Why I will vote “No”

By Viv Forbes and many friends

Australians are being asked to approve a permanent change to our constitution. Their proposal is racist in intent and divisive in effect.

No humans evolved here in Australia – our ancestors all came from somewhere else. The literal meaning of “indigenous” is “born here”, so most of us are indigenous. To try to divide indigenous Australians on the basis of skin colour or length of ancestry is more about politics than justice or good government. We are all Australians and we should never contemplate constitutional changes that promote and solidify racial division.

I am voting “No” because this proposal is going in the wrong direction and is serving other agendas. There are many reasons to vote NO:

1. No humans evolved in Australia – the pioneers all came from somewhere else, usually on things that floated. And rock art in the Kimberlies and other relics tell us that the current aboriginals were not the first humans to occupy this land.

2. Despite having “native title” to far more land per head of population than all other Australians, tribal aboriginals often live in degraded communal enclaves with poor community protection especially for women and children.

3. We need to question closely anything promoted so strongly by their ABC, QANTAS plus big banks, big business, big miners, the bureaucracy, the ALP/Green/Teal coalition and the Communist Party.

4. Political power should not be granted to one race of Australians – Australia is now home to Aboriginals, Islanders, English, Scottish, Irish, Welsh, Dutch, Italian, German, Scandinavians, Melanesians, Greek, Kiwis, Afghans and Africans, plus other Europeans, Asians, and Africans. Most have made permanent homes here. All who embrace Australian citizenship should be treated equally before the law.

5. This Voice proposal would make a permanent racial division in Australia. But how will the favoured race be continually identified? Will the chosen people or the more recent “invaders” need to be tattooed? Or will DNA evidence be needed to prove racial identity?

6. People identifying as Aboriginals already have more representation in Parliament than their numbers would justify. They already have several voices.

7. Huge government departments and billions of dollars are already representing aboriginal interests, but their conditions do not improve.

8. We have noted how some Australians are already being banned from certain tourist spots, private landowners feel threatened by the relentless advance of “Native Title”, and explorers find Sacred sites and Rainbow Serpents appearing on promising mineral discoveries and along infrastructure sites and routes.

9. We are continually annoyed to be “welcomed” to every big event by people stomping around in red nappies, blowing smoke and making drainpipe noises. Most of these ceremonies are modern inventions. We do not need to be welcomed to our own country.

10. We note with annoyance that place names are being changed suddenly and without warning or consultation. Imagine what is in store for names like Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria, Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide and Cooktown. Or King George Square? And what about the nation of “Australia” that was created in 1901? Already the red and black flag is being flown next to the Australian Flag. Next the statues will start to fall.

11. Their ABC has managed to alienate every bit of land as “land of the XXX People”. That has just alienated the rest of us.

12. There never was “an aboriginal nation” – just many tribes each subject to unwritten tribal law. Will the Voice be called to adjudicate tribal disputes?

13. We are already seeing certain books that report inconvenient history or anthropological records are disappearing from public libraries. Will the Voice be deciding what we are allowed to read?

14. “The Voice” would soon be clamouring for treaties, reparations and seizure of more lands. However, Aboriginals would not get individual freehold titles – just communal ownership where some elders control everything. Property owned by everyone is cared for by no one.

15. The most recent aboriginal migrants brought their dogs (dingoes) to Australia. They are now protected in many areas. But our horses, donkeys, sheep, cattle, camels and buffalo are “ferals” to be eliminated.

16. Giving a special “Voice” to people of a certain skin colour or genetic history will just promote everlasting division and hatred. It aims to separate and give special privileges to certain people and their descendants forever.

17. We must VOTE NO.

Further Reading:

We already have a Voice:

See Kamahl being bullied because he changed his mind as he learned more:

“Are We Indigenes Yet?”

The first Aboriginal “Voice” in the Australian Parliament was Senator Neville Bonner elected in 1971. There are now eleven of them which is an over-representation of Voices. Why do we need another Voice, and who will decide what it says?

Some 85,000 people have recently “identified” as aboriginal. Maybe we should all enrol here?

It is all about Power and requires re-writing of history:

They already have a voice: “The National Indigenous Australians Agency”.
Revenue from Government: $268M
Employee Benefits: $163M

What is it all about?

Alan Jones on Indigenous Activists:
Alan Jones onhttps://youtu.be/Wob3xk3efpA

Aboriginal Woman Kerry White says “NO”:

What is this Referendum about?:

The Hatred from some Voice advocates:

The Push Back against Voice Vilification:

Captain James Cook – the Great Invader?

Uluru Statement – One page or 26 pages?

John Anderson on the Voice and the Constitution:

How to Fool the Experts:

The Voice? “I’m Over it”.

Geoffrey Blainey on the Voice:

Paying for the Land you are on:

The Voice – all about Power:

One More Indigenous Voice?:

One thought on “Why I will vote “No””

  1. Greetings Viv. The referendum outcome was successful! It will be a very long time before another referendum is proposed without the vital details. The VOICE had the aura of a scam. Next time referendum proponents will need to demonstrate proper public risk management, detailed outcomes and accountability for results in advance of a referendum, and especially demonstrate a public media exists that allows all sides to speak for themselves. Did anyone witness ‘their’ media criticising the racism of any pro-Voice advocates? Did any ABC presenter support the NO case against the VOICE? Did the Reserve Bank/Treasury et al oppose the threat to their supposed independence status if they listened to the VOICE? Did any entity acknowledge the financial risks to themselves when they acknowledge that aboriginal people (and perhaps future creditors) own the land beneath their organisations? The VOICE should have been introduced as legislation so that it could be tested for its safety and performance and modified. Of course such a regime would be mere window dressing because the various aspects of the VOICE are already implemented.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *