Note: p.17 – page number. P.100/272 is the .pdf number, 2 higher than the written page number
I’m a very, very long term regular reader and rare contributor. I’ve been through a proggie vengeance attack cycle for public commentary before. So the above is a throwaway nom de plume. Any future contributions of mine will bear nom de plumes drawn from the names of the ships in the Spanish Fleet at Trafalgar.
- unaccountable,
- unelected,
- has to produce nothing,
- has no KPI,
- Canberra-based,
- controlled by the urban extreme-left activist class,
- able to interfere in Parliament and Government at will,
- not responsible tor alleviating any Aboriginal problems,
- (within described functions) placed outside Australian law.
The Regional Voice concept contains some good ideas regarding coordination at policy and implementation levels. There is value in this part of the Report and it alludes to improving the lives of rural and remote Aboriginal Australians.
The National Voice part is abominable: this is where the activist capture of the process, for personal gain in terms of power and money are clearly illustrated. Responsibility and accountability are obviously anathema to the activist class. Their attraction to money, power and unaccountability for their actions are clearly illustrated. The obvious intent of the activist class can be derived from Chapter 2 of the Report: it is to be very well paid, totally secure in those payments, based in Canberra, not accountable for anything they do, have no KPI by which to ever be held accountable, required not to deliver anything to anyone, completely protected from criticism or scrutiny and to be considered virtuous by the public irrespective of their moral or personal corruption. In this part of the Report the true intent of the activist class is discernible, and the last thing they appear to be interested in is assisting rural Aborigines. This is controversial, yet proof of assessment lies in the complete lack of any structures, mechanisms, KPI or accountability structures in the National Voice sections of the Report:
– Numerous appeals to the ‘authority’ of consultation with no facts/data on the how, who, why and where of this consultation occurred.
– The statements that the three-layer second government being proposed is ‘advisory’ is contradicted throughout the document, ie p.17:
? All levels of government come together in a coordinated way (how is this done, who coordinates and under what authority?)
? Requires systematic transformation of government ways of ‘doing business’ (what does ‘requires’ mean? If the entire government has to transform structurally to accord to the voice, this cannot be merely advisory)
– Formal commitments are required (p.17/272), these would be legally enforceable, if formal but the reverse is not so.
– The 24 members are apparently not elected but selected – by ‘assemblies’ which are structurally based on ‘base members’ apparently from the cities where organisations are dominated by far left-wing activists.
? Actual rural Aborigines where the major problems lie are only permitted 6/24 of the members. (p.18/272) and all ‘decisions’ from the NV cannot be appealed in the justice system: so the activists are automatically placed above the law. (p.18/272) ie: All elements would be non-justiciable, meaning that there could not be a court challenge and no law could be invalidated based on whether there was alignment with the consultation standards or transparency mechanisms.
– Nothing is merit-based. There’s a compulsory 50:50 gender mix.
– A member could be removed from their position for misconduct, subject to a review process and a two-thirds super-majority vote of the membership. So if there is a 2/3 permanent majority of urban activists, and an urban activist is corrupt, there is no chance of them being removed, per ATSIC.
– Advice would be both proactive and responsive. The National Voice would be able to initiate advice…the National Voice would have a responsibility and right to advise the Parliament. So this is a right and can be given when not asked for, in other words it cannot be refused. Advice that cannot be refused is not advice, it’s direction. (p.21/272)
– Advice would be provided to both the Parliament and the Australian Government. So NV can direct the APS without recourse to the responsible Minister?
– Advice would generally be public, with discretion for informal discussions where appropriate. So NV direction can be kept secret from the public, at their discretion, and this cannot be challenged in court as their advice is above the law.
– Each Local & Regional Voice will be a governance arrangement in each region. So it’s not an advisory entity at all, it’s a governance structure. (p.23/272)
– Communities will determine the implementation pace and their preferred governance. Governments will resource, support and enable this. So the point mentioned in the executive summary that NV won’t have its own resources is false in intent: the NV can direct local government to resource it. This appears to be a directive, unelected governance structure dominated by inner-city activists, and placed above the law. (p.25/272)
– Secretariat (‘backbone’) team resourced by government at the regional level, which will facilitate and support all aspects of Local & Regional Voice work, including enabling and assisting community-level groups and arrangements as needed. Where will this be based? Alice Springs where the real problems lie or in plush buildings in Canberra? (p.26 of 272)
– Legislation (at both Commonwealth and state and territory levels) and cross-jurisdictional agreements will be needed to set out governments’ commitments… So the requirements for public funding will be legislated. This looks like ATSIC on steroids, an endless well-funded, above-the-law gravy train for the activist class.
– There is some good conceptualisation in the local and regional chapter 1 and there is certainly much improvement possible in inter-state/ territory and portfolio coordination. There is certainly too much stovepiping, so this is good work. That’s not the point being criticised: it’s plain from this document that this is a captured process. The ‘good ideas’ part has been captured by an activist class using the process to place themselves in invincible positions of power, as they will be above the law. Once again the rural and non-urban centre Aborigines will be exploited by the activist class for that class’s personal gain. Just like ATSIC.
– The use of anonymous ‘survey points’ through out the document is irrelevant and an obvious propaganda issue. This is evidence of process capture – it’s an appeal to the emotions. See p.39/272 for an example.
– The regional principles (p.40/272) appear fine, yet have loaded terminology, ie “inclusive participation” is used – but that is a lie. Only people who meet a specific racial criteria are permitted. How is this “All have the opportunity to have a say” but the vast majority of Australians are not allowed that. Why are Australians being divided in racial lines in this manner if not at the urging of a far-left wing activist class? This is made plain in 1.6.4. and on p.48/272.
– While cultural safety was explicitly referenced… What does this term mean, specifically? Where is it defined? (p.45/272)
– Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples have greater control and voice in their own affairs: a self-determination approach. Governments shift to an enabling role. And there it is, 1st class Australians have self-determination, 2nd class Australians are forced to fund them. And the division is on racialist lines. Just HOW are Aboriginal Australians not able to exercise individual liberty, freedom and self-determination now? Where is the ‘problem’ this NV concept is supposed to be fixing? HOW will NV fix this undefined problem?
– The term ‘stolen generations’ is used repeatedly (example: p.48/272). The SG hypothesis is that colonial governments ‘stole’ Aboriginal children because of the colour of their skin as part of a systematic program to eradicate Aboriginals, and that this practice continued after Federation. There is not the slightest evidence for this anywhere: such programs would require legislation, regulation, government bureaucrats and all that entails, funding lines in budgets, employees, reporting mechanisms on how many children had been seized, reports on what happened to them etc. There is no evidence in any archive that any of these things ever existed and intensive scholarship has debunked the hypothesis. That this debunked SG hypothesis is treated as fact in this report is firm evidence of ‘process capture’ by the activist class.
– The Report is poorly structured, with endless duplication and a poor logic structure. It is a 40 page document squeezed into 272 pages.
– Money. …governments need to provide adequate, secure and long-term resourcing….(p.60/272) The appeal for money is constant throughout the document, another indicator of process capture by the activist class.
– Nomination of members p.63/272. People are nominated and selected. By who? How? Why are they not elected?
– 1.14. …the National Voice members would be collectively selected… Why not elected? The 35 ‘regions’ are, after all, governance structures! (1.16 Governance Structures Examples starting on p.90/272)) Who selects people, by what mechanisms, under what oversight? Who validates these unelected selections? Recall that they are NOT advisory according to the report, but directive, and above the law.
National Voice (starts p.106/272)
– For some time, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples have been calling for a national-level mechanism to have a greater say in the laws of the Australian Parliament, policies and Australian Government decisions that affect them.
? What people? Only the activist class has been doing this.
-
-
- There are 3.2% of the Australian population who are Aboriginal
- There are 11 Aboriginal MPs and Senators.
- There are 151 MPs and 76 senators, 227, so4.8% are Aboriginal.
- Aborigines ALREADY have a ‘greater say’ in Parliament than other Australians, if one insists on being racialist about the matter, as this report is.
-
– 2.2 (p.110/272) The National Voice would consist of 24 members with gender balance structurally guaranteed. / The base membership model provides for 2 members from each state, the NT, ACT and the Torres Strait.
– How are base members selected? This issue is avoided, so this is where the radical left-wing activist class have captured the process. It will be them in control.
– So all power (because there’s: an ‘obligation to consult’ the National Voice.). The National Voice would be an advisory body to the Australian Parliament and Government. And no responsibility or accountability… The National Voice would not have a service delivery function
– The compliance of the Australian Parliament and Government with these elements could not be challenged in a court. So the NV is above the law and cannot ever be held accountable for anything it does. Even the High Court has no jurisdiction.
– Corporate Form (p.109/272)
? The National Voice would be supported by its own Office of the National Voice.
? The National Voice and its Office would be an independent corporate Commonwealth entity established by legislation.
– So there it is, a lavishly funded ONV in Canberra (where else) staffed by left-wing activists, unaccountable , has to be consulted, unaccountable, unelected and above Australian law.
– 2.2 and 2.3 contain no information about how NV members get to that position – except that they are ‘appointed’ after being ‘collectively determined’
– …the National Voice is intended to be a policy and advisory body rather than a proportionally representative body, but… mainland needs to reflect the diversity of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander voices across the country so it is structured as a proportionally representative body. (p117/272) This can and will be leveraged by the activist class (this is their demonstrable nature) to claim that it is proportionally representative, and this feeds into their sovereignty argument. While it might be representative, it is not elected or accountable.
– 2.6.2. covers NV membership. The Ethics Council decides who is eligible, and it is 3-5 people … with a majority of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people—in appointing people to these positions, there would be consideration of appropriate skill sets such as governance, law, dispute resolution and cultural guidance. (emphasis added). This is the group the extreme left-wing activists in full control of the NV. In judging members and their actions, they are judge, jury and executioner. Non-Aboriginal people can be members of the Ethics Committee, they will be the ones with appropriate skill sets such as governance, law, dispute resolution and cultural guidance.
– While Ethics Council members do not all have to be Aboriginal, NV membership is racially based, they must all be Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander. (p/141/272)
– Functions… the National Voice would have a responsibility and right to advise the Australian Parliament and Government.(p.150/272) So the Australian Parliament and Government cannot refuse advice from the NV. Again, this reinforces that this is Directive, not advisory.
? The National Voice would determine which issues it would provide advice on.
? Advice to Government could include engaging with ministers and officials, including those responsible for mainstream policies and programs.
? Advice would be both proactive and responsive.
? The National Voice cannot be required to provide advice…
– This indicates that opinions that the NV is little more than an activist-controlled boondoggle cannot be dismissed. It is structured as one would be.
– 2.8.4. The National Voice should have scope to take on a role in the future at appropriate international forums… So lots of scope for overseas trips at taxpayer expense for NV members. Why is a purely domestic body desirous of a formal international role?
– P.155/272. The National Co-design Group did not view the proposal for the National Voice to advise both Parliament and Government as inconsistent with the Uluru Statement from the Heart. The statement itself refers to a ‘First Nations Voice’ and does not specify that it would only advise Parliament.
? The Uluru Statement is reportedly a rebadged African statement, a judgement of the International Court of Justice that was put forward by the representative of the Republic of Zaire. Legal Affairs Contributor at the Australian Chris Merritt https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/other/uluru-statement-plugged-in-and-imported-from-the-republic-of-zaire/ar-AA18aiJX (Unconfirmed.)
? This may be a ‘hook’ by which the separate radical racial supremacist sovereignty argument pushed by extremists (ie a certain radical Senator) can be advanced.
– P.157/272 notes that ATSIC was unable to deal with advocacy and service delivery. So the NV will dump delivery: so how is it supposed to be ‘fixing all the issues’ as politicians have claimed?
– 2.9 The National Co-design Group agreed that this should be complemented by a formal interface with Parliament and Government. There is an incoherence here with the active avoidance of accountability and basic democratic process while mandating NV injection into Parliamentary and government processes. This makes the NV concept appear parasitic, because : Parliament and Government would have an obligation to consult on primary legislation… (p.162/272). This supports the viewpoint: Non-justiciable. The [consultation standards] standards set out above would be non-justiciable, meaning alignment with the standards could not be challenged in court and could not affect the legal validity of laws or policies. (p.170/272) This does not make a lot of sense.
– P.183/272. …the National Voice should be supported by a CEO and policy and administrative support staff. This would be the Office of the National Voice. This structure should be entirely separate from any existing body and under the control of the National Voice members and co-chairs.
? Again there is no mention of selection for these people, and again this is a pointer to an activist capture of this process. If the activists also control the admin support staff, and the ethics council, then they control the process.
? This is reinforced by 2.11.2: The National Voice should be a new independent Commonwealth entity. So it’s independent, has no accountability, must be consulted, may force consultation into government functions by having a legislated ‘right’ to do so, and is outside the law when it does so.
? There are some racial and other boundaries to this, but the structure is one perfectly designed for pre-capture by activists, for activists. The NV has no discernible deliverables at all, no metrics, no KPI and no accountability. It is structured to be the perfect talking-shop and and to provide power and personal gain for the activist ‘super-Karen’ class.
– An independent Commonwealth body would be established in legislation. The legislation would provide that decisions on advice and strategy are made by the members of the National Voice and cannot be made or directed by the Government, ministers or officials. The Parliament would appropriate money to fund the new entity through the budget process. Regardless of the choice of entity type, legislation would be required to establish the National Voice.
? This is a remarkable statement. The NV can do anything, is outside government influence, and cannot be directed by Parliament. It is outside Australian governance, but the taxpayer pays for it. The sheer arrogance of this proposal is breathtaking and may have no comparison in Australian history.
? It is also a cash-funnel to the activist class.
– Urgency. The risk of not acting urgently is the continuation of the crushing levels of poverty, disadvantage and inequity experienced by so many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, particularly those in remote areas where access to services is generally limited. This is the classic radical activist tactic of creating an emergency’ to which only they have the answer, but it has to be done on their terms and immediately. Yet nowhere in this document is there the slightest indication of HOW the NV will stop “crushing levels of poverty, disadvantage and inequity experienced by so many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, particularly those in remote areas where access to services is generally limited.”
? All that is really mentioned is improving cooperation between existing government programs! The unelected, unaccountable, expensive and outside-the-law actually has no apparent role – except perhaps to absorb taxpayer money.
Conclusion
The Indigenous Voice Co-design Process Final Report to the Australian Government is verbose, repetitive, duplicative, poorly thought through, badly structured, illogical and clearly illustrates process capture by the activist class.
Chapter 1 is the regional section has some good ideas and is where the limited value the Report has actually lies. Chapter 2 covers the National Voice (NV) and this clearly illustrates the radical left-wing urban activist capture of this process.
As with all processes captured by radicals, this is the thin edge of a very large wedge. Senator Lydia Thorpe has clearly revealed this and her model of an entirely ‘sovereign Aboriginal’ control over the continent where the 3.5% of the Australian population who are Aboriginal ‘own’ the landmass and all it contains and have rents paid to them by the 96.5% of Australians who are not Aboriginal. The leader of this in Thorpe’s view would be herself or someone like herself, who would not be elected in any way but start off in control of something like the National Voice.
Thank you anon. for wading through the turgid mess and summarising the issues with it.
Unaccountable, super-ATSIC who can instruct government basically sums it up.
Are you referring to activists who are Aboriginal or activists in general?
You only have to look at the obnoxious self aggrandising imbeciles pushing this preposterous load of apartheid styled rubbish to realise that it is not in anyone’s interests other than that caste of increasingly strident belligerent race obsessed privileged urban fauxborigines such as Hidia Thorpey, the Burney midget and Sten Grent. A massive trough in which many massive snouts will greedily feast until the whole stinking corrupt farce goes tits up.
The most obvious feature is that it* is not designed (nor intended in any way) to improve the lives of aborigines that exist in those stinking Dantesque hellholes in regional and remote Australia.
It also needs to be seen for it will be – a blatant coup and the death of our increasingly ridiculous useless and destructive democracy, which in its final act of irredeemable idiocy, will have extincted itself.
Having said that, I’m not expecting the referendum to be successful. However, it will (or variants of it) continue to be foisted on the electorate until it is successful – and good luck selling it to the many millions of chinese that will have been imported into this country by then.
Thanks for the analysis as well, Santissima, I don’t know how you did it. Reading garbage like that is akin to wading through a sewer.
*Used to describe the subject in question, which I refuse to refer to by the ridiculous name given to it by that caste of dirtbags mentioned above.
All true and well put but with the exception of one or two (everyone knows who they are), you are preaching to the converted here. The real challenge is getting this information out into the public arena and the minds of those who will be voting.
I wish I knew how to do that and had the resources to donate millions of $ to the NO campaign.
If I were advising Dutton on strategy to tackle this national political hijacking, it would be on that simple truth: The Voice would simply add to the vast bureaucracy already established, ostensibly to tackle Aboriginal disadvantage, and would make ZERO difference to the lives of Aborigines.
It would just be another money trough for city activists identifying as Aboriginal.
There wouldn’t even be any free Toyotas for the Big Men of Arnhem Land. We already have the NDIS for that.
@Ed
Are you referring to activists who are Aboriginal or activists in general?
@Ed
Anyone who defines themself as an activist is, at best, fertiliser in the hoof.
That’s better!
On African origins of Uluru Statement see Joe Stella “Mobutu, Authenticité and the Dark Heart of the Uluru Statement” in the October 2022 edition of Quadrant (here).
Been the agenda since the mid 1970’s.
All true and well put but with the exception of one or two (everyone knows who they are), you are preaching to the converted here.
The converted?
This is the standard of argument raised here against Labor’s “Voice”:
#1. Raaaacism!!
#2. I’m not having Aboriginals rule over me, and my Pacific Islanders buds are saying the same.
#3. More Raaaaacism!!
That’s it.
Tom proclaims:
If I were advising Dutton on strategy to tackle this national political hijacking, it would be on that simple truth:
Dutton isn’t taking on advice from Labor hacks, Tom.
Anyone who defines themself as an activist is, at best, fertiliser in the hoof.
Uh huh.
So what you’re saying is that the identities of the activists running the Voice campaign behind the scenes are Secret Squirrel, right?
A grifters (public service, activist, journalists, etc..) dream.
Aboriginal tribal lore would have something to say about that – a woman, of 1/16th Aboriginal ancestry, as leader?
Vote “Yes”.
Problem solved.
Then you can have a nice holiday in Alice Springs.
Meet some real Aborigines, not the urban half caste parasites.
Comment, from the Oz.
Thorpe is opposed to the Voice because she believes it concedes sovereignty.
I’d say she has a point, although I expect we’ll see this matter taken to the HC at some point in time.
And, btw, close to 60% of the land and coastal waters is already managed by or in the interests of indigeous people under one form of title or another. Recently in the NT a barramundi and salmon fishery was closed with no notice just prior to the beginning of the season because the indigenous owners had taken offence at something, leaving fishermen out of pocket to the tune of $100K + each.
If Aboriginals need a voice, then Linda Burney has not been doing her job. Not as a Member of Parliament and not as the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs.
Yeah, that’s a pretty stupid comment.
What side of the issue is The Australian pushing?
The same side as the Business Council, the Big Miners, BP, the “Christian” Churches, all the Charities, the Unions, the Super Funds, all NGOs, every sport that accepts Federal Funding … etc.
Back in the day I used to have to plough through such documents, Deaths in Custody, Little Children are Sacred and many more, so thank you ST. The deviation from recorded history in all of them is astonishing and, as such, implemented recommendations entrenched problems rather than addressing them. When you do a bit of research on the authors of these documents it’s clear the “academics” aren’t.
If the criteria was for merit in improving the lot of actual blackfellas the ONV would be comprised of missionaries, station owners and adoptive parents.
Alice Springs Council seems to have a solution.
Will the Abistocracy comment on this?
If the criteria was for merit in improving the lot of actual blackfellas the ONV would be comprised of missionaries, station owners and adoptive parents.
Newsflash, Teddly!
That approach, essentially Slavery and Sex Slavery, was the norm until the end of the Boomer Generation.
Yeah, you guessed it, utter and abject disgrace, though whether it constitutes Failure depends on knowing what the original objective was.
Will the Abistocracy comment on this?
Teddly:
There is no Abistocracy.
There are only paid Shills.
Seems like a statement of the bleeding obvious … strange that some people will just keep bleeting on forever about News Corp etc. Its almost like they have no answers and no capacity to think for themselves outside the standard left line that pays so well.
Fantastic summary of this diabolical proposal.
9 bullet points at the start sum up what the practical outcomes will be as well as the decimation of democracy and implementation of apartheid. Vale Australia if voters are so non curious as to the ramifications of this thing and listen to Labor, and the msm megaphone.
<em>If Aboriginals need a voice, then Linda Burney has not been doing her job. Not as a Member of Parliament and not as the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs.
Let’s break this stupidity down.
If Aboriginals need a voice, then Linda Burney has not been doing her job.
Her job is to represent the voters of Kingsford Smith and as a member of the Executive, not as a lobbyist for any particular group.
Judging by her responses to Questions without notice, Linda Burney is as dumb as a box of rocks, and the only reason the Liberal Party isn’t hammering her in Question Time is:
#1. She appears to be on Psych Medication, and a meltdown live on TV would be blamed on the Coalition.
#2. She’s obviously a token appointment, and since she’s the weakest link in a weak Government, they’re content to leave her there, at the moment.
The answer to past injustice against a group is perpetual future injustices against another group!
Munni- so much munni, nothing about where it comes from, just a minor act of duplicating a state/federal and local governance system.
The above commenter is a Labor Shill, as well as being a lazy dropkick …
… in case anyone was wondering.
Everyone is a shill except for Ed.
Keep on malding, Ed. The public don’t understand what the Voice is and the Indigenous “industry” are split on support or opposition to it.
Where is the protection of the individual rights of an Aboriginal? What’s to stop The Voice taking over current Aboriginal corporations and redirecting funds to themselves? I can see Aboriginals being disenfranchised by the Voice and not being able to do anything about.
Indigenous mouthpieces are 100% behind it, that’s how truly dumb they are.
Lidia Thorpe is only acting the goat to discredit the Coalition in case they decide to oppose it.
Jacinta Price and Warren Mundine similar.
What, exactly, do they find objectionable about The Voice?
They can’t say.
It’s not the money or the power available driving this, it’s hatred and envy.
The truth of the past doesn’t matter, the hate is all that matters, revenge.
Envy, has led to hatred in this land.
Albo thinks it is about his place in history, his legacy. A man who has done nothing with his life but ride the coat tails of others. In the end, no one will thank him, a usefull idiot.
Where is the protection of the individual rights of an Aboriginal?
It’s not about Aborigines, they’re just a convenient Victim Group.
Here’s the Bottom Line:
Albanese and his bunch of thieves are going to use every dirty trick in the book to avoid explaining what The Voice really entails.
We’ve seen it already with the Liberals/Nazis hysteria.
Sure, it is all contrived, but Peter Dutton still had to address it as if it was Legit.
There’ll be more Nazi scares, then it will be Gen X v Boomers, there’ll be NFL, AFL Voice Rounds, Noel Pearson will do more whingeing, the Cassius Turvey Trial, White Supremacists, shitbags flying in from America to tell us we’re Racists, Rupert Murdoch will marry Lizzo, Albanese will conveniently come down with Covid/19 a coupla more times, no one will ask any questions over Tanya Plibersek’s background, such as whether or not her Slovenian ancestors were on the Nazis side in the 1940s, same with Ed Husic, were any of his Shiptar ancestors fighting for the Nazis.
Same with Carlo Albanese, there’s likely a shitload of them.
The truth of the past doesn’t matter, the hate is all that matters, revenge.
Garbage.
The Truth is that the Aborigines were both massacred and enslaved and their Land stolen.
Your average town or rural Aborigine isn’t wasting time worrying about that, he putting his energy into living 3 lifetimes in the space of one.
Envy, has led to hatred in this land.
There’s no envy, they can’t understand our mindset and we can’t comprehend theirs.
This has been fomented by outside interests to get both groups at each other’s throats and stoke division generally.
My truth of the day is my 22 year old hairdresser says she’s going to vote no. Well, she said, a lot of money has gone their way and they’ve done nothing for themselves or other people have taken it. We came here when I was 2 yrs old and my Dad couldn’t speak English but learned to paint houses and we aren’t rich but we all pay for ourselves now. “If you treat people like invalids they become invalids”. Thus spoke Cara my hairdresser. There is hope in the world yet.
Your 22 y.o. hairdresser is voting No for the wrong reasons.
The Voice won’t do anything good for Aborigines, that’s a certainty.
I’d laugh if it advised the Government to limit recognition of Aboriginality to persons of 100 % Aboriginal Ancestry only.
That would be perhaps less than 10,000 people, Noel Pearson and the other shitbags would hafta get jobs.
Alamak!says:
March 31, 2023 at 12:33 pm
If Aboriginals need a voice, then Linda Burney has not been doing her job. Not as a Member of Parliament and not as the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs.
Seems like a statement of the bleeding obvious … strange that some people will just keep bleeting on forever about News Corp etc. Its almost like they have no answers and no capacity to think for themselves outside the standard left line that pays so well.
His perpetual bleating about Eeeeevilllll Murdochs is one of the signs that Grandpa Simpson (aka Dick Ed Case) is actually a Labor/Greens shill.
Grandpa Simpson
I’d laugh if it advised the Government to limit recognition of Aboriginality to persons of 100 % Aboriginal Ancestry only
Since most of those selected to the Screech are urban activists with very few actual aboriginal ancestors, this is as unlikely as you making a sensible comment.
Something similar happened at the Deebing Creek Mission, also called Purga, outside Ipswich.
The State Government ran an Industrial School there where Aborigines from Country areas could live and learn employable skills.
Sometime around the late 1930s, the State Labor Government announced that Purga was from then on to be strictly 100% Aborigines only, and the rest were sent on their way.
Once that happened, the State Labor Government then said:
There’s not enough Full Blood Aborigines to make this Mission worthwhile, so we’re closing it.
And they did, and razed it to the ground.
The last Full Blood Aborigine in South East Qld died in Ipswich in 1980, aged about 80.
I don’t recall his surname, though it might have been Mi Mi.
His wife had predeceased him, and their only child had been murdered at Ipswich in the 1940s.
This is an interesting subject and Ed, that’s a good question.
Ed, I honestly do not think that the ethnicity matters much to activists – the ideology does. The proposed structure of the ethics committee discussed in the post reveals this. They do not have to be Aboriginal or part Aboriginal. They have to be experienced activists and they’ll be lefties only. it is also revealed by the structure discussed, 8 people from the remote areas and 16 from the cities.
Now, the openly crazed Lydia Thorpe apparently counts as Aboriginal, yet what makes her count in this entire mess? What makes her self-assessedly superior to Jacinta Price? I’d argue that it’s not her 1/16 or 1/32 bit (whatever it is, I don’t know) of Aboriginal lineage, it’s her extreme far-left race-based ideological activism. it’s her ideology.
I have no issues whatsoever with Aboriginal activists who are agitating for quantifiable betterment – Jacinta Price does exactly that and I admire her very much. Thorpe is not doing what Price is doing at all, she apparently could not give two hoots for quantifiable betterment, her goal is money and power for her ideology and for herself. Thorpe is arguing for race-based supremacy and apparently believes in the one-drop rule as well.
I am re-reading Giovanni Gentile’s Origini e dottrina del fascismo (Origins and Doctrine of Fascism). Gentile was the renowned philosopher of Italian Fascism which he clearly describes as final-stage socialism. The individual for Gentile is, in essence, a communal-being (a Gemeinwesen). Full freedom and democracy for such a creature finds expression only in identity with the community (in Gentile’s case, with the nation and its political expression in the state).
Thorpe, then, appears to be (ideologically) a real, genuine fascist – using the definition of the actual philosopher of Mussolini’s Italian Fascism. (Not my opinion, but that of Mussolini himself and of Italian scholars of that era, see Del Noce, Giovanni Gentile, pp. 310, 312, 323; see Yvon De Begnac, Palazzo Venezia: Storia di un regime (Roma: La Rocca, 1950), pp. 540, 541,619, 641 and Gisella Longo, L’Istituto nazionalefascista di cultura: Gli intellettuali trapartito e regime (Rome: Antonio Pellicani, 2000), chap. I.)
So the activists are riding Australian Aborigines like they are riding a disposable horse, they are merely a vehicle to get them where they want to go, and if the horse is destroyed by the effort, what is that to the activist? Ask the homosexual community how much the activists care about them now that their use is ended and that have the transies to ride like a horse!