The Voice of Revolution

THE real purpose of lobbing the so-called Indigenous Voice into the Constitution is the possibility the High Court will Brennan-vibe it into a veto power over Parliament. Everyone knows this. The stridency of advocates – including religious leaders whose intervention yesterday featured words like ‘demand’ and ‘must’ – should serve as a warning to Australians voting in a referendum on the subject. Combining the Voice with a federal ‘independent’ commission against conservatives may lead to the de facto criminalisation of Coalition governments. Supplant the Governor-General with a FitzSimons El Presidente and the coup d’état is complete. Elsewhere in the West, the left’s fear of being democratically Trumped by the Great Unwashed is unleashing comparable putsches for one-party states – all using the rhetoric of ‘tolerance.’

Speaking as a Catholic Christian, syncretism – the idea that all faiths represent an amorphous blob of coequal authority and meaning – is strictly anathema. I don’t care what an imam says (precisely as an imam) about the Voice any more than I care what a bhikkhu, qua bhikkhu, has to say about the merits of the double gerbera. For her part, the Catholic Church expounds no doctrines about the Australian Constitution. Archbishop Peter Comensoli’s views are therefore merely private. As disadvantaged brothers and sisters, Aborigines should be afforded every encouragement and be welcomed as MPs in the Commonwealth Parliament. That much I would have granted to His Grace (had he said so). But there are many Bonners, Mundines and Prices capable of enlightening that place without the sinister condescension of a bunyip apartheid.

This entry was posted in Culture, Hypocrisy of the left, Religion and faith. Bookmark the permalink.

25 Responses to The Voice of Revolution

  1. Bruce of Newcastle says:

    There’s already an indigenous voice in Parliament since the number of aboriginal senators and MPs is pretty close to the proportion in the population.

    I have no problem with the political parties putting up more aboriginal candidates. I do however think that making one race superior to all others is inappropriate in our democracy. That is institutionalized racism of the worst sort.

  2. Dr Faustus says:

    A classic case of ‘fools rush in where angels fear to tread’.

    Albanese was first in: “On behalf of the Australian Labor Party, I commit to the Uluru Statement from the Heart in full.” So, apparently he has a clear idea that the Uluṟu Statement is clear cut and shovel ready.

    Now the “faith leaders” also have a similarly clear view of what they are demanding: a representative body that can help shape policy directed at First Nations people.

    However, the sacred text itself is carefully ambiguous in its log of claims:

    We seek constitutional reforms to empower our people and take a rightful place in our own country. When we have power over our destiny our children will flourish. They will walk in two worlds and their culture will be a gift to their country.

    We call for the establishment of a First Nations Voice enshrined in the Constitution.
    Makarrata is the culmination of our agenda: the coming together after a struggle. It captures our aspirations for a fair and truthful relationship with the people of Australia and a better future for our children based on justice and self-determination.

    We seek a Makarrata Commission to supervise a process of agreement-making between governments and First Nations and truth-telling about our history.

    Tucked into those few sentences, couched in indistinct folkloric terms, is a whole world of unspoken possibilities and expectations – from self government, through legislative control, to a perpetual grievance ATM.

    It takes a rare insight to extract from that exactly what Australia must commit to in full.

    Telling that, in one of his rare moments of clarity, Miserable Ghost briskly shit-canned the whole thing.
    Disappointment looms.

  3. cuckoo says:

    Once again I’m reminded of that scene in The war of the worlds where a naive, well-meaning clergyman approaches the mysterious alien cylinder brandishing symbols of peace and faith…and is vaporised by a martian heat-ray.

    Any referendum on the ‘voice’ will be phrased in terms of: do you want to do something nice for those poor aborgines, or are you just a heartless bastard? It will pass the way gay ‘marriage’ passed.

  4. Not Trampis says:

    it wouldn’t have a veto power. That is simply a lie. you know like you saying Albo did not support a 5.1% wage increase for the those on the minimum wage.
    Nor it is saying one race is superior to any other.

    I am ambivalent on this topic. I really cannot see this winning a referendum. 1967 anyone!

  5. Boambee John says:

    Non Mentis

    it wouldn’t have a veto power.

    Wishful thinking.

    Nor it is saying one race is superior to any other.

    Eyes wide shut.

    I am ambivalent on this topic. I really cannot see this winning a referendum. 1967 anyone!

    Got that bit correect! Congratulations!

  6. C.L. says:

    Albo did not support a 5.1% wage increase

  7. C.L. says:

    it wouldn’t have a veto power. That is simply a lie.

    No, it is a prediction that will prove to be accurate.

    The Sacred Council of Magic Voices will get its collective wombat robes in a twist when their voicey voiceness is unheeded. On an issue like the environment, for example, “growing calls” will eventually be heard for its decisions to have more legislative oomph. The Vibe Court should be able to help with that.

  8. NoFixedAddress says:

    The Australian Constitution is effectively null and void in any case, what with A National Cabinet and ongoing State “government” emergencies.

  9. Lee says:

    If NT said the sun set in the west, I would go outside to confirm it.

  10. Not Trampis says:

    CL showing he is a complete idiot. If someone says they do not support a real wage cuts means what?? Another video does not support your lie. do you think people won’t look at it. not that it matters because they have already said in their submission they do not support real wag cuts. to any deplorable who does not understand that means a rise of 5.1%.

    The government can accept or reject any recommendation. It would be impossible for it to veto anything.

    Lee you wouldn’t know where East or West is so going outside would not help.

  11. Boambee John says:

    Non Mentis still ma=king idiots, morons and imbeciles look smart.

  12. Lee says:

    Lee you wouldn’t know where East or West is so going outside would not help.

    Says the blog liar, moron and gaslighter.

  13. jupes says:

    This will go the way of the homosexual marriage plebiscite. All major parties will back it, and the press will push the idea that anyone who is against it, is a racist. Probably a Nazi. Australians will vote for it.

    Look at the Abo worship in our society right now. AFL grovelling to Aborigines is totally over the top, yet I am still to see any public criticism of the insane capitulation to the lies being told. I’ve had enough of this rubbish.

  14. vlad redux says:

    Percentage of the electorate who voted “yes” on the SSM plebiscite: 48.84%.

    That won’t be enough on a proper referendum.

  15. C.L. says:

    Jupes, during the indigenous round Broncs/Titans match last night, the commentator took a few seconds to advertise a website where fans could go to learn the ‘history’ of Aboriginal struggle etc.

    The Total State cannot allow you to enjoy the football uninterrupted by politics.

  16. NoFixedAddress says:

    So, which Australian Aboriginal “Nation” will have “The Voice” and in which Aboriginal language?

    ‘Revolution’ indeed C.L.

    There should be some interesting actual warfare goings on throughout Australia.

    And will “The Voice” stop the fucking abuse of children and women in Aboriginal Society OR is it Big Men’s Rules as per usual?

  17. C.L. says:

    Post slightly edited. Didn’t have time for q.c. last night.


    And will “The Voice” stop the fucking abuse of children and women in Aboriginal Society OR is it Big Men’s Rules as per usual?

    The 64 gazillion-dollar question, NFA.

    Short answer: no. An elite of voice-o-crats will get benefits and goodies but the broader Aboriginal population will not. Eventually, there will be “calls” for Da Voice to have more sway over legislation – especially re resources, mining and pastoral. That’s when we might see the Voice and Mabo linked in a High Court case.

    It is total bullshit to claim that altering the Constitution has no bigger agenda than feelings and symbolism.

    I note The Australian is now editorially pro-Voice – in the same way it pushed net zero.

  18. Tel says:

    I totally agree that the plan is for a third house of Parliament, but without broad franchise.

    Frankly I cannot support any system whereby people’s votes are selected on the basis of racial factors. Bob Katter has the right idea.

  19. Rockdoctor says:

    C.L. sorry late to the party on this but Kiwiblog’s David Farrar has been covering similar moves with an attempt to tinker with the 1 vote 1 person philosophy that underpins our system of suffrage with Maori representation. He has been running quite a few threads on it recently.

    The left has lost the first battle over the ditch and were very secretive but David reckons they’ll be back:

  20. C.L. says:

    Yes indeed, RD. He was on Bolt’s show last week speaking about what they’re trying to do. The push in NZ is much like what I’m predicting here. The Maori lobby basically wants to be a third chamber – though it’s coming at the objective from a gerrymander angle.

  21. cuckoo says:

    it wouldn’t have a veto power

    Er yeah, and wait for the moment a future LNP government (hypothetical, I know) decides not to follow the ‘advice’ of the third gunyah. The $h!tstorm would be epic.

  22. Roger says:

    If we’re going to go down this path let’s have proportional representation according to ethnicity.

    Oh wait…

  23. cuckoo says:

    It would almost be worth getting this third house just to see the various indigenous ‘families’ at each other’s throats, scrabbling over the spoils. Years ago I worked in an institution which briefly housed a ‘koori’ heritage organisation, staffed solely by kooris. Within a year, each member had lodged official complaints against almost every other member.

  24. jupes says:

    A contemporary example of what happens when Aborigines live together. A small indication of what life was like before they were saved by the arrival of the first fleet.

  25. Rockdoctor says:

    cuckoo, not much has changed but this one is a tad more civilised:

    Trust me one grifter against an organisation with a couple of grifter families running the show at TAIHS.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *