we get? Nothing.”
People spoke of the need for ambition, energy and activism in the fight for reform. They stressed the importance of reaching out to people in communities and finding creative ways to attract young people to the discussion of these important issues. It was said that young people need to be on the boards of the representative organisations. People also praised the leadership of elders and freedom fighters (past and present) for reform who had gone before them and acknowledged their own responsibility to step up, unify and make change happen:
“[translated] We always seem to be behind the government. We are the people we should be in front.”
“We gotta let the whole world know. Not just the Australian people. Let’s shut the gate together at Uluru (with the approval of traditional owners) and let the whole world know what we are doing.”
People stressed that government attempts to divide and conquor the community need to be met with unity from Aboriginal people moving forward. This process needs to be driven by people power because it will determine the success of the movement.
There was some confusion about the Recognise campaign and the Referendum Council. It was explained that Recognise is an taxpayer funded awareness or education campaign and has nothing to do with the options for constitutional change and cannot exercise any influence over the reforms and have no role in the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander leadership on reforms.
“If we go for a weak option, we will never have another go in this lifetime”
Self-determination remained a priority for all groups. There was strong support for a mechanism that would seek agreement for a percentage of GDP to be allocated to and administered by First Nations.
We need to remember that “if there is no struggle there is no progress (Frederick Douglas)”
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples in Australia could create their own constitution and their own parliament. The group spoke about the Sami Parliaments that had been created by the Sami people in Finland, Norway and Sweden. “We need to be looking at our own parliament. Not reinventing the wheel. The Sami people have it already.”
Members of the group felt that, in order for meaningful change to happen, Australian society generally needs to ‘work on itself’ and to know the truth of its own history. ‘They see us as disadvantaged, but the white people are more disadvantaged because they live in a country that is not their own. They’re living a lie'
to be more than just advisory. It needed to be able to provide free and informed prior consent that is binding on the government. There was some concern that an ineffective body put into the Constitution would undermine the ability to pursue more effective reforms later.
The meeting recognised that there were limits to what constitutional reform could achieve.
“With those sovereignty issues, is that we don’t put our sovereign rights into the referendum process. It is asking white people to decide whether our sovereignty is part and parcel of our life in this country.”
Why aren’t we looking at dissolving the constitution. I don’t want to be bound as a subject of the Crown.
Full text: https://www.skynews.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/Credlin-Editorial-PDF-2.pdf
With the above 3 comments, all excerpts from among the 26 pages, I hope to show many positive points within those pages, among also many naive if well-intentioned ones, and that there is no way that Albino & Co would be supporting most of the above comments and warnings contained in the full summary, which is presumably why he says it is only 1 page. They want to get OUT of a future problem they have by attempting to co-opt and do exactly what was warned about here.
Thank you! I downloaded the report and intend reading the full 26 pages but you present an excellent precis that facilitates a judgement of its worth. And it does seem worthy to me, if ultimately redundant the way things are going not just in Australia but around the world. I can certainly see, however, why the government and perhaps even its principle authors (I don't find the reports on Substack conclusive in regard of the latter) preferred to dissimulate the remaining 25 pages. The open (and, yes, possibly naive) internal debate, sincere and quite rational despite the strangeness to many white Australians of some of the thinking that the "missing" pages represent is more than revealing. But above all their honest disagreements and mild but overt criticism of government and white Australian society would be anathema to bureaucrats, politicians and their spin doctors.
The tragedy in my view is that as with everything nowadays, whether decent or wicked, it will be deformed and assimilated into the totalitarian dystopia whose growing shadow is being cast over the entire world and not just Australia, and the establishment of which will owe less than nothing to any perceived "fuzziness" or loopholes in the Uluru statement - contrary to the predictably ignorant and slanted Sky News item, whose title includes the risible claim that it's the report that menaces us with a "totalitarian dystopia". How ironical, one might say.
It could be a woke Trojan Horse, but the Greeks are already inside the city anyway, plundering away.
Excellent analysis of the situation. Regarding the Uluru Statement from the Heart, I did select views that aligned with mine and were presented by those of mine who were present, to show that there was not consensus on trusting the regime and the system, on the contrary. The Statement itself would appear to be one page and was presumably arrived at by consensus.
I would not normally refer to Wickedpedia for a number of reasons, but this provides some interesting background information: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uluru_Statement_from_the_Heart
I think the only reason the govern-ment is going for this is virtue signalling to look good in the face of a very bad human rights record at the inter-national level, and so that it can speak louder at the UN as advocate of the "Rules Based Order" (New World Order).
The NO vote will be from the masses of f-wits who fear anything empowering to the Originals, and the very different group people such as us, who are certainly in favour of the Statement but NOT at all having any faith that the regime will not misuse and abuse it.
It would be a clear-cut win for NO in my view, except for the fact that the huge overwhelming majority of f-wits will put a cross on the poorly designed voting form of the e-wit AEC. This might result in a YES victory for the regime.
On the other hand, if it is a NO win, this can be used to sow division and highlight the racism in Australia and the regime can position itself as the "good side" with "R2P Responsibility to Protect" - for those that don't know, this policy designed by an Australien evil monster was precisely used for the War is Peace non-stop bombing of Libya throughout 2011 and the desturction of the self-governing direct-democracy grass-roots consensus Jamahiriya, which was an inspiration also, importantly, to at least one of those who voiced some of those quotes I excerpted from the Statement above.
If it is a YES win then again it can be used to shame the NO voters. Again of importance is that The Green Book - Solution to the Problem of Democracy ( refer to bit.ly/greenvirus ) highlights in a section "Plebicites" exactly why any YES or NO voting is dictatorship and not democracy. It is a violation of our human rights to be forced to vote YES -OR- NO, for those that vote YES should state WHY they are voting yes and those that vote NO should state WHY they are voting no, and then the entire result is likely to be very different.
And of course who would the regime select to be on the Referendum Council (when referenda have been knocked down as only serving the agenda of their authors, nothing to do with actual democratic outcomes, as mentioned above) but the evil Stan Grant. This larger than life beta-male coconut mangina f-wit is as original as I could throw him. A nasty shit rotten coconut he is, I wonder if Karla was vicim of psychopathic abuse before she divorced him.
Excellent. This too: http://2smsupernetwork.com/audio/laws/PDCALLER.mp3?mibextid=Zxz2cZ
Fantastic discovery, it is exactly what I've been trying to say but from one who is manifestly qualified and has far greater experience. I hope Rebekah will get to hear it as her research and highlighting of this topic is a great service. Thank you, I'm glad I clicked the link.