The marketing strategy for The Voice to Parliament ‘Yes’ campaign can be written in one sentence: do not, under any circumstances, explain anything.
The success of the campaign depends largely upon ensuring Australians go to the referendum polling booths as ignorant of what’s really at stake as possible.
It depends on keeping Australians focused on their beer, wine, and lattes, blissfully unaware of any of the implications of making a change as serious as enshrining in our Constitution different classes of citizen based upon race.
It’s essential Australia’s chattering-fool classes read nothing more into the referendum question than: ‘Racism is bad – Yes or No?’
Nobody wants to think of themselves as racist and the easiest way to ensure you can’t be called one when you don’t really understand the issues, is just to play it safe and vote ‘Yes’.
It’s like voting for communists disguised as greenies and socialists pretending to be Teal because you don’t know anything about climate or energy science, but don’t want to be called a ‘denier’ at the next women’s group or men’s toxic masculinity support club meeting.
The ‘No’ campaign’s initial slogan, ‘It’s OK to Say No!’ addresses this problem quite well. But it’s a message that must come from the voices of Aboriginal Australians, and this is where part two of the ‘Yes’ campaign’s strategy will kick in (more on that later).
Tactics for part one will include shutting down anyone who questions the Voice by immediately calling them a ‘racist’ or bringing out the ‘Nazi’ slur faster than a first-year uni student at a women’s rally.
This campaign to maintain ignorance is an ethical and moral abomination of course since. As renowned UK journalist Andrew Neil told Nine Radio recently, the Australian people must give their consent to any Constitutional change and, in a democracy, such consent needs to be fully informed.
‘When I did ABC Q&A a couple of nights ago,’ Neil lamented, ‘I was quite surprised, indeed amazed, that for the first Q&A [after Peter Dutton had outlined the Opposition’s position in detail], making it a real issue with a proper debate, they didn’t have anyone against the Voice [on the panel].’
Apparently, Mr Neil expected that our ABC’s Q&A would be similar to the program on which it is based – the BBC’s Question Time – which regularly hosts vigorous debates between people who have different views on issues. Silly fella! Everyone in Australia knows that a diverse panel on the ABC is one that runs from far-left radical lunatics to centre-left wet Liberals!
There’s no way on God’s red earth that any producer keen on keeping their position in the government-funded media clubhouse for ageing cool kids will be giving airtime to someone who wants to talk about what the Voice actually means.
Nobody knows anyway. And this is by design, not by accident.
‘The principle of dividing Australians into groups, only one of which gets special rights, is antithetical to life in a liberal democracy,’ University of Queensland Law Professor, James Allan, wrote for this site recently. ‘It doesn’t matter if you say the special right is based on race or something else. This trades in group rights, identity politics, unequal citizenship and so is wrong in principle.’
The proposed alteration to the Constitution says the Voice ‘may make representations’ to the Parliament and Executive Government of the day on ‘matters relating to’ Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. It, therefore, enshrines a superior right to access and representation for one group of citizens based on the race they identify as (no proof of ATSI heritage will be required of course – that would be ‘racist’ – and even asking for it will get you a Nazi-esque slur).
Further, the proposed alteration says the Parliament will ‘have power to make laws with respect to matters relating to the [Voice], including its composition, functions, powers and procedures’. This means the Voice we’re voting on today, may not be the Voice we get tomorrow.
Professor Allan’s concern is what the High Court’s interpretation may be regarding the powers of the Voice in the future. And he believes the High Court of Australia has the potential in the future to become very activist.
‘[The phrase] “may make representations” will be transmogrified into a constitutional right to be consulted. “Matters that relate” to Aboriginals will be deemed to be, well, everything. The Voice body is designed to be political and, boy, will it be. Rent-seeking will happen. To think this will lead to unity and reconciliation is naivete on steroids.’
Are you bored and confused yet? Good. That’s exactly where the ‘Yes’ campaign wants you.
This is why the ‘Yes’ vote has quite a good chance of getting up – despite Australia’s long track record of failed referenda.
Part two of the ‘Yes’ campaign’s tactics will involve a reputation attack on conservative ATSI Australians who are opposed to the Voice. The ‘It’s OK to Vote NO’ crowd simply must be vilified and discredited – fast. Watch out Jacinta Price and Warren Mundine. The inner-city elites will be ‘Uncle Tomming’ their heads off at you in a fit of ‘white saviour’ passion that’d make Hillary Clinton blush. On social media, they are already doing it.
How dare you put any focus on actual Aboriginal welfare, health, and social issues. Are you crazy? Take those solutions – especially the ones that will work – and burn them immediately!
The referendum is expected to be held in October or November. Winter is coming folks, and it’s going to be a long one. Intellectual hibernation (and endless insult-hurling) will be the name of the game.
