Henry Reynolds Predicts Bad Stuff if No Campaign Succeeds. Whatever. By James Reed
Historian Henry Reynolds has written a piece in The Australian detailing the dire consequences of a No vote. Yep, no matter how flawed the question in the referendum is, and whatever technical objections one has to changing the constitution, a No vote is unconscionable. The Yes people will be forced to “return to the streets with campaigns of direct action.” What exactly does that mean – would it be like the Saint George Floyd business? Don’t know. And, as well the globalists in New York will not be supportive of such colonialism. “Australia will find itself in the situation it experienced in the middle years of the 20th century when our diplomats had to struggle continually to rebut attacks about the White Australia policy and the treatment of Indigenous people.” Oh no, communist China will take time out from organ harvesting on an industrial scale to criticise us: https://brighterworld.mcmaster.ca/articles/analysis-killing-prisoners-for-transplants-forced-organ-harvesting-in-china/#:~:text=China%20is%20the%20only%20country,known%20as%20forced%20organ%20harvesting.
Well, I for one do not take kindly to threats. In the worst possible case scenario as I see it, and me alone, if the globalists and nuclear-armed communists want to say, nuke all No voters (with some magic protecting the virtuous Yes voters), go ahead, be my guest! I am not voting Yes, even if the missiles are aimed at my flat!
I would really like to see the local chattering class get a serve in this referendum; it would be worth being executed by the globalists, in the extreme case, for one last laugh! Aussies, stand your ground!
“Both sides of the Indigenous voice to parliament referendum launched television campaigns recently and the results of several relevant opinion polls were released.
The Yes campaign continues to hold a handy lead in all states. But there is still a significant block of voters who have not made up their mind. The historical record of referendum campaigns should caution anyone against assuming the result is a foregone conclusion.
But much of the commentary concentrates on the consequences that will unfold in the event of a Yes victory. Little thought seems to be given to how Australia would be affected by a rejection of the voice to parliament. The No campaigners appear to assume that they are proponents of continuity, of the status quo. But that will certainly not be the case.
Defeat will have wide and serious ramifications. If the referendum goes down it will be one of the most consequential events in the fraught history of relations between the First Nations and the wider community. To understand why, it is necessary to go back to the events that preceded the launch of the Uluru Statement from the Heart in May 2017.
The best place to start is a meeting at Kirribilli House in July 2015. Tony Abbott called together a meeting of 40 Indigenous leaders to discuss means by which the First Nations could be recognised in the Constitution. As a result a 16-member referendum council was established five months later to carry the project forward. It had the support of new prime minister Malcolm Turnbull and opposition leader Bill Shorten.
What followed was one of the most intense campaigns to test the opinion of the First Nations communities ever undertaken in our history. Between December 2016 and May 2017, 12 dialogues were conducted in every part of the country. In all, more than 1200 participants were consulted and their reactions recorded and put up online. Sixty per cent of participants were selected from traditional communities, 20 per cent represented relevant organisations and 20 per cent were prominent individuals. Twelve major traditional languages were employed along with translators.
The Statement from the Heart was the distillation of this intense process. It was the result of the deliberations of the 250 delegates at Uluru “coming from all parts of the southern sky”. It was the most representative gathering of Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders that had ever been brought together in our history. And it all happened with the blessing of, and with funding provided by, the government and seconded by the opposition. The First Nations had responded to the request of our political leadership to go to all parts of the continent and return with guidance as to ways that the Constitution could be amended.
As it turned out, the Indigenous voice to parliament was “the most endorsed singular option for constitutional alteration”. It was seen to provide “reassurance and recognition”. This background helps to explain the profound disappointment that followed Turnbull’s peremptory dismissal of the proposal for the voice in 2017 and followed now by the decision of the federal Coalition to campaign against it. It is a proposal that still has more than 80 per cent support in the Indigenous community.
The scars left from this contemptuous rejection will take a long time to heal. But for the Indigenous leaders of this generation who have sought reconciliation, defeat would be profoundly dispiriting. Having pursued the voice because it would provide their communities “with an active and participatory role in the democratic life of the state”, where would they turn?
Rachel Perkins said recently that defeat in the referendum “would be a blow because it would be seen as a vote against Indigenous people … we’ve endured so much and not to have the country stand with us would be a very significant blow for us, I think.”
If the referendum is lost, a new, younger generation may return to the streets with campaigns of direct action. Others could well conclude that their campaign for self-determination and treaties will gather strength by taking the struggle offshore to Geneva and New York, where they would find that Australia had few friends in the erstwhile colonial world.
Perhaps more to the point is that in recent years international law has greatly strengthened the position of the world’s indigenous minorities. If that is the case Australia will find itself in the situation it experienced in the middle years of the 20th century when our diplomats had to struggle continually to rebut attacks about the White Australia policy and the treatment of Indigenous people.
Our promotion of human rights and our signature to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which we officially endorsed in April 2009, will be used against us. Self-evident hypocrisy will cruel our pitch all over the world.”
Comments