Yeah, reading through the ADL reasoning, one of the articles they use to justify its accusation that Mondoweiss is antisemitic is actually discussing how ultra rightwing and ultra religious some of the recently elected candidates are, and to whom Netanyahu was trying to work closely with.

“Another story, Yes ‘Jewish Power’ party is fascistic, but its rise was inevitable is also very negative toward Israeli Jews.”

So an article discussing the election of 6 problematically hard right, ultra religios, Israeli Zionists, and their histories, beliefs and background, in ADL’s eyes is a negative anti-semitic article on all Israelis Jews?

That’s a very long bow to stretch.

Not pointless at at all, and I’m not sure why you believe that.

Do you think mining companies and large corporations spend the 100s of millions of dollars they do on political lobbyists, to approach parliament and put forward the companies’ views on their behalf, if it was pointless?

No. Lobbyists achieve results, and at a minimum, make the companies feel like they’re part of the political process, and that their concerns and needs are being voiced, and a much healthier chance of having proposed legislation amended due to that lobbying. It’s political participation.

Lobbyist don’t get to change laws either. They don’t get to amend or dismiss laws, or sidestep the political process. They communicate and voice their concerns to those that do have that ability. I don’t see anyone saying lobbyists are useless pamphlet sellers.

The Voice was essentially a proposal to enable the creation of a constitutionally recognised lobbying entity that would work on Indigenous Australians’ behalf, since Indigenous Australians don’t have the financial or organisational capacity to create such an entity themselves, and

Because even with that additional wording was in the constitution, any law or changes that prevented the Voice from existing, and being able to make representations to Parliament, would be unconstitutional.

The answer to that lies within the question: why put anything in a constitution? Why have a constitution?

Anything could be made using laws or rules. And anyone can then undo and rewrite them.

It’s because countries generally need a foundational document outlining how government will operate, and how laws will be made, and what the country stands for. And have the stability and security of knowing that those operating principles can’t be easily changed.

So the idea was, by incorporating the Voice within the constitution, you recognise indigenous Australians in your foundational document as having the right to have a recognised voice on what concerns them, and having unique aspects of history, and historical treatment, that make that appropriate.

Not a right to dismiss laws, or change them. Not a right to create laws. Not a right to ignore laws, or amend proposals. Just to have a recognised voice on issues affecting them, and ask the “lawmakers” to do any of the above.

This is important, because yes, you don’t want to enshrine anything that gives a small proportion of the population the ability to sidestep the legislative and political process.

But as a country, we do want to enshrine a means by which indigenous Australians, - a historically extremely disadvantaged group of people, who form less than 4% of the population, and don’t have the financial or organisational means to engage expensive political lobby firms like large corporations and mining companies- can participate more directly with the political process of laws affecting them, and therefore feel symbolically “seen”.

An analogy: If a public company wanted to create a Disability and Equity officer position, and wanted that position enshrined in the company charter to show the public that: the company was really serious about that position; provide good PR; signal to the public the company’s values; and protect it from being included in future job cuts, or made redundant in future for economic or ideological reasons under a different CEO, they would present shareholders with the question and put it to a vote.

The company would not include within that question, details about how much that position would be paid. Or what room of what building they would work in. Or how they would communicate. Or what restrictions would be put on the position. Or how candidates would be interviewed, assessed, and hired.

Shareholders would just see something like: “The company resolves to include the position of Disability and Equity Officer in the company charter, as an indication of the company’s desire that it become a more inclusive workplace, and to signal those values to the general public.”

Because while you want people to know the position is permanent, you also want to leave the nitty gritty details to being guided by other processes, so that they can be changed more flexibly then once a year or more at a General Meeting of all shareholders

Arguments included:

“If you don’t know, say no” Incredibly reductionist, could be used to justify any position, but a very effective soundbite. It’s only when you extrapolate it, that you realise the issues. Imagine if someone told you “If you don’t know whether a girl/boy will say yes to you, never ask them out on a date”. Uncertainty is an inherent part of most of human nature. A lot less humans would be born if no one had the presence of mind to find out more about whether a person liked them, or just took a gamble and asked for a date.

“This will allow aboriginals to claim and take your land” Because Australia was declared “terra nullus” on ‘discovery’, and therefore regarded as uninhabited under English law, colonisers basically took and claimed all the land and dispossesed the Native Australians. And ever since, there’s been a resistance to recognising prior ownership and use by native Australians, because that might threaten current ownership of land. No one wants land and property they own to be arbitrarily taken away from them with no recompense (ironic, yes?), so it’s very easy to create fear in current landowning/propertyowning Australians by saying increased recognition of indigenous Australians in any form could have their land taken from them and given back to indigenous Australians.

“This will be a 3rd chamber of parliament” There are currently two houses of Parliament of government, in which candidates are voted and elected by a majority of their constituents. The houses form the core mechanics of how laws are created, debated and enacted. By portraying the proposed advisory body as a 3rd legislative body on par with the 2 existing houses, and pointing out the body was to be formed from indigenous Australians, the no campaign capitalised on fears of changing our entire political system, and the false impression of giving indigenous Australians incredibly disproportionste and unfair weighting within the political system.

“Enshrining a specific ‘political’ body made up of only indigenous Australians in the constitution makes us unequal, because they don’t do that for other Australians”. This one tries to capitalise on feelings of equality, and therefore fairness. Because I don’t get X, they shouldn’t have X. And neatly creates the assumption that the status quo is equal, so why change it. Ignoring that indigenous Australians are a very small percent of population, and therefore less than 5% or so of the voting population, so unlikely to ever form an effective voting bloc or have their needs and desires reflected in mainstream politics like the average Australian might. Also, the statistics for quality of life are extremely poor when compared to the average Australian, in terms of social and financial mobility, education, health, prison incarceration rates, birth complication rates etc. The average life expectancy of an indigenous Australian is at least 8 years lower than the average Australian. These have been persistent gaps in societal outcomes that haven’t closed despite decades of government focus and money, hence trying something new, like the Voice.

“It won’t do anything, so there’s no point creating it” The argument was that this body has no executive powers, and can only talk ‘at’ the government, and there’s no obligation in the current wording in the referendum, that the government even needs to listen. So it won’t achieve anything at all, it will be useless and ineffective.

“It does too much” The argument was that it was too powerful, and would put too much unequal power in the hands of indigenous Australians, and that it would therefore be unfair and unequal. That it would allow indigenous Australians to create laws, change them, create treaties between them and Australia, recognise indigenous land rights etc.

Lots more out there, but that’s it for now from me

The confusion definitely wasn’t helped by the large amounts of deliberate misinformation being put out there about the intention of the Voice, and requests for specificity.

And then the apparently contradictory arguments (often by the very same person, within the same argument) that it was too much, and therefore privileged indigenous Australians over other Australians, and yet also not enough, and would therefore achieve nothing at all. Or that more information needed to be provided, or more often, that specifics needed to be pre-decided and included within the wording (overlooking that those specifics would then be enshrined in the constitution and largely unchangeable ever again)

An argument to paralyse everyone along the decision spectrum who wasn’t already in the yes camp or no camps.

To answer your question, the voice was essentially a yes or no to creating a constitutionally recognised body of indigenous Australians, that could lobby Government and Parliament of behalf of indigenous Australians on issues concerning indigenous Australians.

To use an extended analogy:

It would be similar to a board meeting of a large company asking their shareholders to agree to a proposal to create a position within the company of “Disabilities, Diversity, and Equity Officer”, and have that position enshrined within the company’s charter, to enable a dedicated representative to make representions on behalf of those that fall under those categories, as they all tend to be in minority groups whose needs or ideas don’t tend to be (on average) reflected or engaged with by existing company processes or mainstream society. And that the position be held by someone within one of those minority groups.

Sure, an individual employee could take an issue to their supervisor (i.e. the Government/parliament), but that supervisor rightly has a need to observe the needs of the company (its voters) and the majority of employees (the average Australian), and the thought that a policy might not actually be effective for person Y would likely not even occur to the supervisor, as it seems to work for the majority of employees anyway, and they’re not raising any issues. The supervisor is unlikely to go proactivelly asking employee Y’s opinion on implementing X policy when they feel they already understand what employee a, b, c and d etc. want out of the policy.

Even if employee Y brings up an issue directly with the supervisor, the supervisor is structurally unlikely to take it on board or give it much weight, as it’s a single employee vs the multitude of other employees who are fine with the policy as is. And listening involves extra work, let alone actually changing anything as a result.

Having a specific Disability/Diversity/Equity officer not only allows employee Y an alternative chain of communication to feel like they’re being seen, and their concerns heard (which has important implications for their sense of self worth, participation, and mutual respect in the company), but the fact that it’s a specified company position within the company’s charter means the supervisor is much more likely to give that communication from that position much more weight, and consider it more carefully, than if that random, singular enployee Y had just tried to tell the supervisor directly.

The Disability/Diversity/Equity officer doesn’t have the power to change rules, or implement anything by fiat. He can only make representations to the company and give suggestions for how things could be better. The supervisor and company still retain complete control of decision making and implementation, but the representations from the DDE officer could help the company and supervisor create or tweak policy and practices that work for an extra 10-15% of employees, and therefore a total of 85% of the company’s employees, instead of the previous 70%.

Now, would you expect that the company provide the shareholders with exact details of: what hours the DDE officer will have, how much they’ll be paid, what room of what building they’ll operate on, how they’ll be allowed or expected to communicate with others in the organisation, etc? With the expectation that all this additional information will be entered into the company charter on acceptance, unchangeable except at very rare full General Meetings of all shareholders held every 2 or 3 decades?

No. They just ask the shareholders if they’re on board with creating a specific position of Disability/Diversity/Equity officer, and that its existence be noted and enshrined in the company charter so the position can’t be cut during an economic downturn, or easily made redundant and dismissed if an ideologically driven CEO just didn’t like the idea of having a specific Disability/Equity officer position in the company.

Or on purpose, in this case.

Rebranding at this level sounds very much like purposeful destruction of an existing resource and company, rather than an attempt to make the company any better, successful, or more profitable.

I’m starting to wonder if the Saudis have told him they’ll reimburse any of his personal losses from his stock buy, in return for sinking and destroying the company.

It just seems like the Musk buy, once it happened, has been too effective a means of destroying a platform that was previously used extensively by protestors and activists to organise mass group activity against governments and authorities.

It would certainly be my answer now to those regular Reddit questions like “what’s the one conspiracy theory you actually believe is true?”