Sam Newman at it again!

[LP]

Representatives of the relevant Aboriginal group(s) may be employed to assist with the preparation of the plan but the lion's share of cost of the plan goes to the archaeologist.

There is another major development site within 50km of Melb CBD that at this very moment cannot even clear / lift abandoned pine trees to begin soil testing without the presence of an indigenous council member to certify whatever gets disturbed or exposed is not of cultural significance, they haven't even made it to site survey yet as the members of the indigenous council refuse to attend the site, and the owners have been warned off disturbing the site without indigenous oversight, which is basically holding the new owner to ransom.

This is not the only case like this I've learned of in recent years, and it's got little to do with heritage and everything to do with politics.

The associated council and state government know this is going on and have done nothing.

[mateinone]

Firstly I apologise for misquoting you.

Newman, and others of his ilk, wouldn't know a debate if it bit him on the ar$e. He has no interest in debating, he has no interest in understanding anything in any depth, he has no interest in anything other than just gobbing off to anything he doesn't like. He is the first one to shoot down anyone who disagrees with him, with all manner of insults and dismissive cr@p.

Free speech is not equally distributed among the population - they are blatant power asymmetries that give people like him leverage that others don't have. Newman speaks from a position of privilege and status that affords him protection from any real punishment. Imagine if Lidia Thorpe came out and said we should all burn Australian flags and slow clap during the National Anthem ? There's a reason why hate speech is used predominately by protected groups like the one to which Newman belongs.

As i said, i am not going to protect Newman as a quality individual, but i am 100% supportive of his rights to make foolish and ignorant comments. i am and always have been against booing of players or anything really and i feel like the call to boo a ceremony is extremely distasteful, but .... People had the right to be stupid and (to a degree) ignorant.

Joe Rogan is a perfect example, i detest him, but i still want him to be able to have his podcasts, on the condition the talk doesn't cross into illegal areas.

We faced the same issues during the same sex marriage referendum, anyone who was against it was bigoted or homophobic... There was at least one publicised account of a girl (in Canberra i think) who was fired for posting on her own facebook that it was "okay to vote no" and that because of her religious beliefs she would in fact be voting no.. She didn't harass or belittle any group, but was fired and her boss posted that she would not allow anyone with such hateful opinions to work there (or something to that effect). That is the society we are heading towards and it is a major problem. That Sam Newman can be such a wanker, is just an example that we still have the right to voice non conformist opinions, even if (again) he is actually largely irrelevant and almost never has anything to say worth hearing.

In the case of the Welcome ceremony, i personally don't like it... Does this make me racist or is it only the people that boo it racist?? We have to stop pigeon holing people and listen to what they are saying, then disagree with their arguments.

Another example was Daisy Pearce vocally supporting not having a minute of silence after the queen died at AFLW games.. I thought the decision was atrocious (and should have seen government funding potentially pulled) and Daisy was completely wrong... but whilst Daisy has to have the right to be (imo) wrong, the competition had (and has) obligations it should have met.

[DJC]

There is another major development site within 50km of Melb CBD that at this very moment cannot even clear / lift abandoned pine trees to begin soil testing without the presence of an indigenous council member to certify whatever gets disturbed or exposed is not of cultural significance, they haven't even made it to site survey yet as the members of the indigenous council refuse to attend the site, and the owners have been warned off disturbing the site without indigenous oversight, which is basically holding the new owner to ransom.

This is not the only case like this I've learned of in recent years, and it's got little to do with heritage and everything to do with politics.

The associated council and state government know this is going on and have done nothing.

You’re either making stuff up or exaggerating the situation LP.

That’s not how the legislation works.

Furthermore, any decision made by the govt agency or a Registered Aboriginal Party is subject to judicial review.

[DJC]

Getting slightly off topic here but I have to pull LP up on the misinformation he’s peddling about the way the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 works. 

For a start, the Act was drafted in close consultation with the full range of stakeholders; local govt, civil contractors, urban developers, planners, miners, farmers and traditional owners.  All agreed that a system that provided certainty was required, and that’s what we got.

Almost every major development and/or change of land use in the State is subject to a mandatory or voluntary cultural heritage management plan.  That includes subdivisions, pipelines, road projects, wind farms, marinas, intensive agriculture, boat ramps, quarries, mining, desalination plants, shopping centres, etc.  It is a routine, well-established process that project managers build into their project plan and is integral to project funding.

The Act was reviewed in 2012, as required by modern legislation, and was amended to better reflect stakeholder requirements.  As I said before, the Act is widely acknowledged as world best practice.

There may be the odd issue but the legislation provides mechanisms for resolving those issues. 

The situation, as described by LP above, simply cannot happen.  Why then are such spurious claims being promoted and who benefits?

[PaulP]

As i said, i am not going to protect Newman as a quality individual, but i am 100% supportive of his rights to make foolish and ignorant comments. i am and always have been against booing of players or anything really and i feel like the call to boo a ceremony is extremely distasteful, but .... People had the right to be stupid and (to a degree) ignorant.

Joe Rogan is a perfect example, i detest him, but i still want him to be able to have his podcasts, on the condition the talk doesn't cross into illegal areas.

We faced the same issues during the same sex marriage referendum, anyone who was against it was bigoted or homophobic... There was at least one publicised account of a girl (in Canberra i think) who was fired for posting on her own facebook that it was "okay to vote no" and that because of her religious beliefs she would in fact be voting no.. She didn't harass or belittle any group, but was fired and her boss posted that she would not allow anyone with such hateful opinions to work there (or something to that effect). That is the society we are heading towards and it is a major problem. That Sam Newman can be such a wanker, is just an example that we still have the right to voice non conformist opinions, even if (again) he is actually largely irrelevant and almost never has anything to say worth hearing.

In the case of the Welcome ceremony, i personally don't like it... Does this make me racist or is it only the people that boo it racist?? We have to stop pigeon holing people and listen to what they are saying, then disagree with their arguments.

Another example was Daisy Pearce vocally supporting not having a minute of silence after the queen died at AFLW games.. I thought the decision was atrocious (and should have seen government funding potentially pulled) and Daisy was completely wrong... but whilst Daisy has to have the right to be (imo) wrong, the competition had (and has) obligations it should have met.

I disagree with the way "free speech" is understood in society, and the direction this concept has taken. Free speech is not an excuse for hate speech, it's not an excuse to say whatever you like. Words don't just fall into a black hole after they've been uttered. Words are important, they have consequences. It's not a coincidence that the rise of far right ideologies has occurred at the same time as "free speech" has been trumpeted as some kind of panacea to cure the worlds ills. One follows the other. It's not a coincidence that hate crimes have increased in recent times.

[Thryleon]

I disagree with the way "free speech" is understood in society, and the direction this concept has taken. Free speech is not an excuse for hate speech, it's not an excuse to say whatever you like. Words don't just fall into a black hole after they've been uttered. Words are important, they have consequences. It's not a coincidence that the rise of far right ideologies has occurred at the same time as "free speech" has been trumpeted as some kind of panacea to cure the worlds ills. One follows the other. It's not a coincidence that hate crimes have increased in recent times.

labelling ideas you don't agree with as hate speech, is why we have lost freedom of speech.

The yes/no vote on the voice stops short of saying that if you are vote no you're racist, but it insinuates that with a false equivalence of supporting the yes vote. 

Regarding the welcome to country, it is pointless to non indigenous.  That's not hate speech.  It's truth.

Nationalist ideals have been prevalent longer than any other political affiliation.

[Baggers]

Sam Newman is nothing but a grumpy old man who is still looking for headlines.

He made a living on the Footy Show by going out on the street and making fools of unfortunates who didn't know any better, and he is still poking a stick at those he feels are beneath him.

I know it is said he is a top bloke, but his public persona is one of an irrelevant flog who doesn't deserve the oxygen that he keeps getting from his old mates in the media.  He should look up the word respect and see if he can find a scintilla of it in his rantings.

What also comes with freedom of speech is the responsibility of free speech.  You can't have one without the other.

What an absolute ripper post, Tonyo! Love it.

[Baggers]

labelling ideas you don't agree with as hate speech, is why we have lost freedom of speech.

The yes/no vote on the voice stops short of saying that if you are vote no you're racist, but it insinuates that with a false equivalence of supporting the yes vote. 

Regarding the welcome to country, it is pointless to non indigenous.  That's not hate speech.  It's truth.

Nationalist ideals have been prevalent longer than any other political affiliation.

I don't interpret what Pauly is saying about the influence and power of words as declaring anyone who differs as necessarily engaging in 'hate speech,' but rather that freedom of speech is not as a license to say anything ...without consideration as to how it will effect others.

And I don't personally view the Welcome To Country as pointless to non-indigenous folks. I choose to see the gesture from the viewpoint of indigenous folks, and how important it is to them, and ultimately to all of us ...and I respect that. It's a uniting gesture from my humble view. And I'm a big fan of inclusiveness and unity.

[madbluboy]

Getting slightly off topic here but I have to pull LP up on the misinformation he’s peddling about the way the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 works. 

For a start, the Act was drafted in close consultation with the full range of stakeholders; local govt, civil contractors, urban developers, planners, miners, farmers and traditional owners.  All agreed that a system that provided certainty was required, and that’s what we got.

Almost every major development and/or change of land use in the State is subject to a mandatory or voluntary cultural heritage management plan.  That includes subdivisions, pipelines, road projects, wind farms, marinas, intensive agriculture, boat ramps, quarries, mining, desalination plants, shopping centres, etc.  It is a routine, well-established process that project managers build into their project plan and is integral to project funding.

The Act was reviewed in 2012, as required by modern legislation, and was amended to better reflect stakeholder requirements.  As I said before, the Act is widely acknowledged as world best practice.

There may be the odd issue but the legislation provides mechanisms for resolving those issues. 

The situation, as described by LP above, simply cannot happen.  Why then are such spurious claims being promoted and who benefits?

I work with a guy who had issues as LP described sub dividing land in Tooradin. Basically was told it couldn't be done because the land was sacred until they paid enough money then it was OK.

The money side of this doesn't bother me if it's been put to good use helping indigenous communities and not ending up in the pockets of crooks like Phil Egan.
I just don't like the welcome to country stuff. It's fake, the land was stolen and we owe them trillions.

[Lods]

Guess what? No-one booed ?

97,000 people with more sense than Sam Newman

"I don't like the Welcome to Country, it's not necessary"

"We should boo the Welcome to Country"

Two completely different things

Like most things the Voice debate is  a spectrum.
Where we sit on the spectrum is dependent on our own knowledge and experiences.
At each end of the spectrum there are extreme views.
In the middle, folks will be torn.
Had the question been..."Should First Nation people be recognised in the constitution" it would have romped in
The 'Voice' aspect has made success more difficult, not impossible, but more difficult.
I suspect the majority of people have already made up their minds, even if they declare otherwise to pollsters.
Vote for what you believe to be right.