The Australian Greens and others on the Left seek any means to restrict one’s freedom of speech and religion whenever they can. The following explains the Human Rights Bill 2025, which the Greens have introduced into the New South Wales Parliament.
Parliament
All posts tagged Parliament
The following is an email from https://www.advanceaustralia.org.au/?
‘Anthony Albanese keeps telling us the Voice is a “modest” proposal.
“It’s just an advisory body,” he says, over and over.
Well, he must be praying Australians don’t get to hear this.
It’s from Marcia Langton, co-chair of the government’s “Indigenous Voice Co-Design Senior Advisory Group” – this is the mob who actually invented the Voice.
She was on ABC radio this week, trying to explain how it would work when “advising” parliament and executive government.
Keep in mind Langton wrote the mind-numbing, 272-page “co-design” report that Albanese says has all the detail you need on the Voice.
“Why would we restrict the Voice to representations that can’t be challenged in court?” she said.
Langton was asked if she thought it was a problem that if a democratic government made a decision without listening to the Voice, it “could be challenged in the High Court and potentially stopped from being implemented until the Voice had been heard”.
Her response?
“That’s a possibility. And why wouldn’t we want that to be the case,” she said.
If the Voice is “completely gutted”, she said, “then the government can ignore all of the Voice’s decisions with impunity”.
The activists pushing the Voice insist that it won’t confer any special rights.
But can you take the government to the High Court of Australia if it doesn’t listen to what you want?
No bloody way!
But here we have the activist who designed the Voice to Parliament saying that if your democratically elected government makes a decision without “listening to the Voice”, they will wind up in court.
Maybe that’s why Albo said last year that it would be a “very brave government” that ignored the Voice?
Nope, there’s nothing “modest” about this massive overhaul of your Constitution.
The truth is that the dangerous and divisive Voice will exert a political – and legal – power unlike anything before seen in our nation.
They want you to think the Voice is just a feel-good “request”, a “modest” change to our nation’s founding document.
But that’s a lie.
This is way bigger than they are letting on.’
‘Recently, I sat down to interview an Aboriginal Elder from South Australia for the ExCandidates podcast, of which I am a host. Her name is Kerry White, a former nurse and diabetes educator from the Narungga people. The aim of the interview was to determine her views regarding the Indigenous Voice to Parliament.
It was a fascinating interview because it completely deconstructed many fundamental aspects of the current ‘narrative’ surrounding the Aboriginal people.
I say ‘Aboriginal’ because even during the pre-interview phone call I had with Kerry, I made the mistake of using the term ‘Indigenous’.
With no hint of hesitation, Kerry quickly corrected my error and informed me that Aboriginal people prefer to be called Aborigines.
I asked her to expand on this during the interview.
Kerry explained that Indigenous were ‘…anyone native to Australia. Including flora and fauna. If you’re born in Australia, you’re Indigenous.’
‘The other term that they use for us is First Nations,’ Kerry went on to say. ‘First Nations – that’s Canadian. We are not Canadian. We are Aboriginal. We are from Australia and the Torres Strait.’
Why did we move away from the term Aborigines in the first place? Was it a fear of political correctness? Obviously, we were not listening to Elders such as Kerry White. Instead, we have chosen to listen to Woke activists, university lecturers, and inner city elites.
Kerry then went on to explain the divide between Aboriginal ‘mobs’ in rural/remote areas, compared to mobs in city areas.
‘When it comes to Aboriginal people, we have two separate lots,’ she began, educating us again. ‘We have a lot of Aboriginal mobs. Not tribes, not clans. Mobs. That’s an Aboriginal term. [The mobs] are divided into two. And that is rural and remote, and that is separate from the city-ites.’
Could this explain the clear difference in message between Senators Jacinta Nampijinpa Price and Lidia Thorpe, who grew up in Alice Springs and Melbourne respectively?
How will an Indigenous Voice to Parliament adequately represent the concerns of this divide?
Kerry went on to teach us another Aboriginal term – ‘tick-a-boxers’. These represented the people who claimed to be Aboriginal when it is clear they are not. Recent census data points to this.
Since the 1971 census, the number of people identifying as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander has risen from 116,000 to over 800,000 – a 590 per cent increase. Even from 2016 to 2021, the national population increased by 8 per cent, but the Indigenous population increased by 23 per cent.
‘There should be some form of identification. Proof that these people claiming to be Aboriginal are actually Aboriginal,’ Kerry began, before recalling how almost twenty years ago, the government scrapped the need for someone to obtain proof that they were Aboriginal.
‘So, if you want to be Aboriginal, all you had to do is tick the box.’
Kerry pointed out that the word Indigenous is included in the official wording of the proposal – the ‘Indigenous Voice to Parliament’. Therefore, one wonders, would simply ‘ticking a box’ to indicate you were Indigenous suffice to be recognised by the new body? What can of worms would that unleash?
It must be frustrating for an Elder like Kerry. How many times have true Aboriginal Elders been asked to comment or contribute to the debate on The Voice? According to Kerry, it is yet to happen for anyone in her community.
For Kerry, her feelings on the Voice to Parliament are clear.
‘It’s a no from me. I say no to The Voice. I don’t want it,’ she replied pointedly.
‘We, the Aboriginal people from rural and remote Australia do not want it.
‘A bit over two hundred years ago, they rounded Aboriginal people up and locked them on missions. So Aboriginal people were segregated from White society. Then we come forward to now – “The Voice” – and they’re segregating us again. They’re taking us back two hundred years.
‘You’re dividing the country again, it’s back to segregation. And frankly, it’s racist towards our White brothers and sisters that live in this land with us.’
Furthermore, Kerry makes the argument that Aborigines are already over-represented in Parliament, thus nullifying the need for a new body such as the Voice.
‘We have eleven Aboriginal members in Parliament, in the Upper and Lower house.’ Kerry begins. ‘That equates to 4.9 per cent representation, Aboriginal representation in Parliament. For 3.2 per cent of the population. With that, we actually have over-representation in Parliament. So why would we need a Voice? Unless they’re saying that our Parliamentary members are not doing their job.’
Does Kerry reflect the thoughts and feelings of all Aboriginal people? Should her statements and explanations concerning Aboriginal people be taken as gospel? Of course not. But that is the point. Can a ‘Voice’ to Parliament represent all the varying ‘voices’ of Aboriginal Australia?
More importantly, is the debate on the Voice taking the focus off the true needs of Aboriginal people? As a nurse, Kerry is well-versed in the issues facing Aboriginal people, especially in remote communities.
‘With Aboriginal people, it’s mostly linked to diabetes. We have a high rate of diabetes amongst Aboriginal people.’ Kerry explains.
‘Heart problems. That began to rise about fifteen years ago. They don’t have access to medical care out there. They don’t have health centres and doctors and all that. They don’t have it. They’ve got to travel sometimes 3-4 hours to get to a doctor, or medical treatment if something should happen out there.’
Kerry White joins Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price, along with Senator Pauline Hanson of One Nation, in speaking out against the Voice to Parliament. Their message also stresses the need to unify the Nation, not to divide it along the lines of race. You would think that a study of history would compel anyone to agree.
We already have Parliaments at local, state, and federal levels that attempt to address all the ‘voices’ of society.
According to Kerry White, Senator Price, and surely many other Aboriginal people, this is the way it should remain.
For me, the lesson was that it is always best to go straight to the source, and avoid the mainstream ‘narrative’.’https://spectator.com.au/2022/12/what-i-learnt-from-an-aboriginal-elder/
‘We the people demand answers! We need a Royal Commission into LRAD deployment! How dare these politicians laugh and jeer at questioning the deployment of LRAD!’
‘Jeremy Corbyn, the one time leader of the UK’s left-wing Labour Party and the head of the opposition, was barred from being reinstated as a member of parliament after a 23 – 14 internal party vote.
“Today’s…vote and Keir Starmer’s ongoing decision to bar me from sitting as a Labour MP is disappointing,” Corbyn wrote in a Twitter statement on Tuesday.
“I am grateful for and humbled by the support I’ve received, especially from my Islington North constituents. The struggle for peace, justice and sustainability goes on.”
Corbyn was suspended from the party in October 2020, on the heels of a report that found widespread antisemitism within the Labour party.
He did not accept the findings of the report and suggested it was essentially a conspiracy aimed at ousting him from power, which led to him being barred from sitting as an MP for the party.
The UK’s Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) wrote that party leaders, including former London mayor Ken Livingstone and councillor Pam Bromley, used antisemitic tropes and smears freely, and that Jewish members of the party were regularly harassed and intimidated into silence.
“We found that the Labour Party’s response to anti-Semitism complaints has been inconsistent, poor and not transparent, in terms of the process used, reasons for decisions, record-keeping, delay and failures to communicate with complainants. Some complaints were unjustifiably not investigated at all,” the EHRC wrote.
Rather than take responsibility for the issue, Corbyn said that those complaining about antisemitism within the party were doing so not out of genuine concern, but to achieve strategic goals.
He downplayed the seriousness of the issue by saying that antisemitism exists everywhere in the world and that whistle-blowers were acting in bad faith.
“The scale of the problem was…dramatically overstated for political reasons by our opponents inside and outside the party, as well as by much of the media,” he wrote in a Facebook post at the time.
Corbyn, an outspoken pro-Palestinian, anti-Israel activist, has been vocal about his criticism of Zionism, but maintains he is against all forms of racism.’https://worldisraelnews.com/corbyn-barred-from-returning-to-labour-party-says-decision-very-disappointing/?
whatyareckon 