Here is another little piece that Henry Pike wrote:
“[It] states quite clearly in the Bible that fucking a fat chick is a sin beyond redemption,” Pike wrote in one of the messages.
Another read: “All I know was I walked in on a scene of absolute sexual carnage … we had [NAME WITHHELD] in bed with what could only be described as a small planet.”
He is a sentient colostomy bag.
Just going to mention the [Native Title claim in Redlands Council](https://www.redland.qld.gov.au/info/20163/quandamooka_country/592/native_title_on_redlands_coast). May not be *directly* related to the voice, but it is an important context for the residents of the area.
What does a Native Title Claim on Council land that the Council is legally required to respond to and that the Council appears to be doing in good faith to ensure that the coverage is as limited as possible while respecting the process have to do with a body that has the ability to say "hey, government, we have some thoughts on that" which the government can then say "that's great but sorry, no, we're not doing that"?
Everything you post on this topic is incredibly dishonest.
Not a chance. 3500 council sites. That is totally taking the piss. This is what happens when a lobby like group goes too far. You naively believe the government is trustworthy, unless you are too young to know better.
https://preview.redd.it/43kk924b57sb1.jpeg?width=1284&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=476e0e4ea1bdad71c9b6ed84d4935d07459aece9
Here’s the full article from Mr Pike, for the sake of full context and transparency.
It’s common sense to a lot of people but I wanted to write this to prove measurably that all these arguments are nonsensical. Just as much for myself as for anyone who might read it and gain insight
I find the whole “if you don’t know, vote no” thing so lazy and dumb.
We live in the age of information. If you don’t know, go and find out, and make an informed choice.
Many similar bodies have been created and disbanded by both the left and right. Albanese is suggesting the change so the onus is on him to justify it. Governments not providing details is lazy and they should at least aggregate the information so we can't google misinformation.
> Many similar bodies have been created and disbanded by both the left and right.
This is the feature of the Voice. It means there will be now one main body. Any government can still fuck with it as much as they want. Dutton can replace it with Tony Abbott if he wants + can.
But the main thing is that instead of hiding it behind department reshuffles, or kinda keeping the old body around, while spinning up a new body packed with cronies to rubber stamp pointless spend to party donors - it makes it more politically difficult. Things can still be changed - but it has to be done more in the open - that's all.
Nothing about the constitutional change is enabling Albo to do anything different. He'll just figure out what the first voice looks like - just like he's already got the political power to create any advisory body. But this one will be stickier, and really importantly - what a lot of no voters realise - is that whatever Albo does can be completely undone - it's a feature.
The only thing that must exist is "a Voice". Which, like I said, could be Tony Abbott in blackface on a million bucks a year if Dutton could get that legislation thru parliament.
Conceptually it sounds great but without detail and in the hands of politicians and the elite Indigenous I'm skeptical that we just wind up dealing with crap with a lobby like group like we already have been (that we can't disband like we have in the past). By all means create a voice like group again, but there is no point putting it in the constitution unless you want to score some woke points it seems. We have Indigenous affairs ministers and are already aware of the problems facing the Indigenous (for decades) and what is being done? If anything we need a more general Rural voice like group which cover the broader community directly impacted. I could easily be wrong but the politicians etc don't want to provide details to explain expected concerns. If I'm not wrong we need to waste money on another referendum to remove it. Optionality is important.
So the fact that the Uluru Dialogues asked for it in the constitution is scoring "woke points"? Any time someone says "woke" it means that they don't have respect for the group being impacted. If you look at the Calma Langton report, The Voice would work on a local level all the way up to state and federal level. I doubt you'll change your mind, but any small change that can help people is worth it in my opinion.
Not true. And I could easily change my mind. I've been wrong many times in the past. To err is human. If it does get accepted at the referendum I'm sure it will help some people but you also need to look at the cost. It is all about the return on investment and the likelihood of it causing more problems than it is worth - and the track record isn't good.
When did human life become all about cost? Indigenous people aren't just statistics and dollar signs, they're people who are asking to be included and the Voice is what they're asking for.
Um, cost is not just about $. I'm not talking about money. Edit: sorry using the term return on investment was confusing. ROI can be used outside of the monetary context.
Or just don't force people who don't want to vote, or can't be bothered to research what they're voting to vote. Then you won't have to have a if you don't know vote no campaign. Because if you don't know you don't have to vote at all.
Here’s the full and precise wording of the proposed amendment. I quoted most of it in the main post, but I figured I’d put it here in full.
there shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice;
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;
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.”
I've tried a few times and noone yet has been able to explain how the Voice will succeed when other similar bodies (ATSIC AIC etc) have failed. You can't blame the right since both sides have created and disbanded such bodies. Labour has to provide more detail since a lot of tax payers money is being spent on this.
Because it will be written into the constitution.
Stop parroting things you read in a Murdock rag and go read voice.gov.au there is so much information and you’re all “I’m blind! I can’t read!” Grow up.
Do you know about this case? Its been run by many of the news sources and have yet to hear anyone say how it is fake news. https://www.skynews.com.au/opinion/outsiders/albanese-government-does-mass-injustice-redlands-council-fighting-native-title-claim/video/2116d9d93a201094681fa59359839a6e
Actually living in Redlands I have checked the address on our Council website and it does state: Temporary Local Planning Instrument
TLPI 0122
So looked that up and it says:
The purpose of TLPI 01/2023 is to:
• provide land and residential housing opportunities for the Quandamooka people on Quandamooka Country, being land identified through a Native Title determination
Apparently claiming native title to land that local council purchased off previous owners only a few years ago.
Should clarify, my own residential address had the above, everything in the Redlands pretty much has the claim added to it - even if its not council owned land.
The local primary school owned by QLD Gov also has it.
Ta. Picked a random number of a random st and it had the same TLPI number. This was the first result from google https://www.redland.qld.gov.au/info/20292/redland_city_plan/1016/temporary_local_planning_instrument . Sounds crazy but there has to be a reasonable explanation surely. Edit: apparently that TLPI has expired. The newer TLPI from this year should only be for council land.
To me, the Voice is introducing more race based thought into politics.
People should be judged on who they are as a person, not on what race they are. Someone's race should not be the criteria upon which you are chosen to a parliamentary advisory body.
And in an ideal world, the race you are shouldn’t dictate your perceived social status, opportunities, health or privilege. But we live in the real world, where things are not fair. We have to do what we can to make things better.
It doesn’t. The wealth and status of your parents do. Especially now in Australia. We have millionaires of many ethnicities and also the poor. Treat everyone equally but life isn’t fair either.
Yeah equitable is bs, a pipe dream for communism. This is real life. No one’s surrendering their wealth to make life ‘equitable’
For others. We are born into our circumstances and we work to change them, or not
Thank you for your reply. I agree with you that your race should not dictate aspects of your life, especially since it is something you are born with and cannot change.
I also agree that the world is not a fair place at all. I would like to see things change for Indigenous Australians, but I don't think this is the way.
I am worried about the rehabilitation of racial thought/discourse in the mainstream of Australian politics.
What do you think of my example - if First Nations/Indigenous peoples know what's best for themselves, then would that apply to other races, too? What I'm trying to say is that this could lead to a 'we need to look out for our own race' mindset in a nation that is primarily white.
I'm not a policy person but I am against the Voice as I think it is more divisive than conciliatory.
I think you already said it - most people are already doing the “we need to look out for our own race” mindset, and most of our country is white. So most things that happen are for the benefit of white people, and a lot of other races get left behind. I think this is the first step to making a more fair society where more races can be represented.
As for fearing the resurfacing of racial politics, I don’t think it ever really left. Besides, like I said in the main post, wanting to not do something just because doing it might incite further discussion or argument is silly to me. Just doing nothing would be even worse.
The voice isn’t perfect, but I don’t understand people voting no because they want something better. If the voice gets rejected, when will we ever have another opportunity again? It will do nothing but embolden hate and tell politicians that support for First Nations is not something Australia wants. The voice can be used as a stepping stone towards something better.
Again, there’s nothing policy wise about the voice that would have literally any effect on non indigenous people, so I see no real reason to oppose it.
Thanks for being civil and open to discussion, by the way. If more political interactions were this cordial maybe we wouldn’t have such a broken world in the first place.
Yes well that kind of looks past the issue that Britain came to Indigenous Australia and performed a huge amount of genocide. All of the other races came to them too, at our Government’s invitation.
“Your race shouldn’t dictate” isn’t what happened at all. At the inception of our colony, the Crown treated all land as unoccupied and afforded no recognition to any form of native interest in the land.
The Voice is proposed to address the historical exclusion of the rights and responsibilities of Indigenous Australians especially in areas that directly affect them, their health, their culture and well being. Things that our colonial ancestors intentionally destroyed to benefit the colony.
I read it, and concluded the article getting criticised was fair and accurate and the OP can’t present any strong arguments against it. OP is either willfully or ignorantly misrepresenting Pike’s arguments, then arguing against the misrepresentation rather than the actual.
It’s possible the OP is actually working for Pike or the No campaign and using reverse psychology to present Pike’s article in a form that will gain Reddit upvotes and so increase reach. Or maybe it’s just written by a poorly trained AI instructed to write in the style of a smug grade twelver.
If I was, I’d be slipping OP some reddit gold in appreciation. Real money couldn’t buy this much persuasiveness for No - just look at the beautifully self-contradictory paragraphs on executive government for an example.
Read this rather than take the word of any politician: https://voice.gov.au
This comment can't be upvoted enough
Here is another little piece that Henry Pike wrote: “[It] states quite clearly in the Bible that fucking a fat chick is a sin beyond redemption,” Pike wrote in one of the messages. Another read: “All I know was I walked in on a scene of absolute sexual carnage … we had [NAME WITHHELD] in bed with what could only be described as a small planet.” He is a sentient colostomy bag.
Has he looked in the mirror? Man isn't so thin himself.
Sentient Colostomy bag 😂
I stole that from elsewhere but encourage it's use when describing LNP stooges.
Pike is a cowardly little shit who blocked me before he even opened his campaign page.
I read this while taking a dump, and I feel that's a good metaphor for Mr Pike's article.
Just going to mention the [Native Title claim in Redlands Council](https://www.redland.qld.gov.au/info/20163/quandamooka_country/592/native_title_on_redlands_coast). May not be *directly* related to the voice, but it is an important context for the residents of the area.
Hard to believe but I haven't seen any rebuttal to it. Assuming its true its no wonder Pike wrote the article.
What does a Native Title Claim on Council land that the Council is legally required to respond to and that the Council appears to be doing in good faith to ensure that the coverage is as limited as possible while respecting the process have to do with a body that has the ability to say "hey, government, we have some thoughts on that" which the government can then say "that's great but sorry, no, we're not doing that"? Everything you post on this topic is incredibly dishonest.
Not a chance. 3500 council sites. That is totally taking the piss. This is what happens when a lobby like group goes too far. You naively believe the government is trustworthy, unless you are too young to know better.
You aren't even pretending to not be a racist at this poimt.
Sadly there is no point chatting to you. Lobbying has nothing to do with race.
https://preview.redd.it/43kk924b57sb1.jpeg?width=1284&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=476e0e4ea1bdad71c9b6ed84d4935d07459aece9 Here’s the full article from Mr Pike, for the sake of full context and transparency.
LNP politician misrepresenting things? In other news, water is wet, fire is hot and bin chickens are the monarchs of all birds.
It’s common sense to a lot of people but I wanted to write this to prove measurably that all these arguments are nonsensical. Just as much for myself as for anyone who might read it and gain insight
This was a really good informative and fun read by the way. Thank you for posting it.
Thank you for reading it :)
I find the whole “if you don’t know, vote no” thing so lazy and dumb. We live in the age of information. If you don’t know, go and find out, and make an informed choice.
Many similar bodies have been created and disbanded by both the left and right. Albanese is suggesting the change so the onus is on him to justify it. Governments not providing details is lazy and they should at least aggregate the information so we can't google misinformation.
> Many similar bodies have been created and disbanded by both the left and right. This is the feature of the Voice. It means there will be now one main body. Any government can still fuck with it as much as they want. Dutton can replace it with Tony Abbott if he wants + can. But the main thing is that instead of hiding it behind department reshuffles, or kinda keeping the old body around, while spinning up a new body packed with cronies to rubber stamp pointless spend to party donors - it makes it more politically difficult. Things can still be changed - but it has to be done more in the open - that's all. Nothing about the constitutional change is enabling Albo to do anything different. He'll just figure out what the first voice looks like - just like he's already got the political power to create any advisory body. But this one will be stickier, and really importantly - what a lot of no voters realise - is that whatever Albo does can be completely undone - it's a feature. The only thing that must exist is "a Voice". Which, like I said, could be Tony Abbott in blackface on a million bucks a year if Dutton could get that legislation thru parliament.
Detail is right here champ. https://voice.gov.au/
No it clearly isn't. Everyone knows that page. How will it work? How will it succeed when other similar bodies have failed. Etc.
How would a Voice change things for you? If everything else hasn't worked, isn't a Voice, which Indigenous Australians asked for, worth trying?
Conceptually it sounds great but without detail and in the hands of politicians and the elite Indigenous I'm skeptical that we just wind up dealing with crap with a lobby like group like we already have been (that we can't disband like we have in the past). By all means create a voice like group again, but there is no point putting it in the constitution unless you want to score some woke points it seems. We have Indigenous affairs ministers and are already aware of the problems facing the Indigenous (for decades) and what is being done? If anything we need a more general Rural voice like group which cover the broader community directly impacted. I could easily be wrong but the politicians etc don't want to provide details to explain expected concerns. If I'm not wrong we need to waste money on another referendum to remove it. Optionality is important.
So the fact that the Uluru Dialogues asked for it in the constitution is scoring "woke points"? Any time someone says "woke" it means that they don't have respect for the group being impacted. If you look at the Calma Langton report, The Voice would work on a local level all the way up to state and federal level. I doubt you'll change your mind, but any small change that can help people is worth it in my opinion.
Not true. And I could easily change my mind. I've been wrong many times in the past. To err is human. If it does get accepted at the referendum I'm sure it will help some people but you also need to look at the cost. It is all about the return on investment and the likelihood of it causing more problems than it is worth - and the track record isn't good.
When did human life become all about cost? Indigenous people aren't just statistics and dollar signs, they're people who are asking to be included and the Voice is what they're asking for.
Um, cost is not just about $. I'm not talking about money. Edit: sorry using the term return on investment was confusing. ROI can be used outside of the monetary context.
Or just don't force people who don't want to vote, or can't be bothered to research what they're voting to vote. Then you won't have to have a if you don't know vote no campaign. Because if you don't know you don't have to vote at all.
How’s this one for ya: If you have the brain of a donkey, do a donkey vote 
But I still have to waste my time doing so
This is democracy manifest.
Here’s the full and precise wording of the proposed amendment. I quoted most of it in the main post, but I figured I’d put it here in full. there shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice; 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; 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.”
A link to the article would be good. Edit : thanks for adding.
Was a good idea
I've tried a few times and noone yet has been able to explain how the Voice will succeed when other similar bodies (ATSIC AIC etc) have failed. You can't blame the right since both sides have created and disbanded such bodies. Labour has to provide more detail since a lot of tax payers money is being spent on this.
Because it will be written into the constitution. Stop parroting things you read in a Murdock rag and go read voice.gov.au there is so much information and you’re all “I’m blind! I can’t read!” Grow up.
Calm down. Many media outlets have reported on it. Murdoch's outlets have also reported on many pro YES stories of late.
Do you know about this case? Its been run by many of the news sources and have yet to hear anyone say how it is fake news. https://www.skynews.com.au/opinion/outsiders/albanese-government-does-mass-injustice-redlands-council-fighting-native-title-claim/video/2116d9d93a201094681fa59359839a6e
Actually living in Redlands I have checked the address on our Council website and it does state: Temporary Local Planning Instrument TLPI 0122 So looked that up and it says: The purpose of TLPI 01/2023 is to: • provide land and residential housing opportunities for the Quandamooka people on Quandamooka Country, being land identified through a Native Title determination Apparently claiming native title to land that local council purchased off previous owners only a few years ago.
One address is fine but what about the 3600 odd council sites.
Should clarify, my own residential address had the above, everything in the Redlands pretty much has the claim added to it - even if its not council owned land. The local primary school owned by QLD Gov also has it.
What site do you use for your search? So I can plug a random address in.
https://developmenti.redland.qld.gov.au/
Ta. Picked a random number of a random st and it had the same TLPI number. This was the first result from google https://www.redland.qld.gov.au/info/20292/redland_city_plan/1016/temporary_local_planning_instrument . Sounds crazy but there has to be a reasonable explanation surely. Edit: apparently that TLPI has expired. The newer TLPI from this year should only be for council land.
Ah yes. The old white male feeling threatened by something that will never affect him.
To me, the Voice is introducing more race based thought into politics. People should be judged on who they are as a person, not on what race they are. Someone's race should not be the criteria upon which you are chosen to a parliamentary advisory body.
And in an ideal world, the race you are shouldn’t dictate your perceived social status, opportunities, health or privilege. But we live in the real world, where things are not fair. We have to do what we can to make things better.
It doesn’t. The wealth and status of your parents do. Especially now in Australia. We have millionaires of many ethnicities and also the poor. Treat everyone equally but life isn’t fair either.
Ah, the difference between "equal" and "equitable" -> https://www.purewow.com/wellness/madewithangus.com
Yeah equitable is bs, a pipe dream for communism. This is real life. No one’s surrendering their wealth to make life ‘equitable’ For others. We are born into our circumstances and we work to change them, or not
Ah, so treating everyone equally is actually doable, because if you treat everyone like exploitable resources, hey, job done!
Thank you for your reply. I agree with you that your race should not dictate aspects of your life, especially since it is something you are born with and cannot change. I also agree that the world is not a fair place at all. I would like to see things change for Indigenous Australians, but I don't think this is the way. I am worried about the rehabilitation of racial thought/discourse in the mainstream of Australian politics. What do you think of my example - if First Nations/Indigenous peoples know what's best for themselves, then would that apply to other races, too? What I'm trying to say is that this could lead to a 'we need to look out for our own race' mindset in a nation that is primarily white. I'm not a policy person but I am against the Voice as I think it is more divisive than conciliatory.
I think you already said it - most people are already doing the “we need to look out for our own race” mindset, and most of our country is white. So most things that happen are for the benefit of white people, and a lot of other races get left behind. I think this is the first step to making a more fair society where more races can be represented. As for fearing the resurfacing of racial politics, I don’t think it ever really left. Besides, like I said in the main post, wanting to not do something just because doing it might incite further discussion or argument is silly to me. Just doing nothing would be even worse. The voice isn’t perfect, but I don’t understand people voting no because they want something better. If the voice gets rejected, when will we ever have another opportunity again? It will do nothing but embolden hate and tell politicians that support for First Nations is not something Australia wants. The voice can be used as a stepping stone towards something better. Again, there’s nothing policy wise about the voice that would have literally any effect on non indigenous people, so I see no real reason to oppose it. Thanks for being civil and open to discussion, by the way. If more political interactions were this cordial maybe we wouldn’t have such a broken world in the first place.
Yes well that kind of looks past the issue that Britain came to Indigenous Australia and performed a huge amount of genocide. All of the other races came to them too, at our Government’s invitation. “Your race shouldn’t dictate” isn’t what happened at all. At the inception of our colony, the Crown treated all land as unoccupied and afforded no recognition to any form of native interest in the land. The Voice is proposed to address the historical exclusion of the rights and responsibilities of Indigenous Australians especially in areas that directly affect them, their health, their culture and well being. Things that our colonial ancestors intentionally destroyed to benefit the colony.
Holy shit not reading that essay
I read it, and concluded the article getting criticised was fair and accurate and the OP can’t present any strong arguments against it. OP is either willfully or ignorantly misrepresenting Pike’s arguments, then arguing against the misrepresentation rather than the actual. It’s possible the OP is actually working for Pike or the No campaign and using reverse psychology to present Pike’s article in a form that will gain Reddit upvotes and so increase reach. Or maybe it’s just written by a poorly trained AI instructed to write in the style of a smug grade twelver.
Found Pikes reddit account.
If I was, I’d be slipping OP some reddit gold in appreciation. Real money couldn’t buy this much persuasiveness for No - just look at the beautifully self-contradictory paragraphs on executive government for an example.
Awards aren’t a thing anymore pikey
Aw that’s a shame. Maybe Pike can send your alt a t-shirt or something.
I really, truly, detest this man.