full
Episode 404 - Examining the Entrails
In this episode, we discuss the result of the referendum and the latest in Gaza
To financially support the Podcast you can make:
- a per-episode donation via Patreon or
- one-off donation via credit card; or
- one-off or regular donations via Paypal or
- if you are into Cryptocurrency you can send Satoshis.
We Livestream every Monday night at 7:30 pm Brisbane time. Follow us on Facebook or YouTube. Watch us live and join the discussion in the chat room.
We have a website. www.ironfistvelvetglove.com.au
You can email us. The address is trevor@ironfistvelvetglove.com.au
Transcript
From Sky News on the right to the ABC on the left, an Iron Curtain
Speaker:has descended across the continent.
Speaker:On the right of that line lies an evil empire of conservative
Speaker:Christians who deny climate change but believe in trickle down economics.
Speaker:On the left Lies a misguided and confused rabble who are supposed to
Speaker:help the working man but instead fight amongst themselves over identities.
Speaker:Only the Iron Fist Velvet Glove podcast takes the uncomfortable
Speaker:position of sitting astride the Iron Curtain to take aim at both sides.
Speaker:Only this podcast and perhaps the bullshit filter.
Speaker:can explain the dire threats facing our civilization.
Speaker:I only wish that they could have traveled back in time to when I
Speaker:was conducting the war effort with the benefit of their wise counsel.
Speaker:The war would have ended three years earlier, I would not have lost the
Speaker:election, and I would have invested heavily in technology stocks.
Speaker:In any event, I implore you to listen to this very fine podcast.
Speaker:It is your duty.
Speaker:Well, hello and welcome, dear listener.
Speaker:Episode 404.
Speaker:I'm Trevor, a.
Speaker:k.
Speaker:a.
Speaker:the Iron Fist.
Speaker:No Velvet Glove with us tonight.
Speaker:He's in a different location with no internet so couldn't make it.
Speaker:Thank you.
Speaker:But we do have our UK correspondent and tech guy, Joe, coming in all the
Speaker:way from Devon at 10 30 in the morning.
Speaker:Joe, good morning to you.
Speaker:Good morning all.
Speaker:Yeah, so Joe's there relaxing with a, with a wool and cardigan on and
Speaker:a cup of tea or coffee or something?
Speaker:No, he's got a Coke anyway, but yeah yeah, so it's just telling
Speaker:myself if you're in the chat room, say hello, like Tanya just did.
Speaker:And Yeah, so, isn't it great?
Speaker:It comes through loud and clear, thanks to the wonders of technology.
Speaker:We can continue to do this as a panel discussion.
Speaker:It just means our little group of meerkats are scattered all over the planet.
Speaker:So, well, anything happened in the last seven days that
Speaker:we need to talk about, Joe?
Speaker:I can't think of anything, no.
Speaker:Oh, well, we'll just call it a bits and Yeah, that's it.
Speaker:Yeah, a voice result.
Speaker:It's come through, eh?
Speaker:Not an unexpected result of Rejecting the proposal, 60 to 40
Speaker:not a single state in favour of it.
Speaker:And that was a surprise.
Speaker:It was shaping up that way early on, wasn't it, that some would get through.
Speaker:So, the ACT, not a state, but a territory passed it.
Speaker:And the closest was Victoria, but it was still 55 45 against.
Speaker:And the state that was most against was Queensland.
Speaker:68.
Speaker:9 against only 31.
Speaker:1 in favour.
Speaker:So, overall for the country, pretty much 60 40.
Speaker:And that was a fairly conclusive result.
Speaker:And boy oh boy, there's been some...
Speaker:Hand wringing?
Speaker:Ah, hand wringing is the word I wanted to use as well, Joe.
Speaker:Boy, advocates for the, for the voice, people on the left, really
Speaker:going to town about what this means.
Speaker:And, you know, there are arguments about...
Speaker:Means we're all a bunch of racists.
Speaker:Yes, essentially.
Speaker:Dumb racists.
Speaker:Yeah.
Speaker:Only dumb racists could possibly have voted for, against this
Speaker:proposal, this modest proposal.
Speaker:And and what a terrible state of affairs this is.
Speaker:That's, that's pretty much the line coming from advocates for the yes vote.
Speaker:And...
Speaker:You need to be careful with a modest proposal.
Speaker:Yeah, well that's, that's their argument, is it was a modest proposal.
Speaker:A generous invitation a reaching out that was rejected and that the
Speaker:only possible conclusion is that Australians are racist and don't care.
Speaker:And that's just bullshit.
Speaker:Well, I did see some yes advocates saying that.
Speaker:It wasn't that Australia was racist.
Speaker:I saw some saying that the yes vote hadn't properly explained their position.
Speaker:And then some others saying, look Australians on the whole...
Speaker:People want everything that the Yes Camp want, they just think that the proposal
Speaker:put forward was the wrong proposal.
Speaker:It was the wrong way to go about it.
Speaker:It wasn't that the average Australian doesn't want to close the gap.
Speaker:It was just people didn't see the value in what was being proposed.
Speaker:Correct.
Speaker:And I've got some polling by Essential Poll that says exactly that, which
Speaker:we'll get to a little bit later on, but we'll sort of set the scene before that.
Speaker:So.
Speaker:You know, there's a lot of people saying, what does it mean?
Speaker:At its most basic level, it just simply means people didn't like the voice.
Speaker:It doesn't mean that they rejected recognition of Indigenous people.
Speaker:There wasn't the option to recognise Indigenous people and reject the voice.
Speaker:So, if you just didn't like the voice, you had to reject the entire proposal.
Speaker:And, in the same way that the Yes Advocates...
Speaker:They never dealt with the issue of, you know, show us how
Speaker:this will make a difference.
Speaker:And they never dealt with the issue of, show us why this isn't a racist proposal.
Speaker:And they skirted around the issue and relied on emotion.
Speaker:And I've got some clips from Michael Mansell to deal with that, where they
Speaker:asked people to be emotional about the plight of Indigenous people and somehow
Speaker:make a connection that wasn't there yet.
Speaker:And, and yeah.
Speaker:The, the strongest argument about the this is a racist proposal is, well,
Speaker:the constitutions are already racist, so making it more racist is, is fine.
Speaker:Mm-hmm.
Speaker:Which to me is counterintuitive.
Speaker:Yeah.
Speaker:And you know, prior to Noel Pearson's essay where he raised the voice,
Speaker:the option that was being considered was put in a recognition clause
Speaker:and get rid of the race provisions that were in there already.
Speaker:That would have got up.
Speaker:But not this.
Speaker:So, so there's a lot of talk about what it means and what it doesn't mean, and
Speaker:we'll get into the commentary of that but, you know, really, the Yes Advocates
Speaker:are just pretty poor in their commentary because they're, they're arguing
Speaker:something that's not right, that 60 percent of Australians are dumb racists.
Speaker:And it's really upsetting people because they're saying to Indigenous
Speaker:people, you know, if this doesn't get up, Australians are rejecting
Speaker:you and don't want to help you.
Speaker:And naturally, many Indigenous people are believing that,
Speaker:and are now genuinely upset.
Speaker:But that's not the case.
Speaker:So...
Speaker:So these Yes Advocates who are shitty that they lost, have painted
Speaker:a picture that is upsetting people it's painting a picture of a racist,
Speaker:uncaring community that doesn't give a shit about Indigenous people.
Speaker:That's just not true.
Speaker:So they're it's a disservice to the people that they're supposedly trying to help.
Speaker:Yeah.
Speaker:So.
Speaker:Thank you.
Speaker:Well, personally, I don't care about Indigenous people.
Speaker:I care about all Australians.
Speaker:And so I don't care what colour your skin is.
Speaker:If you need help, I want to be part of the community that gives help.
Speaker:And sure, absolutely, there are probably a greater proportion of
Speaker:First Nation people that need help rather than white people, but I don't
Speaker:think that they should be treated any differently, any, any special thing
Speaker:because I want everybody to get help.
Speaker:Hmm.
Speaker:So, this was actually a victory for equality and against racism,
Speaker:but in these Orwellian times...
Speaker:of doublespeak.
Speaker:Yes, advocates are arguing the opposite, and our media and our public
Speaker:intellectuals demonstrated how poor they are at doing their jobs, and even
Speaker:well meaning members of the public can't follow points of debate and
Speaker:argue rationally, and we've lost our ability to genuinely debate ideas.
Speaker:And let me just put the chat on the screen so I can see it.
Speaker:So there was a Father Frank Brennan, who we've mentioned
Speaker:over the years, a Jesuit priest, definitely in favour of a yes vote.
Speaker:He wrote after the referendum a piece that was, you know, sad about what had
Speaker:happened, but said accept the result.
Speaker:But I'm just going to read a couple of paragraphs of what he
Speaker:said, which is very pertinent.
Speaker:So this is Frank Brennan.
Speaker:This referendum was nothing like the 1967 referendum.
Speaker:It was nothing like the same sex marriage plebiscite.
Speaker:In 1967, over 90 percent of voters supported a proposal put forward,
Speaker:urging that Aboriginal people be treated the same as the rest of us.
Speaker:Okay?
Speaker:In 1967, 90 percent of voters agreed to that proposal.
Speaker:Treat Aboriginal people the same as the rest of us.
Speaker:In the same sex marriage plebiscite over 50%.
Speaker:Over 60%.
Speaker:Who chose to vote supported a proposal that the civil institution of marriage
Speaker:be made available to all couples regardless of their sexual orientation.
Speaker:In both these votes, we were voting to treat everyone the same.
Speaker:This referendum was nothing of the sort.
Speaker:In fact, it was probably the exact opposite on one reading, the 60% no vote.
Speaker:was a decision, once again, to treat everyone the same, declining to
Speaker:set up a new constitutional entity available only to one group of
Speaker:citizens, namely the First Australians.
Speaker:So, accurate portrayal, I think, by Frank Brennan of what actually happened.
Speaker:Just in terms of the voting and the different seats, It was pretty apparent
Speaker:that seats that were won by Greens in the federal sphere, or by Teal candidates,
Speaker:those were the sort of electorates that voted yes in favour of the voice.
Speaker:Just those handful of seats.
Speaker:So, I'm in the seat of Ryan, for example, and that was won by a
Speaker:Greens candidate in the last federal election, and the seat I'm in was one
Speaker:of the few that voted in favour of.
Speaker:A voice, so it's these inner city, well educated, upper middle class areas that
Speaker:were in favour of the Yes Vote compared to the rest of the country pretty sort of,
Speaker:and it didn't really matter, that was in more or less all the states where that was
Speaker:sort of indicative of how the voting went.
Speaker:What happened in Dixon, Joe?
Speaker:Yeah strangely enough.
Speaker:It being Peter Dutton's electorate it was a no, and it was quite interesting
Speaker:the early votes trended no the people who voted at City Hall in Brisbane
Speaker:attended or trended left, trended yes.
Speaker:So these were people in the Dixon electorate who were working in the city?
Speaker:Yes.
Speaker:Who had voted at the City Hall, yeah.
Speaker:Yes.
Speaker:And then it was mostly no, there were a couple of, basically as he
Speaker:got closer to the city, it trended yes, the further out for the city, it
Speaker:trended no, but I think Mount Nebo was one of the polling stations and that
Speaker:was the strongest yes vote at 72%.
Speaker:Also interesting was the spoiled ballots, whatever they call them, invalid, I think.
Speaker:Which varied between one and three percent, and I was, well,
Speaker:I don't know what it normally is.
Speaker:I thought that was quite high though.
Speaker:Seems high, doesn't it?
Speaker:Yeah.
Speaker:And I wonder how many people went, I have to vote, but I don't want to vote.
Speaker:So I'm gonna spoil my paper.
Speaker:I've got some quotes from some people just to give some sense of what the left or the
Speaker:yes advocates are saying about the result.
Speaker:Alan Patience, who writes in the John Menendee blog, What the whole debate
Speaker:about an Indigenous voice to parliament demonstrated, with brutal clarity, is that
Speaker:Australia is a morally backward society.
Speaker:Goes on, During the debate the no side resorted to numerous lies, distortions
Speaker:of the truth and misinformation.
Speaker:Their leaders insisted that we must be respectful of no voters.
Speaker:But how can anyone respect people who have chosen indifference over concern?
Speaker:Hostility over love?
Speaker:Exclusion over inclusion.
Speaker:Cruelty over compassion.
Speaker:Further on he says, What the whole debate about an Indigenous voice to parliament
Speaker:demonstrated with brutal clarity is that Australia is a morally backward society.
Speaker:The one glimmer of hope is a new generation of voters and
Speaker:potential leaders is coming.
Speaker:They will help the country to steer clear of the political morass of resentfulness,
Speaker:racism and inhumanity into which Dutton and his ilk would take the country.
Speaker:Look, it's entirely possible to have voted no.
Speaker:And to not even have read a single thing that Dutton and his mob said about it,
Speaker:and to the whole point about not enough information, you know, personally,
Speaker:complete bullshit, there was enough information, it was just a bad idea.
Speaker:Well, I think there were probably three reasons for voting no.
Speaker:One is you're a racist, and I'm sure that some people were.
Speaker:The other one was misinformation from the no vote.
Speaker:Where they were saying it would mean this need more information
Speaker:would mean that No, no, no, but also constitutionally risky and all that.
Speaker:And also that there was gonna be taxes and it was going to be land
Speaker:grabs and all sorts of things.
Speaker:And then finally it was, you've read it, you thought that it was a bad idea because
Speaker:you couldn't see any particular way that it was actually gonna benefit anyone.
Speaker:We'll get into those reasons.
Speaker:It's in the essential poll.
Speaker:Albanese in his speech afterwards he said, basically he said,
Speaker:Albanese said many people have worked all their lives for this.
Speaker:And that's just bullshit.
Speaker:Yeah, it's only a recent thing.
Speaker:That's right.
Speaker:It's just a Noel Pearson thought bubble from 2014 in his quarterly essay titled,
Speaker:A Rightful Place, Race Recognition and a More Complete Commonwealth.
Speaker:Okay, so some, some nine year olds have, have worked all their life for this.
Speaker:Yes, so, that was complete bullshit to say that people have
Speaker:worked their lives for the voice.
Speaker:It's an invention of Noel Pearson's that was a bad idea.
Speaker:I was watching the ABC coverage.
Speaker:I saw a lot of upper middle class professionals.
Speaker:on national television complaining about their disadvantage.
Speaker:I mean they talked about we are disadvantaged and I'm looking
Speaker:at these people thinking you don't look at disadvantage to me.
Speaker:One of them was a professor at a university.
Speaker:Like for sake, you are, describe your disadvantage to me.
Speaker:One commentator did talk about focusing on disadvantage
Speaker:rather than race in the future.
Speaker:I'll get to him.
Speaker:That was that was a guy, Wesley Aird.
Speaker:Right.
Speaker:Just a bit more hand wringing Bernard Kean in Crikey wrote, There
Speaker:are no ifs, buts or niceties around this transformational moment.
Speaker:The argument that it was a constitutionally enshrined voice,
Speaker:not recognition that was rejected, doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
Speaker:There is no recognition without a voice because the recognition requested by
Speaker:First Peoples begins with a voice.
Speaker:That's just logic, illogical crap by Bernard Keane.
Speaker:Perfectly possible to reject.
Speaker:He says the argument that it was a constitutionally enshrined shine
Speaker:voice, not recognition that was rejected, doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
Speaker:There is no recognition without a voice because the recognition requested by
Speaker:First Peoples begins with a voice.
Speaker:Anything else is a fake.
Speaker:I think the recognition is that they're equal citizens and that happened in 1967.
Speaker:Yes.
Speaker:And if there was to be a recognition of historical facts of Indigenous people
Speaker:being here first and colonization by white people, put it in.
Speaker:That, I was not, you know, I didn't want to reject that.
Speaker:I wanted to reject the voice.
Speaker:Bernard Kean is wrong.
Speaker:And just because Indigenous people wanted the voice doesn't change that.
Speaker:It's a nonsense.
Speaker:This is the sort of pathetic, illogical, irrational argument that we've had from
Speaker:our media and public intellectuals.
Speaker:Hang on.
Speaker:Saying black is white and...
Speaker:The sun will, you know, rise in the west and set in the
Speaker:east, because they say it does.
Speaker:Just because you say it, doesn't mean it's the case.
Speaker:I'm, I'm a middle aged man, white man, I want a middle aged
Speaker:white man voice to parliament.
Speaker:Doesn't mean I should get one, but...
Speaker:Well, anything else is a fake, he says.
Speaker:One peddled, primarily, by old white conservatives.
Speaker:You think recognition can be imposed on them, like invasion, dispossession and
Speaker:genocide was imposed on First Peoples.
Speaker:The no was inarguably a no to recognition.
Speaker:Bullshit.
Speaker:Lots of people would have accepted a recognition, they just didn't accept.
Speaker:That is complete bullshit, Bernard Kean.
Speaker:He goes on, There can be no pretense that this was some sort of
Speaker:accidental result or a failure of politicians or of the Yes campaign.
Speaker:There will be inevitable post mortems of the failure of Yes.
Speaker:But this was a referendum around a single, simple question.
Speaker:There was no complexity, no litany of important policy issues, no personalities,
Speaker:no preferential voting, all of which feature in general elections.
Speaker:This was as simple as democracy gets.
Speaker:And the outcome was as simple as the lopsided result.
Speaker:Australians voted by a large margin to keep pretending First Peoples
Speaker:weren't here before invasion, or to not care that they were.
Speaker:That is not what the vote was.
Speaker:The vote was whether there would be a voice.
Speaker:It was not a vote about whether people were here first, and it
Speaker:wasn't a vote about whether we care.
Speaker:But, but also, whether we care that they were, in what way should we care?
Speaker:Yes.
Speaker:Yes.
Speaker:There are all sorts of ways.
Speaker:We'll get on to it.
Speaker:We're Indigenous people themselves agreeing with this.
Speaker:So, all right.
Speaker:Well, the essential report let me see if I can get this up and and look
Speaker:at some of the results from that.
Speaker:Bear with me a second while I get this on the screen.
Speaker:Yeah, there we go.
Speaker:So there's going to be a bunch of graphs and we'll work our way through
Speaker:it as I'm sharing this screen.
Speaker:Right, let's move through the national mood, support for the Voice to Parliament
Speaker:main reason to vote no at the referendum.
Speaker:So, 42%.
Speaker:It will divide Australia in the constitution on the basis of race.
Speaker:That's what I've been saying all along.
Speaker:That's what people have been saying all along, and it was never.
Speaker:Confronted properly by the Yes campaign.
Speaker:So 42 percent of people said, who said no, their main reason was
Speaker:it will divide Australia in the Constitution on the basis of race.
Speaker:26 percent said there was not enough detail on how the voice will work.
Speaker:Personally, I never argued that.
Speaker:I don't think that's the case.
Speaker:That, to me, was not the problem.
Speaker:The problem was it was a bad idea.
Speaker:Now, 18 percent said it won't make a real difference to the lives of
Speaker:ordinary Indigenous Australians, and I think that's the case, and 14
Speaker:percent said it will give Indigenous Australians rights and privileges
Speaker:that other Australians don't have.
Speaker:That is, of course, the special lobbying rights that we've talked about before,
Speaker:so, so that's the reasons why, according to the Essential Poll, the people
Speaker:who voted no, mostly it's going to divide Australia on the basis of race.
Speaker:Not enough detail.
Speaker:It won't make a difference, and it gives rights and privileges
Speaker:to Indigenous Australians that other Australians don't have.
Speaker:Gender wise, not much difference in the genders.
Speaker:Men more, sorry, females, surprisingly, more likely to
Speaker:say there was not enough detail.
Speaker:31%, as opposed to men, 23%.
Speaker:So, age wise, age differences older people are more likely to say it's
Speaker:racist less likely to say there was not enough detail, less likely to
Speaker:say it won't make a real difference, but more likely to say that it gives
Speaker:Indigenous people rights and privileges.
Speaker:So, Older people were more about the racial issues of those who voted no.
Speaker:Younger people were talking about not enough detail and
Speaker:it won't make a difference.
Speaker:And voting intention agreeing in voters who voted no did so because
Speaker:they said there wasn't enough detail on how it would work.
Speaker:And coalition voters was because of the racism issue.
Speaker:And that's the sort of main items to glean from that.
Speaker:So, no surprises there, I don't think.
Speaker:That all makes sense to me.
Speaker:What else did we have here?
Speaker:Support for government actions after the referendum.
Speaker:So, one of the options is, in the event that the referendum does not
Speaker:succeed, to what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements?
Speaker:And the one that got the most support was, continue to work with First Nations
Speaker:communities to find solutions to the issues they faced, and whether and
Speaker:that was pretty much let me just try and get that in the right, let's do
Speaker:it by voting intention, I think it's going to be the easiest, I'll do it by
Speaker:gender, sorry folks, leave that with me.
Speaker:So, you know, between 60 65 percent of people said yep.
Speaker:Continue to work with First Nations communities to find solutions, that's
Speaker:what they want the government to do if the referendum does not succeed.
Speaker:Around the 37 38 percent said start working on a treaty, same number
Speaker:said start working on a truth telling commission, about the same number said
Speaker:establish an Aboriginal voice that's not enshrined in the constitution, and
Speaker:similar numbers around the mid 30s were Recognise Aboriginal and Islander people
Speaker:in the Constitution through another referendum without establishing a voice.
Speaker:So, majority support for continuing to work to find solutions, and
Speaker:very minimal support in the 30s.
Speaker:For treaty, truth telling, non constitutional voice type of things.
Speaker:Yeah, for all of the doomsayers out there saying Australia's racist, then
Speaker:most Australians want the government to find solutions to close the gap.
Speaker:They just don't want it done via the mechanism of the voice.
Speaker:And, I'll come back to, if we get time Australian Israel and
Speaker:Palestine type stuff in there, so, Joe, any thoughts on any of that?
Speaker:Any of that surprise you?
Speaker:There was something I was looking at I can't remember what it was though.
Speaker:There was something about the Liberals and the Greens, which was a little surprising.
Speaker:But No, I don't think so.
Speaker:I think the vast majority of people recognize that Indigenous
Speaker:people, especially those in remote communities, are in shocking
Speaker:circumstances, and they want that fixed.
Speaker:But again, having a voice in Parliament, I don't think is the answer.
Speaker:And I think most people thought that.
Speaker:Hmm.
Speaker:Yeah.
Speaker:Ah.
Speaker:Okay.
Speaker:Actually, surprising thing was women were slightly less empathetic about
Speaker:finding out what Aboriginals need.
Speaker:They were 63 percent as opposed to 65%.
Speaker:Yeah.
Speaker:Yeah.
Speaker:But on the whole, not a great gender difference in this, in these issues.
Speaker:Whereas we found with the Morrison government, for example, at the last
Speaker:federal election, there were quite distinct gender differences in.
Speaker:Invoking intention that don't appear in this voice polling from Essential Poll.
Speaker:Yeah, right.
Speaker:I've got some clips from some different people, so we hear some voices.
Speaker:I think I'd mentioned before Michael Mansell, and I might
Speaker:have mentioned his daughter.
Speaker:I saw a clip where she was interviewed, so Michael Mansell and
Speaker:his daughter were both no campaigners.
Speaker:And the reason was that they wanted, they saw the voices being useless,
Speaker:and they wanted genuine power in the sense of members, indigenous
Speaker:members in the Senate, or they wanted a treaty or, or other things, and
Speaker:they saw the voices being useless.
Speaker:So here's a little bit of Michael Mansell's daughter.
Speaker:We've had advisory bodies advising government about
Speaker:closing the gap for 14 years now.
Speaker:It's not an issue of the government not having enough
Speaker:advice from Aboriginal people.
Speaker:The issue here is that the government aren't willing to listen to the
Speaker:advice or act on that advice.
Speaker:While many of Tasmania's most powerful current and...
Speaker:Just pausing there.
Speaker:I've been banging on about that for months.
Speaker:Years.
Speaker:And people just call me a white feathery nose.
Speaker:Nothin but there's somebody who knows something about it, who
Speaker:says exactly the same thing.
Speaker:can support the voice, influential Aboriginal groups do not.
Speaker:This is not going to see any land returned, this is not going to help
Speaker:incarceration rates, it's not going to support Aboriginal sovereignty
Speaker:or self determination, so we say no.
Speaker:We want what was stolen from us, and that was certainly not an advisory body.
Speaker:So, that was, that was her.
Speaker:Now let me find another video.
Speaker:This time I was watching this is the sort of post referendum wrap up on the
Speaker:ABC and here's Michael Mansell talking about the failure of the Yes campaign.
Speaker:I want to bring in Parliamentary Leader Michael Mansell in Tasmania in Hobart
Speaker:tonight, Michael good to see you.
Speaker:Why do you think Australians voted no tonight?
Speaker:This was a, an awful campaign that was run by both the Prime
Speaker:Minister and the Yes campaign.
Speaker:At no stage did they put forward a compelling case as to why.
Speaker:An advisory body should be entrenched in the Constitution.
Speaker:Instead, the whole campaign was based on emotion.
Speaker:They were saying, you know, all the ads.
Speaker:You might recall all the ads showing disadvantage, disadvantage, and then
Speaker:somehow stitching that to the advisory body as a solution, and at no stage
Speaker:did the Yes campaign explain how an advisory body could do that which the
Speaker:Prime Minister, state governments, and the peak organisations couldn't.
Speaker:Exactly what I've been saying and asking people to give me an
Speaker:example and nobody ever could.
Speaker:But what, what would I know?
Speaker:Instead of taking on that core issue and explaining to people here is why
Speaker:this is so good, they just expected people to jump on board emotionally.
Speaker:If you are not a racist Aboriginal, you'll vote for this.
Speaker:And of course it worked with some people, but obviously not enough.
Speaker:I think he has his finger on the pulse as to what happened, and
Speaker:a bit more from Michael Mansell
Speaker:here we go with him.
Speaker:The Liberal and National Party, very cleverly, allowed two black
Speaker:faces to lead the no campaign, and Peter Dutton and David Littleproud
Speaker:were then able to sit behind them.
Speaker:and let the two Aboriginal candidates run the no case, and it was very effective.
Speaker:And instead of the yes campaign explaining why the arguments from Jacinta Price and
Speaker:Warren Mundine were not valid people like Marcia Langton and Pat Dodson and other
Speaker:people you know, use the old racist tag.
Speaker:This proposal was not about sharing power with Aboriginal people.
Speaker:This was about leaving Aboriginal people on the outside, trying
Speaker:to influence the power brokers and of course it didn't work.
Speaker:And even if it had worked, it wouldn't have made the least bit of difference.
Speaker:And all of those campaigns by the yes, yes people saying, you know, when they
Speaker:raise the expectations of Aboriginal people, that your lives will be better.
Speaker:Will this young child have a future?
Speaker:I mean, that was pretty underhanded.
Speaker:So they shouldn't particularly point the finger at the no camp.
Speaker:They should look a bit in the mirror and just see how they run their campaign.
Speaker:There we go.
Speaker:It says it all.
Speaker:I was interested the we want what was stolen from us.
Speaker:Mm-hmm.
Speaker:. Oh, what was stolen was the whole of Australia.
Speaker:Yes.
Speaker:And, and it was, and it was from So is that white?
Speaker:His ancestors is from his ancestors.
Speaker:It wasn't stolen from him because it was, it was an event that had preceded
Speaker:him, but does that mean white people out?
Speaker:I, it was a very nebulous statement, wasn't it?
Speaker:Yeah.
Speaker:Obviously, I don't agree with everything he says, but Well, it's
Speaker:his daughter, actually, but...
Speaker:Treaty and reparations.
Speaker:So, on the same, sort of, program on the panel at ABC they had a guy, Wesley Aird.
Speaker:Now, he's an Indigenous advocate.
Speaker:He's from the Gold Coast Aboriginal community.
Speaker:He's worked in Indigenous affairs for over 25 years.
Speaker:He was in the Army.
Speaker:He was first Indigenous graduate from the Royal Military College at Duntroon.
Speaker:And yeah, he's obviously a right winger Indigenous advocate.
Speaker:I hadn't come across him before until I saw him on this panel, but he had been
Speaker:on Q& A, I subsequently discovered.
Speaker:So, here's what he was saying in this panel discussion.
Speaker:And let me find a little clip for you.
Speaker:Wesley Eyred
Speaker:is this guy.
Speaker:And the Director of the Centre for Indigenous Training and former
Speaker:Coalition Advisor during the Howard and Abbott years, Wesley Eyred.
Speaker:When I look back on the statistics around the Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Speaker:Islander Commission all those years ago, there were a lot of Indigenous
Speaker:people that weren't active in that.
Speaker:And the reason they weren't is because they were involved in the economy.
Speaker:Mum and dad were going to work, kids were going to school.
Speaker:You know, we do have a fairly urban and suburban indigenous population.
Speaker:A lot of indigenous people are active in the economy.
Speaker:So I think that instead of collectivising Indigenous people and saying, you
Speaker:know, it's us 3 percent versus you 97%.
Speaker:Maybe we should fund need and focus on need and address it where we can according
Speaker:to households and their lived experiences and assist people where we, where we can.
Speaker:Because I think Indigenous disadvantage is going to be overcome.
Speaker:Probably one household at a time.
Speaker:Young kids need role models.
Speaker:They need to go to school.
Speaker:You know, we shouldn't lose sight that there is a struggle ahead of us,
Speaker:but I think it's going to be a very personal struggle from here on in.
Speaker:Does that argument sound familiar, Joe?
Speaker:Yes, might have heard it once or twice.
Speaker:Yeah, but, you know, I'm just insensitive white fella who knows fuck all if I
Speaker:say it, but he'll be dismissed because he's a right winger who used to work in
Speaker:the Howard government in some respect.
Speaker:So he'll be, you know, because of who you are, your argument is shit, rather
Speaker:than what is the actual argument.
Speaker:Yeah, I mean, the racism towards Lydia Thorpe and Jacinta Price.
Speaker:Was quite impressive, because they had the wrong views of a black person, and
Speaker:therefore they could be discounted.
Speaker:Yes.
Speaker:Coconuts.
Speaker:Yes.
Speaker:Ah, there we go.
Speaker:So,
Speaker:I've run through the first notes of this section, Joe, of The Voice, but
Speaker:it really, it just really strikes me of a failure of our public
Speaker:intellectuals, a failure of our, our media to deal with the topics that...
Speaker:We've dealt with on this podcast.
Speaker:Nobody else has talked about them.
Speaker:And Orwellian doublespeak where the racist, the people promoting racist
Speaker:policy are accusing the people who want to be colourblind of being racist.
Speaker:Well, but also Albanese, if you really wanted to do something, there's
Speaker:a royal commission from, I don't know what it was, 10, 15 years ago?
Speaker:That none of the, or very few of the, recommendations have been implemented.
Speaker:And I think that was Aboriginal deaths in custody, I don't know.
Speaker:There was definitely a Royal Commission where nothing happened.
Speaker:None of the recommendations.
Speaker:It's like, why not start with that?
Speaker:Mm, yeah.
Speaker:So, so that's where we're at I hope.
Speaker:I hold that the debate will improve.
Speaker:I hope that people like Wesley Eyred...
Speaker:Get some sort of better airplay, but I hold out no hope.
Speaker:He'll be accused of being some Warren Mundine or Jacinta
Speaker:Price type of character.
Speaker:And that will dismiss his arguments without them being properly examined.
Speaker:But for me what I heard there was spot on.
Speaker:We should be talking about disadvantage.
Speaker:There's a significant middle class, upper middle class, well
Speaker:to do Indigenous population.
Speaker:They're doing fine.
Speaker:Let's look at disadvantage, but there we go.
Speaker:So, that's the wrap of the Indigenous issue and good on you in the chat
Speaker:room for the people who have been making their comments and I don't
Speaker:know that there's anything there.
Speaker:John says, I thought you were a Bernard fanboy.
Speaker:I, I like Bernard Keane on certain things.
Speaker:It just goes to show John that when I think somebody's speaking shit,
Speaker:I'll say they're speaking shit.
Speaker:They're saying something, an argument that's good, I'll say it's good.
Speaker:It just doesn't matter who they are, it's the argument itself that is important.
Speaker:I was with somebody else recently, who was that?
Speaker:Can't remember.
Speaker:But, yeah, it's the merits of the argument itself that's important,
Speaker:not the person saying it.
Speaker:And too often...
Speaker:Well, so it should be.
Speaker:Yeah, too often the Yes Campaign just will dismiss an argument by
Speaker:dismissing the person proposing it, rather than dealing with the issue.
Speaker:And that's where we've got to, where we've got to.
Speaker:Surely, we'll take a break without people talking about Treaty or truth
Speaker:telling Joe, but surely they can tell there's no appetite for Treaty.
Speaker:I don't know, it depends on how, Lydia thought was very much Treaty first.
Speaker:Yes.
Speaker:And I don't know how much coverage she will get.
Speaker:I know the right wing press hates her because there were lots of articles about
Speaker:her behavior outside of nightclubs, so I don't know what was going on there,
Speaker:but I think that if the yes vote or the yes campaign falls apart, then
Speaker:it may be, it may well be people like Lydia Thorpe pushing for the treaty.
Speaker:And I can see them very much being fought tooth and nail by Landon and the like.
Speaker:Yeah, so if you come in late to the podcast Scott's not here because
Speaker:he's out of town, out of where he normally is and without internet,
Speaker:so he wasn't able to join us.
Speaker:But Joe is now acting not only as our tech guy, but as our UK correspondent.
Speaker:Coming in loud and clear from Devon, so, there we go.
Speaker:Right, well, Joe, let's have a quick talk about Palestine and
Speaker:Israel and the latest there.
Speaker:Just a couple of things I wanted to mention.
Speaker:Ursula von der Leyen.
Speaker:Ursula von der Leyen she's some sort of like, something to do with the
Speaker:European Commission of some sort.
Speaker:She's always giving speeches and she's on Twitter quoted as saying, Russia's
Speaker:attacks against civilian infrastructure, especially electricity, are war crimes.
Speaker:Cutting off men, women, children of water, electricity and heating with
Speaker:winter coming, these are acts of pure terror and we have to call it as such.
Speaker:So that was her opinion about Russia and its actions against the Ukraine.
Speaker:Meanwhile, turning to Palestine and...
Speaker:Israel, she wrote, at the dawn of Shabbat last Saturday, the
Speaker:whole world woke up in horror.
Speaker:The terrorist attack by Hamas is an act of war, and we fully support
Speaker:Israel's right to defend itself.
Speaker:Defend itself, yes.
Speaker:Impose.
Speaker:Punitive action on an entire population?
Speaker:Definitely not.
Speaker:Hmm, yeah.
Speaker:I mean, it seems that they've cut off water, electricity.
Speaker:They have.
Speaker:And they've been bombing buildings.
Speaker:Yes.
Speaker:Clearly, civilians are going to die and have died.
Speaker:And, well, that's collateral damage.
Speaker:That's allowable.
Speaker:Yes.
Speaker:But the cutting off water and electricity is definitely a no no.
Speaker:Yes.
Speaker:From the Israeli point of view...
Speaker:And I've spoken to a Jewish person about this, you know, when the Palestinians
Speaker:broke out of Gaza and gunned down women and children and babies, that
Speaker:was seen as being significantly worse than Israel blowing up an entire
Speaker:apartment block where there would be women and babies and children.
Speaker:They see that as two different, morally different things.
Speaker:I don't know that it is.
Speaker:Yeah, I mean, it's one of those trolley problems, isn't it?
Speaker:You could argue that one is an intentional act and the other one is indiscriminate.
Speaker:So, you're aiming for the soldiers and you're accidentally killing
Speaker:civilians rather than deliberately going out and targeting civilians.
Speaker:Yes.
Speaker:But you know you're going to be killing civilians.
Speaker:You know it's going to mitigate that, yes.
Speaker:Yes.
Speaker:But you've got people who are elderly, can't get up and down stairs, elevators
Speaker:don't work, you know, or whatever.
Speaker:Hamas are hiding out in tunnels under the Gaza Strip anyway, so bombing
Speaker:above ground is doing nothing anyway.
Speaker:And this is the group, Israel, who had no idea that the attack
Speaker:was coming, and now suddenly...
Speaker:Have all the intelligence to say, well, if we bomb this particular building,
Speaker:we know that's a Hamas building.
Speaker:But they didn't have the intelligence before to tell them
Speaker:about the strike that was coming.
Speaker:But suddenly they've got the intelligence to tell them where they're, you
Speaker:know, hiding and which building.
Speaker:So, halt on both sides.
Speaker:And, yeah is one more morally reprehensible than the other?
Speaker:I'm not so sure.
Speaker:But you will never convince people.
Speaker:Once they're in one of those camps, it's very, it's impossible for people
Speaker:who are so distraught to sort of overcome the bias that has been forced
Speaker:on them, so, yeah, one person I was speaking to, their, their niece.
Speaker:Was there, and she got to a service station when they were attacked.
Speaker:Everybody in the service station died, except for her, because
Speaker:she was hiding in a cupboard.
Speaker:Like, what an experience.
Speaker:So, sounds like school shootings in the US.
Speaker:Yes, it does, doesn't it?
Speaker:Yeah.
Speaker:We had headlines saying 40 babies murdered by Hamas, and cutting the
Speaker:throats of babies in a massacre.
Speaker:And we had Joe Biden more or less confirming that he'd seen pictures, but
Speaker:then they'd be walking back to say, well, actually, there is no proof of that.
Speaker:So, but that is in the minds of some people now that Amass had murdered
Speaker:babies by cutting off their throats.
Speaker:Although apparently the IDF have now released photos of mutilated children.
Speaker:So it may not have been that particular incident, but apparently
Speaker:there is now photographic evidence.
Speaker:Also worth noting, Bellingcat, who are open source investigative journalists.
Speaker:Do you have a section on social media misinformation?
Speaker:And they were debunking a number of videos going, this is claimed
Speaker:to be from the latest outbreak.
Speaker:Actually, it's from 10 years ago and is in a different part of the world.
Speaker:So there's, there's a very interesting if I think it's Bellingcat.
Speaker:org, just Google Belling cat as in putting a bell on a cat.
Speaker:And they have a Palestine, Israel, Israel.
Speaker:page that is updated with the various things that they've debunked.
Speaker:Yeah.
Speaker:What did the White House say?
Speaker:So the thing that gets me about the way the White House operates, Joe, is
Speaker:these spokespersons come out and answer questions on behalf of the administration.
Speaker:And how are they supposed to be able to read the mind of the
Speaker:president on a whole range of issues?
Speaker:I just don't know how that's supposed to work, where.
Speaker:People are asking them, what's the administration's position on this and
Speaker:this and this, and in any event, one of the spokespeople is Corinne Jean Pierre,
Speaker:and at a press briefing on Wednesday, she responded to a question about certain
Speaker:progressive lawmakers calling for a ceasefire and a de escalation of violence.
Speaker:So she was asked about this.
Speaker:proposed ceasefire in the Gaza.
Speaker:And she said, quote, I've seen some of those statements this weekend.
Speaker:We're going to continue to be very clear.
Speaker:We believe they're wrong.
Speaker:We believe they're repugnant.
Speaker:And we believe they're disgraceful.
Speaker:This is to the idea of a ceasefire.
Speaker:Is repugnant and disgraceful.
Speaker:As he goes on, our condemnation belongs squarely with terrorists who have
Speaker:brutally murdered, raped, kidnapped hundreds, hundreds of Israelis.
Speaker:There can be no equivocation about that.
Speaker:There are not two sides here.
Speaker:There are not two sides.
Speaker:So there you go that's apparently the Biden administration's
Speaker:view on the conflict.
Speaker:Just finally, Joe.
Speaker:Was listening to something and I can't remember what they were
Speaker:talking about, the west sorry.
Speaker:Gaza Strip.
Speaker:And apparently Hamas had seized power, so I dunno that they were elected.
Speaker:Yeah, I don't know either.
Speaker:I've also been hearing stories that Israel more or less encouraged Hamas
Speaker:because they didn't want the more reasonable groups there offering.
Speaker:Reasonable peace terms, but I haven't got to the bottom of that yet, but
Speaker:a sort of a Machiavellian type of argument that, that Israel encouraged.
Speaker:There's also
Speaker:arguments that the Israeli government knew of the attacks, unless it
Speaker:happened, to galvanize public support.
Speaker:Yes.
Speaker:All these sorts of Machiavellian things that may or may not be true, who knows,
Speaker:so, There's also concern that Hezbollah and the Lebanon will join up because
Speaker:they are also, it's a Iranian front, so they're supported and funded by Iran.
Speaker:Yeah.
Speaker:And just finally, Joe, just back to the US, so Robert Kennedy Jr.,
Speaker:our favourite anti vaxxer Yeah.
Speaker:He's announced that he's going to be running as an independent, so,
Speaker:the interesting thing in America, dear listener, is they don't have
Speaker:preferential voting, so if you, if you split, say, the, let's assume
Speaker:for example that Robert Kennedy Jr.
Speaker:is going to split the Democratic vote, that may not be the case, but just assume
Speaker:that that's the case, so whereas before it might have been, you know, 50 50.
Speaker:And then suddenly, maybe 15 percent or 10 percent of Democrat voters go
Speaker:to Robert Kennedy, then Trump wins.
Speaker:And they've also got this Cornell of a name, who's also looking at running.
Speaker:And this might be an election where there is some significant independents
Speaker:running, who might split these votes.
Speaker:And open the door to a Trump victory, even though, even
Speaker:without that, he's in the lead.
Speaker:Anything is possible in this upcoming US election.
Speaker:Well, assuming he's picked as the Republican candidate, because if he
Speaker:doesn't, then he'll run as an Independent, which will split the Republican vote.
Speaker:Yes.
Speaker:So, there's no opportunity for preferential voting
Speaker:where you as we do have here.
Speaker:So, that is going to make that election really interesting as
Speaker:these independent candidates appear.
Speaker:And someone like Robert Kennedy Jr., is he going to take Democratic votes or
Speaker:is he going to take Republican votes?
Speaker:Because...
Speaker:He's such a weird character on some of these policies.
Speaker:Anything's possible.
Speaker:I'm not sure, but, yes, I mean, the anti vax actually is a
Speaker:left wing thing, historically.
Speaker:It was very much a rich parent worried about their poor little babies and autism.
Speaker:Hippie flower child, sort of.
Speaker:Absolutely.
Speaker:And that tended to be much more left leaning.
Speaker:It was only COVID that it really started to become a right wing thing.
Speaker:Yes.
Speaker:John in the chat room says, The Pep podcast did a really
Speaker:good deep dive on RKJr.
Speaker:His popularity will probably fall off a cliff.
Speaker:Says John.
Speaker:Okay.
Speaker:Watley the Wizard says almost certainly the Israeli government
Speaker:knew about it beforehand.
Speaker:John also says Hamas were elected.
Speaker:No, no, he says Humas was elected.
Speaker:Yeah, Humas, yes.
Speaker:Hey so yeah, that's that.
Speaker:Well, look, it's a quick episode.
Speaker:We don't have Scott here.
Speaker:And ah, in the aftermath of the voice referendum, I think
Speaker:that's enough for an episode.
Speaker:People over there, Joe, as our UK correspondent, what's
Speaker:happening on the ground in the UK?
Speaker:What do we need to know?
Speaker:Or what are they, anybody over there think that Australia is now a bunch
Speaker:of racist assholes as a result, or they don't even know about it?
Speaker:I did see a news thing of what was the international coverage,
Speaker:and it really was a damp squib.
Speaker:There wasn't much international coverage, and most of it just said...
Speaker:The referendum failed and I think the people who were trying to collate all
Speaker:of that were making an argument that Australia was being seen as racist again.
Speaker:But I didn't, I didn't see from the headlines I saw, I didn't read it as
Speaker:painting a particularly bad picture.
Speaker:Yeah.
Speaker:But really, the rest of the world doesn't care about Australia.
Speaker:I know it's, it's hard to hear, but that's the, the brutal truth.
Speaker:It's so far away that people just don't pay attention.
Speaker:They've got their own little worries.
Speaker:In the chat room, Watley the Wizard said Watley said, this is, because you,
Speaker:because John Hummus, rather, Watley says, so Israel went to war with...
Speaker:Surely Tavulli would get in on the action.
Speaker:I thought Watley was just, just joking.
Speaker:I hope it wasn't a picking on your spelling.
Speaker:Yeah, well, there we go.
Speaker:That's a big event in Australian political history, social, you know,
Speaker:little study society course that we've got here on the Velvet Glove.
Speaker:Thanks for tuning in.
Speaker:Thanks for listening.
Speaker:And we'll be back next week with something.
Speaker:We'll see what happens.
Speaker:Talk to you then.
Speaker:Bye for now.
Speaker:And it's a good note from him.
Speaker:Yeah.
