The Voice: The Great Bias and Why this Undemocratic Tyranny Must be Defeated By James Reed
The Voice campaign reminds me of the US presidential elections, where the ruling elites from the globalist Democrats pull out all stops to win. There is the great white guilt trip, where many on the Yes side are saying that if No wins, then racism, racism, and more racism!
Then we have, as detailed below, the massively disproportional resources in the debate, where the woke Yes side gets massive corporate support. I Googled, “what Australian corporations back the No side in the Voice referendum,” and did not find anything; one would have thought mining companies would have had a survival instinct if the rest of the corporates did not, but the big mining companies have supported the Yes side. They deserve what they will get if Yes wins. But it seems many corporations do not want to take a position, which is fine, since Australians are dead set against the corporates supporting either side:
Defeating the Voice is about grassroots Australia taking on all of the forces of globalist evil, from the universities to the corporate culture. They all need to be beaten back as their arrogance is becoming a health hazard to us all.
“Section 128 of our Constitution sets out a unique and innovative process for amending a Westminster-style constitution in part because it is the only instance in our nation’s founding document where direct democracy is employed. It puts a question to amend our highest law above the parliament and entirely in the hands of the people.
Yet as we hurtle towards a referendum that would entrench a new advisory arm of government for Indigenous people in our Constitution, our founders may well be rolling in their graves about the ways in which the parliament and the government are undermining the process, and in doing so undermining the primacy of people.
First, the parliament has done nothing to ensure that there will be something even approximating a level playing field regarding the spending power as between the Yes and No camps.
Best estimates are that the Yes campaign will spend seven to 10 times that of the No campaign. Given the magnitude of the proposed change, parliament’s failure to insist on equal public funding is concerning.
The problem is exacerbated by the additional failure to cap private spending in some way. It is thoroughly objectionable that tens of millions of ASX 200 companies’ dollars – some of which was committed even before the proposal had been finalised, let alone any public debate was had – is being deployed to influence the outcome of a referendum.
As serious law, politics and business scholars around the world are raising concerns about the anti-democratic impacts of large corporations actively playing in the political and social spheres more generally, the parliament’s failure to check the oversize spending power of crusading Australian companies seeking to effect permanent change to our system of government is reckless
The second problem relates to what will be a misleading question on the referendum ballot paper. It will read: “A Proposed Law: to alter the Constitution to recognise the First Peoples of Australia by establishing an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice. Do you approve this proposed alteration?”
No other information will be provided on the ballot paper or in the voting booth. The question is misleading on its face and by omission. The question places undue emphasis on the non-operative and unconventional introductory words about relating to recognition but fails to inform us that the voice is an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander body created in an entirely new chapter in the Constitution that will make representations to the parliament and the executive government about laws and policies that affect all of us.
It is clear to those of us who have been watching carefully that the question – like much of the messaging from the Yes campaign – has been carefully constructed to place emphasis on the appealing, uncontroversial and benign aspect of the proposal (recognition) while giving no clue about what the voice itself would look like in the Constitution and therefore in our society.
The question – clever in its obfuscation and avoidance – has been carefully curated by individuals and rubber-stamped by the parliament with the intention to dupe the people. The third problem lies with the conduct of the Constitutional Expert Group. The eminent members of the expert group are appointed by the government and paid by the government, and the expert group is chaired by the Attorney-General as a member of the government. In other words, the expert group is an extension of the government.
On December 12 last year, seemingly in response to Facebook advertisements by No case activists claiming the proposed section 129 would give special rights to one race of people, a communique from the expert group advised us that the voice “does not confer ‘rights’, much less ‘special rights’, on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples”.
This surprising claim by the expert group is a serious category error. Many experts who are not in the thrall of the government – including constitutional law professors Peter Gerangelos and Nicholas Aroney – say the voice entrenches a right. Yet the error was and remains the primary justification by Facebook to ban ads on this subject by No campaigners, suppressing legitimate political speech in a referendum.
The correct characterisation of the proposed section 129 is that it would provide for a positive, political group or collective right for the voice on behalf of Indigenous people to make representations to the parliament and the executive government about matters affecting them. This may be a unique, previously unheard of right, with no precedent elsewhere, but it is still a very special kind of right when other Australians do not possess it.
As public polls tell us that one of the reasons people are giving for intending to vote No is their understanding that the voice affords Indigenous people special rights, it interesting to ponder whether members of the public may be more adept at constitutional characterisation than members of the expert group.
Meanwhile, by failing to withdraw, explain or clarify the error the expert group – ergo the government – continues to drive bans on material on social media that would correctly characterise the voice. We can only deduce that the most basic facts are regarded as too dangerous for the people.
The conduct of the parliament and the government raises genuine concerns about the integrity of this referendum.
In short, we have powerful corporations that do not have a vote under section 128 being given carte blanche to influence the result, a misleading question on the ballot paper and the government working to suppress political speech about the nature of the proposal.
For the maintenance of social harmony our founders would have assumed parliament would ensure a fair process, but we the people are being treated to anything but.”
Comments