from Peter O’Brien
Professor Greg Craven of the Catholic University has a piece in the Weekend Australian (paywalled) posing ten questions for opponents of the Voice. I will attempt to answer those questions. What follows is the text of Professor Craven’s article with my responses indented after each question.
Referendums are much like marriages. Sooner or later, romance is confronted by reality.
In the lead-up to a referendum campaign, both sides revel in their own rhetoric, the wickedness of their opponents and the certainty of victory. Then the grinding slog of the campaign begins.
We have now fully entered the campaign phase over an Indigenous voice.
The fondest hopes of both sides have evaporated. On the Yes side – my side – the notion there would not be an organised No case, that it would all be a romp in the park, has collapsed. This will be as much a fight as any other referendum.
On the No side, the idea this referendum might be strangled before birth, that it could be argued away before even being put, is over. There really will be a titanic clash of constitutional wills.
I don’t believe the more informed opponents of this proposal wanted the referendum strangled at birth. Most want the referendum to go ahead so we can, hopefully, put this issue to rest. Unfortunately, we know that if the proposal gets up, its proponents will not regard the issue as settled. We will then move on to demands for treaties, ‘truth telling’, compensation and Aboriginal sovereignty. Opponents will likely accept the result. But if the proposal fails, the activists will not accept the will of the people, so expect them to double down on their claims that Australia is a racist country. So, either way, the issue will not be settled.
Being positive, this clash could at least be civilised. There will be good people on both sides. Debate certainly can be sharp but it should not be jagged.
More challenging, this is a debate that matters profoundly, not a tiff about my symbolic republic. Particularly for Indigenous Australians, someone could get seriously hurt by both campaign and outcome.
Oddly, few people realise there is not really a No side in any referendum. Rather, there are two Yes sides for different constitutional visions. In this case, one is for constitutional recognition, the other for a Constitution free of Indigenous emphasis.
Critically, each group bears the same onus of proof in demonstrating their proposal is cogent, compelling and will not harm the Australian polity. There is no such thing as “Just vote No”. You vote Yes to one or the other.
On this I agree with Professor Craven. We often hear the simplistic refrain ‘if you don’t understand it, don’t vote for it’. That is not a valid basis to vote No. If you don’t understand it, then you should find out about it. P/2
Pages: 12
www.cairnsnews.org 
“The Uluru Statement” issued five years ago calls for the amendment of the 1901 Constitution to recognize a “First Nation Voice”. Make no mistake this Voice is to be a voice of sovereignty – behind which the United [Communist] Nations and the Communist Party of China will govern.
Just as the Communist Party governs behind the ANC in Africa – the white population is to be placed under the Black Overseer in Australia.
The issue with this referendum is: sovereignty.
The Uluru Statement rightfully refers to the Australian land as ‘our country’. Others who are born on this land also claim Australia as ‘our country’. The 1901 includes all who are living on this land under its provisions. The Crown has abdicated and sovereignty belongs to the Australian people who have yet to exercise it as a people because it was hijacked when The Crown covertly abdicated.
The sovereignty is for all who were born on this land to exercise, not just one segment of the population – which has their own industry to represent them as in government and government operations. Just because their own leaders , their Law men and women, have been sidelined and a crew of ‘abo box tickers’ have taken those positions does not entitle them to expand this industry (worth billions) but rather entitles them to a process to get their real leaders in their law, culture and community recognized.
In the Mabo Decision, the High Court stood down from the issue of sovereignty and would not rule upon it. It did however recognize two sources of law (jurisprudence) in Australia. Without any understanding of this issue, the majority Australian population is being taken to referendum with a lot of slick advertising and slogans with a view to getting them to ceding sovereignty.
No one is surppressing the Aboriginal Law and culture in communities where they live on their own land. But it is a fact that the Aboriginal interests and industry are creating ‘no-go’ zones and rules for Australians. There will only be more of this under their sovereignty.
LikeLike
And down in the South East corner of the Big Pineapple and a lot closer to the rotten core of the George St Cabal than the Pointy End of FNQ – apartheid is coming to Stradbroke Island which we are all supposed to call Menjiribah (sp??) . As it happens the UNDRIP / Communist Blacks are always just fine with apartheid. (As if they don’t have a voice). Here they are opposing apartheid on the Whites. The Courier Mail is tracking this story. Oct 16 2022
‘Reverse Racism’ : Line in the Sand Marks Straddie Segregation
LikeLike
lindesymonds and daviddd2 – Correct and quite true.
The “first nation” will be destroyed by those who are now stirring them up to be a militant adversary toward the rest of us.
This will not end well for the first nation (them) or the second nation – the rest of (us).
Divide and conquer – is working right now.
Quite sad, the first nation people will soon end up doing what they have been protesting against since Cook stepped ashore.
LikeLike
“Uluru Statement History is Calling”
It is indeed! A “First Nation” with 363 languages… That’s quite a feat!
Australia is being carved up all right, into impotent little tribes, including those of the “Last Nation”.
The Australian Theater of the Absurd rolls on!
LikeLike
First Nations, Second, Third, Fourth Nations : Vaxxed / Unvaxxed population : The Ruling Chosen vs the goyim : Dar al Harb vs Dar al Islam. Australia is being carved up and served to its Masters – the United [Communist] Nations which have outsourced management and control to our WEFfie CoVID Regime and its Politburo (National Cabinet) and Cheka (Operation CoVID Shield) and the Communist Party of China.
If this referendum gets up the UNDRIP screws will be applied. Black Overseers will ensure UN Sustainable Development laws get passed. Every day will be National Sorry Day.
They already have an Aboriginal Industry just for their Voice – worth billions to the Australian taxpayers – and worth squat to their communities on the land in terms of addressing the social issues identified by their community leaders.
Uluru Statement History is Calling
LikeLike
Well, I reckon the Last Nation is entitled to a voice too, then.
LikeLike
It is large amounts of ceremonial smoke that is being used to distract us and cover what the WEF types are doing in the back rooms.
There are way more important things to worry about.
If we are dead dying and wounded what will be the benefit of having a first nation or a first anything?
I am Aussie born and bred, apparently I am not first nation – at best I may be second nation. As such I am not at all interested in bowing down to any first nation or any other control group, I have already had enough of tyrants and control groups.
I once shook the hand of Senator Neville Bonner, I was happy to do that, he was not a militant person. He had a lot of respect from second nation types such as myself. From memory he was re-elected five times.
Many of those who have followed on from Neville Bonner should be ashamed of themselves, they are (destroying) throwing away what Neville achieved.
LikeLike
Freddie: As per usual, Well Said!
LikeLike
Blanx14… Good for you, mate.
There is massive confusion about the term national sovereignty. There are two distinct meanings.
The first springs from certain Arnhem Land tribes considering formal Declarations of National Sovereignty over their own tribal land. As they say, they never ceded sovereignty prior to 1788, they successfully repelled armed attempts to kill them all (for fifty years up to 1936); and government lied to them before 1973, and ever since Whitlam was sacked in 1975. There were two brief years of official Aboriginal Self-determination.
Currently, their culture is under sustained attack, their children 5 and over are being jabbed to death, their lands are being taken over, and the medical profession and grocery chains are killing them. The only way they can see a future is to create their own economy with a trade strategy and their own government. I support them to the hilt.
The second national sovereignty is an absurdity. By definition, tribal people cannot have national loyalty. Their loyalty is to their own tribe and traditional mother’s tribe (to put it over-simplified). The dumbarse black radicals in the southern states have no idea what they are talking about and they are oblivious to the irony of the world’s oldest surviving democracy attempting to end democracy with racism.
LikeLike
If this referendum ‘gets up’, the Xi will hit the Feng. The Fourth Political Position of Marxist Leninism / Maoism is big, big, big on the whole ‘first in time, first in right’ principle. This idea that the Han Chinese are the ‘first nation’ in Communist China is why they are concealing the pyramids of Xi-an and the mummies of the Taurim Basin. And uhm pyramids are also in Australia. Those who know about circumnavigation of the earth by ancient peoples and their civilisations and their expeditionary journeys should have a pretty good idea what is under those pyramids.
LikeLike
Thanks CnsNews you’ve attracted some savvy folk, no lame excuses for human strength with some commentators, not just relating to this article, but they come out everywhere amongst your pages, gives this old girl some hope for us humans, just when I think I don’t care if I die, had an adventurous life, (it’s a fckdup world anyway, sick of banging me head up against the idiot wall), along comes those warriors & I realize we’re not completely fckd as the fight & spirit is alive & raging, we’re still yelling loud & clear & one thing might strike a nerve with someone somewhere & the fight for truth keeps coming & bs gets exposed, wonderful stuff, makes one keep going & spreading & sharing news, the right news, the truthful unadulterated news, facts over bs fantasy & unwarranted fear.
Regards to this articles comments:
Freddie, DJ, blanxie, daviddd2, Ray, Betty Mac (don’t ever apologise Betty for an off topic comment, truth is truth, warning is warning, needs to be said), lindeS, Georgia, CrissX & others… Damn Straight! to all of your comments, legends! You all see it…
See it don’t matter whether you’re a black fella, or a white fella, or any skin colour fella, but if you come from ‘the something for nothing tribe’, or the ‘radical extremist tribe’ you ain’t ever gonna get it, as you’re too blind & busy being an over the top radical. Ahh there’s hope for us yet
LikeLike
Anyone considering voting for this ‘voice’ should spend two hours watching this
Communist social engineering of Australian Aboriginals
LikeLike
This lauding of “first nations people” is a PSYOP. In reality they want them all dead after they have served their purpose IMO.
2015
Australia, Forced Vaccines, and Ethnic Cleansing*
By Jennifer Elliott
The Author warns that infants who have suffered repeated infections should not be immunised under the governments new forced Vaccination Campaign and only those infants under special risk should receive them.
There was a forced vaccination campaign in 1970-1 in the Northern Territory where forced vaccinations had a 50% fatality rate. This was reported by Dr Archie Kalokerinos, who was there during that time. He later wrote a book on it, called Every Second Child. ………………”
https://hwaairfan.wordpress.com/2015/04/25/australia-forced-vaccines-and-ethnic-cleansing/
LikeLiked by 1 person
What cretin invented the “1st nation” moniker to describe the Aboriginal populations of Australia?
The concept of a “nation” is a white fella, 19th century concept. Nothing to do with the Aboriginal populations and reality. And you can’t help solve real problems by faking somebody’s reality and dumping it on them.
Enough of the brainwashing! None of us is going to be better off because of it.
LikeLike
Locally, Aborigines know me as a practical supporter of their various causes, but being tribal, their needs are known only to themselves. What mainstream Australians learn from the media are Aboriginal causes, are irrelevant to NT people’s needs. Frankly, we don’t know what they are talking about and we doubt they do too. People fought for a century for “one man; one vote” and these pseudo-blackfellas want to destroy what remnant of democracy survives. What is demonstrated here is profound ignorance and a sadly extant ignorance.
The truth is, the only voice that is heard in parliament is Rupert Murdoch’s.
LikeLiked by 1 person
What’s to understand? There are no first nation, second nation or third nation Australians. Whatever creates different and special classes of Australian citizens deserves a big fat NO.
Anything else is an attempt to break up and destroy Australia. We’re ripe for plunder by the WEF and the UN globalists as we are, imagine how much easier we’ll be when they divide us to conquer us.
Open up the proposed Pandora’s Box at your own peril.
LikeLiked by 2 people
If you don’t understand it, vote no. That’s very good advice. First look at who is proposing the change. If it comes from Labor-Green-Green_Independents, vote no. The LibCP coalition are socialist greens so yes, just vote no again. There’s nothing here to understand. It’s too difficult to sort through the lies of politicians. Remember, a politician is always lying if his lips are moving (LabGreenGrIndepLibCP anyway). People on the side of evil have slick tongues and can trick most people.
LikeLike
My concern is one side will be given unlimited support and platforms while the other side is muzzled
LikeLiked by 1 person
Skightly off Topic! Apologies!
Lyndesy’s remark” this referendum was never about quality of life or human rights”, also applies to the extremely dangerous DigitalID/ cashless legislation being proposed.
It too, will change our quality of life and human rights…it is NOT about our privacy or safety as they claim.
The part that sticks in my mind for some peculiar reason, is that if I have no credits on the proposed credit system, I am only allowed to travel within 1km of my home EVER!
If this law is passed, we shall have NO freedom, NO safety( from thuggish police etc), NO rights, NO money, NO food…probably NO home…. and add to that, we will be microchippped like cattle!
This legislation should be put to a Referendum also.It is far more important than this rubbish proposed by Albanese.Is his ref. a distraction….can’t have 2 Referendums etc etc.?
I sincerely hope that all readers will take the time to read up on the details of Digital ID/ cashless.It is horrifying and a total end to life as we know it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I am an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island man.. I do not support the voice rubbish.. l support the truth telling .. like tell me the truth about how come we have a 1973 “constitution” of sorts pushed hard by Labor and the original 1901 version.. tell me the truth about the Australia Act.. where do Indigenous peoples fit with that.. tell me the truth about a system that can impose a 90 year Suppression Order that supports and protects political and high profile paedophiles… Then we might get somewhere…
LikeLiked by 3 people
There are even more issues, besides Rothschilds wanting ” blackfellas” becoming the first owners of all land titles, so the huge debt, which the private political party corporations have racked can be secured.
Charlie can’t become King because there is no Constitutionally lawfully appointed Governor General to request him to be our Sovereign under The Royal Styles and Titles Act.
Elizabeth failed to correct the mess while she was alive. We only have a fake Governor appointed by private political parties, with whom we the people hold NO contract under the Constitution of The Commonwealth of Australia.
If Charles is Crowned under the political convenience of The “Anglican” Church, then He is nothing more than a private employee of the political parties and holds no separation of powers between Church and State. The Common Law ceases to exist and He isn’t Crowned or held to the Act of Settlement of 1700.
All your land titles belong to the political parties. You are slaves and Tennant’s, just like Karl Marx intended.
LikeLike
Why are the Australian people being rorted for a genocidal tribe?? Not first nations people. Cease the Excessive amount of TAXPAYERS money to a bunch of freeholders.
LikeLike
Study history. The Aboriginees were NOT the ‘First People’ here in Australia.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Study history. The Aboriginees were NOT the ‘First People’ in Australia.
LikeLike
Somebody is very keen to carve up Australia, fragment it and exploit it through the time honoured divide and rule game. And the treacherous political scumbags are all for it, both the pros and the fake cons.
LikeLiked by 1 person
So, a referendum, are we going to be told which Constitution is running this..?
We have two Constitutions, one is owned by the Australian Corporate Government.
The other is our rightful Commonwealth Constitution 1900.
Could we trust a bodgy Corporate Constitution 1988.?
Or our rightful Commonwealth Constitution 1900.?
Perhaps run the two Constitutions for our choice….?
LikeLiked by 1 person
This is a constitutional issue. Does the 1901 cover all persons living here as citizens of Australia or does it not? The burden of proof lies upon those who interpret the 1901 to mean that it does not refer to Indigenous persons – many of whom have travelled abroad on Australian passports as Australian citizens.
But those who will argue that the 1901 does not cover Indigenous persons as citizens are never going to step up and argue their case because they can not demonstrate it.
If they win the referendum then ‘the Indigenous Voice’ will become the ruling voice in Australian affairs in line with UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People.
If this referendum succeeds: welcome to a very new country.
Think back to the ‘equality of marriage’ issue plebiscite. That was never about equality or the human and civil rights which all Australians enjoy or should enjoy. It was about the minority dictating to the majority: censoring their speech and compelling behaviour. For example a statement like ‘marriage is between a man and a woman’ is Wrongthink in the school and workplace and even litigated against in the courts.
LikeLiked by 1 person