Thread by @joeldavisx

Australia will hold a referendum later this year on adding an 'Indigenous Voice' to our constitution.
The government & mainstream media are telling us that its nothing to fear, but their narrative doesn't add up...
1/🧵

The 'Yes' campaign's explicit strategy for victory is to keep the details as vague as possible, which is a tacit acknowledgement that only a uninformed public will support it. And it seems they were right as the more the public hear about the more they oppose it.
2/🧵

The government is claiming that the Voice will merely be an "advisory body" with no actual powers, totally subject to the parliament's legislative control. So why do they want to put it in the constitution? The entire purpose of constitutions is LIMITING government power.
3/🧵

New Zealand has a similar institution to the Voice called the 'Waitangi Tribunal' which the Prime Minister endorsed as a model which Australia should emulate, it was also supposed to merely act as an "advisory body" but has over time become far more..

4/🧵

The Institute of Public Affairs recently released a report comparing the Waitangi Tribunal to the Voice, describing how the same judicial processes used in New Zealand to expand its powers beyond an "advisory role" could be used in Australia.
ipa.org.au/wp-content/upl…
5/🧵

The Australian High Court has a track record of judicial activism where law is interpreted in its "spirit" rather than its explicit literal meaning. This is particularly concerning due to the vagueness of the proposed Voice's right to "make representations" to government.
6/🧵

If God-forbid the Voice is added to the constitution, the High Court could easily rule that if the Voice's advice isn't being listened to, it isn't "present" in the government, violating its constitutional right to "make representations."
7/🧵

The Court could also interpret the "spirit" of the Voice to be given by the 'Uluru Statement from the Heart' document from which it was derived, it states that its purpose is to "empower" Indigenous people & enable their "ancient sovereignty" to "shine through."
8/🧵

Government & mainstream media assertions that there is no risk of the courts expanding the Voice's rights and powers beyond a mere "advisory role" or narrowing the ability of the Parliament to limit or control the Voice is deceptive bullsh*t - they're trying to hoodwink us!
9/🧵

Also it isn't just the Parliament that must listen to the Voice, but every department of government. The scope of the Voice is liable to being interpreted as literally ALL matters of government, as they all can be interpreted as relating to Aboriginals in some way.
9/🧵

The activist architects of the Voice who will obviously seek to run it if it comes into being are extremists who believe that the sovereignty of Aboriginals was "never ceded" to the Australian people. They want to rule over us, they want revenge.
niaa.gov.au/sites/default/…
10/🧵

The activist architects running the Referendum Council see the Voice as the mechanism to get a Treaty which will force Australia to pay them a "fixed percentage" of our GDP in reparations. They want "strong voices, not advisory" & "law making power."
niaa.gov.au/sites/default/…
11/🧵

The Voice is a trojan horse deceptively marketed to Australians to dupe us into empowering a vengeful body within our government that we won't be able to control or abolish with the explicit aim of disempowering us & stealing our wealth.

#voteno or you're a bloody idiot
12/🧵

If you enjoyed this thread, watch Blair and I discuss this on the most recent episode of our show:
youtube.com/live/jhS6_ppT7…