The Foreign Minister let slip that an Indigenous Voice-type structure might eventuate in Australia under a re-elected Labor government, just like the same-sex marriage changes eventually came through despite initial opposition.
‘I think we’ll look back on it in ten years, and it’ll be a bit like marriage equality, don’t you reckon?’
At least she was being honest in her opinions.
If we apply Wong’s description of the same-sex marriage debate to this idea of a Voice, we can see immediate concerns.
In my opinion, the marriage debate was built on a philosophical lie. The strategy behind the lie was a classic 1984 Newspeak shapeshifting exercise that has led to the imposition of thought crime.
The function of Newspeak is to redefine reality. It restricts public discussion to the constraints preferred by the State. Newspeak allows the State to criminalise speech by defining it as a thought crime.
1984 tried to teach us to not let centralised authorities dictate the terms of how we describe life and how we debate the common good. In a similar fashion, Brave New World warned that accepting comfort over truth would lead to dehumanising patterns of life. CS Lewis’ Hideous Strength added that elites can be driven by forces so deep, they lead to destruction (of others and self).
Some suspect this is the wider agenda of the same-sex marriage debate. The simplistic slogan ‘love is love’ was a smoke screen for cultural shift. How can marriage legally define two different categories of relationship? And then, what freedoms are afforded to those who believe in the traditional understanding of marriage? Will such ‘conservators’ of marriage be chased by the State when they continue to disagree?
Civil unions gave same-sex couples the same privileges as traditionally married couples. At the time of the debate, I suggested finding a new name for what was being proposed. Indeed, the severe response I received trying to discuss and write on these issues from those who call themselves ‘progressives’ informed me of the real Newspeak spirit behind the movement.
Those who say publicly that ‘marriage’ is still between a man and a woman, and that children are (on average) better off in that familial setting, are verbally assaulted.
Celebrants lost the freedom to decide, on their own conscience, who they could or could not officiate over in marriage ceremonies.
Does Newspeak apply to what Minister Wong is suggesting about a Voice?
It certainly does.
That is why the debate about ‘how many pages’ was part of the referendum discussions. Whatever the label of what was behind the one-page summary of the Voice, those pages clearly indicate the spirit of the intent. Such intent (Voice, Makarrata, Treaty) was proudly promised by the new Prime Minister in 2022.
It therefore follows that whatever is put in place under Labor’s Voice agenda, Newspeak dynamics will officially redefine what can and cannot be said about what it means to be an Australian. Newspeak will also redefine what ‘Australia’ means. Then there will be thought crimes established with reference to what people can and cannot express in public, at work, and even in churches (perhaps only in Christian churches, given current double standards involving religion).
Senator Wong is wrong about the idea of a Voice and she is wrong about it being a simple and comfortable idea when put into practice. The Voice, legislated or otherwise, is divisive and creates two categories of Australians. Such bodies will be able to step in and slow down or stop what is good for the rest of the population.
And therein is another confusion. The people driving these ideas, mistakenly called progressives (they are ideologues driven by some form of socialism), claim to be inheritors of the Enlightenment.
Newspeak related to a Voice will redefine what a nation is, what sovereignty is, what rights different Australians have, and what subsequent privileges different Australian groups have. Thought crime laws will attempt to muzzle those who disagree.
Orwell in his 1984, Huxley in his Brave New World, and Lewis in his Hideous Strength were all correct. They all demonstrate clearly why Wong is wrong.