Lev Lafayette's journal

Between work and study this week I scooted down to the Port Melbourne town hall yesterday to cast a "Yes" vote in the Voice referendum. I recognise ATSI people as the original inhabitants of the land. My respect for this means that I think it is right that they, like other indigenous people throughout the world, should have an advisory body to the government on matters that affect them. And that's the entirety of the constitutional change. To say the least, the experience of indigenous Australians and the country's international reputation alone are sufficient justifications for this change, let alone the genuine need on the basis of closing the gap on socioeconomic status. Apparently, there are better outcomes when one consults with the very people who are going to be affected by a decision.

Despite this opinion polls are suggesting a defeat for the referendum which will mean not just more of the same but worse. It is telling that the "No" campaign has appealed to ignorance in its material ("Risky Voice", "If you don't know, vote no"), even though the information is readily available via the AEC. The Conversation has a very good collection of answers to common questions. Annotations and fact-checking has been carried out on both the Yes and the No cases in the AEC's referendum booklet (keeping in mind that in Australian politics, lying is legal)

Outside of those who do not know, those who haven't bothered to check, and those who have chosen some pretty wild conspiracies instead, the nay-sayers also consist of the political partisans. The "no" first jump in opinion polls was when the National Party announced they would oppose the referendum in December 2022, and really gained in April 2022 when Dutton announced the Liberal Party would oppose it. In both cases people left the respective parties, and with various Liberal Party leaders quite annoyed at the divisive games being played by Dutton. Further to the extreme right, of course, there are Hansonites and assorted racists, whose claim of the superiority of their race over others is a projective mask of their own inferiority complex. Finally, there is the "progressive no", the people who think the Voice is not enough and is too tokenistic. For them I have the sympathy, but despair at their political naivety and their inability to "read the room". A successful "yes" vote will give moral authority towards truth-telling and a Treaty; a successful "no" vote will set such initiatives back another generation at least.

Simply put, there is not a single compelling rational case for a "no" vote. Whilst it is the barest minimum change to the Constitution, it does incorporate recognition and respect. Is a tried and tested approach among other countries throughout the world that has indigenous and colonial populations. It will definitely lead to better outcomes, as health outcomes during the pandemic and the consultative response to violence in Alice Springs have already shown. "No" means that nothing changes, no hope, no future, no progress. I would like to hope that Australia has the courage to progress to a future with hope and change. Vote "Yes".

A good portion of this week was spent working on a 3,000-word essay - with 60 references - for the paleoclimatology paper (goodness, I've fallen into Aotearoa New Zealand parlance). My chosen subject was comparing the Younger Dryas, the last stage of the Pleistocene, with the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC), especially in light of a recent paper that posit an impending collapse of the AMOC through the same mechanism as is commonly believed caused the Younger Dryas (i.e., a sudden influx of freshwater). If such a collapse were to occur one could end up with a situation where land and atmospheric temperatures increase, whilst the North Atlantic Ocean temperatures would fall - and there would be global ramifications. Interestingly, studies on the AMOC are most paleoclimatological as well, given that it's only been in the last twenty years that we've had an instrument record. Anyway, the essay will be followed up in a few weeks with an accompanying presentation.

Another form of connection between the prehistoric and modern occurred last night when I visited the Connection exhibition at Lume with Liana F. This is the third such event of theirs I've been to (along with Van Gough and The French Impressionists), it was really quite an impressive experience, expressing the deep and even religious connection of people to their land (broadly defined), and yet again with a combination of immersive and gallery artwork, accompanying music, interactive pieces and more. I was sensible enough to purchase "unlimited visit" tickets, so another visit mid-week is in order. One thing that really struck me was the disproportionate number of people from a non-European background that were present (based on phenotypical characteristics) - African, Indian, and Southeast Asian.

A related matter is the ongoing issue in the Voice campaign. I've had a number of interactions with "no" voters over the past few weeks. Based on these I started asking the question: "Do you know what you're voting on? The actual words to the constitutional amendment?". Of the 118 I surveyed (yes, really), over 97% could not give the correct answer, or even something close. Given that the 'no' campaign has now been caught out for instructing their volunteers to literally lie and sow confusion, one wonders what this means to the principle that an effective democracy depends on an informed public sphere, rather than one controlled by demagoguery.

I've been out the past six evenings in a row rather like a uni-student on trimester break (wait, I am a uni-student on trimester break). To be fair, one of those evenings was a Prahan ALP branch meeting at the German club (Ich bin ein alter Sozialdemokrat), where another motion against AUKUS and the submarines was passed; branch-by-branch, state-by-state, we'll end our contribution to this wasteful aggression. I do wonder how this will progress given that Marles has found himself in a scandal involving travel expenses, and Conroy's failed attempt to compare anti-war supporters to "Pig Iron Bob" (he may have the reference back-the-front, I think). Back to the adventures, I will also give a special hat-tip to a wonderful night of Algerian food, music, and drinks with Liana F., and an adventure day of op-shopping with Mel S., where my "found objects" included two rather dashing linen sports jackets; it is the company and the randomness of the experience that the great pleasure is found in this activity. But the requirements of various work and study projects loom ominously and various entertainments will have to take a little rest in the days to come.

One online activity of entertainment has been discovering a cesspit of 'No to the Voice' advocates in an alleged debate group (the admins are quite anti-Voice, so it's effectively a front). Now, it is true that there are some "no" advocates who argue, for example, that a Treaty should precede a Voice. I have sympathy for them, but I believe it's a politically naive expectation and without considering representative structure. But this group is different; if you were wondering where the cookers have ended up, it's right there; scratch the surface and you'll find an unhinged and motley collection of vaccination conspiracies, AGW deniers, UN "One World Government" agenda paranoia, weird "race" theorists, etc. Obviously not a place for serious discussion, the opportunity for trepanning and showing the extent of their anencephaly or lissencephaly is too delicious an opportunity for one with my weakness. But I emphasise - this is for entertainment purposes. My encounters with Stoicism have taught me the valuable lesson that one should not be angry or even disappointed with small and poisoned minds.