Why the government was wrong to reject an Indigenous ‘Voice to Parliament’



File 20171026 13367 16x3jf2.jpg?ixlib=rb 1.1
Indigenous people feel powerless in their own country, as articulated in the Uluru Statement from the Heart.
AAP

Harry Hobbs, UNSW

Indigenous leaders have decried Malcolm Turnbull’s rejection of the Referendum Council’s recommendations as a “real kick in the guts”, having “broken First Nations’ hearts”, and derailed the process and likelihood of Indigenous constitutional recognition.

The council had recommended a referendum be held to change Australia’s Constitution to establish an Indigenous “Voice to Parliament”. While details were to be worked out in discussion with Indigenous communities, it was envisaged that such a body would empower Indigenous people to have a voice on legislation and policy that affects them.

This idea followed an 18-month process of consultation and debate, including six months of regional dialogues with Indigenous people across Australia. At these dialogues, Indigenous people documented their feelings of voicelessness in Australian politics.

The process culminated in a constitutional convention at Uluru, where around 250 delegates agreed to the Uluru Statement from the Heart.


Further reading: Listening to the heart: what now for Indigenous recognition after the Uluru summit?


Why was the Voice to Parliament rejected?

Turnbull, Indigenous Affairs Minister Nigel Scullion and Attorney-General George Brandis set out the three reasons why cabinet rejected the Voice to Parliament.

  • First, the government did not believe such a body was “desirable”, arguing that the “radical” proposal undermines equality and the principle of one-person one-vote.

  • Second, the government considered it was unclear how the Voice to Parliament would work.

  • Third, and consequently, the government argued that it would “inevitably become seen as a third chamber of parliament” and would therefore not be “capable of winning acceptance in a referendum”.

These reasons mirror those of an Institute of Public Affairs (IPA) research brief that was distributed to all federal MPs in July this year. The IPA argued an Indigenous voice to parliament is “radical”, “divisive and undemocratic”, and “vague”.

The IPA noted further that “Indigenous Australians already have a voice to parliament” – like all citizens, they have an opportunity to vote in elections.

Are these reasons fair?

The government’s reasons have been attacked as “dishonest” and “disingenuous”.

The Voice to Parliament was widely regarded as modest change. Instead of a judicially enforced prohibition on racial discrimination, the body was designed to provide “active participation in the democratic life of the state”.

This is important. The body would actually rectify a persistent democratic fault in Australian society. Although Indigenous people enjoy “full equality” in the electoral arena, their position as an extreme numerical minority makes it difficult for them to be heard by government.

As the Uluru statement articulates, Indigenous people feel powerless in their own country. A Voice to Parliament would merely empower:

… the First Peoples of Australia to speak to the parliament and to the nation about the laws and policies that affect them.

In this sense, such a body would not challenge Australian democracy. It would instead realise its ideals. For this reason, it was supported by many constitutional conservatives.

Further, it is unfair to dismiss the proposal as lacking detail, as it was shaped to allow parliament to design the body. In any case, issues of design had not been ignored. The Cape York Institute provided a 78-page report to government detailing design options.

Finally, in defending the decision not to proceed to a referendum, Scullion said the government knew it “would have absolutely zero chance of success”. It is unclear, however, how the government knows this for certain.

Scullion explained further that:

I don’t need evidence … we have done a lot of polling, not on this particular [] matter, but on other matters.

Ultimately, it is impossible to tell whether the body would achieve support at a referendum. Although many surveys indicate support for constitutional change, they were all conducted in the absence of a specific proposal. No polling has been done on a Voice to Parliament.

Where to now for constitutional recognition?

A Voice to Parliament is not yet dead. At the Garma Festival in August, Bill Shorten committed to the body, recognising that it represents a strong consensus aspiration of Indigenous people.

However, without government support, a referendum will not be held.

The government has said it will establish a joint parliamentary committee with the opposition to examine alternative proposals for constitutional change to benefit Indigenous people. It remains:

… confident that we can … develop constitutional amendments that will unite our nation rather than establish a new national representative assembly open to some Australians only.

But it is difficult to see how this is possible.

Indigenous people were asked directly what recognition meant to them. They have responded, and the government has dismissed their views. It is likely, then, that Indigenous people will campaign against a proposal devised by parliament. They will continue to push for a “voice”. Their struggle does not end.

Treaty, now?

The Uluru statement also proposed the establishment of a Makarrata Commission. The commission would supervise a process of agreement-making between Indigenous people and governments, and truth-telling about Australia’s colonial past.

It is not yet clear whether Turnbull supports these proposals. However, to some degree, it is immaterial.

Steps toward treaties have already been made in several Australian states and territories. Indigenous people in Victoria and South Australia are discussing how negotiations with state governments should be conducted. The Northern Territory has also committed to a process of treaty negotiations.


Further reading: Will treaties with Indigenous Australians overtake constitutional recognition?


Treaties are constitutional recognition. They can also be realised without a referendum.

Treaties have long been a desire of Indigenous people. However, they have re-emerged in recent years as Indigenous people have become frustrated at the national process of constitutional recognition. It is only natural that efforts will redouble in this area.

But while treaties are important, they will not empower Indigenous peoples at the national level. A Voice to Parliament remains a key aspiration.

In the Uluru statement, Indigenous people invited non-Indigenous Australians to:

… walk with us in a movement of the Australian people for a better future.

The ConversationThe Turnbull government has chosen to ignore this call. But there’s still time for the rest of us to accept this invitation.

Harry Hobbs, PhD Candidate, Constitutional Law and Indigenous Rights, UNSW

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Advertisements

ADHD: Wrong Diagnosis?


Finally, some questions are being raised about ADHD, which I think is long overdue. The link below is to an article that suggests something different.

For more visit:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/28/opinion/sunday/diagnosing-the-wrong-deficit.html

Olympic Games: Korean Flag Mix Up


I bet this went down a real treat in the north – and the south for that matter. The wrong flag was posted with a North Korean football player (soccer for us Aussies) in an early Olympics game prior to the official opening. The North Korean team refused to play and then – well, read the article linked to below for more on the story.

For more visit:
http://www.news.com.au/south-korean-flag-flies-above-north-korean-football-team-at-london-olympics/story-fn9dheyx-1226435296877

What A Beat Up


  1. There can be no doubt that both Nick D’Arcy and Kenrick Monk have been rightly punished in the past for what they have done prior to the upcoming Olympic Games in the United Kingdom. It can probably be argued that they escaped fairly lightly in fact. However, the current ‘scandal’ surrounding both swimmers because they had a photo taken with some guns in the US is nothing more than a beat up, given they did nothing wrong in doing so.

    Below are Wikipedia articles on both swimmers, as well as reports pertaining to the current ‘scandal.’

Article: Pastor Guilty of Child Abuse Crimes


The following article reports on a pastor found guilty of child abuse crimes – what do you think? Was he right or was he wrong? Is he indeed guilty of a crime?

http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/crime_and_courts/black-earth-pastor-found-guilty-in-child-abuse-case/article_6ce4663e-7395-11e1-8bf4-001871e3ce6c.html

Religious Conversion Worst Form of ‘Intolerance,’ Bhutan PM Says


Propagation of religion is allowable – but not seeking conversions, top politician says.

THIMPHU, Bhutan, April 13 (CDN) — In the Kingdom of Bhutan, where Christianity is still awaiting legal recognition, Christians have the right to proclaim their faith but must not use coercion or claim religious superiority to seek conversions, the country’s prime minister told Compass in an exclusive interview.

“I view conversions very negatively, because conversion is the worst form of intolerance,” Jigmi Yoser Thinley said in his office in the capital of the predominantly Buddhist nation.

Christian leaders in Bhutan have told Compass that they enjoy certain freedoms to practice their faith in private homes, but, because of a prohibition against church buildings and other restrictions, they were not sure if proclamation of their faith – included in international human rights codes – was allowed in Bhutan.

Prime Minister Thinley, who as head of the ruling party is the most influential political chief in the country, said propagation of one’s faith is allowed, but he made it clear that he views attempts to convert others with extreme suspicion.

“The first premise [of seeking conversion] is that you believe that your religion is the right religion, and the religion of the convertee is wrong – what he believes in is wrong, what he practices is wrong, that your religion is superior and that you have this responsibility to promote your way of life, your way of thinking, your way of worship,” Thinley said. “It’s the worst form of intolerance. And it divides families and societies.”

Bhutan’s constitution does not restrict the right to convert or proselytize, but some Non-Governmental Organizations have said the government effectively limits this right by restricting construction of non-Buddhist worship buildings and celebration of some non-Buddhist festivals, according to the U.S. Department of State’s 2010 International Religious Freedom Report.

It adds that Bhutan’s National Security Act (NSA) further limits proclamation of one’s faith by prohibiting “words either spoken or written, or by other means whatsoever, that promote or attempt to promote, on grounds of religion, race, language, caste, or community, or on any other ground whatsoever, feelings of enmity or hatred between different religious, racial, or language groups or castes and communities.” Violation of the NSA is punishable by up to three years’ imprisonment, though whether
any cases have been prosecuted is unknown, according to the State Department report.

Bhutan’s first democratic prime minister after about a century of absolute monarchy, Thinley completed three years in office last Thursday (April 7). While he affirmed that it is allowable for Christians to proclaim their faith – a practice commanded by Christ, with followers agreeing that it is the Holy Spirit, not man, that “converts” people – Thinley made his suspicions about Christians’ motives manifest.

“Any kind of proselytization that involves economic and material incentives [is wrong],” he said. “Many people are being converted on hospital beds in their weakest and most vulnerable moments. And these people are whispering in their ears that ‘there is no hope for you. The only way that you can survive is if you accept this particular religion.’ That is wrong.”

Thinley’s suspicions include the belief that Christians offer material incentives to convert.

“Going to the poor and saying, ‘Look, your religion doesn’t provide for this life, our religion provides for this life as well as the future,’ is wrong. And that is the basis for proselytization.”

Christian pastors in Thimphu told Compass that the perception that Bhutan’s Christians use money to convert the poor was flawed.

The pastors, requesting anonymity, said they prayed for healing of the sick because they felt they were not allowed to preach tenets of Christianity directly. Many of those who experience healing – almost all who are prayed for, they claimed – do read the Bible and then believe in Jesus’ teachings.

Asked if a person can convert if she or he believed in Christianity, the prime minister replied, “[There is] freedom of choice, yes.”

In his interview with Compass, Thinley felt compelled to defend Buddhism against assertions that citizens worship idols.

“To say that, ‘Your religion is wrong, worshiping idols is wrong,’ who worships idols?” he said. “We don’t worship idols. Those are just representations and manifestations that help you to focus.”

Leader of the royalist Druk Phuensum Tshogpa party, Thinley is regarded as a sincere politician who is trusted by Bhutan’s small Christian minority. He became the prime minister in April 2008 following the first democratic election after Bhutan’s fourth king, Jigme Singye Wangchuck, abdicated power in 2006 to pave the way toward democracy.

Until Bhutan became a constitutional monarchy in 2008, the practice of Christianity was believed to be banned in the country. The constitution now grants the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion to all citizens. It also states that the king is the protector of all religions.

Thus far, the Religious Organisations Act of 2007 has recognized only Buddhist and Hindu organizations. As a result, no church building or Christian bookstore has been allowed in the country, nor can Christians engage in social work. Christianity in Bhutan remains confined to the homes of local believers, where they meet for collective worship on Sundays.

Asked if a Christian federation should be registered by the government to allow Christians to function with legal recognition, Thinley said, “Yes, definitely.”

The country’s agency regulating religious organizations under the 2007 act, locally known as the Chhoedey Lhentshog, is expected to make a decision on whether it could register a Christian federation representing all Christians. The authority is looking into provisions in the law to see if there is a scope for a non-Buddhist and non-Hindu organization to be registered. (See http://www.compassdirect.com, “Official Recognition Eludes Christian Groups in Bhutan,” Feb. 1.)

On whether the Religious Organisations Act could be amended if it is determined that it does not allow legal recognition of a Christian federation, the prime minister said, “If the majority view and support prevails in the country, the law will change.”

Thinley added that he was partially raised as a Christian.

“I am part Christian, too,” he said. “I read the Bible, occasionally of course. I come from a traditional [Christian] school and attended church every day except for Saturdays for nine years.”

A tiny nation in the Himalayas between India and China, Bhutan has a population of 708,484 people, of which roughly 75 percent are Buddhist, according to Operation World. Christians are estimated to be between 6,000 to nearly 15,000 (the latter figure would put Christians at more than 2 percent of the population), mostly from the south. Hindus, mainly ethnic Nepalese, constitute around 22 percent of the population and have a majority in the south.

 

Religious ‘Competition’

Bhutan’s opposition leader, Lyonpo Tshering Togbay, was equally disapproving of religious conversion.

“I am for propagation of spiritual values or anything that allows people to be good human beings,” he told Compass. “[But] we cannot have competition among religions in Bhutan.”

He said, however, that Christians must be given rights equal to those of Hindus and Buddhists.

“Our constitution guarantees the right to freedom of practice – full stop, no conditions,” he said. “But now, as a small nation state, there are some realities. Christianity is a lot more evangelistic than Hinduism or Buddhism.”

Togbay said there are Christians who are tolerant and compassionate of other peoples, cultures and religions, but “there are Christians also who go through life on war footing to save every soul. That’s their calling, and it’s good for them, except that in Bhutan we do not have the numbers to accommodate such zeal.”

Being a small nation between India and China, Bhutan’s perceived geopolitical vulnerability leads authorities to seek to pre-empt any religious, social or political unrest. With no economic or military might, Bhutan seeks to assert and celebrate its sovereignty through its distinctive culture, which is based on Buddhism, authorities say.

Togbay voiced his concern on perceived threats to Bhutan’s Buddhist culture.

“I studied in a Christian school, and I have lived in the West, and I have been approached by the Jehovah’s Witness – in a subway, in an elevator, in a restaurant in the U.S. and Switzerland. I am not saying they are bad. But I would be a fool if I was not concerned about that in Bhutan,” he said. “There are other things I am personally concerned about. Religions in Bhutan must live in harmony. Too often I have come across people who seek a convert, pointing to statues of our deities and saying
that idol worship is evil worship. That is not good for the security of our country, the harmony of our country and the pursuit of happiness.”

The premise of the Chhoedey Lhentshog, the agency regulating religious organizations, he said, “is that all the different schools of Buddhism and all the different religions see eye to eye with mutual respect and mutual understanding. If that objective is not met, it does not make sense to be part of that.”

It remains unclear what the legal rights of Christians are, as there is no interaction between the Christians and the government. Christian sources in Bhutan said they were open to dialogue with the government in order to remove “misunderstandings” and “distrust.”

“Thankfully, our political leadership is sincere and trustworthy,” said one Christian leader.

Asserting that Christians enjoy the right to worship in Bhutan, Prime Minister Thinley said authorities have not interfered with any worship services.

“There are more Christian activities taking place on a daily basis than Hindu and Buddhist activities,” he added.

Report from Compass Direct News
http://www.compassdirect.org

Plinky Prompt: How Many Times Have You Been In Love?


Love is in the subway

OK, so a personal question. How many times have I been in love? Well, I guess we can eliminate what I would call crushes, infatuations, not particularly serious relationships, etc – that being the case I would say twice (and it didn’t work out the way I would have liked at the time – twice also).

Hindsight can be a blessing I suppose – the first time I’d say in hindsight it was probably a good thing. Actually, no probably. Still think she’s a great girl, but wasn’t the right choice for me for a number of reasons (which I’m not getting into).

The second time the girl was the wrong choice for me also, but was most certainly the love of my life if I may be so bold as to say that. It was a tragic ending this time round and I still haven’t got over her. She was very dear to me.

Powered by Plinky

Plinky Prompt: Describe a Time when You Stood up for what you Believed In


Standing meerkat

I generally do stand up for what I believe in. There was a time when I made a stand against a situation in a church because I believed it was heading in the wrong direction. It wasn’t popular, but I believed I was doing the right thing – which I still believe to have been the case. In the end I left because we couldn’t agree and I didn’t want to be the cause of division in the church.

Powered by Plinky

Algerian Christians Acquitted of Eating during Ramadan


Judge throws out case against men arrested during Islamic fasting period.

ISTANBUL, October 5 (CDN) — An Algerian court today acquitted two Christian men of eating during Ramadan in spite of a prosecutor’s demand that they be punished for “insulting Islam.”

Authorities on Aug. 12 arrested Salem Fellak and Hocine Hocini for eating lunch on a private construction site where they were working. Ramadan, Islam’s month of fasting during daylight hours, started this year on Aug. 11.

The incident took place in Ain El-Hammam, a town in the province of Tizi Ouzou about 150 kilometers (93 miles) east of the Algerian capital. Tizi Ouzou is part of Kabylie, an area of Algeria where the country’s Protestant church has grown with relative freedom in recent years.

Officers at a nearby police station saw the two men eating and confronted them for not fasting. When police realized the two men were Christians, they accused them of insulting Islam, according to local French-language press reports.

“I do not apologize for anything, and I regret nothing,” Fellak said before the verdict, according to Dernieres Nouvelles d’Algerie. “I have the right to not fast. I am a Christian, and until found guilty, the Algerian constitution guarantees respect for individual freedoms.”

The Algerian Constitution gives the right to all citizens to practice their faith, although it declares Islam the state religion and prohibits institutions from behavior incompatible with Islamic morality. Proposing other faiths to Muslims is also forbidden.

After police arrested Hocini and Fellak, authorities interrogated them for two hours and “admonished” them, according to a French-language news site. Authorities took them to court, where a state prosecutor questioned them. When the men explained to her that they were Christians, she said that Algeria was a Muslim country with no room for Christians and that they should leave the country, according to a local news site.

Today the judge at the court in Ain El Hamman, however, dismissed the case since “no article [of law] provided for a legal pursuit” against the two Christians, according to the BBC.

A small group of Christians standing on the steps of the courthouse reportedly shouted “Hallelujah!” when they heard the outcome of the case. After the verdict, Fellak said he was happy and that he had done nothing wrong, according to Reuters.

Local media also reported cases of Muslim Algerians arrested for eating during Ramadan.

 

Worshipping without Permit

The charges against the two Christians and a case of four Christians on trial for worshipping without a permit in Tizi Ouzou Province have some wondering what has caused authorities to turn their attention to this small community.

This Sunday (Oct. 10), the four men will appear in court for holding Christian meetings at a residence without permission. One of the men, Mahmoud Yahou, has told a local newspaper, “This story concerns all Christians in our country. We are a community intimidated around the country.”

Yahou cited other recent cases of persecution, including that of Habiba Kouider, who in 2008 was tried for practicing Christianity “without a license.” Her case is still pending. Another Christian, Rachid Muhammad Essaghir, has three court cases against him, all in appeals process since 2008.

In most cases, Christians have been charged under a presidential decree from February 2006 that restricts religious worship to government approved buildings. The decree, known as Ordinance 06-03, also outlaws any attempt to convert Muslims to another faith.

“This law of 2006 is contradictory to the constitution,” said a regional researcher who requested anonymity. “It creates a gray zone in which the government and police have room to act against the church. This law gives permission to the government to condemn believers for their faith or illegal worship even if the constitution guarantees religious freedom.”

Also in Tizi Ouzou city, church leaders who were expanding their building to fit their growing congregation received a letter in August from the governor of the province ordering them to stop all construction and demolish the extension.

Algerian Christians and observers say that the two court cases, along with the order to the Tizi Ouzou church to cease expansion of their building, are unusual because they happened in such a short span of time and because the region is regarded as more tolerant of Christianity.

“Perhaps a new wave of persecution is coming,” said the regional researcher. “It’s difficult to know, but in a few weeks we encountered a few problems.”

An Algerian church leader told Compass the government is finding more subtle ways to pressure Christians.

“I think they don’t want to do anything openly,” said the leader, who requested anonymity. “So they are using opportunities they can find, like not giving authorization to build the church in Tizi Ouzou, [and the men] not fasting during Ramadan.”

Report from Compass Direct News