Trans Barbarism, Nina Power, Compact
What the West gets wrong about Putin, Harald Malmgren, UnHerd
We Know How America Got Such a Corporate-Friendly Court, Sohrab Ahmari, Patrick Deneen and Chad Pecknold, NY Times
The New Malthusians, Lyman Stone, Plough
Paracelsus’s First Do No Harm: A Review by Charles Haywood, IM-1776
The Problems of Australia’s Deep Past – Part Three: Where are the Austronesians?, Stone Age Herbalist, Grey Goose Chronicles
and if I may be so bold, more reading…
from The Breaking Up: Australia’s history since 1788
GIVING VOICE TO THE WRONG QUESTION
16th June 2022
by Antony Barraclough
The laws that affect all Australians are voted in by two bodies – the House of Representatives and the Senate – and both must agree to the laws. Each electorate in Australia gets a 1-in-151 say in the vote of the House of Representatives, and each state gets a 12-in-76 say in the vote of the Senate. Territories, with their small populations, get a 2-in-76 say in the Senate vote. Although not perfect, the process ensures that different groups in the community can elect people to represent them, and that politicians generally try to seek balanced outcomes.
The proposed Aboriginal Voice to Parliament will become an additional gatekeeper in that process, representing only the interests of Aboriginals and Aboriginal activists. It will be like having a lobby group from the mining industry or the tech industry approving and rejecting legislation. The potential for rorting, corruption and fatal damage to our democracy is huge.
After former prime minister Malcolm Turnbull had the temerity to identify the Voice for what it is — a third chamber in our parliament — activists have been keen to downplay concern.
Professor Peter Yu of the ANU dismisses the existing Constitution as being racist and states that
“First Nations Australians must take control … The constitution that federated the Australian nation was anything but democratic … It was a founding document for the governing of white-settler Australia.”
The Voice campaign is artfully framed to be concerned only with legislation that affects Aboriginals, but that is misleading, because all legislation affects Aboriginal people. As historian Keith Windschuttle points out in The Break-up of Australia, the Voice’s modest-seeming remit would cover everything that manages the lives of Australians. [2] The proposed Voice to Parliament is not really a voice at all. A voice leaves the prerogative to act with the listener. This Voice will be a fist.
Why would Aboriginal politicians be better? The core claim of the Voice campaign is that only Aboriginal politicians can fix the problems of Aboriginal disadvantage. That contradicts the entire basis of Western democracy and administration, which chooses managers based on their expertise and qualifications, not their race.
What’s more, the evidence does not support the claim. Aboriginal-run townships generally suffer the worst problems, as evidenced at Wadeye [3], Aurukun [4] and Yuendumu. Not only do women and children suffer, but people trying to help, such as teachers and nurses, feel unsafe and leave. In Canberra itself, Aboriginal activists and their supporters started a fire at Old Parliament House [5] and, before that, organised a mob that threatened then prime minister Julia Gillard. [6]
IMPACTS ON THE ARTS, MEDIA and SCHOLARSHIP
Sydney University’s Fisher Library recently moved to ban works on Aboriginal issues not approved by Aboriginal groups. Many community libraries seem to have informally adopted similar bans.
Given that the Aboriginal movement wants and seeks such bans, it is almost certain that the Voice would be used to formalise that approach throughout Australia. From there, it would be a small move to apply similar restrictions to the media, and perhaps to PhD dissertations.
In the arts, there have been attempts to exclude non-Aboriginal artists from using designs associated with traditional Aboriginal art, and to stop non-Aboriginals from writing about Aboriginal experiences. Those attempts fizzled in the face of opposition from artists and writers, but they would return if they enjoy the legislative backing of the Voice.
IMPACT ON AUSTRALIAN SOCIETY
Given the insistence that Aboriginal tribes are nations and have sovereignty, it is likely they would move to gain administrative rights including, eventually, the right to issue visas and customise the tax laws for “Aboriginal” corporations. [6] Such moves would undermine our visa and tax laws, and facilitate tax avoidance by multinationals.
Aboriginal people already have many special rights, including the rights to enter restricted areas and hunt and fish, and to kill protected species.
Most of the rights are state-based and could be revoked if our society chooses. The Voice would almost certainly be used to entrench and extend such rights. Indeed, that may be one of the unstated drivers for the Voice campaign.
At the same time, Aboriginal groups are restricting parts of our country from access by other people. To date that has included parts of Uluru, climbing areas in the Grampians [7] and a walking track at Wollumbin in northern New South Wales. [8]
OBSTRUCTING THE ECONOMY
Expanding lists of alleged Indigenous sites also poses a challenge for farmers, other private land holders and governments.
When Western Districts farmer Adrian McMaster moved some rocks on his farm, he was condemned by Aboriginal activists who alleged the rocks were part of a traditional site.[9] Victorian government authority Aboriginal Victoria moved to investigate McMaster, who commissioned an independent report and has launched defamation proceedings.
When Victoria sought to widen a road in the west of the state, Aboriginal groups blocked work for two years in defence of what they described as a sacred ‘birthing tree’ and added $60 million to the cost. [10]
Aboriginal languages are becoming more prominent, even though most are dead languages and had no body of written work. It is likely the Voice would designate some Aboriginal languages as official languages for parts of government, and perhaps even court cases, adding to administrative costs and introducing barriers to participation for 99 percent of the population.
If the Anthony Albanese and his government really want to introduce a referendum, it should ask Australians whether we want a respectful society of equals or a parliament where legislation is held hostage by a race-based Third Chamber.
References [1] to [10] cited above are listed at:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1nTO1cPC1tzD4ldUsmxs9enPYN4GTipZ7/view?fbclid=IwAR15VVQ6mmo8dFI4wqQR3xEz4xQHq4i-TxmXiopE1TxNuG-Q5tL8-jNKpFA
David Horowitz: America heading toward the abyss.
Probably the most important essay of 2022.
via Powerline Blog, which has been as guilty as any group when it comes to soft-pedalling opposition to the radical left. This essay tells it like it is. As a former hard leftist he knows too well what the left has been doing for the past 60 years.
Bruce of Newcastle says:
June 17, 2022 at 4:40 pm
Where are the Austronesians?
Same place the neanderthals and homo erectus went. Protein, yum!
Explains why the artifacts they do find are on islands not the continent.
If there’s nothing valuable and the denizens want to eat you why go there?
How about affordable housing and being able to run a 35 year old Camry like you in Newcastle.
JC is an obvious useless Bird flock dilettante who has never done a day of work in his life and lives on the largess created by his hard working parents and Western Christendom society while stalking real workers.
Get your head out of your arse JC.
I ferken audited false f*ks like you who never made a cent in your lives but lived on the toil of real people.
Leave a Reply