Senator Alex Antic should be congratulated for asking "Who will qualify for the aboriginal voice to Parliament?" Of course, living in Albanese's Australia, you're immediately labelled "borderline racist" if you even dare to ask the question "Who or what is an Aborigene?" For example, is Thomas Mayor (aka Thomas Mayo) an Aborigene?
In 2022 Mayo has changed his surname from ‘Mayor’ to ‘Mayo’, perhaps to sound more ‘aboriginal’. (Mayo ... Mabo ...) On his personal website he claims to be a Kaurareg Aboriginal and Kalkalgal, Erubamle Torres Strait Islander. However, his heritage shows zero aboriginality.
"The Richardson Post" quotes from the Independent Education website - since removed! why? - which describes Mayor differently and more accurately: "His father, Celestino Mayor, is of Philippine and Dayak (Borneo) ancestry and his mother, Liz Mayor, brings Polish, Jewish and English ancestry to the family."
Mayo or Mayor or whatever his name is, according to The Australian: "... a militant unionist and outspoken figure on the government's First Nations referendum working group" has raised the prospect of a voice to parliament being the first step towards "reparations and compensation" for Indigenous Australians.
Former Queensland Senator, Amanda Stoker, says Mayo was recorded saying he expected the Voice to "get its hands" on superannuation policy while talking to independent MP Zoe Daniel. "The bloke who designed the Voice wants a practical veto on super policy because, remember, Mr Albanese said it would be 'a brave government' that didn't do as the Voice says", Ms Stoker said. "That’s not democracy. So, it's time for the government to come clean. How much power will the Voice have over your retirement savings?"
And here's a shot of proud Gucci Woman living on Prada Country, Linda Burney, courtesy of cartoonist Paul Zanetti's excellent facebook page:
I leave the last words to Roger Karge, an Australian citizen of solid European heritage, who posed these questions to Mayor ... or Mayo ... or whatever - click here:
" Why should your claimed ‘indigeneity’ provide you with greater citizenship rights than myself?
Shouldn’t we both be equal citizens under the law and equal voters under our democracy?
Why should you get ‘special’ democratic and political rights as a citizen, based solely on a condition - your DNA and ancestry - over which you have no control and which I cannot change in myself should I wish to obtain those same rights?
To explore the differences between us both, a professional genealogist has undertaken a study of your family tree based on the publicly available records and information that you and your other family members have provided publicly. The results of this alleged Family Tree are shown in Figure 2 and I fail to see how your alleged family ancestry should give you any additional democratic and citizenship rights compared to me.
With all due respect, your family’s heritage looks pretty much like an ‘immigrant’s’, as mine does. The majority of your father’s ancestors appear to be from Malaysia, the Philippines, Nuie, Vanuatu and Singapore. You also even appear to have German ancestry, just like me.
And, like my own mother, your mother appears to be of solid European heritage with ‘Polish, Jewish and English ancestry’, as you have publicly claimed.
Now, I am not denying that the records do seem to suggest that a small number of your 3X great-grandparents on your father’s side may be Indigenous Torres Strait Islanders, but our genealogist could not locate any definitive proof that this is the case.
In the preparation of your alleged family tree in Figure 2, research notes running to 58 pages were compiled. These research notes, which can be downloaded here, suggest that your family history in most ways is not that different to that of many of us non-Indigenous Australians.
Your father’s ancestors appear to be largely ‘colonising immigrants’ from the Philippines and Malaysia who colonised and settled in the Torres Strait Islands in the late 1800s, when the islands were part of the Colony of Queensland. These ancestors of yours appeared to have expressed their own agency by freely coming to the islands while identifying as Filipino or Malays, and who later freely became naturalised as Queenslanders in the 1880’s and later still, swore to, ‘well and truly serve our Sovereign Lord, the King, in the Military Forces of the Commonwealth of Australia’ as soldiers during WWII.
Other members of your family came as indentured labourers from the Pacific Islands, just like my father did from Germany in 1951 under his assisted passage work-contract.
I do hope, Thomas, that you can now see my point of view - that your Voice proposal is deeply unfair to your fellow citizens.
The only real difference between you and me is that you claim that some of your distant ancestors were Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islanders and therefore you want to claim special citizen rights.
This will inevitably result in ‘push-back’ by many Australians who will clamour for a firm, legislated definition of ‘who is Indigenous’, especially given the apparent rise in the number of ‘fake Aboriginals’, many examples of whom you will find on this Dark Emu Exposed website.
As the astute legal commentator Chris Merritt has observed, ‘the last thing we want in this country are race laws, race tribunals determining who is an Aborigine and who is not. I don't think we want to go there … you take a wrong turn and you abandon the equality of citizenship and you hit all this nonsense. Race laws are just an abomination and they should form no part of the Australian statute.’ (listen to Chris Merritt in the film clip below)
Thomas, do you really want Australia to progress to the next logical step of DNA testing to determine indigeneity, given that the benefits of being a member of the Voice and its bureaucracy will most certainly lead to an influx of fakes?
How are we going to identify and weed-out these fakes otherwise?
The Voice proposal is un-Australian, wrong in principle and contrary to all that we, as equal citizens of a free democracy, have achieved since Federation.
You would be very wise Thomas to reconsider your advocacy for the Voice.
Yours sincerely, Roger Karge
Editor, Dark Emu Exposed website"
As Roger Karge wrote to Thomas Mayo or Mayor or whatever, "After much reading and listening to the ‘voices’ in this debate, I have now become a very firm No voter. What really convinced me that a No vote was the morally, ethically and politically correct one for me, was a deep study of your advocacy and your own ‘voice’ as you campaigned for a Yes vote in the referendum. Your writings and speeches, as well as details of your political and personal ‘lived experiences’, are what finally convinced me that a successful Yes vote would be bad for me, my family, my fellow citizens - Indigenous or not - and bad for not only Australia, but for the world as a whole."
My sentiment exactly. As Roger Karge writes elsewhere on his website, "It is completely OK for Australians to be interested in discovering their own ancestry and identity in more detail should they wish - it’s none of our business unless of course they put out their hand to the government or society for a ‘race-based’ benefit. Then it becomes all our concern." Ditto having a voice in the VOICE!
