Sign In
0 Items (
Search
Comments (28)
Allowing that the Voice referendum produces the big ‘No’ pollsters are predicting, amongst the most interesting reactions to that defeat will be those of Yes23’s most ardent advocates. Take Marcia Langton, for instance, who has further established that the once revered Lancet will publish just about any tommyrot that suits the leftoid narrative of the moment. Then wonder about Noel Pearson, who put an aggrieved truculence on display this week during an on-air chat with 3AW’s Neil Mitchell.
Not that we should be surprised. The Lancet has been acquiring some very ugly blots on its escutcheon of late, as anyone who followed the Covid-19 saga would be aware, the journal having memorably rushed to press with a study which concluded treating the infection with hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine “were each independently associated with an increased risk of in-hospital mortality.” As it emerged, the Indian researchers were extensively funded by Big Parma which — need it be said? — had a keen interest in suppressing the use of cheap and readily available remedies. That the researchers also declined to share their data with peer reviewers apparently raised no alarms. So the findings went to press and remained the stated opinion of Big Science’s cookie-cutter Covid establishment until, eventually, the paper was found to be more flaws than facts, leading to its belated retraction.
Keith Windschuttle: Post-Referendum Politics
The Lancet was no more cautious in leaping to decry the suspicion that Covid-19 was engineered in, and escaped from, the Wuhan bio lab. That the first cases occurred near two subway stops either side of the lab — the first at the infamous wet market and the second at a military base — failed to spark the editors’ informed surmise. Instead the journal went to press with a group letter adamantly rejecting the possibility that the virus could ever have escaped from the lab:
The rapid, open, and transparent sharing of data on this outbreak is now being threatened by rumours and misinformation around its origins. We stand together to strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin.
What made the publication of this assertion so egregious is that Lancet editor Dr Richard Horton knew for a fact that researcher Peter Drazak, who organised the letter, was a Wuhan lab associate. This did not emerge until 16 months later, by which time the mainstream media’s useful idiots were very nearly as one in declaring the lab-leak theory so far fetched that only those whose preferred headgear is the tinfoil hat could possibly believe it. Locally, reporters-cum-stenographers, especially at the Silly Morning Herald and other Nine rags, went all-in defending the Wuhan lab. For a laugh and a window on the mind and model of the modern journalist, spare a minute or two to read Silly science roundsman Liam Mannix, who issued an unintentional invitation for readers to peek through the ideological lens that makes so much of modern journalism not worth the paper or pixels on which it appears. As Mannix puts it in defence of boffindom feeding him lines for subsequent regurgitation:
Journalism fell into a trap with the climate crisis. By balancing the arguments of scientists and deniers early on, the media gave the public a distorted view of the expert consensus.
We now live with the outcome of that coverage: less than half of Americans surveyed in 2016 believed the climate crisis was caused by human action, compared to 97 per cent of climate scientists.
I worry much of the media is doing the same with the lab leak hypothesis. I worry the very scientists in Wuhan who tried to warn us, for years, about the threat posed by bat coronavirus pandemics are now being blamed.
We have explored the issue in this in-depth feature and in this story, but I worry elsewhere the arguments are being presented as competing when one of them – the lab leak – is viewed as far less likely than the other by most experts.
Where would be without newsrooms’ RoloDexes of rent-a-quote ‘experts’ to encourage faith in orthodoxy and its further propagation? Considerably better informed, for starters.
Given The Lancet‘s reign of error and political partisanship, Ms Langton and her fellow authors (Ian Anderson, Yin Paradies, Ray Lovett and Tom Calma, who wrote the Voice blueprint with co-author Langton) picked the right vehicle. Some samples:
The Yes campaign points out that Australian governments have shut down Indigenous advisory bodies when their proposals were at odds with government interests or policy.
Lancet readers might benefit from knowing a little about ATSIC, its corruption and the joint decision by Labor and the Coalition to wind it up before further millions of dollars could be misspent, stolen and generally squandered.
The No campaign argues that a Voice to Parliament will be racially divisive. They argue it will be racist as it confers special privileges on Indigenous Australians.
This argument is factually incorrect. There are many business bodies, trade unions, and statutory bodies—representing a range of interests across the Australian community—that regularly provide advice to the Government.
Yes, they can and do lobby the government. But none are so arrogant as to demand that the right to express a view through normal channels — available to all Australians, be they black, white or green with purple spots — needs to engraved in the Constitution.
Nonetheless, there is also a progressive No campaign that argues an Indigenous Voice to Parliament is not sufficient to effect real change in outcomes. Citing past government failures to respect Indigenous self-determination and sovereignty, these campaigners are concerned that the proposal does not go far enough. They are calling for stronger forms of self-determination, such as designated Indigenous seats in Parliament.
Ms Langton & Co., are tossing a conciliatory bone to Lidia Thorpe et al.
Since the referendum was announced, there has been a substantial rise in threats, abuse, vilification, and hate speech against Indigenous peoples, both in person and online.
And the evidence of that alleged epidemic of vilification is…
The Australian e-Safety Commission reported in late May, 2023, that there had been more than a 10% rise in the proportion of complaints made by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples about online cyber abuse, threats, and harassment.
Disagree with a Voice supporter and your interlocutor can file an entirely subjective appraisal of your racist motive and intent. Collecting complaints is the stock in trade of the eSafety Commission, which is building a bureaucratic empire complete with a budget large enough to funnel grants and funds to allied and supportive organisations. These include the Institute for Urban Indigenous Health, which recently picked up a handy $536,359, and a further $413,000 to First Nations Media. In regard to online abuse, which the eSafety Commission reckons to be especially rife, expressions of offence are keenly sought, as the agency’s website explains:
…us mob can often experience racism and hate speech online.
This happens to First Nations Community more than it does to many other people, especially if Community members identify as being different in other ways.
Racism and hate speech are just as wrong online as in person, but there is something you can do about it….
Yes, you can complain to the eSafety Commission, which will have a swollen ledger of alleged online racism at hand when it comes time for the agency’s next round of budget funding to be allocated.
Back now to The Lancet, where we find this …
…the First Peoples’ Assembly of Victoria (FPAV) has gone from blocking two people a day for racist abuse on social media to blocking about 50 people, citing the national debate on an Indigenous Voice as the reason for this escalation.
“Abuse”, it seems, is in the eye of the beholder. As FPAV laments on its website, that purported deluge of online cross-burners didn’t cut the mustard with Facebook, which rejected specific requests to take down disagreeable comments, posts and content. Given the social media platform’s much-reported hair-trigger in spiking posts, including the odd link to innocuous Quadrant stories, just how offensive could those “racist” posts have been?
Speculating on the post-referendum situation: a No vote will have a profoundly negative effect on those in the Indigenous world who have walked a journey of reconciliation with politicians, business leaders, and Australian communities for nearly two decades.
Read the above paragraph slowly and carefully. What the authors are presenting is the assertion that while Aborigines have been the picture of sweet and patient reasonableness on their “journey of reconciliation”, the rest of Australia is somewhat schizophrenic by remaining callously deaf to indigenous anguish while dedicating some $39-billion-plus per year to alleviate it.
We are further left to wonder what is meant and implied by that forecast of “profoundly negative effect”. Does it suggest heartbroken directors of the Aborigine Industry sobbing in quiet corners about lost opportunities (not least, a cycnic might add, to access the power and perks which a Voice would grant)? Or is it hinting at a promise that we’ll see further blockades of Flinders and Swanston streets at peak hour, plus other outbreaks of anger, protests and disruption?
Now listen to 3AW’s interview with a bristling Noel Pearson. It would seem the second question is the more relevant.
“Or is it hinting at a promise that we’ll see further blockades of Flinders and Swanston streets at peak hour, plus other outbreaks of anger, protests and disruption?”
I’ve always assumed that was pretty much a given.
“Now listen to 3AW’s interview with a bristling Noel Pearson”
.
I did listen, and pondered “What a change since I told my my daughter that the three Aborigines to listen to were Bess Price, Warren Mundine (despite being ALP) and Noel Pearson – Jacinta Price was not on the scene back then.
.
Can’t think of better words to describe his input than the vernacular “What a load of crap”.
https://www.theage.com.au/opinion/dropping-bombs-and-stoking-feuds-the-other-side-of-noel-pearson-20140817-1053ie.html
Don’t imagine that when the Voice referendum fails, that will be the end of the matter. The Left will ‘take it on the road’. We will have to put up with attempts at its destroying Western Civilisation in Australia in various guises for years to come. Grit your teeth and gird your loins, true Australians.
My thoughts on that here:
https://www.spectator.com.au/2023/09/winning-the-peace/
Back to the “97% of scientists believe” trope: as soon as you start counting scientists, you are not doing science! Science is the discussion and its long chain of provisional positions which rightly keep getting revised.
|
Vote counts belong to politics, when the great effort of politicians it to make you forget the promises on which basis they got your vote; or didn’t.
Seeing that “a No vote will have a profoundly negative effect on those in the Indigenous world who have walked a journey of reconciliation”, a kind and caring government would naturally provide counselling services — I’ll be happy to assist, at NDIS rates (ca. $200-250/hour). Lifeline had better sign on a few more volunteers ASAP.
Alan Jones can speak for me:
https://twitter.com/i/status/1709282046131188209
If China had just one wet market per one million people there would still be 1000 wet markets in China. The odds were wherefore 1000 to 1 that coronavirus popping up next to the Wuhan Institute of Virology was purely coincidental.
Credlin again lets herself down when she writes in The Australian 5/10:
.
“but a constitutional mistake is there forever”.
.
That is a unambiguous claim and Credlin should do better than that.
.
“Forever” is a very long time. If the referendum on October 14, 2023 could cause a change in the Constitution to enable “The Voice”, then a referendum on October 16, 2100 could cause a change in the Constitution getting rid of “The Voice”. Or of course a referendum at any earlier or later date.
.
Odds on The Australian accepting such a comment? 1,000/1 is my guess.
lbloveday, I think ‘forever’ in this context means “for the foreseeable future”. In practical terms, given Australia’s history with referenda, I think her statement was reasonable. Once a “right” has been granted, I think removing it would be politically impossible, like defunding or selling the ABC.
Credlin is very literate – she can come up with a more precise expression if she means “for the foreseeable future” or some such time. “Forever” can reasonable be taken to mean for the rest of time.
.
“I think removing it would be politically impossible”
Someone in The Australia (they ACCEPTED my comment!) responded in a similar vein, falsely claiming “But you need Bipartisan support to hold a referendum”.
.
I referred her to the legislation and the 1975 Federal election defeat of Whitlam’s Labor, when the Coalition held 91 of the 127 HOR seats and 35 of the Senate’s 64.
.
Paraphrasing someone else rather than search for the exact words:
Say the Voice referendum succeeds and the Voice proves a disaster, the Coalition goes to the next election on a platform of removing the Voice, obtain a Fraser-like majority in both houses, hold a referendum which also romps in.
.
Neither he nor I are saying that is very likely – it is fraught to make predictions, especially about the future – but it is possible.
lbloveday, re your comments about Peta Credlin and her statement that the new body will be in the constitution for ever.
I support her claim 100%. Your view doesn’t factor in that once the Voice is embedded in the Constitution it can make representations to government, and as our esteemed leader has said, “It would be a brave government what ignored it”.
What could be more central to an Aboriginal industry than removal of their power from the constitution? And the Aboriginal Establishment IS Aboriginal people (like the Sun King, L’etat C’est Moi)
Of course their representation would be along the lines that this is racist etc etc.
For the government to ignore such a “representation” is beyond any sort of rational evaluation of reality.
Thank you for pointing out the truth: forever means forever, and shouldn’t be used when another meaning is meant. The No side is accused of disinformation and worse. It shouldn’t be proving such accusations to be true. Say “virtually,” “practically,” or “for all intents and purposes” forever if you like, but an unqualified “forever” IS misleading.
It’s becoming pervasive – people making claims about what WILL happen, without qualifications such as you suggest, as if they were all-seeing, all-knowing.
.
Even God, I suggest, is unlikely to know – if He does, then essentially our future is out of our hands. I discussed this with a preacher man and pointed out that if God does know the future, then I effectively don’t make decisions as my future actions are already determined. The preacher say that I do have the ability to decide what to do, but God knows what I will decide. Hmmm. We settled for a glass of wine.
.
Even as a young man, in response to aggression such as “What will you do if I don’t do it?”, I’d reply “Only one way to find out”.
As Doris Day said:
The future’s not ours to see
Qué será, será
Cliff Reece tells it thus; why can’t the others do similarly?
.
“And, once it is there, it would be very hard to remove even if it were shown to be incompetent or corrupt”.
In January 2020 I was moved to send an e-mail to The Lancet’s editor, Richard Horton, in the following terms:
Dear Editor:
A book review in the current issue of The Lancet, by one Rhea W. Boyd, “Despair doesn’t kill, defending whiteness does”, raises a question which I hope you can help me answer.
Dr Boyd states that four individuals were “killed by whiteness”. As a cause of death, that is new to me. I have searched ICD-10 and ICD-11 (although the latter is not yet formally effective), but neither contains the term “whiteness” or a derivative of that term. I suspect that “whiteness” is a typo for something else (perhaps a spell-check programme inserted it in error?), but for the life of me I haven’t been able to work out what it might be.
As you are the editor of the journal that published the article in question, I thought you would be in the best position to ascertain the truth. Is the correct term something other than “whiteness”; but if it is “whiteness”, could you please let me know where it would fit in the ICD classification?
Regards
Take a look at The Lancet’s ‘Manifesto’. My impression is that it is Science in the employ of social justice agendas.
Thanks for this article. I (editor of the Tasman Medical Journal, which has published its opposition to the referendum question) and two other doctors (retired) are submitting a rebuttal of the prejudicial Anderson et al paper in the Lancet, setting out why any alleged upsurge in racism is the result of the proposal to assign an ancestry-defined group a constitutional right denied to all other Australians, and why about one half of voters intend to vote NO. We note that the authorship of the Final Report of the co-design process (Langton and Calma) is not provided in the Lancet paper’s reference to that publication (their reference 3). Instead, it is ascribed to the NIAA but names the government website as the source. This unacceptable citation obscures the fact that the authors are not objective academics in this matter but supporters of the YES case. Unfortunately we cannot release our rebuttal at the moment since that would cause it to be rejected by the Lancet, but if it is rejected on other grounds we shall make it widely available.
Thank you for your comment, although your last sentence puzzles me some – it seems contradictory. It is unclear to me why you cannot publish your rebuttal as yet (presumably you would wish in the Lancet as first choice), since it’s likely London to a brick that the Lancet would not publish it, so another outlet now is rational.
I agree that the Lancet has become in part a vehicle for leftwing propaganda. This is an example of a noticeable trend: using a journal outlet of very high prestige (mostly renowned for publishing objective, evidence-based views) to propagate leftwing opinions that may consequently be given undue gravitas by virtue of coat tailing.
Thanks Ianl. Medical Journals secure copyright by being the sole publisher so all work submitted has to be new and not submitted to any other Journal, so one can only publish elsewhere if the article is rejected. In any case I have decided to publish the article in some form in Australia, where it will have more effect than in The Lancet which as you say is unlikely to publish it anyway. If it doesn’t see the light of day before 14 October (highly unlikely) it will be irrelevant anyway. Adding a precis to this chain is one possibility; another is to publish it in my own Journal, the Tasman Medical Journal.
Good heavens. The Lancet is a medical journal. Why are they publishing political propaganda? One can guess that perhaps The Lancet received a hefty donation from those who wished their propaganda published.
Yet more evidence, if it were needed, that just about all of our scientific institutions have now been thoroughly infiltrated by the anti-intellectualism associated with the neo-Marxist long march, that has left all such affected scientific institutions requiring a ‘social’ in front of the science part and a relocation to sit with their postmodernist brethren in the humanities department.
The Lancet has long been interested in social aspects of health, which can be a legitimate study, but in the wrong hands rapidly descends into the standard Leftist monologue. Unfortunately The Lancet editors also have a bad habit of occasionally publishing opinion pieces by their Woke friends, including some from Australia.
In 2007 I wrote in protest after a ludicrous Lancet editorial that was obviously based on Australian sources, attacking the Howard government (significantly, the two main areas of interest were Aboriginal health and academic medicine). The Lancet published my letter, but mainly because the letters editor liked my style. On another occasion The Lancet waxed lyrical on the subject of prostitution, which it described as a “profession” and an “occupation”. I wrote describing it as a “trade”, and asking why the journal had mysteriously failed to mention its adverse health effects. Once again my letter of protest was published, this time provoking a personal communication from a Canadian prostitute. She could not understand my negative attitude. She assured me that the services she provided for men were highly valued in her community, especially by the wives.
As others have pointed out, the Lancet has managed to disgrace itself on Covid. It’s most recent effort was to reject without review a magisterial paper by Peter McCullough and colleagues titled ‘A Systematic Review of Autopsy Findings in Deaths after COVID-19 Vaccination’. The paper proved that the Covid jabs cause death. The Lancet prefers that people do not know about this, in case they cease to believe ‘The Science’.
THe Lancet has signed on to the Covering Climate Now coalition pledging to hype global warming etc, facts be damned.
Also, how many here know that Calma is a Fellow of the
Australian Academy of Science? How remarkable considering his science output has been negligible.
As lancet is reluctant to let everyone read rad the article, the text of the Lancet Calma_Langton article , mseagull@diggersbeach.com, minus references, is as follows:
“Racism and the 2023 Australian constitutional referendum”
Ian Anderson Yin Paradies Marcia Langton Ray Lovett Tom Calma
Published:September 28, 2023DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(23)01954-2
On Oct 14, 2023, Australians will vote in a national referendum. A Yes vote will change the Australian Constitution to acknowledge 60 millennia of Indigenous history and establish an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice to Parliament and the executive Government. The referendum honours the current Australian Government’s commitment to implement the 2017 Uluru Statement from the Heart, which calls for a Voice, Treaty, and Truth telling. 1
The statement was the culmination of a nationwide consultative process, involving more than 1200 Indigenous Australians across 12 regional dialogues. A subsequent Voice co-design process engaged with 9400 Indigenous and non-Indigenous people and organisations.2 3
Indigenous leaders sought more than constitutional symbolism. Many conservative politicians would not accept the inclusion of rights in the Australian Constitution. The compromise position for Indigenous leaders was to enshrine the principle of an Indigenous Voice to Parliament, strengthening the right to be heard. However, there are early signs that the referendum process itself is causing Indigenous Australians to experience higher levels of racism. 4 5
We posit that this is partly because the referendum process taps into a deep well of historical racism that originated on the Australian frontier when Indigenous peoples “were violently dispossessed from their lands by the British”. 6
This history has shaped the 2023 referendum and an increasingly divisive campaign between those advocating a Yes and a No position. A Yes vote will require the Australian Parliament to legislate for structures that enable Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples to advise the Government and the Parliament on laws or policies that affect the lives of Indigenous peoples.
The Yes campaign points out that Australian governments have shut down Indigenous advisory bodies when their proposals were at odds with government interests or policy. Enshrining the Voice in the Constitution would ensure that an advisory body would not be disbanded, regardless of the views of the government of the day. The Yes campaign also argues that having Indigenous voices in the development of programmes can improve outcomes on issues that matter to Indigenous Australians, such as land management, Indigenous cultural heritage, or health care. 7
To illustrate this view, from January, 2020, to January, 2021, the number of cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection was six-fold higher for non-Indigenous Australians than for First Nation Australians. It was argued that this difference was due to the early engagement of Indigenous peoples and organisations, at a national and local level, to drive the COVID-19 pandemic response within their communities. 8
However, we also note the higher rates of severe infection among Indigenous Australians during the phase of the pandemic with omicron SARS-CoV-2 variants. This difference was most likely due to the higher burden of chronic disease in Indigenous Australians. 9
Health champions who are campaigning for the Yes campaign will argue that Indigenous voices will provide the Australian Government with advice on addressing structural racism and on the social determinants of health, such as education, poverty, and housing. A large body of research shows that interpersonal and institutional racism is associated with greater psychological distress and poorer physical health for Indigenous peoples. 10 11
The No campaign argues that a Voice to Parliament will be racially divisive. They argue it will be racist as it confers special privileges on Indigenous Australians. 12
This argument is factually incorrect. There are many business bodies, trade unions, and statutory bodies—representing a range of interests across the Australian community—that regularly provide advice to the Government. It is also an argument that is not supported by more than 100 ethnic advisory bodies, which are all advocating for the Yes vote. 13
Nonetheless, there is also a progressive No campaign that argues an Indigenous Voice to Parliament is not sufficient to effect real change in outcomes. Citing past government failures to respect Indigenous self-determination and sovereignty, these campaigners are concerned that the proposal does not go far enough. They are calling for stronger forms of self-determination, such as designated Indigenous seats in Parliament. 14
Since the referendum was announced, there has been a substantial rise in threats, abuse, vilification, and hate speech against Indigenous peoples, both in person and online. The Australian e-Safety Commission reported in late May, 2023, that there had been more than a 10% rise in the proportion of complaints made by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples about online cyber abuse, threats, and harassment. 4
Furthermore, the First Peoples’ Assembly of Victoria has gone from blocking two people a day for racist abuse on social media to blocking about 50 people, citing the national debate on an Indigenous Voice as the reason for this escalation. 5
Similar discrimination was experienced by the LGBTQIA+ community during the plebiscites in the USA and the 2017 Australian Marriage Law Postal Survey plebiscite. 15 16 17 18 19 20
The Voice referendum process creates a substantial cultural load for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. Indigenous peoples are being asked, and expected, to engage in conversations around this topic and, often, are then challenged to defend their position.
To address these stressors, the Australian Government has allocated AU$10 million to the National Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation (NACCHO) to support the mental health of First Nations peoples during the campaign. 21
NACCHO represents Indigenous-led comprehensive primary care services that were established in the 1970s to strengthen Indigenous self-determination. As front-line services, the organisations represented by NACCHO draw on community strengths to respond to emerging trends and challenges such as racism.
To mitigate risk to mental health and wellbeing, there needs to be respectful discourse that counters the misinformation that is emerging about the Voice and Indigenous aspirations. This discourse requires all forms of media to commit to controls that prevent racial abuse. Public information campaigns, such as that of the Australian Election Commission, are also needed. 22
It will also require services and supports for Indigenous Australians during the referendum process and after the outcome is announced.
Speculating on the post-referendum situation: a No vote will have a profoundly negative effect on those in the Indigenous world who have walked a journey of reconciliation with politicians, business leaders, and Australian communities for nearly two decades. Australian governments have withdrawn their support for Indigenous self-determination before. No doubt Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples will continue to strive for justice. Even if the vote is for Yes, Indigenous peoples will need to work very closely with the Australian Parliament to ensure the Voice legislation realises their ambitions for greater control over their lives. A voice does not guarantee outcomes. A voice provides a stronger platform through which governments can work more effectively with Indigenous Australians at a regional and national level. The 2020 National Agreement on Closing the Gap in Indigenous outcomes brought Indigenous voices to the decision-making table through a coalition of Aboriginal peaks. 23
They represented local Indigenous services from across sectors, such as justice, housing, childcare, employment, and education. It was not a health agreement, but it addressed the social and cultural determinants of Indigenous health. Reform priorities included addressing racism and improving Indigenous control of data. The agreement built on Indigenous capability and strengths to avoid a narrow focus on Indigenous deficits. 23
Despite divergent positions, campaign groups identify this to be the most consequential referendum in the history of the Federation of Australia. 24 12
Whatever the result, it will have a profound effect on the future relationship between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and other Australians.”
seagull@diggersbeach.com
There are some minor formatting errors in my attempt to show the full Lancet paper, but I expect most will understand.
“A No vote will have a profoundly negative effect on those in the Indigenous world who have walked a journey of reconciliation…”
(a) it has nothing to do with ‘reconciliation’ and (b) think of the profoundly negative effect a ‘Yes’ vote will have on the Voice opponents. Horrendous to contemplate. They could be depressed for weeks.
Thanks for posting the full text, It shows that the proponents of the Voice, even when offered a prime site for presenting their case, cannot muster a logical argument, cannot present convincing evidence, cannot effectively present and rebut concerns, and persistently resort to emotional blackmail. This suggests that, if they do get a Voice, what it utters will probably not be worth listening to.