Face It. The Voice is Racist.

The Voice will be a third chamber of Parliament that some Australians won't be allowed to vote for, stand for or serve in because of their race. It's surprising how many Australians don't think that's racist.

There's no excuse for racism. Not even if it gives you the warm fuzzies. The Nazi's got the warm fuzzies about standing up for working class Germans against the evil, rich Jews that had invaded their country. 

The Voice is inconsistent with Australian and international anti-discrimination laws. For example the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD) which states that "racial discrimination shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin". 

Further, the ICERD preamble says that discrimination between people on the grounds of race is both divisive and repugnant:

Reaffirming that discrimination between human beings on the grounds of race, colour or ethnic origin is an obstacle to friendly and peaceful relations among nations and is capable of disturbing peace and security among peoples and the harmony of persons living side by side even within one and the same State,

Convinced that the existence of racial barriers is repugnant to the ideals of any human society,

Article 2 of ICERD states that parties to the convention must pursue a policy of eliminating racial discrimination in all it's forms, but more specifically, 2 (e) states:

2 (e) Each State Party undertakes to encourage, where appropriate, integrationist multiracial organizations and movements and other means of eliminating barriers between races, and to discourage anything which tends to strengthen racial division.

Article 5(c) specifically talks about political rights and universal and equal suffrage which refers to any form of racial discrimination in politics/government and even mentions equal access to the public service which goes to the Voice's right to make representations to the Executive Government.

5(c) Political rights, in particular the right to participate in elections-to vote and to stand for election-on the basis of universal and equal suffrage, to take part in the Government as well as in the conduct of public affairs at any level and to have equal access to public service;

Of course, none of this matters to woke activists. The woke call themselves "progressives". They're not. They are radicals. Liberals are the original progressives. Liberals declared all men to be equal centuries before Marx came along. Liberals overthrew absolute monarchies and created democracies, tore down the class system, freed the slaves, gave women the vote and gave gays marriage equality. All the things that radical collectivists (the woke) wish that they had done. 

It's not surprising then that the woke are now trying to give Indigenous Australians political equality, despite the fact that the Menzies/Liberal government beat them to it decades ago with the passage of The Commonwealth Electoral Act 1962 which gave Indigenous Australians full suffrage. If a people already have equality, you can't give them more equality. Equality doesn't work like that. If you try, you just create inequality.

In principle, the Voice is no different to giving Indigenous Australians an extra vote in elections. Political equality is often thought of as just "one person / one vote", but it's much more than that. Political equality is the extent to which citizens have an equal "voice" over governmental decisions.

The Voice is not just racist, it's also illiberal and undemocratic.

Changing our constitution affects all of us. We should have all been included in the planning of the voice - not just a small group of Indigenous elites. The Voice is fundamentally flawed. Whether by mistake or with intent, it's wrong in so many ways. 

For example, it gives Indigenous Australians the right to make representations to the Parliament and the Executive Government on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. But not exclusively to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. Anything that affects all Australian citizens also affects Indigenous Australians, so the voice gives them more of a say over matters that affect all of us. Imagine some matter that affects both Indigenous Australians and Farmers. The Voice would give Indigenous Australians the right to have more of a say in that matter than the farmers. 

I'm not the only person with reservations about the voice. In March of this year, none other than Australia's Human Rights Commissioner, Lorraine Finlay caused a stir when she penned an article in the Oz in regard to racial discrimination with the voice:

"[The Voice] inserts race into the Australian Constitution in a way that undermines the foundational human rights principles of equality and non-discrimination."

Finlay said she was also concerned about the extension of the Voice to include representations to the executive government and that: 

"It is difficult to think of an issue that would be beyond the scope of the voice in its proposed form, as surely every law or policy of general application would be considered to be “matters relating to” Indigenous Australians in the same way as they are matters relating to all other Australians."

Whilst advocates of the Voice claim that the legislation will limit the matters that the Voice can make representations on, legislation cannot overrule the constitution. Finlay was of course quickly shut down by the government and others in the Human Rights Commission and hasn't spoken on the Voice since. 

Voice advocates of course argue that the Voice complies with our obligations under the international human rights treaties to which Australia is a signatory. Most of their arguments however are either irrelevant or rely on the false premise that there's an existing inequality or restriction on the rights of Indigenous Australians that the Voice will somehow remedy or remove. 

For example, in the 'Statement of Compatibility with Human Rights' for the Constitutional Alteration bill, they argue that “This Bill promotes the right to take part in public affairs.” however, no assertion is made that there is currently any restriction on Indigenous Australian's right to take part in public affairs. Indigenous Australians obviously have the exact same rights to participate in public affairs as any other Australian and are in fact currently over-represented in Parliament. So if you "promote" their right to take part in public affairs, you must be giving them extra rights, over an above those enjoyed by the rest of the population. This is in fact exactly what the Voice does.

There is however an exception that can be made under the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. Article 1.4 of the convention states that:

Special measures taken for the sole purpose of securing adequate advancement of certain racial or ethnic groups or individuals requiring such protection as may be necessary in order to ensure such groups or individuals equal enjoyment or exercise of human rights and fundamental freedoms shall not be deemed racial discrimination,  

Which sort of sounds like what the Voice is doing, however it goes on to say:

provided, however, that such measures do not, as a consequence, lead to the maintenance of separate rights for different racial groups and that they shall not be continued after the objectives for which they were taken have been achieved.

So, it doesn't apply to the Voice as the Voice does in fact maintain separate political rights for different racial groups and there is no intention of discontinuing it at some point in the future after having achieved some sort of objective. In fact, this article is pretty much singling out exactly what the voice WILL do and saying "you can't do that".

The Human Rights conventions are in fact quite pragmatic and sensible and provide no justification for the whims and excesses of woke human rights activists. Even the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) holds little joy for Voice advocates. UNDRIP is more "stop actually oppressing Indigenous Peoples" and less "give Indigenous peoples free stuff". Still, activist's interpretations of the human rights conventions are pretty much on a par with sovereign citizen's interpretations of the Magna Carta. 

Despite Noel Pearson's assertions that the Voice is about Indigeneity rather than race, there's nothing in UNDRIP that even remotely justifies the Voice. UNDRIP itself even ends with:

The provisions set forth in this Declaration shall be interpreted in accordance with the principles of justice, democracy, respect for human rights, equality, non-discrimination, good governance and good faith.

The voice is neither just nor democratic, does not respect human rights, leads to inequality and is discriminatory, is bad governance and I very much doubt that it was designed in good faith. So, not even close. 

So, how are they getting around this apparent racial discrimination? Well, the Voice can't be accused of racial discrimination if they aren't actually restricting the Voice to Aboriginal & Torres Straits Islander peoples.

The proposed constitutional amendment only says that: in recognition of ATSI peoples, there will be a body called the ATSI Voice that may make representations on matters relating to ATSI peoples. Nowhere does it actually say that only ATSI peoples will be allowed to vote for or serve on the Voice. It's a bluff. It's an ATSI Voice in name only. It could legitimately be made up entirely of Mexicans.

I expect they plan on using the "race powers" in the constitution to restrict the Voice to Aboriginal & Torres Straits Islanders in the legislation. Likely one of the reasons Albanese decided against releasing an exposure draft bill prior to conducting the referendum - against the advice of a number of Voice supporters including Pearson and Langton.

Section 51(xxvi) of the constitution grants the Australian Commonwealth the power to make special laws for people of any race. As initially written, s 51(xxvi) empowered the Parliament to make laws with respect to: "The people of any race, other than the aboriginal race in any State, for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws". The 1967 referendum removed the exception for the Aboriginal race. So - strangely - despite the enormous amount of goodwill towards Aboriginal peoples generated by the '67 referendum, one of the outcomes was to bestow upon Aboriginal people the right to be discriminated against by the federal government.

It's debatable though whether the changes made to the constitution in the 1967 referendum will be enough to enable the establishment of the racially discriminating Voice to Parliament from the 2023 referendum and given the lackluster support shown for it in the polls, it's looking like we will never find out.