MFC statement re First Nations Voice to Parliament Referendum

[layzie 21,238]

13 hours ago, gs77 said:

 

MFC statement re First Nations Voice to Parliament Referendum

❤️

I held back any comments I was going to make last night but I will say that I can get behind a footy club supporting affirmative change. The issue is complex and I do fear that most of the people voting aren't going to be informed on what it is they are voting for.

The first and the the last paragraph are key to this statement. The MFC supports a First Nations vote in parliament, but encourages everyone to seek out the resources to educate themselves and make their own best informed opinion.

Should clubs get involved in politics? Well, everyone has their own take on that. However I would always prefer a progressive thinking club about positive change that one stuck in the past with the Dinosaurs, whether I agree with their cause or not.

As many have already said, whichever way you go, make you you understand exactly what it is you are voting for or against. Don't want to be on the wrong side of history for no reason. 

[Cheap Seats 2,908]

9 hours ago, Rodney (Balls) Grinter said:

While the club doesn't get involved in support for Ukraine, I think that's an issue that's significantly more remote from our supporter base than the other issues at hand, although I couldn't see that the club would take a stance anything other than being for Ukraine.  If you are going to single out China as sitting on the sidelines of this issue, then there are also a bunch of other major nations in that category too.  If anything China has at least outwardly tried to broker a peace deal between the two parties, not that I'm necessarily convinced that is it is a fair, neutral or genuine attempt.

 

Great points, and well said.

The China point is a completely different topic but also an interesting discussion. I am not singling out China, it is just a good example of incosistent outrage in our society.

China and Russia are in bed together, and while China are not outrightly supporting Russia publically it is clear there is economic and other support flowing from China to Russia. So why not the outrage?

 

 

[Cheap Seats 2,908]

9 hours ago, Little Goffy said:

 

Your posturing is utterly odious. Take a good hard look at yourself.

 

So i should agree with popular opinions or just keep quiet?

[TeamPlayedFine39 7,681]

I have no problem with the club making a statement on the issue.  The board are elected members who have reached a decision.

Personally, I’ll be voting yes.
A voice for the original custodians of the country who have endured centuries of abuse is a positive step.  Enshrining it in the constitution means it will not become a political football, undergoing partisan changes every four years.

The fear-mongering around a non-legislative, advisory board is disappointing but, sadly, not surprising.

 

[La Dee-vina Comedia 14,838]

14 hours ago, Jibroni said:

Im sorry but Sport and Politics should never mix.

 

They've been mixing for over 2,700 years. The ancient Olympic Games was all about politics.

It's naive to say politics and sport should never mix. To truly believe that means ignoring the brutality of dictatorships (Hitler v Jesse Owens, for example) or deciding that some races are inferior (apartheid v cricket and rugby). I don't for one moment believe that people who argue that sport and politics shouldn't mix are racist, but I'm not sure how sport can be considered to be somehow more important than human rights which is clearly a political issue.

[I'va Worn Smith 732]

There are already clauses within the Constitution relating to race.  There are clauses in the Constitution relating tax and immigration.  What people forget is that the mechanics of how clauses within the Constitution operate under Law, are by way of subordinate Acts and Regulations, which provide the framework as to how these will apply in Law.

It is then up to Parliament, made up of various political persuasions, to vote on a Bill or amend it, before the mechanics of relevant Law come to pass.   That is democracy in action.

[Deebauched 475]

Sport and politics will never go together .  Supporters dont pay a chunk of money to go to the footy and sit around  discussing politics. They have to cop it during the week, footy is( used to be) the escape. Most of the footy public are sick of the corporate AFL / media machine rubbing all this stuff in our faces daily and a few clubs have now dipped their paws in the trough.

The AFL is a hot mess thanks to that CEO clown who refuses to depart because the corporate media love him. The USA has almost been completely 'dumbed down' and we're next.

 

Edited May 24 by Deebauched

[Little Goffy 9,945]

2 hours ago, Cheap Seats said:

So i should agree with popular opinions or just keep quiet?

Just because people aren't interested in your vain huffing and puffing doesn't mean they are all suddenly 'doing what Hitler and Stalin did'.

[La Dee-vina Comedia 14,838]

Just now, Deebauched said:

Sport and politics will never go together .  Supporters dont pay a chunk of money to go to the footy and sit around  discussing politics. Most of the footy public are sick of the corporate AFL / media machine rubbing all this stuff in our faces daily incl some clubs.

The AFL is a hot mess thanks to that CEO clown who refuses to depart because the corporate media love him. The USA has almost been completely 'dumbed down' and we're next.

 

Evidence for this claim?

[jnrmac 16,909]

There is a huge difference between supporting our indigenous players and supporting indigenous people generally and changing the Constitution that will have unknown ramifications for decades.

Once it is in the Constitution it is out of the realm of our Parliament and politicians and into the hands of the High Court that will determine as they see fit any challenge to its meaning.

This is totally unknown and no one can say otherwise.

 

 

[roy11 2,244]

7 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

There is a huge difference between supporting our indigenous players and supporting indigenous people generally and changing the Constitution that will have unknown ramifications for decades.

Once it is in the Constitution it is out of the realm of our Parliament and politicians and into the hands of the High Court that will determine as they see fit any challenge to its meaning.

This is totally unknown and no one can say otherwise.

 

 

The proposed wording as follows;

129 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice

In recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia:

1. there shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice;
2. the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to the Parliament and the Executive Government of the Commonwealth on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples;
3. the Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, including its composition, functions, powers and procedures.”

Whilst it gives the opportunity to "Voice" / make representations to Parliament, is it not still in the hands of our parliament and politicians?  As others have said there are plenty of other groups that make representations to Parliament, this is just being constitutionally enshrined to ensure it is not easily removed whilst also adding  recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people,

I don't see it as being a litigation time-bomb for the High Court. Not sure what exactly they would be challenging on.

There was a Constitutional Expert Group composed of Professors of Law and a former Justice of the High Court who assisted with the wording. Robert French AC the former Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia has also written articles along the same lines. 

 

[Katrina Dee Fan 1,346]

18 hours ago, Jibroni said:

I don't see why an organisation/sporting club should express its view on a national issue which has nothing to do with administering its own business/sport and expect its employees/members to hold to these. 

Sport is entertainment.

Nothing in society is without some form of ideology.  

[Axis of Bob 8,836]

5 minutes ago, roy11 said:

129 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice

In recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia:

1. there shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice;
2. the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to the Parliament and the Executive Government of the Commonwealth on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples;
3. the Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, including its composition, functions, powers and procedures.”

When you read this it's pretty hard to buy into the idea that this is scary at all. The new Constitution would say that there is a Voice, that the Voice may give the government advice on issues that affect them, and that ultimately everything about it is sorted out by Parliament.

I don't see what all the fuss is about. What would those opposing it be afraid of?

[Stiff Arm 2,832]

18 hours ago, Jibroni said:

Im sorry but Sport and Politics should never mix.

 

That's rubbish. Sport and politics will always mix, whether it be social issues, world issues, money issues or govt issues. I'd go so far to say that professional sport cannot exist without political involvement. The two rely on each other

[forever demons 1,148]

3 hours ago, roy11 said:

The proposed wording as follows;

129 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice

In recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia:

1. there shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice;
2. the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to the Parliament and the Executive Government of the Commonwealth on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples;
3. the Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, including its composition, functions, powers and procedures.”

Whilst it gives the opportunity to "Voice" / make representations to Parliament, is it not still in the hands of our parliament and politicians?  As others have said there are plenty of other groups that make representations to Parliament, this is just being constitutionally enshrined to ensure it is not easily removed whilst also adding  recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people,

I don't see it as being a litigation time-bomb for the High Court. Not sure what exactly they would be challenging on.

There was a Constitutional Expert Group composed of Professors of Law and a former Justice of the High Court who assisted with the wording. Robert French AC the former Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia has also written articles along the same lines. 

 

I agree with all of your post in principle but can understand people rejecting the idea. If the VOICE   is just set up to appease the Aboriginal community then its wrong.If its set up to be positive and help them thats great,but cant see that happening.there are Aboriginal people in our political arena now who seem to have their own political agenda. Lidia Thorpe is an example of how to not achieve anything

[Axis of Bob 8,836]

26 minutes ago, forever demons said:

I agree with all of your post in principle but can understand people rejecting the idea.If the VOICE   is just set up to appease the Aboriginal community then its wrong.If its set up to be positive and help them thats great,but cant see that happening.there are Aboriginal people in our political arena now who seem to have their own political agenda.Lidia Thorpe is an example of how to not achieve anything

So your argument against it that'll just make aboriginal people happy and that you don't trust indigenous people to do it properly? 

If that's the case then it doesn't matter because it'll be dealt with by laws made by Parliament.

[Cheap Seats 2,908]

3 hours ago, Little Goffy said:

Just because people aren't interested in your vain huffing and puffing doesn't mean they are all suddenly 'doing what Hitler and Stalin did'.

Yet here you are taking the time out of your valuble day to reply to me. Yay for me.

I get that statement is a loaded statement and a lot of people would only see the simple comparison to direct policy and ideology, but fact is modern politics can be linked to strategies and ideology linked to both.

My arguement which you clearly only focused on the "vain" statements, was based on having the ability to say what you like, obviosly within reason, and if people step over the line they should be punnished. Not vilifing individuals for being different or disagreeing like we see in modern politics today.

Now go back to prancing around on your high horse.

[layzie 21,238]

5 hours ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

They've been mixing for over 2,700 years. The ancient Olympic Games was all about politics.

It's naive to say politics and sport should never mix. To truly believe that means ignoring the brutality of dictatorships (Hitler v Jesse Owens, for example) or deciding that some races are inferior (apartheid v cricket and rugby). I don't for one moment believe that people who argue that sport and politics shouldn't mix are racist, but I'm not sure how sport can be considered to be somehow more important than human rights which is clearly a political issue.

If sport and politics were never allowed to mix then Nelson Mandela would have found it a lot harder to get his message across. 

[forever demons 1,148]

2 hours ago, Axis of Bob said:

So your argument against it that'll just make aboriginal people happy and that you don't trust indigenous people to do it properly? 

If that's the case then it doesn't matter because it'll be dealt with by laws made by Parliament.

I understand what you mean. I do trust indigenous people to get it right but the right ones not some fool who goes to a strip club drunk and abusive making a complete fool of herself

[Bystander 399]

46 minutes ago, forever demons said:

I understand what you mean. I do trust indigenous people to get it right but the right ones not some fool who goes to a strip club drunk and abusive making a complete fool of herself

Personally, I will tend not to trust indigenous people chosen by a socialist government. As far as I am aware we haven't been told who will be eligible to be on the voice, who will choose them, or vote for them, ( 2 electoral rolls? ) what the term of the appointment will be. Will bureaucrats be obliged to inform the voice if a forthcoming decision may affect indigenous people? Don't all decisions? It will be a brave bureaucrat who rejects the Voice's submission. He/she will be at risk of being labelled a racist. That will happen. Some advocates for the voice have already said that all government decisions are covered. The Federal Court website already has a wildly inappropriate kowtow to indigenous on its website - despite being the arbiter. In a recent Tiwi island case, the Judge unnecessarily went to the Island and partook of hospitality of the locals...imagine if he was treated to hospitality by the other side - a mining company.

The right that is being bestowed will be litigated on the basis that proper consideration was not given to the Voice's view. That just will happen. Projects will be delayed and costs go up or projects abandoned.

The above is being hidden behind platitudes and fear of being labelled racist.

Finally, I hate mixing politics and sport. But Russia should be banned from the Olympics. Oh.

 

[Emerald 1,587]

How these threads end up is an indication of what happens when you mix sport and politics. 

[Hawny for Gawny 128]

People, you aren't going to change anyone's mind on this issue one way or the other, all anyone can do is educate themselves on the issue and vote what they feel right. The club has been one of the biggest supporters of Aboriginal/Torres Strait people among the AFL and will continue to do so, it doesn't mean that you have to, this should be a discussion about the club doing something not an argument about why one side is right and wrong. 

[Little Goffy 9,945]

2 hours ago, Cheap Seats said:

Yet here you are taking the time out of your valuble day to reply to me. Yay for me.

I get that statement is a loaded statement and a lot of people would only see the simple comparison to direct policy and ideology, but fact is modern politics can be linked to strategies and ideology linked to both.

My arguement which you clearly only focused on the "vain" statements, was based on having the ability to say what you like, obviosly within reason, and if people step over the line they should be punnished. Not vilifing individuals for being different or disagreeing like we see in modern politics today.

Now go back to prancing around on your high horse.

Everyone but you is... on a crusade... being like Hitler and Stalin... vilifying people for their opinions... prancing around on a high horse...

Just another 'make a deliberately aggressive statement then act wounded and claim your rights are under attack when people call you out' cliche troll.

Boring. Annoying. Attention-seeking. Blocked.

[BDA 15,169]

21 minutes ago, Hawny for Gawny said:

People, you aren't going to change anyone's mind on this issue one way or the other,

I'm open minded and happy to hear different points of view on this issue.

[Hawny for Gawny 128]

2 minutes ago, BDA said:

I'm open minded and happy to hear different points of view on this issue.

Probably not the best way for me to phrase it but Im mainly getting at the arguments in this thread generally aren't that coherent, I think that you're better off getting information from reliable news sources and such rather than this thread.