MFC statement re First Nations Voice to Parliament Referendum

[Gator 16,487]

The MFC had two choices, i.e say nothing or support the voice.

Under the circumstances I think they made the right choice.

I'll be voting ''NO'', as it's the most horrendously racist proposal I've seen with regards to changing our constituion.  It seeks to divide Australians along racial lines.  No citizens should ever be treated differently or have specific rights based on their race.  In and of itself it's the very definition of racism; even if you determine it has well intentioned meanings.

But I accept the club had no alternative but to take the stance it has.

[Hawk the Demon 307]

1 hour ago, Neil Crompton said:

Happy now Hawk?

Apparently I wasn't reading the room NC? Did you mean the Board room?

[Rodney (Balls) Grinter 9,104]

31 minutes ago, Cheap Seats said:

It's called democracy, everyone has the right to an opinion. People are allowed to disagree etc.

In saying that i don't support the vitriol that gets around on inter webz but it seems we live in a society where everyone needs to be heard. Just go ask the extinction rebellion on the Kings way off ramp this morning.

I agree about it ok to have a divergence of views, but turning off comments was about stopping the blatant disgusting and vulgar  racism that indigenous people face from the mindless trolls, not sensible disagreement.

[Rodney (Balls) Grinter 9,104]

5 minutes ago, Gator said:

No citizens should ever be treated differently or have specific rights based on their race. 

Yet for most of the history of this country that was the case.

If we only now grant those same people and their descendants an oppertunity to be heard within our govenment that was previously and still largely denied, I think that's a very reasonable thing.

[Jaded No More 42,826]

I think it’s clear that comments were disabled on the post because we don’t need to give the racists on social media another avenue to be racist. 

[deanox 6,923]

1 hour ago, Jibroni said:

Im sorry but Sport and Politics should never mix.

 

 

28 minutes ago, McQueen said:

Sir Doug Nicholas round

Anzac day

Gay pride 

etc..

If sport was purely about entertainment then these acknowledgments should also be ignored. 

 

6 minutes ago, Jibroni said:

One is celebrating/respecting a National Holiday and the other supporting sexual orientation.

Sadly I forsee the proposed legislation creating more division to an ongoing/complex issue. 

@Jibroni ANZAC Day was originally created as a propaganda event, to support the war and drive recruitment. Although it shifted to being focused on "remember the sacrifices", it still remains political propaganda. It might not be ALP v LNP propaganda that we consider political, but it is pro-state, pro "west" and "allies", and political messaging.

People despise politics, and I understand why. But what they don't realise is that choosing to ignore these issues is also politics. It is taking the side of conservative, status quo politics. It's even there in the name: "conservative" meaning "not changing" or "like it's always been".

I encourage anyone who thinks politics should stay out of sport to wonder whether they are reaching this position from the perspective of majority: this doesn't effect me, so I'm seeing it as politics. 

 

I also think our club, as a community association of members, has a role to play in leading these types of conversations.

The club doesn't vote, but the club has diverse membership, and needs to consider all of those members and stakeholders. Our families and workplaces might be smaller, less diverse. But the MFC isn't, and our leaders are telling us, that based on their wide experience and discussion with our members, they know this is important.

[Hawk the Demon 307]

1 hour ago, Abyssal said:

1.  Just curious, does the MELBOURNE Football Club have a right to vote in the upcoming Referendum ?

2.  Is the MELBOURNE Football Club in a position to fully articulate all the potential ramifications should the Referendum succeed ?

3. In its statement the MELBOURNE Football Club state “We do not wish to instruct or tell you how to vote” however in issuing the statement surely they are attempting to influence readers to vote Yes.

If not , why issue the statement at all ?

Your Club already has and is implementing a RAP plan.

Below is an extract from it.

“Our vision for reconciliation is to unite Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples with non-Indigenous people through the great game of AFL, to truly embrace history, culture and community.

“We recognise our position as leaders and the impact that our Board, staff, players, members and supporters can all have.

“We look forward to bringing our fans along on this journey with us, and having them part of some significant upcoming initiatives, as we continue to work towards a reconciled Australia.”

One could argue that if those words were "really meant" the statement that has been made by just the Board and the CEO does not go far enough?

[KLV 1,373]

28 minutes ago, Gator said:

The MFC had two choices, i.e say nothing or support the voice.

Under the circumstances I think they made the right choice.

I'll be voting ''NO'', as it's the most horrendously racist proposal I've seen with regards to changing our constituion.  It seeks to divide Australians along racial lines.  No citizens should ever be treated differently or have specific rights based on their race.  In and of itself it's the very definition of racism; even if you determine it has well intentioned meanings.

But I accept the club had no alternative but to take the stance it has.

Straight out of Peter Dutton’s mouth 

[Whispering_Jack 25,871]

You could say that sport is entertainment or that politics should be kept out of sport but that sort of thing is reserved for the perfect world that doesn’t exist at the present time.

Politics and sport have been intertwined for a long time. Hitler used the Berlin Olympics to persuade the rest of the world that his intentions were honourable while at the same time planning for a world war and an evil genocide. 

Politics and sport intermingled in the anti-Apartheid campaigns from the 1960s that ultimately changed South Africa. It was involved in the Olympics with Tommie Smith and John Carlos‘  Black Power human rights salute supported on the 200m victory dais by the late Peter Norman (a Demon fan) in 1968 and it cast a cloud on the 1972 Olympics in Munich with the Black September terrorist attack. 

We’re in the middle of Sir Doug Nicholls Round. I was fortunate to meet him as a schoolboy and heard him talk about his experience as a recruit at Carlton when the trainers wouldn’t touch him because of the colour of his skin. He eventually left them and became a star player with Fitzroy before playing a role in Aboriginal rights and later in life, became Governor of South Australia. 

Politics/Sport/Life - they’re all intertwined and there’s nothing wrong with Melbourne taking a positive position on the Voice. We live in a democracy and we all have a choice. I urge everyone to consider the issues and make up their own minds about this issue. 

[monoccular 13,861]

55 minutes ago, Jaded No More said:

It’s a very complex issue and some indigenous people will argue that this is nothing more than symbolism and it won’t give them anymore power then they already possess (which is very little if any). 

I think this is a matter of voting with your conscious because big picture, it’s not going to make any difference to you or I as white Australians and no white Australian will be worse off as a result of this (I assume you are not indigenous but if you are, I apologize!). 

And realistically who other than the “elites” have any power anyway?  We all have a vote.  Equally.  There are many very disadvantaged non aboriginal folk as well who will not be any better off with this “Voice”.

In my opinion this is creating divisions not unity. Martin Luther King said famously 

1. “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”

I don’t judge people by their colour, their religion or their ethnicity. And I do not support this proposal.  My opinion.  

[rpfc 24,338]

48 minutes ago, Gator said:

The MFC had two choices, i.e say nothing or support the voice.

Under the circumstances I think they made the right choice.

I'll be voting ''NO'', as it's the most horrendously racist proposal I've seen with regards to changing our constituion.  It seeks to divide Australians along racial lines.  No citizens should ever be treated differently or have specific rights based on their race.  In and of itself it's the very definition of racism; even if you determine it has well intentioned meanings.

But I accept the club had no alternative but to take the stance it has.

I think it’s admirable that you are so steadfastly against racism. 

God knows the Australian constitution is a sacred document that has always been above racist and divisive language. 
 

 

(cough)

[Cheap Seats 2,908]

1 hour ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Democracy only works when opinions are informed. Otherwise it is just people pushing their own prejudices.

Sure, hence why political rhetoric is so popular these days. Because people don't think.

Don't blame democracy because people are lazy and stupid.

[Little Goffy 9,945]

7 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

Would someone actually describe...what this Voice is..   not generalities.. not the vibe..  but what IT IS?

Thankyou 

Think of it as a kind of clearing house for information on what does or doesn't work, and a verification of whether communities have actually been consulted.

A scenario might be best to describe it.

A Senior Executive Service (SES) public servant comes in to their new appointment in an Indigenous policy area and sets about building the next layer of their resume and dinner party conversation (they can't always talk about renovations to their beach house at Bateman's Bay). They've been in Canberra for 35 years, ever since they moved there as a graduate recruit.

Their action agenda for actionable milestones includes; renaming a meeting room after Vincent Lingiari, allocating one additional minute for an even better welcome-to-country at the Departmental annual conference, buying a new set of tiny Aboriginal flags to put at the reception desk, and then declaring a whole bunch of daft special projects that will 'transform Indigenous lives' and 'regenerate remote communities' and which all can be commenced and completed within a closed budget cycle. Next step, spend bolllockloads of money on consultants (Hello PwC!) to come up with statistics that support all these silly plans using utterly baseless assumptions. Finally, deliver your half-arsed special projects in the remaining three months of the budget cycle, determine that all 'outputs' were generated correctly and you've done a great job.

So, in all this, what role does the Voice play?

It knows this is all a useless piece of performance art and says so out loud. It holds the store of knowledge from the last fifty times this happened - including the last four times at that specific department - and it is in a position to push that verified record in front of those SES-level public servants and to have an official record that the information was disregarded. It can share that information with parliament so that both ministers, shadow ministers and even the wacky fringe parties are all aware that the 'special projects' were undertaken against clear recommendations.

In short, the most important task of the Voice to Parliament will be to cut that endless circle of 'special projects' to 'save' Indigenous Australia.

It will do it by being a place which gathers the information of all the past failures, and combining that with the right to present that information in a way that can't be brushed under the carpet or buried at the lower levels of public service.

Think of the RoboDebt scandal and that excruciating decision to leave the legal advice in 'draft status' even though it was complete. So long as it wasn't officially published, the entire executive could pretend they didn't have any formal reason to believe the scheme was illegal. If it had been officially published, several public service executives would very likely have had their careers ended and possibly even gained criminal records. In short, they would have been accountable.

Personally, I think something like the Voice to Parliament process should exist throughout the system of government, and I hold out a hope that success in this most difficult area will open the door for that wider change in future - such a voice really could have prevented the Robodebt catastrophe, for example, and would be priceless in areas like aged care where policy-makers are often acting on fluffy good intentions and minimal real understanding.

When it comes to government not listening to the community and repeating the same expensive and useless mistakes over and over again, it is Indigenous policy that is the open wound.

The great complaint from all perspectives about government-led efforts to 'uplift' Indigenous Australia has always been about that mad repetition of the same kind of projects, imagined over the same dinner table conversations deep inside the Canberra bubble, without anyone ever actually learning or changing because they never have to. 

The Voice to Parliament is a realistic chance at breaking that cycle.

I was hesitant about the decision to create the Voice through a constitutional amendment, but the wording is soft enough to let it adapt over time and also doesn't create anything that could be used to justify any creeping executive authority.

I also feel that, after so many Indigenous representative bodies have been created, halved, stacked with favourites, redistributed and eliminated according to the political convenience of the moment, having the commitment to a Voice placed in the constitution does make a much more meaningful statement. A proper promise. And that matters when you're having a conversation with people who have never been given a straight answer from authority.

[Dr. Gonzo 20,574]

8 minutes ago, Cheap Seats said:

Sure, hence why political rhetoric is so popular these days. Because people don't think.

Don't blame democracy because people are lazy and stupid.

I'm not blaming democracy, just pointing out this "everyone has a right to an opinion" is a fallacy. If your opinion is contrary to facts or logic then it is a castle built on sand and not worth giving the time of day.

On another note I have to say I find this argument that having a voice enshrined in the constitution is racist/discriminatory quite hilarious considering the history of this country. No, this won't solve everything for First Nations people and their communities but it is a step in the right direction in them achieving self determination. Will it address disadvantage of non- indigenous people? No and it's not designed to, there are other avenues and mechanisms for that. Governments can walk and chew gum, it's not an either/or proposition.

What it will do is enshrine it constitutionally so that it can't be disbanded by a future government with their own agenda. I have hope that the LNP is in its death rattle as an organisation, they are far removed from the Menzies era and are now nothing but a loose association of the far-right, mining apologists and Christian fundamentalists but if they do ever get back into government they will be unable to dismantle the voice to parliament if it is enshrined in the constitution.

[Cheap Seats 2,908]

1 hour ago, Rodney (Balls) Grinter said:

I agree about it ok to have a divergence of views, but turning off comments was about stopping the blatant disgusting and vulgar  racism that indigenous people face from the mindless trolls, not sensible disagreement.

 I agree 100%.

I don't disagree with the decision, I was merely stating that trolls will happen regardless of the forum, but I can understand why organisation would want to control the narrative of they are attached to.

The issue for me isn't stopping a forum or trying to limit  stupidity or even the bigger debate about politics and sport. There is always a risk for every organisation making declarations and splitting the supporter base 

I mean now oes the MFC support social housing issues, why stop at one issue? We all support freedom for Ukraine ( I assume) why not declare our allegiance to Ukraine thought the MFC as well?

personally I'm sure you support Ukraine as well. But do U actually know what support china gives to Russia. China hasn't imposed economic sanctions. Why is no one kicking w fuse about that? You are clearly still going to buy Chinese products, so do you really support Ukraine? 

Anyway all that [censored] aside the issue for me is that freedom is the right to express yourself, the consequences for those actions happen after the event not before.

I know we all love political rhetoric so I'll leave it there

Edited May 23 by Cheap Seats

[Cheap Seats 2,908]

1 minute ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

I'm not blaming democracy, just pointing out this "everyone has a right to an opinion" is a fallacy. If your opinion is contrary to facts or logic then it is a castle built on sand and not worth giving the time of day.

On another note I have to say I find this argument that having a voice enshrined in the constitution is racist/discriminatory quite hilarious considering the history of this country. No, this won't solve everything for First Nations people and their communities but it is a step in the right direction in them achieving self determination. Will it address disadvantage of non- indigenous people? No and it's not designed to, there are other avenues and mechanisms for that. Governments can walk and chew gum, it's not an either/or proposition.

What it will do is enshrine it constitutionally so that it can't be disbanded by a future government with their own agenda. I have hope that the LNP is in its death rattle as an organisation, they are far removed from the Menzies era and are now nothing but a loose association of the far-right, mining apologists and Christian fundamentalists but if they do ever get back into government they will be unable to dismantle the voice to parliament if it is enshrined in the constitution.

No worries.

You enjoy your crusade, that's what freedom is about.

For me I'm just stating not everyone to agree with you 

It becomes a slippery slope when the popular rhetoric decide what's right 

Go check out what Hitler and Stalin did

[Dr. Gonzo 20,574]

2 minutes ago, Cheap Seats said:

No worries.

You enjoy your crusade, that's what freedom is about.

For me I'm just stating not everyone to agree with you 

It becomes a slippery slope when the popular rhetoric decide what's right 

Go check out what Hitler and Stalin did

You've got it back to front, initiatives like this are designed to prevent the types of policies Stalin or Hitler implemented. Or do you think they would've been supportive of indigenous representation and self determination?

[Axis of Bob 8,836]

4 minutes ago, Cheap Seats said:

No worries.

You enjoy your crusade, that's what freedom is about.

For me I'm just stating not everyone to agree with you 

It becomes a slippery slope when the popular rhetoric decide what's right 

Go check out what Hitler and Stalin did

That is one of the quicker jumps I've seen from freedom to Hitler! 🤣

[Cheap Seats 2,908]

1 minute ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

You've got it back to front, initiatives like this are designed to prevent the types of policies Stalin or Hitler implemented. Or do you think they would've been supportive of indigenous representation and self determination?

You've got the arguments wrong.

I'm not asking you to justify what you've said. I believe in your right to express it 

It's when you restrict conversation that is the issue.

And yes Hitler and Stalin both did that.

I'm not say that's happening here but in one of your points you said it was justified to stop misinformation. But depending what that misinformation is you might just be as guilty as Hitler or Stalin.

[Cheap Seats 2,908]

3 minutes ago, Axis of Bob said:

That is one of the quicker jumps I've seen from freedom to Hitler! 🤣

Haha fair point, it's a long complex debate and it's clearly summarised to a conclusion.

I think it's valid in today's society where people prefer rhetoric to individual thought 

[rpfc 24,338]

Just now, Cheap Seats said:

Haha fair point, it's a long complex debate and it's clearly summarised to a conclusion.

I think it's valid in today's society where people prefer rhetoric to individual thought 

‘The people made me invoke Hitler comparisons.’

Like, how dare they?!

[Dr. Gonzo 20,574]

1 minute ago, Cheap Seats said:

You've got the arguments wrong.

I'm not asking you to justify what you've said. I believe in your right to express it 

It's when you restrict conversation that is the issue.

And yes Hitler and Stalin both did that.

I'm not say that's happening here but in one of your points you said it was justified to stop misinformation. But depending what that misinformation is you might just be as guilty as Hitler or Stalin.

No, I said opinions aren't worth listening to it they contradict the facts. For example, "my opinion is the Earth is flat" - we have proven it's not. "Well that's my opinion" - you're opinion is wrong and it's not worth wasting time on.

See where I'm coming from?

[Cheap Seats 2,908]

1 minute ago, rpfc said:

‘The people made me invoke Hitler comparisons.’

Like, how dare they?!

I think it's a simple comparison everyone gets?

Does it offend you?

[Cheap Seats 2,908]

6 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

No, I said opinions aren't worth listening to it they contradict the facts. For example, "my opinion is the Earth is flat" - we have proven it's not. "Well that's my opinion" - you're opinion is wrong and it's not worth wasting time on.

See where I'm coming from?

Yeh I get it.

But these people still vote, they have a right to be heard.

I'm not saying anyone should listen. A good system makes sure they're know as idiots not censored.

We should promote more critical thinking.

Edited May 23 by Cheap Seats

[rpfc 24,338]

3 minutes ago, Gator said:

...

Editing.  Not worth the wasted breath.

It’s just cloud storage you’d be wasting.

My point was the constitution used to be a racist cudgel that we altered the words of but are still untangling the institutionalised racism that our constitution was emblematic of. In 1967, we didn’t go far enough in the other direction to ‘right wrongs’ and we make another small step in that general direction perhaps.

I just think this ‘IT’S RACIST’ argument is so facetious and disingenuous. It’s paper thin and avoids the memory of a country still working through its demons. That is just my opinion.