A divided Australia will soon vote on the most significant referendum on Indigenous rights in 50 years

As a non-Aussie, this headline got me interested and I expected a nice explanation of both sides of what's apparently a contentious issue.

Instead, I got 98% explanation of the "yes" side, and a single paragraph at the bottom about "no," which immediately discredits itself by suggesting it's "disinformation."

I'm not voicing an opinion on the issue at hand here, but what a slanted article. Wow.

The Original Wing * The omission is 100% deliberate and the sad thing is the authors think that no one will notice. They think people are mugs and can’t handle the talking points from both sides. You’re not even Aussie and you picked it up straight away. Thanks mate! Tried to fill in a few of the No talking points above for yaz!

Once again ( same as last week ) the deliberate omission of the No campaigns powerful representatives , Warren Mundine and Jacinta Price who are fighting brilliantly, tooth and nail, to keep ‘identity politics’ out of the Australian constitution and stop the left from doing their usual party trick of making things actually worse for those they claim to be helping.

The official “no” campaign, led by the conservative opposition parties, has depicted the proposed Voice as a body for elites in Canberra, the nation’s capital, which would be divisive for the country and prone to judicial overreach. “Yes” campaigners contend many of the “no” arguments are misinformation.

Nice try but that’s not gunna cut it. Luckily those Australians savvy enough to think for themselves can see through the noise, the collective guilt tripping, the arrogant moral high grounding on display all while trying to institutionalize collective guilt , questionable historical half narratives and victimhood. It’s almost the polar opposite of an inspirational and unifying message. Then we see the sport of people being attacked for daring to have a different view or opinion of what better way forward looks like. Bad people, uneducated , bigoted racists. Even those that consider themselves colorblind have somehow become dangerous. I’m sure people from other western countries have seen these very themes playing out in their own delicate democracies. It’s a political brand seeking equity over equality. Divisive by its very nature. If any country is brave enough to stand against this misguided wave of confusion, payback and revenge it’ll be Australia. We didn’t ask for the fight but certainly won’t run from it.

Was just right now watching the ABC claiming how these discussions are affecting indigenous peoples mental health and well being; once again deliberately plucking on those guilt strings , playing to the emotions and claiming to be THE side of compassion. I’m sorry but it was your side that called for the referendum in the first place, so you are going to have to own the consequences too. The mental gymnastics on display are becoming quite the spectacle. If we thought the YES vote would actually make things better Aussies would be all about it, but am still yet to hear a convincing argument that this is the case so If it doesn’t make things better, you have to come to the conclusion that it’ll make things worse. Only way to do your part is to throw your own single voice into the process. Sorry again for the long winded! Himajin!

Heart strings vs head strings. Australia, do your thing!

An unsurprisingly biased article from 'The Conversation'. Just what we'd expect from the bien pensant mainstream. The BBC just published a shocker, too, 'Voice referendum: Lies fuel racism ahead of Australia's Indigenous vote'. They've completely given up the idea of neutral journalism, and then they're amazed and indignant when people tune out and go elsewhere for their news.

I don't see the bias that others have referred to. As a non-Australian, my complaint is that it doesn't explain clearly what the proposed change would mean.

One question I have is how Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander is defined? Is it based on the land they occupy or ethnicity? And if the latter, how do those of mixed ethnicity fit in? Can anyone help?

Just vote "No".

@Ricky Kaminski13 - Yes, cheers for the info! I very much appreciate hearing the opposite case stated.

I don't see the bias that others have referred to.

Start with the bio of the author.

Those who advocate to vote no, to put it simply, do not think the first nations should have a recognized voice, or be able to give advise to lawmakers regarding first nations concerns including cultural differences that most non first nations people remain blissfully ignorant about. They cant make laws, for change or do anything other than bring up matters of concern that currently either get buried or completely ignored officially.

Why should they not get a voice? The first nations were custodians of this continent for tens of thousands of years, but now they can be marginalised and ignored as irrelevant because their culture is not considered important enough to mainstream capitalist needs? Treated like children who should be seen but not heard and who should just do as they are told.

Hear what they have to say. It might surprise people. They learned to survive and live in harmony with the land for over 50,000 years. That in itself gives them the right to be heard.

Good on Australia for recognizing indigenous rights after almost eliminating their entire culture during the stolen generations.

It's long overdue. The treatment of indigenous peoples by all the ex-colonies of Britain has been disgusting. White Australians need to ask for forgiveness and make amends.