- cross-posted to:
- news@hexbear.net
- cross-posted to:
- news@hexbear.net
Oh boy, it’s the same sex marriage debate all over again!
The video shows a confrontation between an Indigenous mother and daughter and an elderly white woman in the coastal Queensland town of Poona. It has accrued more than 1.5 million views across Facebook, Twitter and TikTok.
In the 48-second clip, the woman filming is heard shouting at a white woman to leave a stretch of foreshore which belongs to the Butchulla people and saying they “owned these lands to the exclusivity of all others which comes under federal native title”.
“You might not like it, but guess what? Times are changing. You don’t own the land, we do. Get off it, please,” the woman filming is heard saying.
Ms Hanson shared the video on her official Facebook page with the caption: “This is just a taste of what is to come if Australians don’t stop [Prime Minister Anthony] Albanese’s race-based Voice and its Treaty”.
However, the viral clip is not what it seems.
ABC Investigations can reveal the footage shared by Ms Hanson was less than half of the original length, removing context of the incident.
The original version, posted 2.5 years ago by Butchulla woman Samala Cronin and her mother and elder Gemma Cronin, showed the argument actually began when the elderly woman’s husband had confronted them for filming.
“Should aboriginals have a say in parliament?”
What that means is saved for future debate. Is deliberately vague so that parliament can decide how it’s implemented and most importantly change it in the future without having another referendum.
The referendum is necessary to change the constitution, as that’s the only process available to do so.
So all they’re asking is whether the aboriginal voice should be heard when deciding on laws.
The no campaign are calling it racist because it’s giving special treatment to one group. Of course, if most of them hadn’t been slaughtered then they would not be such a minority in the first place.
Be careful with that language, it could be interpreted as giving them special powers or even a presence within parliament, which the amendment provides neither. The voice will purely be an advisory body which can express their opinions (“make representations”) to the parliament. It doesn’t necessarily give them any power over any other citizen, at the end of the day the parliament can simply ignore them.
ah. that helps. Thanks. What do you think the likely outcomes will be if the voice is decided upon?
There has been a bit shared on that. From memory it would be a body made up of a few aboriginal people from different areas, that would exist to consult with parliament on issues that concerned aboriginal people.