The train content will resume soon! I just wanted to talk about something important. Otherwise, next video will be back to normal
@xr6lad
3 ай бұрын
Reading this it is clear you have a lot to learn about what equality means and what democracy means. A vote is your voice. Giving someone two bites of the cake is not equality and it’s not democracy.
@Ozgrade3
11 ай бұрын
As noble as his ideas were, they are not what is being voted for. Having it in the constitution would give the lobby groups means to take every decision to the high court - therefore making the high court superior to the government. Keywords = reparations.
@CityConnectionsMedia
11 ай бұрын
Unfortunatley, there's no reputable constitutional expert who says so. All the research I found said that wasn't the case.
@Ozgrade3
11 ай бұрын
@@CityConnectionsMedia if that's true, then I call into question your research methodology.
@CityConnectionsMedia
11 ай бұрын
I'd love to stand corrected, but I used my normal research methodology of searching my university's academic database, google scholar, and the references of other articles on the topic. If you're willing to provide a source that says otherwise I'll gladly give it a read. (I will say, there were some scholars who said it would allow high court challenges, but the general legal consensus was they were wrong, and a lot of them changed their mind, although I'm not a Lawyer or legal expert)
@qjtvaddict
7 ай бұрын
Buddy Nearly every country in the Americas has committed war crimes against the indigenous peoples of the Americas from Canada and USA to Chile, Argentina, El Salvador and Caribbean countries too
@flamingcoop
Жыл бұрын
Thank you for sharing your thoughts and continuing the discussion. Honestly, I deeply empathise with the voice and intentions behind it. And if it was for a limited time (say 50yrs) I would probably vote yes. But if the problem can be fixed, why make it exist in perpetuity? And if the problem is our democracy not representing the people, why not fix the democracy for all? I am very pro preamble to recognise their history in the constitution though! After 1.5yrs of swinging between yes and no this is unfortunately where I have landed.
@CityConnectionsMedia
Жыл бұрын
That's completely fair. Tbh I would agree there's a decent argument that having a sunset clause on it would be a good idea. But my counter argument would be that we don't know how long we might need it. We might make it 50 years, but we might need it for 60. To my knowledge, no other country has a sunset clause on theirs, and these issues take a long time to fix. And as for the democracy point, I get it, but like I said in the video, Indigenous MPs represent their district. Drmocracy is rule of the majority, and since Indigenous people are a minority, they'll never have the substantial power in parliament to take action like other groups can. Really the voice is expanding democracy to a group that has been disadvantaged so parliament has to ask them how to help. But anyway, even though we clearly disagree, I at least commend you for being willing to listen to the opposing view.
@bendowson3124
Жыл бұрын
Thanks for your well thought out and insightful video. While I respect your opinions, I still intend to vote no. I won't give all my reasons, but I thought I would respond to a few points you made: First, regarding the detail. While I understand constitutions are intentionally vague to give maximum power to the parliament, the fact remains that at some point, the Albanese government (if the vote succeeds) will need to figure out how the voice is implemented and I don't think they should be waiting until after the referendum to do so, especially since the lack of detail is one of the main factors in the downturn in voice support. Albanese could have come out and said "this is how I intend the voice to function: XXXXX. However, the actual details will not be in the constitution itself and future governments may make modifications." In this case, we would at least have a better idea of the risks and potential benefits should the vote succeed. This is sort of similar to how many people in the UK voted for Brexit without realising how messy and poorly executed it would be. People don't want to vote for something only to be given something that wasn't what they thought it would be. Regarding division, I understand your viewpoint that we are already divided and have been since colonisation. However, my concern is that this constitutional change will be make such division permanent. It effectively assumes that indigenous people will always be marginalised and the voice will always be necessary to mitigate this marginalisation. However, let's assume an ideal situation where the voice exceeds all expectations and results in a scenario where indigenous people have the same life expectancy, employment rates, child mortality, etc., than non-indigenous people, and where the government always listens and responds properly to the needs and solutions of indigenous people. In this scenario, the voice would become redundant and I believe that a redundant voice will cause more harm than good by giving one group of people greater rights than another, which would be the case in this ideal scenario. Regarding no = status quo, I completely agree that something needs to change. However, any changes in policies regarding how we improve the lives of a group of people always has risks and can result in unintended consequences. We need to make sure that these changes are positive and that we can reverse these changes if they are not positive. A constitutionally enshrined voice cannot be reversed; however, I am open to a legislated voice as there's far fewer risks to a legislated voice if it is proven ineffective. Regarding your example about the government listening to indigenous people during the COVID-19 pandemic, I actually think this is more an argument against the voice than for. It proves that governments are capable of listening and responding to indigenous people if they really want to. The issue is not about indigenous people not having a voice, but rather governments not listening to the voices that are already available to them. As Jacinta Price says "we need ears, not a voice". Regarding listening more generally, we must recognise that indigenous people do not always agree with each other. For instance, there is a massive difference between the solutions proposed by Lydia Thorpe and those proposed by Jacinta Price and while these are arguably extreme examples, the point still remains. The proposed constitutional change does not ensure that the full range of indigenous voices will be heard and there is no guarantee that the Voice will be made up of people with a range of political opinions regarding how indigenous issues should be addressed. And by the way, this is what the no camp is saying when they talk about activists. They are concerned that the Voice will be infiltrated by people who, despite being indigenous, do not represent the majority of indigenous people. And if the parliament is deciding how the voice functions, then they could be selective in terms of who makes up the body and/or who from the body they listen to.
@CityConnectionsMedia
Жыл бұрын
Thanks for your response! It's good to see people like yourself at least willing to hear me out. As for your reasons... First point, I kinda agree tbh. I think the comparison to brexit is valid. I do worry if the ALP came out with their version of the voice alongside the yes campaign, that it might have made it more partisan, but it could have helped a lot of people understand what they were actually voting for. Second point, I also think that's a pretty fair take. Although I think it's best to remember that even in a best case scenario, it'd take decades to reverse the damage thats been done, and assuming it is undone, I'd imagine the voice would transition into more of a monitoring body to make sure we don't slip back. Third point, I agree there can be unintended consequences, but when we look overseas we only really see positives, so that's really my take. As for a legislated voice, the issue is that a future government might just get rid of it, whereas if its in the Constitution, its more difficult to do so. Although I do think it might have been a good idea for a legislated voice first, and then a permanent one later if it's successful. Final point, I also kinda agree with your point. If governments are capable of listening, then its just a matter of having governments that can listen. The issue is even relatively pro Indigenous governments can refuse to listen sometimes e.g. the Rudd government who oversaw the Intervention was also quite pro Indigenous rights. I also understand your point about which voices to listen to. Really, we don't know what the makeup of the voice would be, but more than likely it would be made up of Indigenous representatives who are voted for, similar to the system in NZ. So there would be that variety in voices. Although like you said, the parliament deciding could change that. Anyway, that's a long comment, and like I said at the start, I appreciate you hearing me out, and typing a response. Even though we disagree, I'm at least glad we could keep it civil.
@BrunoMoraes-w7j
Жыл бұрын
Tks for your video, mate!
@perfboi69
Жыл бұрын
Uhh definitely not voting yes. There are already a plethora of indigenous bodies advising government and private sector, and has been for many years. Sadly, this isn’t about just recognition. We are voting to give one group of people based solely on race and ancestry additional political representation and power through a new parliamentary body. It is an utter disgrace and it tells new migrants and those who have ancestry back to settlers or convicts that they are second class citizens with fewer political rights. Indigenous people have not been ignored for “200 years”. The Howard Government’s intervention was about savings kids from drug and alcohol abuse by other aboriginals. It worked. And when it was wound back, just as the cashless debit card worked, and when it was wound back, the grog flowed again, the r..e and abuse started again.
@CityConnectionsMedia
Жыл бұрын
That's completley fair. I do disagree with you, there aren't any Indigenous bodies in government, at least anymore. The Howard government in cooperation with the ALP abolished the last legislated one in 2005. And kinda, we are voting to include Indigenous people in the constitution, but like I said in the video, that's because they have unique circumstances unlike any group. They actually have been in the constitution before, but that was to give the federal government the exclusive right to control them (it was removed in 1967 iirc). And no, the voice won't make you or any new immigrant a second class citizen, it's not what's happened overseas with similar bodies. And even with bodies like this, those same countries still have issues with 'gaps', just there's are a lot smaller than ours. Also, the intervention didn't work. I studied it for one of my courses for university and almost all the literature says the opposite. The only result was Indigenous incarceration increasing and Indigenous children being worse off. Also, the cashless welfare card didn't work either, it just made welfare users feel stigmatised and embarrassed to go out. None of these heavy handed measures worked. Here's an article about it if you're curious: theconversation.com/ten-years-on-its-time-we-learned-the-lessons-from-the-failed-northern-territory-intervention-79198 While the conversation isn't an academic source, it is written by academics, and the article has sources. Also, thankyou for at least being will to criticise what I have to say in a civil manner.
@ACDZ123
2 ай бұрын
Thank F we didn't listen to you
@strikerbowls791
2 ай бұрын
Looooool
@CuriousKoala-p4f
9 ай бұрын
I did NOT. Sorry…
@LittleWeekendWarriors
Жыл бұрын
Vote NO to division.
@CityConnectionsMedia
Жыл бұрын
Voting No is a vote for division.
@LittleWeekendWarriors
Жыл бұрын
@@CityConnectionsMediaIncorrect. The proposed voice is divisive.
@CityConnectionsMedia
Жыл бұрын
I literally explain why it isn't in the video. We are already divided, the voice just gives a voice to people who have been marginalised so we arent divided.
@LittleWeekendWarriors
Жыл бұрын
@@CityConnectionsMediadisagree. ‘we are one but we are many, and from all the lands on earth we come’. The voice is divisive. You only have to look at your own comments section to see that.
@anguscos4506
Жыл бұрын
That's why I'm voting yes :3
@zman1508
Жыл бұрын
I'm voting yes because while I don't think the voice is perfect I think it's a step in the right direction. If we don't take steps in the right direction nothings ever going to change
@CityConnectionsMedia
Жыл бұрын
my position exactly
@zman1508
Жыл бұрын
@@CityConnectionsMedia I'm glad to hear it
@CuriousKoala-p4f
9 ай бұрын
Oopsie, I did NOT, unfortunately. Now can I correct my mistake? Anyone that I can call?
@brentmcc6048
Жыл бұрын
Ohh dear, I herbily unsubscribe.
@crazykid2710
Жыл бұрын
any reason for your no vote?
@thedamnedatheist
Жыл бұрын
Yeah, run away from an opinion different from your own! That will teach him! How will his channel ever survive your boycott? Herbily???
@rajagupta6772
Жыл бұрын
Ohh dear. I herbily subscribed
@metricstormtrooper
Жыл бұрын
Excellent video, I'm glad you've gone to the trouble to clarify the voice for the nimbys. I remember the 1967 aboriginal recognition and voting referendum when overnight, several of my friends became "Human" and "Australian" overnight. I really love the fact that now I can vote YES to undo at least some of the evil that first Australians have endured at the hands of white "Australians". Thanks, I really appreciate you're passion and your standing up for the truth.👍
@alistairjohnson8185
Жыл бұрын
Bye Bye
@crazykid2710
Жыл бұрын
why on earth would you vote no
@alistairjohnson8185
Жыл бұрын
@@crazykid2710 because I don't want race enshrined in the contitution of our country. It's simply NOT the right thing to do.
@CityConnectionsMedia
Жыл бұрын
Wait until you find out about the history of the constitution...
@qjtvaddict
7 ай бұрын
@@alistairjohnson8185so basically you admit China is more democratic towards minorities. In fact racial minorities in China get extra points on their gao kao exams to college!!!!!! You Anglo colonies are extremely backward in this regard!!!!!
@qjtvaddict
7 ай бұрын
@@alistairjohnson8185then invest in poverty reduction programs for ALL starting with the indigenous then the success can be adapted to others
@MichaelSmith-xh3sq
Жыл бұрын
Who the hell are you...???
@CityConnectionsMedia
Жыл бұрын
Zac?
@adama3231
Жыл бұрын
Every time an issue is raised in parliament the voice will have an opinion. Then governments will have this awkward position of bow down to voices whims or look like pricks for dismissing them. They will be forced to side with the voice for political will or governments will seek “voice support” for political leverage. It will be a shit fight political football passed around for political point scoring adding a whole new level of bureaucracy. Aborigines as a whole are not disadvantaged, it’s those that live in impoverished communities that are. That’s where the focus needs to be. Ask Australians if they want more money and support to these communities, that would get a 90% yes vote. Australians want to support aborigines, we don’t want a new level of bureaucracy just for virtue signaling. And the sentiment that “you should too”? No, that’s cost you another subscriber. Bye
@CityConnectionsMedia
Жыл бұрын
Did you even watch the video? I literally go over all that in it.
@adama3231
Жыл бұрын
@@CityConnectionsMedia yea, but you’re wrong
@CityConnectionsMedia
Жыл бұрын
How am I even meant to respond to that? I directly cite sources from academics who specialise in this, and they directly contradict your arguments because they're wrong.
@adama3231
Жыл бұрын
@@CityConnectionsMedia so you just think Abos will give an opinion and the government will just pick and choose when to take it on board without issue? That’s very naive. As for shorter life span, that in part is purely genetic and partly geographic. An indigenous person in Sydney is no more disadvantaged than anybody else.
@CityConnectionsMedia
Жыл бұрын
No, the voice is to force the government to listen. That's the purpose. Also, no, Indigenous people in Sydney are not as well off as non-Indigenous people. Discrimination and poverty are rife.
Пікірлер: 85