Are the AFL's penalties for racism and homophobia proportionate?

There's no question that racism and homophobia are serious matters.  They cause deep and lasting harm, not just to the victim but to the wider community.  But are things said on the football field in the heat of the moment as bad as a punch behind the play?  The AFL obviously thinks they are because they are copping similar penalties.  I know the AFL wants to crack down on racism and homophobia and change the footy culture, but the penalties currently being handed out by the AFL for this are extreme.  Especially when compared to death threats, striking offences, and other actions that result in injury/concussions/possible long-term brain injury.  The AFL is right to signal zero tolerance — but when penalties are extreme, the message risks being dismissed as theatre.  Heavy bans alone don’t change culture — they punish without fixing.  For a first offence I'd much rather see a one match ban, a fine based on a percentage of the player's salary, and compulsory education/cultural awareness training/working with First Nations/LGBTQIA+ groups/meeting victims. Maybe the fine can go to a relevant charity, based on the offence.  Then double (or even triple) the penalty for a second offence, in the hope that players learn their lesson.  Shouldn't we treat a genuine mistake/slip of the tongue different to repeated wilful abuse?  But jumping to a 4 (Izak Rankine), 5 (Will Powell, Riak Andrew) or even 6 week ban (Tex Walker, Lance Collard) for a first offence is ridiculous.  

And should context be taken into account - who said it, how it was said, how many times it was said, who it was directed at - or is that opening things up for debate/appeal?  The AFL has said 'The AFL will continue to consider the specific circumstances in each incident in determining appropriate responses.'  Regardless, when a racial slur gets 6 weeks, but a deliberate punch that concusses an opponent gets 4, the system looks skewed.  Clearly public image matters more to the AFL than fairness.  Does this damage the AFL's credibility, or strengthen it by showing leadership in stamping out racism and homophobia?  I believe a strong, fair system with rehabilitation built in shows leadership and earns respect.  Fans will support tough stances, but not if they look disproportionate or theatrical.  Education and rehabilitation should be the priority, especially for first offenders.  Punishments should not solely focus on setting an example - they must be just/proportionate, consistent, and effective in changing behaviour.

With the recent suspension of Rankine the precedent had been set - however harsh - and a 5 match ban was warranted if the AFL was to be consistent.  It did nobody any favours for the Adelaide Football Club to challenge the ban, whether there were mitigating circumstances or "compelling medical evidence" or finals coming up.  Not Rankine, who apparently was remorseful and willing to cop the punishment, not the Crows, who now look like they are prioritising their player and team above the victim and importantly, the LGBTQIA+ community.  The right thing to do was to condemn the action, accept the verdict and move on.  But if the Crows disagree with the severity of the punishment for verbal abuse, or that their finals campaign has been negatively impacted, then tackle it later with the AFL.

This brings me to my final point.  Being suspended is never good, and I know many will say 'You do the crime, you do the time', but lets be real - serving a suspension during finals is an even tougher pill to swallow.  Not just for the player, but for their teammates and fans too.  Missing a Grand Final is a career-defining punishment — it can overshadow everything else, and could affect the player's mental health (e.g. guilt in letting teammates down).  What if the AFL introduced a points system, where a penalty is equated to points.  Lets say Izak Rankine's 4 match ban is equal to 400 points, so one minor round game = 100 points.  Finals could be worth 150 points, and the Grand Final 200.  That would mean Rankine misses the final minor round game (100 pts) and the Crows next two finals (2 x 150 pts) and has then completed his suspension and free to play in any further finals, including the Grand Final should his team make it.  Worth considering for 2026 and beyond I think.

For full disclosure, I am an Adelaide Crows fan.  Very disappointed in Rankine's actions (and also Tex Walker's some time ago) but I believe the AFL's punishment for verbal abuse is disproportionate.

The 2023 Voice Referendum: The outcome (October 2023)

 

The 2023 Voice Referendum: The outcome (October 2023)

Last weekend the Voice referendum was lost, with more than 60% of Australians voting ‘No’. The result of years of consultation and the request of Indigenous Australians through the 2017 Uluru Statement from the Heart, the referendum was defeated in every state and territory except the ACT.

In my state of South Australia the result was even more emphatic, with 65% voting ‘No’. Queensland has the lowest ‘Yes’ vote at just 31%. The resounding national verdict left ‘Yes’ supporters shell-shocked, in tears, angry, or even devastated.  It shattered many Indigenous leaders who had campaigned for years for a constitutionally enshrined Voice. A group of Indigenous leaders have since issued a statement announcing a week of silence, flags to be flown at half-mast and the brutal comment: 'We now know where we stand in...our own country'. They said the week will be used to “grieve this outcome and reflect on its meaning and significance”. Well that week has now ended, so I also end my silence on this matter.

While I’m saddened at the result, I am saddened at the way the campaigning played out, with leading ‘Yes’ campaigner and First Nations man Thomas Mayo saying “The racist vitriol we felt was at a level not seen for decades in Australia.” I’ll spare you examples of the horrible things that were posted online.

Lets focus on why the referendum failed.  Many people blamed the referendum’s failure on the Coalition, in particular Opposition leader Peter Dutton and Nationals leader David Littleproud. Others pointed to Prime Minister Anthony Albanese who championed the failed ‘Yes’ vote. But I think both are to blame.

Firstly, no Australian referendum has ever been successful without bipartisan support, as the Prime Minister Albanese noted in his speech following the referendum’s defeat.  Given this knowledge, the Government (Labor, led by Albanese) should have sat at the table with the Coalition at the very start, and asked what would be needed for the Coalition to support a ‘Yes’ campaign. Several years ago an expert panel that included Voice leaders Noel Pearson and Megan Davis specifically recommended: “The referendum should only proceed when it is likely to be supported by all major political parties, and a majority of state governments.” So a large portion of blame needs to sit with the (Labor) Government for this massive mistake, deciding to proceed, possibly because polls had the referendum tracking at around 60% support up until the National and Liberal parties decided to oppose it.

Secondly, the ‘No’ campaign ran a clever campaign designed to make Australians believe a number of things that are factually untrue or are misleading. The Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) struggled to get Twitter (now known as X) to remove posts that it says are inciting violence against staff and promoting disinformation about the electoral process, with Twitter repeatedly ruling that tweets referred by the AEC were not against its terms of service, such as posts falsely claiming that enrolment fraud is occurring, that the AEC is corrupt, and stating “You pack of dogs will have your day” and “stop interfering in policy, or pay the price”, which the AEC unsurprisingly interpreted as a threat.

Examples of the lies and misinformation being spread by the ‘No’ campaign include:

1.  ’No’ campaign figureheads Jacinta Nampijinpa Price and Warren Nyunggai Mundine – two prominent Aboriginal people – put doubt in people’s minds that the vast majority of First Nations people supported the referendum, particularly as Price claimed that she had spoken to many mob in outback Australia and didn’t think there was strong support for the Voice. The referendum outcome proved that was incorrect, with more than 80% of First Nations people voting ‘Yes’. This was supported by opinion polls in the lead up, which also accurately predicted the referendum would fail.  Importantly, remote Indigenous communities overwhelmingly voted in favour of enshrining an Indigenous Voice to Parliament in Australia’s Constitution. [Source: news.com.au article ‘Indigenous groups break silence in wake of Voice, condemn No ‘vitriol’ and vow to move forward’, 22 October 2023]  For those unaware, the Aboriginal population in Australia is around 3%.  Of course, prior to the First Fleet arriving in 1788 it was 100%.

It is possible that ‘a significant number of voters did not realise Price was a politician, instead mistaking the first-term senator for an organic voice emanating from the grassroots’. [Source: The Sydney Morning Herald article ‘The devil in the details: Inside the Yes campaign’s defeat’, 16 October 2023]  Did they not realise that Price famously said “there are no negative ongoing impacts of British colonisation on Indigenous Australians, dismissing concerns about intergenerational trauma”? So Price is clearly not grassroots.  One conversation with a local Kaurna elder made it clear to me how prevalent intergenerational trauma is. If Price has been speaking to as many mob as she claims, she would know her claim is totally false, so I can only assume she deliberately set out to mislead voters.

2.  The ‘No’ campaign stated that a ‘Yes’ vote would be ‘divisive’. While it was unclear exactly why they were claiming this, many interpreted this a First Nations people being given greater standing that other Australians, by being named in the constitution and also having an advisory body to Parliament. Dutton in particular had no intention of ever supporting the referendum and instead aimed at inflicting as much damage on Labor and Albanese as possible throughout the campaign.  In a speech Dutton gave in parliament in May he unnerved even some in his own party when he denounced the Voice as something that would “re-racialise” the country and make Indigenous Australians “more equal” than non-Indigenous Australians. In reality a ‘Yes’ vote would have brought Australians together, and promoted reconciliation through the constitutional recognition of our First Nations people.

3.  The ‘No’ campaign claimed that the referendum was just the first step towards sweeping changes that would affect all Australians, such as having to hand over our homes in some sort of bizarre land rights scenario. It was interesting to note that the largest financial supporters of the ’No’ vote were mining companies and big corporations who possibly feared their work would be made more difficult if the referendum succeeded.  However this was totally baseless and simple scaremongering, designed to create fear in voters.

4.  ‘No’ campaigners warned the Voice would delay and disrupt government and foreshadowed decades of litigation, as outlined by former High Court judge Ian Callinan. However a raft of legal experts, including a number of former High Court justices and lower court jurists, all reassured the public that the proposed constitutional change was legally sound.  Again, this was the ‘No’ campaign attempting to instil fear.

5.  There were other lies and misinformation as well, mostly concocted by the radical right, but the ‘No’ campaign and the Coalition did nothing to dispel these myths, and at times even seemed to support them.

 

So I reserve the largest portion of the blame to the ‘No’ campaigners and the Coalition. Its so frustrating that the lies and misinformation were allowed to continue. I am bemused that it was even legal.  Businesses can be punished for false advertising, however it seems in politics that anything goes.

I am bitterly disappointed and ashamed of the referendum result, and how this reflects on all of us as Australians.  I am bemused at my fellow Australians being so easily duped into the lies and misinformation.  I am saddened at how hard this referendum has been on First Nations people (largely due to the ‘No’ campaign and racist online trolls).  Most of all I am fearful that this result has set reconciliation back decades.

  

Notable quotes regarding the referendum:

Independent advocacy organisation, Australian’s for Native Title and Reconciliation (ANTaR), said it was deeply saddened by the result and vowed to continue advocating for treaty and truth: “It was fair to say that “not everyone who voted ‘no’ is racist but [is] also fair to say that all racists voted ‘no’,” the non-profit wrote on social media.

Yes campaigner Thomas Mayo said “we have seen a disgusting No campaign, a campaign that has been dishonest, that has lied to the Australian people and I'm sure that will come out in the analysis.”

One article claimed that Mayo targeted Peter Dutton personally, quoting Mayo saying Dutton had been “dishonest” and “lied to the Australian people”. “There should be repercussions for this sort of behaviour in our democracy, they should not get away with this,” Mayo said. [Source: The Guardian article ‘Yes campaign sheds tears for a brutal result – but also for the dark victory of misinformation’, 14 October 2023] 

After acknowledging “this is not the result we were seeking”, ‘Yes’ campaign director, Dean Parkin, addressed Australians who had voted “with hardness in [their] hearts”. “Understand that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people have never wanted to take anything from you. All we wanted to do was to join with you, our Indigenous story, our Indigenous culture. Not to take away or diminish what it is that you have but to add to it, to strengthen [it], to enrich it.” Parkin also lamented the ‘No’ campaign, calling it “the single largest misinformation campaign that this country has ever seen”.

“We asked for this referendum and the government facilitated the process. The loss of this referendum falls fairly and squarely on us as Aboriginal campaigners.”  Marcus Stewart, Indigenous leader.

'Just another deep wound to the blak soul,' Indigenous actress Naarah Barnes.

“Jacinta was always going to be star of the show. She will go down in the annals of history as the first-term MP who took on the PM and won.”  Barnaby Joyce, former Nationals leader.

Katter’s Australian Party MP Bob Katter said it was a “wokie mob pushing the voice” and says “wokies are interested in their moral image” but “aren’t the slightest bit interested in the people”.

Sky News host Rita Panahi reflected on the referendum outcome saying “if the people's vote is to be respected, it should mean abandoning, or at least scaling back, recent concessions to separatism”. He said this includes flying the Aboriginal flag co-equally with the national one and the routine acknowledgement of country by all speakers at official events. “I don't know about you but I'm thoroughly sick and tired of being welcomed to my own country and listening to endless, unnecessary and frankly sometimes incoherent acknowledgement of country announcements,” Ms Panahi said.

Grace Tame, a survivor of child sexual abuse, said she was disappointed with Mr Dutton’s politicking and pointed out the irony of his hard-line stance after months of actively campaigning against a Voice to Parliament: “It is clearly a self-serving and cynical attempt to leverage the momentum of the political football that is still in the air, which is almost guaranteed to further exacerbate the intergenerational trauma of First Nations communities,” she said.  “I find it incredibly ironic that the Leader of the Opposition was so strongly against the Voice to Parliament for reasons including that he did not want to divide a country by race, yet is now calling for a royal commission that singles out First Nations communities. If the Leader of the Opposition is so invested in addressing the nationwide epiademic of child sexual abuse and all the issues facing our First Nations communities, it would have made logical sense to encourage bipartisan support for an advisory body intended specifically for such purposes.”

TV personality Waleed Aly reasoned on The Project earlier this week that “the biggest dividing line seems to have been education. If you were in a seat with high levels of tertiary education, Bachelor or Post you were at the very top end of the Yes vote. If you had the lowest levels of socio-education you were at the low end of the Yes vote.

And I’ll leave you with the lyrics of a song by one of my favourite bands, Midnight Oil, written way back in 1986, The Dead Heart: 

We don't serve your country

Don't serve your king

Know your custom don't speak your tongue

White man came took everyone

 

We don't serve your country

Don't serve your king

White man listen to the songs we sing

White man came took everything

 

We carry in our hearts the true country

And that cannot be stolen

We follow in the steps of our ancestry

And that cannot be broken

 

We don't serve your country

Don't serve your king

Know your custom don't speak your tongue

White man came took everyone

 

We don't need protection

Don't need your hand

Keep your promise on where we stand

We will listen we'll understand

 

We carry in our hearts the true country

And that cannot be stolen

We follow in the steps of our ancestry

And that cannot be broken

 

We carry in our hearts the true country

And that cannot be stolen

We follow in the steps of our ancestry

And that cannot be broken

 

Mining companies, pastoral companies

Uranium companies

Collected companies

Got more right than people

Got more say than people

Forty thousand years can make a difference to the state

of things

The dead heart lives here.

 

The 2023 Voice Referendum: Educate yourself (October 2023)

The facts

On 14 October 2023 eligible Australians of voting age will go to the polls to vote ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ to the following proposition:

“A Proposed Law: to alter the Constitution to recognise the First Peoples of Australia by establishing an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice.

Do you approve this proposed alteration?”

More detail is available on the Federal Government’s website here: https://voice.gov.au/referendum-2023/referendum-question-and-constitutional-amendment

The proposed law that Australians are being asked to approve at the referendum would insert the following lines into the Constitution:

“Chapter IX Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples

129 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice

In recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia:

                         i.         there shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice;

                        ii.         the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to the Parliament and the Executive Government of the Commonwealth on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples;

                      iii.         the Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, including its composition, functions, powers and procedures.”

Voting is compulsory.

For a referendum to be successful ‘a 'double majority' must vote 'yes' to the proposed changes. A double majority is:

·       a national majority of voters in the states and territories

·       a majority of voters in at least 4 out of 6 states’.

The referendum is (largely) in response to the 2017 Uluru Statement from the Heart, which is ‘the largest consensus of First Nations peoples on a proposal for substantive recognition in Australian history’ calling for ‘the establishment of a First Nations Voice enshrined in the Constitution’.

So to summarise, a successful referendum will put in place an advisory body to provide advice to governments so that they can make better decisions. The advisory body holds no power or decision-making authority, and the government continues to have the ability to make the decisions.

The arguments for and against changing the Constitution are being led by the current Federal Government (Labor) and the opposition (Liberal, or Coalition if you prefer). Below are statements from both sides of government.

 

The argument for ‘The Yes vote’

‘Vote Yes for a better future for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and All Australians’ Vote Yes for unity, hope and to make a positive difference’ ‘Listening to advice from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people about matters that affect their lives, so governments make better decisions’ ‘There are big challenges facing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people: ·       A life expectancy 8 years shorter than non-Indigenous Australians ·       Worse rates of disease and infant mortality ·       A suicide rate twice as high ·       Fewer opportunities for education and training. Clearly the current approach isn’t working. To close the gaps, find solutions and plan for the future we need to listen to advice from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people about issues affecting their lives and communities.’ ‘When governments listen to people about issues that affect them, they: ·       Make better decisions ·       Get better results ·       Deliver better value for money’.

Official Referendum Booklet – The case for voting Yes

The Voice: ‘is an advisory body that will help: ·       get better results ·       make better decisions ·       deliver better value for money’ ‘is about recognition, listening and achieving better results’ will ‘acknowledge 65,000 years of culture and tradition’ ‘will achieve practical progress in Indigenous health, education, employment and housing, so people have a better life’.

Amanda Rishworth MP – Say Yes to a Voice to Parliament brochure, October 2023

 

The argument for ‘The No vote’

‘It is legally risky, with unknown consequences’ ‘It would be divisive and permanent’ ‘Enshrining a Voice in the Constitution for only one group of Australian means permanently dividing our country’ ‘It creates different classes of citizenship through an unknown body that has the full force of the Constitution behind it. Many Indigenous Australians do not support this’

Official Referendum Booklet – The case for voting No

‘Enshrining in our Constitution a body for only one group of Australian means permanently dividing us’ ‘Many Indigenous Australians don’t agree with the proposed change’ ‘The Voice covers all areas of “Executive Government”. No issue would be beyond its reach’ ‘It risks legal challenges, delays and dysfunctional government’ ‘No details have been provided on how members of the Voice would be chosen or how it would operate’ …‘it will be just a first step to reparations and compensation and other radical changes’ ‘If you don’t know, say no’.

Letter to residents from Shadow Ministers Kerrynne Liddle and Jacinta Nampijinpa Price

 

About me

I am not affiliated with, or a member of any political party.  Never have been.

I work in local government for a council. A large part of my role is community engagement. This is where council seeks the input of stakeholders (community members, groups, businesses etc) to help council make the best possible decisions.

 

My personal opinion

My opinion does not necessarily reflect the views of my employer or the elected members that make up the Council where I work. However my work in local government has definitely shaped my own personal views.

I believe that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people generally do it tougher than other Australians. This ranges from a lower life expectancy, a suicide rate twice as high, and harder to gain meaningful employment.

It is clear that many Aboriginal people continue to deal with intergenerational trauma, which ‘is rooted in colonisation of and dispossession from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander lands and in subsequent (and continued) oppressive colonising policies and practices’ (Atkinson 2002.) The stolen generation is just one example.

Governments have traditionally struggled to find solutions to these problems.

In more recent times (since the 1960s and 70s) governments have seemed more willing to seek the views of their constituents outside of election time. The public consultation has now been termed community engagement. Managing and ‘solving’ societal issues had previously been understood as a government responsibility, and more recently it has become more common for governments to interact with the public in terms of consulting with community members on issues that affect them. Source: Building Sustainable Communities: The Impact of Engagement Copyright © 2022

I have seen this first hand in my work, where input from communities has helped council’s better understand an issue, identify problems and solutions that had not previously been considered, and choose a more sustainable, publicly acceptable outcome. And don’t you think its morally the right thing to ask people their thoughts about a decision that is going to affect them?

Community engagement works. It saves time, leads to better, more sustainable decisions, (which means that decisions won’t need to be revisited), which ultimately saves money.

This concept of community engagement, or seeking advice from the people who are affected by an issue, is fundamentally what the Voice seeks to achieve.  That and constitutionally recognising First Nations people, which I’ll get to shortly.

Having a recognised body providing advice to government on issues that affect Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people is a good idea. It too will save time, lead to better decisions, and ultimately save money.

The second part of what the Voice is trying to achieve is constitutional recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. This just makes sense to me. They were here first, and 65,000 years of tradition and caring for the land should be acknowledged in what is arguably Australia’s most important document.

 

Tackling the No vote

Isn’t it expected that the Liberals/Coalition will oppose most things that Labor try to achieve while they are in power? The Libs even admit that constitutional recognition is needed, but say they’d go about it in a different way.

Those advocating for a No vote are making several claims that try and influence us into voting no in the referendum. Ultimately all their arguments are based on fear and doubt.  Creating doubt and instilling and building fear in the community.

Let me tackle their arguments one by one.

‘The Voice is legally risky’ – An advisory body comes with almost no risk. Many governments establish community reference groups to seek their views to help inform their decision-making process.  Ultimately the decision still sits with the government who can choose to heed or ignore the advice of the advisory body.  This is no different.

‘There are no details’ – Much of this argument is about how the members of the Voice will be chosen, how many members it will have, how it would make recommendations, and how it will help Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. All of this will be worked out through proper processes if the Voice comes to fruition. Why spend time on all of those details if it doesn’t end up going ahead? Its only an advisory body after all, so how much does it even matter how many members it has, and how they are chosen?

‘It divides us’ – This concept argues that naming only one group of people in the Constitution is divisive. But what better way to formally recognise our First Nations people? Shouldn’t their 65,000 years of traditional ownership and care for our country be recognised formally by the government? This could even be a small way of undoing the harm of the past. Importantly (for those worried about this) it doesn’t give Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people any additional rights or privileges, outside of having an advisory body.

‘Many Indigenous Australians do not support this’ – There are a small minority of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people that don’t support the Voice to Parliament, but the vast majority do – many surveys put First Nations support for the Voice at over 80%. Of those that do not support it, many believe that the Voice doesn’t go far enough. Some say a tokenistic advisory body is a slap in the face to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people who should have more say in how our country is run. Whether they are right or wrong, this is not what has been proposed in the referendum. And wouldn’t this proposed step forward of an advisory body and constitutional recognition be a good outcome regardless?

‘It won’t help Indigenous Australians’ – Well it sure as heck won’t do any harm to ask Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people their advice on how governments can deal with the traditional issues they’ve struggled with. This is the most flawed argument of them all!

‘No issue is beyond its scope’ – Another argument based on fear, with the ridiculous examples given that the Voice can comment on things like submarines and parking tickets. The Voice will be tackling issues that directly affect Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. I don’t think they will be too worried about parking tickets. And if they want to provide advice on things that seem ‘out of scope’ then the government can simply ignore their advice if it chooses to.

‘It risks delays and dysfunction’ and ‘It will be costly and bureaucratic’ – These two arguments propose that the advisory body will be costly to run and will slow down parliamentary processes. I wonder how much time and money has been wasted on bad decisions of previous governments where Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people were not given a chance to provide input? Do you think the state guardianship of all Aboriginal children (‘stolen generation’ policy) and laws that segregated Indigenous people into separate living areas would have happened if there was an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people advisory body? While there may be times a government waits for a month or two for advice from the Voice, the decisions of government will likely be improved due to that advice. This means bad decisions are less likely to be made and governments are less likely to have to revisit a decision which can be time consuming and costly. The cost of the advisory body will be far outweighed by the cost savings through getting the decision right the first time. I cannot emphasise this enough.

‘This Voice will be permanent’ – And?  This is a non-issue.  An advisory body and constitutional recognition of our First Nations people is a good thing, and should be permanent.

‘There are better ways forward’ – To me this is the only legitimate argument I’ve heard from the ‘No’ camp, but it shouldn’t prevent the Voice from going ahead. With an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people advisory body hopefully we can find those better ways forward, and improve the lives of our First Nations brothers and sisters. Voting No is embracing the status quo, and we all know this is not working.

Your decision

If you’re considering voting ‘No’, ask yourself why.  Is it based on fear and doubt, rather than hope for the future?

I’ll leave you with these two final thoughts:

1.     Do you think that First Nations people should be acknowledged in our Constitution?

2.     Do you think an advisory body could help governments make better decisions about the issues that affect Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people?

If you’ve answered ‘Yes’ to these two questions you know how you need to vote on 14 October.  I hope you do the right thing, because the status quo simply isn’t working.

Ball tampering Aussie cricketers embarrass the nation

Posted in reaction to Australian test cricketers being caught ball tampering during the March 2018 tour of South Africa...

26 March 2018

So many quotes from Cricket Australia saying the ball tampering is ‘disappointing’, and ‘standards have not been met’. Talk about an understatement! Many Australians are outraged and downright disgusted that an Aussie cricketer would ever consider doing such a thing - let alone plan and carry it out! As Australians we pride ourselves on playing hard but always playing fair. This behaviour is cheating, plain and simple. It’s unAustralian, and unacceptable. What happened is appalling and embarrassing! The ICC’s sanctions are fine, but CA should hold a much higher standard, and act accordingly. Those responsible should be sacked by CA immediately and never play cricket for Australia again. CA needs to set an example that nobody is greater than the game, and as Australians we hold our cricketers to the highest standard. I feel sorry for any parents having to explain to their kids that their heros are cheats.

This article sums up how a lot of Aussies feel about it. Good article. Definitely worth a read: https://www.facebook.com/MichaelBlucherAuthor/posts/1271410132990073

#aussiesdontcheat #nationalembarrassment #cricketaustraliasetanexample 

What is this postal vote really about?

Do you think it is unjust to prevent some people from having their relationship formally recognised?  I don't see the postal vote as being as much about same sex marriage as about whether you believe that we have the right to dictate how others live their lives.  This not about the sanctity of marriage or morality or Christian values (and yes I am a Christian and have been saddened at being lumped in the same boat as those who are judging the LBGTI community and are mistakenly making this vote out to be about good vs evil).  This vote is about changing a man-made law that currently prevents some couples from having their relationship formally recognised in Australia.  Would you be upset if you were told that your relationship was not valid, or not as important as those of your friends or neighbours?  Would you be frustrated that other people can get married, but you can't?  If you answered 'yes' to any of these questions, please vote yes in the upcoming plebiscite.

Attention fellow Christians, people of other religions, and those that align themselves with the right-wing (and there's an oxymoron if I've ever heard one), no matter how you feel about homosexuality, gay relationships exist! Marriage laws don't stop gay people from having relationships.  The outcome of the postal vote (whether yes or no) will not create more or less LBGTI people.  But a yes vote is a step towards stopping their persecution in our society by giving them equal rights with the rest of us.

If you believe in equality and mutual respect, vote yes.

Now I was just going to end this there, but I can't leave off the important point that this postal vote is a waste of money in the extreme.  Fact: Australia's marriage laws have already been changed numerous times without consulting the people of Australia.  Fact: Our government has the power to change the laws without spending hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayers money on a vote that will tell them what countless polls have already made very clear - the majority of Australians support same sex marriage.  Did you know that the outcome of the vote is not even legally binding, and the government don't have to act on it?  How ridiculous is that?  I would much rather see these millions used to build schools, employ more teachers, increase hospital beds, reduce surgery waiting times, provide low-cost housing to reduce homelessness, or even for infrastructure projects to create jobs.  I am angry that taxpayer funds are being used on this stupid postal vote.  But since it is going ahead regardless, we must use the opportunity to reinforce what the government already knows, and increase the pressure on them to change the laws and recognise same sex marriage.  Do what is right and vote yes.

Feelings

Feelings are never right or wrong. Nobody can help how different situations make them feel, and you shouldn't ever feel guilty about your feelings. However, we all make a choice about how we react to a situation and to our feelings, and it is our BEHAVIOUR that others will judge us by (not our feelings).

The Adam Goodes saga (29 July 2015)

I can’t believe the media hype around Adam Goodes’ war dance celebration following the goal he kicked against Carlton, and the booing that has followed.  If you haven’t seen the footage check it out: http://www.afl.com.au/video/2015-05-29/adam-goodes-unique-celebration or here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32PZWtjbtq0

The best example I can recall of something like what Goodes did is this:  www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fn83uDUle3o  It’s an inflammatory celebration, and no wonder people booed afterwards.

Goodes has acknowledged that it was a made up dance (not a traditional Aboriginal dance), and that it was directed at the Carlton fans.  I can certainly understand Carlton fans being offended, as it can easily be interpreted as an ‘up yours’ type of celebration, and not that different to showing Carlton fans his middle finger.

Goodes has been a great ambassador for the AFL, and well deserving of his two Brownlow Medals and Australian of the Year honours.  He also happens to be an Aboriginal who rightly stands up against racism.  But in my opinion these facts are unrelated to the booing he has been receiving.  Sure, some idiots might be booing Goodes for race related reasons, making them racists.  However tarring all those people booing with the same brush (as the Sydney Swans, and now the AFL have done in recent media releases) is unfair.  I believe the majority of those booing Goodes are doing so because they don’t like his actions, and feel the ‘war dance’ was unnecessary, and inflammatory.  It is a similar reason fans boo players after a behind the play hit.  Without booing, how else do fans show that they are unhappy?  Fans have been booing umpires after a poor decision for years, and we haven’t made a big deal out of that.  The umpires also haven’t complained or felt that they were being racially vilified.

Through all of this drama it has become clear that many people think that when a person does something that is incorrectly perceived as racist, then they are unquestionably a racist, simply because of the perception.  For example, if one person says to another ‘I like your hair’, and the recipient of the compliment is offended because they feel their hair is representative of their nationality/heritage then by their definition the person giving the compliment is a racist.  That is incorrect.  Racism is about the BELIEF and INTENT behind the action or a comment, and not how it is perceived.  Learn the facts people:

Racist - A person who shows or feels discrimination or prejudice against people of other races, or who believes that a particular race is superior to another. [Oxford Dictionary]

So not everyone who boos at the footy is a racist, even if the player or umpire perceives it that way.

Whether or not you believe the booing is unsportsmanlike or racially motivated, it is sad that it has become this big of an issue.  I can’t believe this has affected Goodes to the extent where he is considering not playing this week, or even retiring!  A tougher bloke would ignore the booing and play on, letting his actions on the field do the talking.  Goodes’ reaction to the booing and playing the race card has now made a mountain out of a mole hill, and may see one of the AFL’s great players leave the game early.  It has also changed many AFL fans opinion of him.  All in all it’s a bit sad really.

I hope that Adam Goodes gets the help he needs to deal with what he is going through.  I hope he continues playing, and standing up for what he believes in.  I also hope he gets some perspective.