The Difference Between Lydia Thorpe’s Blak Sovereign Movement and The Voice
In recent news, Lydia Thorpe’s Blak Sovereign Movement has been criticized for not supporting The Voice and its associated campaign. The official ‘no’ campaign has even been accused of racism by an Indigenous group opposed to the referendum, while others have described it as retrograde. However, the Blak Sovereign Movement, supported by independent Senator Lidia Thorpe, has released a statement clarifying their position.
According to the Blak Sovereign Movement, they understand that many people may feel coerced by the ‘yes’ campaign or fear voting ‘no’ due to the racism associated with the conservative ‘no’ campaign. They assert that recognition of sovereignty and truth-telling are the keys to real change, emphasizing the importance of options that can have meaningful impacts today.
The Blak Sovereign Movement strongly criticizes the official ‘no’ campaign, particularly the 10 reasons for voting ‘no’ outlined in an Australian Electoral Commission pamphlet. They deem these reasons as racist and based on fear-mongering tactics. Kirstie Parker, a Yuwallarai woman and former co-chair of the National Congress of Australia’s First Peoples, supports this criticism, describing some of the ‘no’ campaign’s rhetoric as disgraceful and retrograde.
The main point of contention lies in the proposed Indigenous advisory body that would be enshrined in the constitution. The Blak Sovereign Movement opposes this, stating that it would be a powerless and destructive distraction. They argue that instead of focusing on the voice, the nation should prioritize recognizing sovereignty and engaging in truth-telling.
Supporters of The Voice argue that a ‘no’ vote would maintain the status quo, which has resulted in negative outcomes for Indigenous communities. They point to the Closing the Gap framework, established in 2008 with 19 targets, of which four have regressed. Without adequate data, the effectiveness of other targets remains uncertain. Proponents of The Voice believe it is essential to take action now to address issues such as youth suicide and educational outcomes.
According to polling conducted by the Uluru Dialogues, 83 percent of Indigenous people support the voice. However, there are differing opinions among First Nations people, as highlighted by Kirstie Parker. While acknowledging the inaccuracies in the official ‘no’ campaign, she also argues that some of the information published by the Blak Sovereign Movement is as flawed as the ‘no’ campaign.
The referendum on the Indigenous advisory body requires a majority of the population’s support and majorities in four out of the six states to succeed. Both sides present valid arguments and varying perspectives on the best way to achieve positive change for Indigenous communities.
As the discussion continues, it is crucial to maintain a balanced view of the topic. It is evident that opinions differ among First Nations people, and the issues raised by both sides have validity. The referendum will play a significant role in determining the future direction of Indigenous policies and engagement in Australia.
