58 comments

1. Lucy HamiltonOctober 1, 2023 at 3:26 pm

   The original draft of this had a paragraph on free speech to address concerns that I know will come up here. I highly recommend that anyone fretting about free speech reads Samuel Moyn’s new book “Liberalism against itself: Cold War intellectuals and the making of our times.” There is a terrific discussion about it – that brings more nuance – on Know Your Enemies podcast. The discussion suggests that the communal project of achieving emancipation for humanity was coopted by communism. As communism distorted itself into totalitarianism and so much pain, former reformers gave up that project. In their depression and despair they focussed on individual freedom from interference, making them ripe picking for the neoliberal and neocon projects.

   We don’t need to cling to “free speech” at the expense of minority groups targeted by utterly cynical and fascistic manipulators. The “tolerance” implicit in liberalism doesn’t tolerate speech that does too much harm.

2. Terence MillsOctober 1, 2023 at 4:21 pm

   Lucy

   The difficulty as I see it is the conga-line of ‘opinionistas’ on the likes of Sky : Andrew Bolt, Peta Credlin, Rita Panahi, Paul Murray , Rowan Dean and their gaggle of ‘guests’ who are normally New Corp employees.

   During the day Sky shapes up as a news organisation and can be held to account for accuracy and misinformation in their news presentation. But as soon as the sun goes down we get the people with opinions who openly say ‘this is just my opinion’ so it doesn’t need to be fact checked or true and that is where the problem lies, as I see it .

   You can hold an organisation or an individual to account in defamation for being misleading and deception and you can legislate to make it an offence to present lies masquerading as news ; as Murdoch found out with the Dominion Voting Systems case. But since then they have drawn a hazy line between news and opinion and it is the latter that is contaminating and befouling the Voice debate in Australia.

   But, can you hold an organisation to account for the opinions of their presenters and guests or does that infringe their freedom of speech ?

3. FredOctober 1, 2023 at 4:29 pm

   Your ramblings talk about Free speech,but this only seems the case if we are to believe your narrative.Free Speech is exactly what it says it is,and it is up to the individual to decide,so if i disagree with what you say that should be my right,and i should not be discriminated against for having a difference opinion.Disinformation as you call it,is just another way of controlling what is said,we see this all around the world now.Even the WHO is getting in on the act and also the UN,so please don’t lecture us about free speech because it never is,not anymore anyway

4. andyfiftysixOctober 1, 2023 at 4:42 pm

   i dont have a problem with opinions, what i do have is a problem with opinions delivered as fact when the facts indicate something else.. ie Sky after bedtime. Yes you can Terence Mills, all it takes is the desire to withdraw their licence. Why pussy foot around with them? dont make a veiled threat, stick it up their nose LOUDLY.

   With the referendum, i dont see any reason why the no side should be given ANY financial or verbal equivalence. Again we come up with one side playing by marcus de queensberry rules and the other side just kicks you in the nuts. So we set ourselves up to be screwed over. Didnt labor learn from the independance referendum, the libs will couch info in any way possible to screw it up. As they now profess in the no case.

   I would pass rules that penalised bad faith misrepresentation of facts, with a severe first warning up front to get the truth out loud and clear, not the jibberish that passes for fine print 2yrs later. But the freedom of speech at any cost brigade would shoot me down. Total freedom at no cost has enabled conspiracies to fly all over the place and undermine society.

5. Anthony JudgeOctober 1, 2023 at 4:54 pm

   I would extend Fred’s argument. The difficulty with the case made is that it avoids the issue of “disinformation is anything I disagree with”. And “facts are opinions with which I agree”. More crudely, ” the Yes campaign disseminates facts” as does the Albanese government — the No campaign does the opposite. We wont get far with “fact checking” in that context. Why are such perspectives cultivated?

6. Lucy HamiltonOctober 1, 2023 at 4:59 pm

   Thanks for labelling my suggested readings para as “ramblings,” Fred. I take it you are feeling attacked.

   We never have free speech unlimited. We have copyright and defamation and all kinds of limitations as it stands. We have politicians and celebrities threatening commentators and investigative journalists with defamation to stop revelations. We limit hate speech and incitement to violence.

   Here I have suggested the relatively minor steps of discussing policy that could pressure politicians to deal with the public truthfully. Democracy cannot function without a relatively truthful setting out of what the electorate is voting upon. In this moment of politics where most politicians from the centre and left are operating within the normal faulty boundary of promises, assertions and rhetoric, the Right has embraced the flooding the zone with a firehose of shit. It plans to prevent the centre or left from holding power again and is using lies amongst the tools to achieve it.

   We can’t patrol the normal range of speech that constitutes entertainment but we can introduce limits to what is allowed to call itself news. Canberra is discussing ways to control all the disinfo on social media and whether similar limits are

   Democracy contains the seeds of its own destruction and we need to sort out what lines we can safely draw.

7. Lucy HamiltonOctober 1, 2023 at 6:22 pm

   Anthony – you’ll find that academics and experts fact-checked the AEC pamphlet and established that the Yes said was literally describing facts. The No side wasn’t. If you follow the link in the piece, you’ll find one example. You can google for others.

   It’s not my evaluation but a factual evaluation.

   There is room for toxic opinion. (Short of hate speech and inciting violence.) There is not room for lies as the basis of describing eg a referendum’s conditions.

   It is all very well for people who are not going to be hurt to be generous about protecting your freedom of speech from any check. If lies about abortion mean women and pregnant people die from untreated miscarriages, we see it as more life and death than you might. If lies about refugees get them tortured by Australians (official label for many of the decisions we made over the last decade), then people who are suffering might question your noble defence of free speech. If trans people face extermination because lies are perverting the way the public perceives them, then yes, they too might think your less fraught life might make your defence of free speech look a little unnuanced.

   People in politics and the news media are responsible for informing us about facts. While it’s complex, it’s crucial. There are ways we can nudge them towards fact and away from propaganda.

   Are you willing to have a MAGA Right drive us into an authoritarian, Christofascist post-democracy while you shrug mournfully and declaim, “That’s the price we paid for our precious freedoms”?

8. Lucy HamiltonOctober 1, 2023 at 6:26 pm

   Terence: I would suggest the Murdoch RC would be a great start.

9. Anthony JudgeOctober 1, 2023 at 7:08 pm

   Lucy. From your response and the link it is then to be concluded that the Yes campaign is 100% factual beyond dispute (as with assessments by experts in other domains?). Whereas the No campaign disseminates disinformation — 5%, 20%, 80%? Your argument is therefore 100% correct — beyond dispute?

10. Lucy HamiltonOctober 1, 2023 at 8:16 pm

    No, Anthony. But the Yes campaign is basically fact-based as repeated constitutional experts etc have said. On this topic Albanese seems to be truthful,

    There is really very little to object to in the Voice. It’s an advisory body that the government isn’t forced to listen to, like every other advisory body. It should help gov policy towards Indigenous communities be more helpful by feeding local advice about productive solutions and harmful intuitions from outsiders. This should save money as well as helping Indigenous communities be healthier.

    It is going into the constitution, so that it can’t be cancelled. Parliament has to devise improvements with FN people if it doesn’t work well enough. It has to stay but it can be dramatically changed.

    So to turn that into a community-dividing battle takes some serious imagination – and ill-will.

    I’m sorry if the facts annoy you, but this time that the way the facts fall.

11. Anthony JudgeOctober 1, 2023 at 9:33 pm

    Lucy. You have now nuanced your more absolute claims into “basically fact-based” and “seems to be truthful” — away from 100%, and the guarantees offered by experts. This would seem to suggest the possibility of a degree of disinformation in the Yes campaign — reminiscent of miss-selling and misleading advertising, perhaps over-selling. Personally I have the sense of being bulldozed.

    I have no objection to the Voice as such. Who can ever object to promises of peace, justice, human rights, equality, collaboration, and the like? Somehow you transform those promises into factual outcomes, when there is extensive documentation on how promises fail. That is disinformation — whiteanting in the sense in which promises vulnerable to failure are conflated with factual realities, as with many electoral promises. Symbols can indeed be very valuable, and especially so in this case. Symbols can however be transformed into tokens of little meaning in practice, whatever the claims made. Are the symbols then worth the price — and to whom?

    You explicitly deprecate cynicism. However it is cynics who encourage the gullible to believe that the symbols will be satisfaction enough — even after their token reality becomes apparent. That is basic politics.

    You deprecate the No campaign for being “community-dividing” because it fails to agree with your imagined outcome — deemed beyond reasonable dispute by good people. You associate such disagreement with “ill-will”. Shall we call the No people “bad”, or even “evil”? Is such framing by yourself not the esence of “community-dividing”? Do you completely exclude the possibility that some people who vote No may have reasonable arguments for doing so? Are they complete idiots? Totally irresponsible?

    Missing from your arguments is any apparent desire to recognize the huge disappointment from miss-selling and over-selling — when the facts you choose to ignore “come home to roost” down the road. I do not dispute many problematic aspects to the No campaign and its advocates. It is for that reason that I consider that a “Neither” vote will focus a divided community on a more fruitful way forward. Failure of the Yes vote may have the same consequence.

12. Lucy HamiltonOctober 1, 2023 at 10:03 pm

    Anthony. I think very few people get oversold on anything governments do these days. We are all that kind of cynical,

    The other cynical is the No campaign: that’s the one saying people are going to lose their homes or pay tax on their land to FN people. That is the cynicism saying it is a third chamber of parliament. That is the cynicism saying it’s putting “race” into the constitution when we know the race provisions are already in the constitution. The cynicism is highly paid commentators inventing the 26 page Uluṟu Statement. The cynicism is the power players flirting with the NWO drongos who believe the UN is coming to take all our land c/o the Voice.

    There are so many out and out lies pushed by American Christian money, Dark Money in Advance Australia and Fair Australia, telling their phone banking people to lie and frighten people they call.

    Are you following the news?

13. francesOctober 1, 2023 at 10:48 pm

    It is nothing short of miraculous that the ignorant and prejudiced are so eminently capable of constructing fine-sounding but essentially muddle-headed verbiage. That a white fella (presumably, given the photograph of an esteemed relative on ‘Laetus in Praesens’) can claim the inside dope on a “more fruitful way forward” than that offered so generously by the elected representatives of indigenous communities across the country following years of consultation certainly takes some paternalistic chutzpah.

    Clakka’s clarification of the issues below Michael Taylor’s fine piece, ‘We have failed the First Nations People” (21/9/23) does not, conversely, look this very unique gift horse in the mouth:

    ‘Labor has done what it undertook to do, and that’s introduce in full the requests of Oz First Nations folk contained in the Uluru Statement from the Heart – Constitutional recognition and Voice, followed later by makarrata, Treaty and Truth telling. And the process for implementing the whole process including later legislation is available for all to read in the Calma Langston Report and the Co-Design papers (the LNP and ‘NO’ campaigners elect to ignore that). Forget the notorious 26 pages (allegedly behind the Uluru Statement), they do not form part of the Uluru Statement, they are only a summation of the Oz-wide regional indigenous dialogues as backgrounding for consideration by the 250 elected First Nations leaders who formulated the final Uluru Statement of one page in 2017. It is ironic in the history leading to this, it was a bipartisan agreement to commission the process whilst the LNP had tenure in government.’

    ‘It is a disgrace of pressurised political expedience that the LNP while in government rejected the reports out of hand, without even considering them within their cabinet. And no real surprise that the feckless Dutton, Littleproud et al have politicised what was bipartisan, and ought be an apolitical, they have done so purely to try and take skin off Labor and Albanese. The LNP and ‘No’ campaigners importing of American style post-truth fear mongering culture war tactics, lies, revisionism, deception and misdirection are an utter disgrace and dangerous to the political process and democracy in Oz. But they don’t care, because for the sake of their own pecuniary interest and those of their vested interest cronies, they would rather have the old brutal exploitative laws of the Crown and the colonies remain in place, and keep First Nations folk disenfranchised.’

    ‘Vote YES, its a simple and good start to reform for all of us.’

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uluru_Statement_from_the_Heart#:~:text=The%20statement%20was%20released%20on,near%20Uluru%20in%20Central%20Australia.

14. Anthony JudgeOctober 1, 2023 at 11:02 pm

    Frances. Wondeful insight: “It is nothing short of miraculous that the ignorant and prejudiced are so eminently capable of erecting such barrages of fine-sounding but essentially muddle-headed verbiage.” Everybody who disagrees with pro-Voice enthusiasm is ignorant, prejudiced and muddle-headed? Wow. What little respect we have for one another. Great way to divide a community

    Lucy. “Are you following the news?” Great question these days, given the vast spectrum of news and the manner in which it is variously censored and rendered inaccessible. Which news are you following? Which are you ignoring?

    Vote Yes and learn from the consequences

15. Andrew SmithOctober 2, 2023 at 12:01 am

    The ‘No’ campaign is overpopulated with bigots and sophists who claim otherwise, in part due to RW MSM, influencer & LNP targeting above median age etc. in suburbs and regions, making it into a divisive campaign using the same techniques as Brexit and Trump encouraging ‘collective narcissism’ and ‘pensioner populism’, for permanent division vs. working age, youth and the future; it’s all the right has these days.

    Then we have Howard using a Whitlam line, telling oldies to ‘maintain the rage’; no doubt to sweep up some ageing nativist ALP supporters?

16. New England CockyOctober 2, 2023 at 6:40 am

    Gee Lucy ….. your article appears to have hooked a couple of xenophobic, dyed in the wool, FRWNJ white supremacist racists. But AIMN allows their rants, and only occasionally the editor comments usually to explain puta glitches.

    Somehow that appears to me to be ”freedom of expression” or ”free speech”. At least they know how to use a spell checker.

17. Paul SmithOctober 2, 2023 at 7:16 am

    I have been involved in daily (sometimes hourly) social media campaigns, and street stalls twice a week in Mullumbimby supporting the YES case since the campaign began. My town was the anti-vaxx capital of the universe during the pandemic, so it had a ready made audience for Qanon-style excrement that is being regurgitated ad nauseam on social media. The overwhelming majority of passers-by supported us by word or gesture at the street stalls and sometimes paused for a chat. The tiny minority of NO voters made up for their number by the volume and aggressiveness of diatribes bellowed at us. We signed up knowing that that would be the case. What took a toll, however, was what Marcia Langton called the racism and stupidity of people I have no hesitation calling racists and far quits. Even that could not have been unexpected by anyone who watched the 2020 election in the US and the ongoing assertion that Trump won. What I find unforgivable is the role of LNP politicians. It’s not just that they LIED, but that they did so knowing that their lies would foment contempt for Indigenous Australians indistinguishable from that of the pioneers of White Australia. The racism is disguise, especially from themselves, by blaming someone else for their determination to vote NO: “When did any government ever do anything for the Aboriginals?”. I reserve my most bitter disappointment for that huge percentage of Australians that are still “undecided”, especially those who can’t be bothered to see what’s wrong with the slogan that begins: If you don’t know… (I refuse to finish the sentence.) The complacency of white privilege… would that be a euphemism for the banality of evil?

18. BradOctober 2, 2023 at 9:49 am

    Lucy, “the Voice. It’s an advisory body that the government isn’t forced to listen to, like every other advisory body.”
    If that’s true, what’s the point of legislating another advisory group in Parliament?
    Isn’t the solution to get rid of politicians who are incapable of listening? Just vote them out.

    I found my way to a speech given by MP Warren Entsch (25May2023) as recorded in Hansard. A transcript is on his website warrenentsch.com.au/constitutional-alteration-aboriginal-and-torres-strait-islander-voice-2023-statement/
    It’s good to see some people have valid arguments to offer the public and not mere rainbow rhetoric.

    As for the former integrity executive at Twitter-X warning that “foreign government and extremist bad actors are intervening there to distort the debate on the Voice”, that would be Yoel Roth, someone who had weekly meetings with the FBI, Department of Homeland Security & Office of the Director of National Intelligence.
    So much for integrity. It looks a lot like gov interference in a media platform that led to 100s of people deplatformed for expressing opinions that went against the official narrative.

    And how is that narrative travelling these days? Not too well from what I see.

19. Lucy HamiltonOctober 2, 2023 at 10:14 am

    So Anthony is presenting a diagonalist politics, reading the subtext. I recommend everyone read Naomi Klein’s Doppelgänger as a brilliant understanding of the current moment’s thought space. I love that he can dismiss all the lies I listed with nary a comment and continue on with his line. Classic bit of “both-sidesing”.

    Brad. It is an advisory body to make sure that even the best-intending politicians don’t listen to their impulse or distant advisors about what is best for FN communities. It provides pathways to funnel all the best advice from hands-on groups to allow the system to avoid “well-meaning” disastrous intervention as well as the those interventions that come directly out of racist paternalism. It is being put into the constitution so that parliament in consultation with FN people can continue to reform and improve the model but not abandon it out of John Howard-y motivations. (I’m assuming ill will but cannot see inside his mind.)

    I have no problem with integrity execs consulting with law enforcement. What the free speech debate is encountering in the social media era is that unfettered speech is not educative or a balanced force for philosophical development.

    Nation states are using social media with gusto to ensure that debate in resented nations is as destructive as possible. Authoritarian leaders have the incentive to make sure the democratic project looks as gross as possible to stop their peons for fighting for their own freedoms.

    Aside from that we have Dark Money actors on the far right who are determined to stop everything that impedes their ability to make as much money as possible until they are effectively warlords with private armies in compounds defending themselves from the chaos they’ve created outside. Creating a US imperative to be armed (not just impeding sensible gun laws) is well and truly part of that.

    So monitoring absolute campaigns by bad actors to distort civic discussion is an altogether different proposition to silencing speech. Aside from that, these are private companies which could be sued for allowing violence-creating campaigns. As private companies they are not covered by America’s free speech amendment. We are seeing in Elon’s unleashing of the worst actors – including pedophiles – that his goal is not free speech but Acceleration into anarchocapitalism.

20. Steve DavisOctober 2, 2023 at 10:30 am

    Anthony Judge, your statement “…because it fails to agree with your imagined outcome … You associate such disagreement with “ill-will” ” is a misrepresentation of Lucy’s position.

    Her position was “So to turn that into a community-dividing battle takes some serious imagination – and ill-will.” In other words, she was not accusing those who vote NO of ill-will. She accused those who are using the referendum to divide the community of ill-will, and I agree entirely.

    It’s one thing to vote NO out of a genuine belief or even out of ignorance, but it’s another thing altogether to actively oppose, to stridently oppose, in a manner that will cause harm and distress, a heartfelt attempt to right historical wrongs.

    Those who put up various arguments against the Voice, trying to sound reasonable and measured, should look around at just who they are acting in solidarity with. They are acting in solidarity with people they would not let into their front yard, let alone into their homes. They need to think again.

21. Lucy HamiltonOctober 2, 2023 at 11:10 am

    Well said, Steve. It appears (wilful) misunderstanding in this thread as well as the wider debate is a problem.

22. ClakkaOctober 2, 2023 at 7:47 pm

    I am largely in agreement with Lucy’s proposition. And it has been salutary to read all the comments to and fro.

    Uncle Sam’s ‘freedom of speech’ has been used to erode truth to the point of mass confusion of the populace, and to subvert legislated laws and associated hearings and penalties.

    In Oz there are numerous limitations on freedom of speech, as, for example, enunciated by Lucy.

    There appears, however, to be a glaring gap – politicians and their officers misleading the public without limit. An irony when they are not permitted to mislead parliament. Considering parliamentary supremacy, they should be restrained from misleading (or telling untruths to) the public. It would not be an inhibiting constraint if, before they took to the dais, the microphone or the press to mislead, conflate or tell an untruth, they should first declare those words to parliament – a quick notice.

    I can give a first-hand example of where a reasonable expectation of reliance was ‘cooked’ to an exercise of fear-mongering, misdirection, deception and abuse:

    I attended a public meeting at XXXX last Wednesday night. I saw info about it on the XXXX Community Facebook page on Tuesday.

    The auspice was to discuss the State / xxLand Council Recognition and Settlement Agreement (RASA). I thought it would be interesting and informative. But to my consternation and horror it appeared to me to be a ‘cook-up’ and brutal.

    I have only been an owner / resident in XXXX for about 2.5 years, so I am not familiar with many locals.

    From what I can now glean, the meeting was organised by MrsA and MrA (convenor at the meeting), although the XXXX Progress Association and another person may have been involved.

    Th meeting ‘expert’ panel was as follows:

    • Mr Ed - state govt Executive Director, Land Justice, First People State Relations
◦ Evidently MrEd negotiated the agreement for State with the xxLand Council
• Cr A - XXXX Shire
• Cr B - YYYY Shire (LPA affiliate)
• Ms Z - MLC (ex-councillor ZZZZ Shire - LPA affiliate)
• PD - other Land Council rep (not from xxLand Council) (did not attend - allegedly late apology)


    It appeared extraordinary that upon entering the (convenors) sought names, phone numbers and emails before giving an info handout – I saw this as ‘harvesting’ for ‘political’ purposes, so did not comply. It is notable that much later in the session it was said the list would be used to make contact for the purpose for mounting a petition to parliament to have the RASA ’thrown out’. They said they wanted to accumulate 10,000 signatures.

    It is very notable that straight up, several times loudly it was stated by the convenor and Cr B that this was not about the referendum.

    Mr Ed started with a concise and measured overview of the various Acts and requirements for the State to make the agreement, and explained there was no compunction for local councils or anyone else to comply, and no consequences from not forming subsequent agreements with xxLand Council. Although, he said parties were encouraged to negotiate an agreement. He reiterated this several times throughout the 2.5 hour meeting.

    Cr A (XXXX) started with negativity, suggested the Agreement extant should be torn up and re-done subject to public consultation. Although later, as the meeting became ‘brutally negative’ he mollified by saying council had been for quite some time working with a Different adjoining Land Council successfully, and there would be little if any additional effort, or cost to council and ratepayers.

    Cr B (YYYY) and Ms Z were loudly negative, and brutal with divisive negativity, misdirecting and uttering falsehoods, and in my opinion, ‘cooking’ racism and descent. Both said or inferred that it would cost ratepayers collectively tens of thousands annually to provide for the agreement and xxLand Council.

    The meeting was appalling and quickly descended into a brutal and near abusive rabble with conspiracist refusal to listen / understand, usually loudly applauding obvious ‘cooker’ statements. It is most notable that xxLand Council had no prior knowledge of the meeting, and were not invited.

    There appeared to be many ‘audience’ members ‘in the know’ of the cook-up, but say 20-30% who may have been ‘innocents’ who appeared decidedly distressed by the entire ‘business’

    It appears there are those (usually organised) that care nothing for such dangerous abuse of political discourse and threat to democracy.

    Call me naive, but I was totally unprepared to be assailed by such guile and brutality.

23. Lucy HamiltonOctober 2, 2023 at 8:44 pm

    That’s really grim, Clakka. It’s a salutary reminder that we need to watch the low level events – not just Canberra and the big media – for where the bad actors and cookers are fomenting a movement based on lies and perversions of the truth. Steve Bannon (Trump’s initial election advisor and anarcho-capitalist) is pushing MAGAs to take over local government down to school board level.

    We have to keep in mind that the climate catastrophe is very likely to push up food and vegetable prices or cause more heat deaths or make the sensible wear masks in summer to avoid breathing too much bushfire smoke or? There will be more people displaced in and around Australia looking for safety. We are going to be very susceptible to populist troublemakers. We may also have a larger percentage keen on a strong man to make them feel protected.

    This push towards authoritarianism is a global Right Wing project and they are using naive calls to protect “freedom of speech” no matter how grotesque for its own sake. We need to debate what is genuine freedom of speech. We need to demarcate what constitutes utterly rotten attempts to turn us into authoritarian states where LGBTQIA+ people and ? are being threatened with lethal violence by a radicalised base. The old truisms about free speech were developed in a moment when rich men sat around in coffee shops and argued in journals. They do not account for the social media era where a contingent wouldn’t know “good faith” if it smacked them in the nose.

24. BradOctober 3, 2023 at 7:55 am

    Clakka & Lucy, it’s all interconnected. Politicians are truth-averse, they are experts at playing games to hid agendas. As a result, local groups that can smell a rat are left to their own devices to try and understand and head off what they see is a disaster-in-the-making. Do the local people always get it right? I doubt it. They’re living in an era of misinfo-disinfo deliberately fostered by politicians and corporate co-conspirators, mainly the legacy media.
    The referendum: any mention of a ‘treaty’ early in this process sent Albanese and crew running for the exits. Denial turned to a grudging acknowledgment. Now everyone knows it’s a foregone conclusion whichever camp wins, as it should be.
    Win or lose, if Albanese doesn’t begin listening the day after the referendum, understand he’s a fake. If Labor don’t immediately start canvasing FN reps in all rural and remote areas in a methodical manner, know Labor are fakes.
    I recently ran across a 4 minute video (Greg Reese Report) based on the work of journalist Charley Reese. This column was originally published in the USA Orlando Sentinel on 3rd Feb 1984 by Charley > orlandosentinel.com/1984/02/03/545-people-are-responsible-for-the-mess-but-they-unite-in-a-common-con/
    “Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them. Have you ever wondered why, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, we have deficits? Have you ever wondered why, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, we have inflation and high taxes?”
    The article has stood the test of time. It was even fact-checked by Snopes and found to be correct. What was true of the USA 40 years ago is true of Aus today. Substitute ‘housing’ or ‘equity for FN people’ or whatever other social problem is top of the list on the day and there you have it, front and centre, politicians pretending to give a sh*t, all the while deliberately doing nothing of substance. In fact, it appears if they can exacerbate a problem, that’s a preferable outcome.

25. Lucy HamiltonOctober 3, 2023 at 9:23 am

    Thanks, Brad.
    I think that’s overly cynical. Politicians are human. Party creatures go through a long process of enculturation. Many recognise a need for discipline to achieve the most important goals they’ve selected. Albo and the leadership team, for example, marshalled discipline over the Religious Discrimination trap set by Morrison. Progressives wanted to fight for freedoms and the social conservatives were more sympathetic.

    I like the “teal” indies because they share important goals but are responsive to their own conscience, integrity, intellect but crucially also their electorates. Party doesn’t shackle them.

    Labor operates on an enemy playing field. The combined voices of corporate media and Coalition and industry lobbyists have destroyed some recent Labor governments.

    The water in which voters swim is neoliberal truthiness. Voters have been taught that tax is theft not a wonderful contribution to a functioning society. That demands politicians spout mantras about low tax. But – like stripping regulation – that hurts the masses. Bad schools, bad health, bad roads, abandoned populations already damaged by the compulsory unemployment capitalism demands. Low tax people screeching for deregulation means dead and maimed workers, tainted food, water and air.

    So politicians are stuck between the demands of wealthy donors and powerful resource sectors. The demands of an electorate that thinks it wants low taxes but also wants a functioning society. A media that often frames debates in toxic ways for its own purposes- clickbait not least among them.

    Some – many? – party politicians are honourable people trying to achieve the closest thing to their goals in a complex system that anchors them in so many different ways. Some – many? – are sociopathic creeps, there for the power and buzz.

    Anything that reduces that complexity is a poor attempt at analysis.

    The point that needs to be remembered with the Voice is that the Right in Australia is much harder pressed to skew the vote than in role model nations US and UK. Damaging this vote gets them a whole lot closer to damaging our faith in our (strong) electoral processes.

26. CanguroOctober 3, 2023 at 9:46 am

    Thanks Lucy, re. your above reply; a bouquet on its way along with a koala stamp for consistency in being a precious voice of finely-honed and intelligent reason and one of the gemstones amid the diverse terrain that characterises this useful domain.

27. BradOctober 3, 2023 at 10:07 am

    Much to agree with there Lucy, especially the power that ‘indies’ have thanks to being able to vote on conscience. That power seems to have been stripped from Labor by group-think or cowardice. No conscience votes equals a kind of stupid, unquestioning, misplaced loyalty to ideology over pragmatism.
    It is a waste of time blaming the influence of the media. The people do not vote for the media.
    The best example of dull energy is still probably the issue of ‘affordable housing’.
    40 years plus of both Labor/LNP doing everything possible to turn an essential, ie shelter, into a closed shop cartel for early stakeholders. Where all policies could have been geared to encouraging the building of new homes, every decision (with the exception of an attempt to rein in negative gearing by Keating) has been aimed at giving ‘investors’ tax breaks for buying/recycling existing homes. At the rate of 1 new home built for every 11 homes recycled under the guise of ‘investors are saving the day’, nothing can be further from the truth than ‘politicians intend to fix housing’. All those tax breaks fed inflation which has become a positive feedback loop that will eventually destroy the economy wholesale.
    Politicians are responsible. That article by Charley Reese says it all.
    As you say, politicians are humans, but unless they can sublimate their tendency to make decisions based on pimping the value of their property portfolio, we are all the poorer. Re the Voice, unless politicians start actually listening to and considering the concerns of FN people there will be no change. Arguments about YES or NO are pointless if politicians, especially Labor & LNP, continue to pretend they are part of a solution when they are clearly not. Anyone who thinks changing the Constitution is somehow going to change the self-interested nature of politicians is hopeful in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

28. francesOctober 3, 2023 at 1:59 pm

    @Lucy. Thank you for prompting such interesting and informative discussion.

    A close friend of mine (whose compassionate opinions I greatly respect) recently remarked that according to his own observations, non-indigenous people of his acquaintance – many of whom have experienced few working ties or close connections with Aboriginal people – have been confused by the vehemency of the indigenous leadership support for the No campaign, particularly in its framing of the Yes Campaign as a threat to the well-being of First Nations people.

    Perhaps hanging about are remnants of the old idea of the ‘noble savage’ – all saintly and heroically bearing up – but in any event, they say they don’t know who or what to believe.

    According to my friend, these are good-hearted people without a skerrick of racism in them wanting only to do the right thing by First Nations people per the referendum, who are now confused by the indigenous No campaign, and without a clue as to how to separate fact from fiction among conflicting pronouncements by the indigenous leadership.

    I wonder whether this lack of familiarity and knowledge of indigenous people and their affairs (apart from the occasional gruesome headline) creates knowledge gaps into which nice-sounding negative propaganda can be inserted, thus relieving people of the work of fact-checking or even familiarising themselves with the constitutional issue and finding out for themselves what a Voice to the Constitution actually means.

    This situation reminds me of certain anti-vaxxers who popped up during covid, many of whom were well-intentioned but suddenly caught out uninformed (unless by social media) to the unfortunate degree that conspiracy theories found a warm welcome in the knowledge gap.

    People like to sound knowledgeable and they need to belong, especially when they feel unsafe. Denial can also provide a safe refuge.

    Refuge such as in Quadrant where Bess Nungarrayi Price has written a No piece (also promoting her book)? Here, along with comments, the insidious influence of the Christian right on the No Campaign may be discerned.

    Making Life Even Worse for Us

29. BradOctober 3, 2023 at 4:40 pm

    frances, anyone discounting the intelligence of FN people voting NO is not across all voices. Here is a good insight as to why some FN people want nothing to do with Albanese’s YES referendum: “Multiple Tribes and Tribal Elders who have not been consulted regarding any Indigenous Voice to Parliament or a Treaty, stand United that they do not want a voice to Parliament speaking for them and they do not want a Treaty. Both a voice to Parliament and a Treaty, are corporate contracts and an attempt by the Territory, State and Federal Corporate Governments to say they speak for us and continue to hold power over the Suvren Tribes of these lands and continue the land and resource theft. There has been no consultation and any contract that does not disclose the full content of any agreement is Null and Void. The Tribal Elders and People have not been consulted and we refuse to have a voice to this corporate parliament or do a Treaty with this Corporation. Only Sovereign to Sovereign can Treaty, the Crown vacated here in 1973, we the Tribes cannot Treaty with a Corporation impersonating a Government, this is another Trick by the Colonisers to maintain their status quo and continued theft of our resources, we Say NO! Any Aboriginal person wanting this can only speak for their own Country and Lands with their Elders approval, you can not speak for another person’s Tribe or Lands, if you do you are breaking Tribal Lore.” Also, that was an interesting commentary by Bess Price, thanks.

30. ClakkaOctober 3, 2023 at 6:28 pm

    Brad,
    I’ve commented to you before about the matter of ‘sovereignty’. And many years ago, in Sydney I discussed his views with Gary Foley on issues of ‘land rights’ and ‘sovereignty’, and have followed his and others’ path on this. ‘Sovereignty’ is a very slippery beast at the best of times, and it may take many, many decades to be heard by the ‘powers that be’, and may never be resolved. It is not correct that treaty may only be between two ‘sovereign’ bodies. It is further, a tad divisive and misdirecting to say, “any mention of a ‘treaty’ early in this [referendum] process sent Albanese and crew running for the exits.” I point out that the referendum is about ‘step 1’, in the Constitution, acknowledgement that FN were the original inhabitants, and establishing the ‘Voice’ to parliament – nothing more or less. ‘Step 2’ is to make legislation (via parliament) pertaining to the ‘Voice’ – this could take a year or two. There are very sound federal structural reasons for taking these steps before Treaty.

    It is important to observe that the Uluru Statement talked also about ‘makarrata’, Treaty and Truth, and Albanese committed to implement the Uluru Statement in full. Treaty and Truth will come, but it may take say 5-10 years, the Treaty part can be mightily complex. And I point out that ‘sovereignty’ to which you refer, is also recognised as being held by QLD, NSW, VIC, TAS, SA, WA as well as ‘sort of’ the federation of states – the Commonwealth, but not independently by NT or ACT, as they are ‘territories’.

    Despite the argy-bargy, two Labor states, WA (with the Noongar), and Vic, (statewide) are well advanced with treaty.

    Anyway, there is much to know and understand, and so much not known or understood regarding the complexities of culture, history, law and politics of both indigenous and non-indigenous regimes. Much to be learned, and much to be undertaken in the never-ending quest for improvement in respect, equity and wellbeing.

    I attach some URLs to podcasts as food for thought:

    Henry Reynolds, fabulous researcher, historian and author:

    https://www.abc.net.au/listen/programs/latenightlive/henry-reynolds-lecture-byron-writers-festival-2023/102844624

    Waleed Ali & Scott Stephens – philosophy – referendum & ethics:

    https://www.abc.net.au/listen/programs/theminefield/when-a-referendum-is-an-unethical-way-of-resolving-question/102722102

31. Lucy HamiltonOctober 3, 2023 at 7:48 pm

    Clakka – Great comments on process. Thanks.
    Cangaru – thanks for the delightful compliment

32. Michael TaylorOctober 3, 2023 at 9:10 pm

    I agree with what Lucy just said.

33. BradOctober 4, 2023 at 7:31 am

    Clakka, thanks for your considered thoughts and links. Waleed makes a good argument.
    Re ” I point out that the referendum is about ‘step 1’”, that brings into question how can anyone vote either YES or NO if the subsequent questions in step 2 ‘makaratta’ (truth) and step 3 ‘treaty’ are not as yet clearly outlined even though they would be considered by many as the crux of making pragmatic changes to FN people lives. It’s a bit like going to a garage and being given a quote for one third of repairs to a car and having the mechanic say trust me on the rest of the service. With a poorly outlined/defined process (step 2-3) I am being asked to trust politicians with 2/3 of the process, essentially signing off on the whole process via referendum.
    If anything has taught me in the last 4 years it is that most politicians no longer deserve unreserved trust.
    Last night I watched part of 7:30 Report which followed Qld MPs Bob & Rob Katter touring remote townships in western Cape York. Both Katters showed how to use the power of listening. Imagine that, listening. Not yet a crime in Canberra but if one works for Labor-LNP, listening properly and acting on conscience can be a career-ending action. One of the main complaints of local people was the cost of fresh food and how that impacted on health. I thought, ‘why not build greenhouses and grow local?’. Ten seconds later Bob mentioned growing food on site was happening 30 years ago before that particular functional process was shut down by whoever (politicians, bureaucrats or Land Councils?).
    Politicians are the problem, the Katters and a dozen or so others are the exception.
    Again, the essay by Charley Reese from 1984 > orlandosentinel.com/1984/02/03/545-people-are-responsible-for-the-mess-but-they-unite-in-a-common-con/

34. leefeOctober 4, 2023 at 7:50 am

    I just realised that I haven’t received a Voice referendum pamphlet. Not that it’s needed because, being moderately politically aware and engaged, I’ve been … errr, please excuse the phrase … doing my own research.
    And it’s too late if one arrives now because we have pre-polling and I voted on Monday.

    It’s always blown my mind that we have truth in advertising laws that apply so widely – except for politics, where truth and honesty are most crucial.

35. ClakkaOctober 4, 2023 at 10:33 am

    Brad,

    Oooops. How slack of me. Did I forget to mention, again!, the Calma Langston Report & the Co-Design process and Report, both commissioned by the federal parliament. All is explained in these reports. They are well known about by all MPs and other politicians. Albeit, since Albo announced the referendum etc, the LNP and ‘NO’ campaigners have conveniently elect to ignore them and not speak of them, even though Dutton et al were invited to attend and be enlightened by the Co-Design ‘committee’ predominantly FN and their appointed ‘experts’. Dutton attended, sort of, but ungraciously demurred from q&a opportunities or explanatory sessions.

    Many times, the ‘YES’ campaign and the government have pointed to those reports, and indicated that they and the later processes are available on the Australian Parliamentary website. I am surprised that you, being so interested in the entire caboodle, appear not to have done your research, and availed yourself of that information.

    With only 10 days to go, I recommend that you do so.

    Best Regards.

36. BradOctober 4, 2023 at 12:51 pm

    Clakka, thanks for an extra material. However I just voted. I had a quick look at the Report and ‘treaty’ is mentioned 96 times. “Makarrata is another word for Treaty or agreement-making. It is the culmination of our agenda. It captures our aspirations for a fair and honest relationship . . based on justice and self-determination.”
    There’s that term ‘self-determination’. What could that mean, other than ‘self-determination’? Ask the average YES voter what does ‘self-determination’ mean, does that mean approaching some Labor-LNP toady in the hope they are going to listen and agree to give the gift of ‘determination’; or does it mean what the words implies? I don’t know.

37. Lucy HamiltonOctober 4, 2023 at 1:05 pm

    No Brad. The point is that the Voice can be changed legislatively an infinite number of times if it just embedded in the constitution.

    It is reckless and cruel to deny FN people a coordinated say in policy directed at them until after Makarrata and Treaty. Makarrata is a commission that hears all the painful stories that need to be heard and acknowledged. That might take years. Again, treaty will take years and will be subject to much more polarising propaganda from the Right.

    Nobody has time to wait for those to take place. Everything about the Voice can be improved after (or during) those processes if they establish the first legislation to follow the constitution to have been flawed.

    The only thing the referendum does is say that it can’t be ditched by bigots like Howard.

    I hope you voted yes for the 80% of FN people calculated to support it.

38. BradOctober 4, 2023 at 1:49 pm

    Lucy, I voted so it’s academic now. If YES wins, there will still be some FN tribal people who have as yet not been consulted and who don’t want to be represented by the ‘The Voice’ corp. I am for that group of people who prefer their sovereignty.
    I doubt if the anyone in Labor or many in the LNP agrees, but thems the breaks.

39. Michael TaylorOctober 4, 2023 at 2:25 pm

    Brad, it is for that very same reason why many Indigenous communities reject Jacinta Price, especially when she claims to speak for them.

40. BradOctober 4, 2023 at 3:17 pm

    MT, true, I can understand why some people are unimpressed by both teams also – I am.
    I like the idea of every man and woman being-speaking ‘their’ self. Might be the future, who knows?

41. Michael TaylorOctober 4, 2023 at 3:37 pm

    Brad, what really pisses me off is people like Dutton who says the Voice (which he doesn’t understand anyway) doesn’t do enough for Aboriginal people … after he and his mob had nine years in government to do the things he now says are urgently needed. 🤷🏻‍♂️

    His hypocrisy and faux concern is breathtaking.

42. Michael TaylorOctober 4, 2023 at 3:44 pm

    PS: I’m voting Yes.

    I’m an ex-ATSIC bloke who worked with dozens of Indigenous communities in SA, NSW and the ACT who saw firsthand the devastation/despair brought on those communities when Howard shut down CDEP (Community Development Employment Projects) and then ATSIC itself.

43. CanguroOctober 4, 2023 at 5:48 pm

    I voted yesterday, at a pre polling booth at 5.20, shortly before it closed on its first day of opening prior to the 14th Oct, the main day. The AEC official at the door said they were about to close. I registered and went to one of the dozen or so booths. It took me less than two seconds to inscribe the three-letter choice in the box. A no-brainer, for anyone with an active and sensitive brain.

44. BradOctober 4, 2023 at 6:12 pm

    Michael, no argument from me as to where Dutton and most of the LNP sit on the spectrum of anti-progressives.
    Canguro, you spelt NO ‘noo’?

45. CanguroOctober 4, 2023 at 6:36 pm

    Brad, only if you’re Scottish. 🙂

46. Michael TaylorOctober 4, 2023 at 6:43 pm

    Even in Scotland ‘yes’ is a three-letter word: ‘aye’.

47. Michael TaylorOctober 4, 2023 at 6:46 pm

    But then so is ‘no’: ‘nae’.

48. Douglas PritchardOctober 4, 2023 at 9:25 pm

    I found it weird that I was offered a “how to vote” card when spelling is a doddle.

49. Terence MillsOctober 5, 2023 at 8:24 am

    It seems that our media and that includes the ABC go out of their way to seek out and interview people who are prepared to admit that they know nothing about the referendum and have made no effort to find out.

    These people need to understand that in a democracy sometimes you have to make an effort to participate and acknowledge a responsibility to find out.

    I find these people intensely annoying !

50. GLOctober 5, 2023 at 3:24 pm

    Yes, it’s repulsive what the neo-nazi nutter said and did in the video and should be treated with utter contempt it deserves.
    Thorpe is at it again with more of her almost crazed crap about Albo and the Voice referendum –

    @2.35pm.
    https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/live/2023/oct/05/australia-news-live-adam-goodes-indigenous-voice-to-parliament-referendum-floods-victoria-gippsland-evacuation-tax-cuts

51. Lucy HamiltonOctober 5, 2023 at 5:02 pm

    Agreed, Terence. The ABC is so terrified that of being accused of partisanship that they’re platforming way more of the No, and the stupid No at that. Grim.

    Brad’s idea of the individual speaking for themself is … interesting. Good luck with that. I look forward to seeing how individual bargaining goes in the workplace. I wonder why the worker has fallen in power and living standards while the C suite salaries have exploded like fireworks over the luxury markets and offshore hiding spots…? You’d think all those individual voices would have achieved more by now.

    Brad. The point is that the Voice funnels community advice about what programs would deal best with education, nutrition, housing, sustainable living standards etc in that community. No individual voice will match that cooperative process of bringing together all the various people subject to the policies.

    I’m glad Brad thinks he’s achieved something. I am not sure what it is. A small percentage of FN people say “No” and that’s their right. I personally don’t think that any settler-colonial has the right to deny the majority of FN people the request they made at the end of years of dialogue to achieve the Uluru Statement.

    No sovereignty would be lost in a Yes victory. No form of a Voice is fixed in a Yes victory. The status quo is dreadful. No fixes us in the status quo.

52. francesOctober 6, 2023 at 9:28 am

    ‘No fixes us in the status quo.’

    As they say, we are already living in ‘No’. If one could winkle out the logical thread to Brad’s earnest reasoning one might figure out Jacinta Nampijinpa Price’s…still, it must be a nice feeling flying about business class on the taxpayer, so different from being banged about in a violent marriage in a remote settlement somewhere – as Price’s mother Bess was – all of that misery having zero to do with colonialism of course, being de novo, springing from nowhere.

    https://www.swcs.com.au/BessPrice.htm

    Tough stories. Big bad stories. Yet Makarrata is still to come.

    For anyone interested or not seen same in print (I personally wouldn’t drop a dime into Morry’s pocket on principle), the Quarterly Essay has removed its paywall to Megan Davis’s June article, ‘The Voice of Reason: On Recognition and Renewal’.

    https://www.quarterlyessay.com.au/qe/90/we-have-never-met/2951

53. GLOctober 6, 2023 at 11:41 am

    The NO! vote nuts are starting to fall from the Loony Tree at an ever increasing rate.

    https://www.news.com.au/national/politics/neighbours-star-nicola-charles-spreads-dangerous-voice-conspiracy/news-story/c221229078e707fdce7a3f4a917d9cfc

54. francesOctober 6, 2023 at 12:59 pm

    @GL: IMNSHO Albanese stepped straight into that pile of steaming ordure. There’s an old saw about discretion being the best part of valour. The PM might have known better than to engage in it under any circumstances even by scornful repetition.

    As to history repeating, I rather think PMs might zip up on hubristic compulsions to voice outrage, recalling the unwise but since gift from Rudd that kept on giving (May, 2008). Virtue-signalling by pollies rarely ends well for victims and survivors.

55. francesOctober 6, 2023 at 5:19 pm

    @GL: ‘sincere’ of course!

    Some betoota for you:

    “Vote No To Division” Says Man That Spent $96M Making Sure Biloela Kids Spent Childhood In A Cage

56. FredOctober 6, 2023 at 7:36 pm

    MT: A side issue – when I first found the “AIMN” I waited some time before posting my first comment under the name of “Fred”. I thought there would be a check to see if the “Name” matched the “Email” and that I would be asked to choose another “Name”. There was no bounce, so I continued using “Fred”. I notice that now another “Fred” is posting comments, a good percentage of which I don’t agree with. So what are the rules about how long between posts before one loses rights to a “handle”. Of course, if this post hits the stands, it means there is no name checking.

57. B SullivanOctober 7, 2023 at 1:26 am

    ’We don’t need to cling to “free speech” at the expense of minority groups targeted by utterly cynical and fascistic manipulators. The “tolerance” implicit in liberalism doesn’t tolerate speech that does too much harm.”

    Utterly cynical? Then it must be utterly true. Cynicism, being a philosophy that strives for simplicity, consequently strives for truth, because the truth is always simpler to maintain than a falsehood.

    Linking cynicism with fascism (which is essentially the notion that unity is strength)? Cynicism tends to be a lonely philosophy, that advocates self sufficiency and self reliance. Truth is its strength, certainly not unity with deceivers who hope to prevail purely on the basis of being united in their deceit.

    Manipulators? Again do you really think cynics are trying to manipulate you by telling you a cold hard truth that you perhaps would rather not hear? They can only hope you will be persuaded, Enlightened, so you can see where you are really going with your ideas (did you know that the lamp is a symbol of cynicism?). A cynic has no motive to manipulate you, just a personal motive for sticking to the simple path of truth.

    And you may be sure that cynics will tolerate your freedom of expression to vilify them by associating their philosophy with liars and manipulating fascists.

    And finally. Why does a tiny minority of the people who are alive and kicking in Australia today have to be recognised in the Australian Constitution as the First Peoples of Australia before they can be given something that Albanese’s Government could, if they wanted to, easily legislate through both Houses of Parliament? We don’t know who the First Peoples of Australia were or when they first colonised Australia. We don’t know if they even survived. Were they succeeded by the Second Peoples of Australia? Did they survive? Are the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders of today even descended from anyone remotely connected with the first attempts to colonise Australia? And please note my deliberate use of the word colonise. Shouldn’t the referendum question refer to the First Colonisers of Australia? Or if you prefer, the first Successful Colonisers. First Nations is a hubristic term that does not invite unity between those who claim it and the rest of the people. Frankly it is a bit First reich, with eligibility determined solely by birth, a ridiculous obsession with nativity. First Successful Colonisers is a much more uniting term that reminds us that none of us are really indigenous to Australia. We all belong to the same invasive species that is alien to the natural ecology that evolved in Australia over millions of years, not the mere millennia since humans arrived, and we all need to treat the land with much more awareness of our harmful impact upon it.

58. BradOctober 7, 2023 at 7:36 am

    B S, an interesting docu-series out of NZ – ‘Redheads Part 1 of SKELETONS in the CUPBOARD’
    My worldview changed 180 after watching the series. Cheers