Aboriginal Voice: The Debate is Shallow and Confused, by Design

Aboriginal Voice: The Debate is Shallow and Confused, by Design. By Janet Albrechtsen.

It has been dismal to watch so many successful people — lawyers, academics, business men and women, politicians and hordes in the media — suspend intellectual faculties that they would normally use to full effect in their daily lives.

Business leaders have signed on to a constitutional change with no regard for their duties to shareholders. Few politicians, and even lawyers, have sought expert legal advice about the constitutional implications of the transfer of power from parliament and executive government to the voice.

Whole swathes of the media joined the bandwagon to the point where the ABC will routinely reflect a chorus line of “yes, yes, yes” chanting to the voice, akin to that scene in When Harry Met Sally.

By joining the movement early, not asking questions then, many of these people are now so invested they refuse to think rationally about important principles being undermined by the voice and the very real dangers of this new body.

Their desperation to attach their name to a moment in history, to be mentioned in dispatches, even a footnote, without considering the future implications of the voice is sign of how anti-intellectual this public debate has become. …

Secretly slipping in a powerful and influential Voice past the voters:

The Prime Minister has said it is simply a matter of good manners. …

On Tuesday, the co-chair of Australians for Indigenous Constitutional Recognition Danny Gilbert was quoted as saying the “whole point” of a voice to parliament would be for it to be influential and politically powerful. “And why shouldn’t it be so?” Thank you, Mr Gilbert, for clarifying that much.

When too much trendy racism is never enough…

Leftist coercion silences knowledgeable critics:

Admittedly the poor quality of the debate is not helped by the public silence among legal experts who understand the dangers … The public silence of these lawyers and QCs is a case of self-protection. …

One QC told me if any lawyer raised legal concerns voice activists “would go to town on us. There’ll be an outcry for weeks. You just get hammered.” …

“Law firms would say: ‘We can’t brief him because he’s been branded as an extremist.’ You would have judges treat you as an extremist. You would be marginalised and ostracised on your own (barristers’) floor and within the profession,” says one QC.

“When a client Googles a barrister and if this stuff comes up, they will say: ‘No, no, he’s too hot. We want Mr. Nice.’ They don’t want to send in someone seen as public enemy No.1,” he adds.

It will also harm chances of promotion to the bench: “You will even be isolated, discredited within the coalition. Because if they’re talking about appointing somebody, they don’t want someone who’s a lightning rod. They’ll say, ‘No, not him. We just don’t want to have that row at the moment.’ ”

When the ABC’s Sarah Ferguson claims that those voting Yes are “on the right side of history”, the tactics are clear. It is to malign those who have concerns about the voice, how it will work in practice.

With no criticism and no debate, the woke are doing ever more stupid things, wrecking the West.