I refuse to do acknowledgement of country - career killer?

dimes on 11/09/2025 - 23:25

This may be a bit controversial but here goes…

I watch people at a managerial level start meetings and presentations with an acknowledgment of country and I think it is the dumbest thing ever. I feel like if we really want to help Indigenous people then there are other more tangible things we can do, and this virtue signalling bs is more for us to make us feel better than it is for them.

Apart from acknowledgements of country, my work also does other things to "bridge the gap" which I feel are also pointless. I refuse to participate in these activities and I also refuse to do acknowledgements of country.

My question is, if I continue to refuse, would this be a career killer? Am I limiting my promotional opportunities because I don't want to conform in this respect? I just feel like we should all have equal opportunity to progress regardless of our political views, but is this reality?

Education & Work

Comments

  • Clear on 11/09/2025 - 23:33
    +67

    Are you quietly not doing them or explicitly refusing to do them? There is a difference.

    • dimes on 11/09/2025 - 23:37
      +14

      I have not had to host any meetings or presentations yet, but in terms of other activities, when invited to join, I have refused (without giving reasons)

      • Clear on 11/09/2025 - 23:39
        +6

        Your colleagues are asking you to say acknowledgements?

        • dimes on 11/09/2025 - 23:42
          +4

          Not acknowledgements, but other activities such as naming office rooms with Indigenous names or making Aboriginal artwork

          • Clear on 11/09/2025 - 23:46
            +86

            @dimes: Because there's a big difference between being asked to do acknowledgements rather than simply sitting quietly. Similarly sitting at a dinner table silently while people say grace versus being asked to say grace.

            • bargaino on 12/09/2025 - 10:10
              +35

              @Clear:

              say grace versus being asked to say grace.

              Perfect analogy. With my Catholic school history, "acknowledgement of country" feels exactly like school prayer, and I have a urge to say Amen when they finish.

              • Muppet Detector on 12/09/2025 - 13:26

                @bargaino:

                and I have a urge to say Amen when they finish.

                I get what you mean.

                We were taught that Amen means "I believe".

                • duchy on 15/09/2025 - 11:46
                  +2

                  @Muppet Detector: It means ‘so be it’ in latin. It’s acknowledgement of ‘truth’.

                  • Muppet Detector on 15/09/2025 - 12:10
                    -2

                    @duchy: Cheers, I suppose I could have googled that, eh?

                  • simulacrum on 15/09/2025 - 15:57
                    +2

                    @duchy: It's not Latin. It appears in the old testament numerous times and its use in Judaism predate Rome's acceptance of Christianity and the existence of Christianity itself. The actual origin and meaning is pretty mysterious, but the semitic triconsonant roughly relates to confirmation, dependability or faithfulness. Rabinnic tradition has opinions about its use as part of or in response to blessings. It appears likewise in teh New testament and entered Christian liturgical practice and the greek language via hellenised jews who made up much of the early church. Eventually it did enter Latin as Christianity spread through and was eventually accepted by the Roman empire. Finally it entered Islamic practice and the Arabic language together with other bits and pieces of Judeo-Christian tradition.

              • The Wololo Wombat on 12/09/2025 - 16:06
                +2

                @bargaino: It’s similar because it’s a call acknowledge to a higher virtue or power, just like prayer.

                Psychologically, it’s replaced prayer.

          • EightImmortals on 12/09/2025 - 06:57
            +33

            @dimes: Not sure why you are getting negged (well, OK, I could take a guess :) ) but you are doing the right thing. Just do it quietly or the mob will burn you as a heretic. This particular bit of social engineering has gone too far and IMO is not that far removed from the struggle sessions that the CCP used to force their citizens to engage in. Stick to your principles and if anyone of the virtue-signalling twits at work starts making threats about your employment, document everything and is possible get it in writing. Genuflecting to mob mentality never achieves anything, just makes things worse and like of this nonsense will never change the past. People who can't be satisfied never will be.

            • Brianqpr on 14/09/2025 - 14:49

              @EightImmortals: I don't really see the point of it and also feel in most cases it is insincere box ticking, but I also don't really care about it. Its something that takes about 20 seconds or so. As a result I'm quite puzzled as to why it would bother anyone to any great degree.

              Just ignore it if you don't like it, it doesn't last long. Just like some people choose not to wear poppies on remembrance day, not everyone will sing the anthem when in a stadium or other setting where its done. If others want to, that's fine.

              • EightImmortals on 14/09/2025 - 15:12
                +1

                @Brianqpr: A bit hard to ignore when it's foisted on us almost everywhere. The problem is not that we can ignore it, the problem is that it is instilling in the population the notion of more (or less) rights based on the colour of your skin and more societal division based on your ancestry which are the last things we need right now. And like a lot of other social engineering projects, if you repeat something long enough and consistently enough then eventually more and more people will simply accept it as true which makes it way easier for the controllers to do whatever they want to. (Not that we have a say on that level anyway, but we do still have a say on what we accept now.)

                • Brianqpr on 15/09/2025 - 12:58
                  +5

                  @EightImmortals: If you're arguing that first nations people somehow have more rights and are better of than us whites because of a token gesture then I'm nut sure what to say!

                  • EightImmortals on 15/09/2025 - 14:03

                    @Brianqpr: OK, then look up the amount of the land in Australia that is now under some kind of 'native title'.

                    Where's my free land? I was born here too!

                    • Muppet Detector on 15/09/2025 - 15:31

                      @EightImmortals:

                      Where's my free land? I was born here too!

                      Unless you were one of the true owners of the land at the time that possession was illegally transferred to somebody else, then there is no free land for you.

                      Nothing to do with birth rights, it's about who the true owner of the property is, or rather in the case of real property, who has the right for possession.

                      First came into law in 1595 and was reinforced by the High Court of Australia in 1992.

                      • EightImmortals on 15/09/2025 - 16:38

                        @Muppet Detector: "Nothing to do with birth rights, it's about who the true owner of the property is…"

                        Well in that case, anyone who was (according to you)a 'true owner of the property' has been dead for hundreds of years. And if land ownership has 'nothing to do with birth rights' then by what right are people living now being given free land that wasn't theirs to begin with?

                        • Muppet Detector on 15/09/2025 - 17:19

                          @EightImmortals:

                          Well in that case, anyone who was (according to you)a 'true owner of the property' has been dead for hundreds of years.

                          It is not according to me. It's not my opinion, I was merely putting forth the facts.

                          As already mentioned, this was a High Court decision in 1992, confirming laws first created in 1595.

                          For further legal explanation, perhaps refer to Mabo 2, and if you continue to be concerned about laws relating to a chain of possession, consider our Succession laws as well as the laws of adverse possession.

                          These laws apply equally to everybody.
                          And if land ownership has 'nothing to do with birth rights' then by what right are people living now being given free land that wasn't theirs to begin with?

                          The High Court Justices explained this when handing down their decision in Mabo, which as I said earlier also incorporates historical laws of succession and possession.

                          Just as if your father bequeathed his property to you upon his passing and so forth through the generations, it is also reasonable to presume that those in lawful possession of the land in 1788, would do similar for their descendants to arrive at those in modern times who can establish this connection as required by the HC justices in Mabo had they not been illegally dispossessed of that land in 1788.

                          These aren't specially drafted or new laws, some of them have been in effect since 1595 and apply equally to every person protected by Australian laws.

                          • EightImmortals on 15/09/2025 - 17:31
                            -2

                            @Muppet Detector: I am aware of Mabo and all the other legal shenanigans, the courts have ALWAYS worked hand in glove with the state to achieve their aims. And why do you keep referring to 1595? That was 200 years before the continent was even settled by Europeans. And after all that I still really don't know what is being gained by the general population, regardless of race by handing over all of the land to native corporations. And why does this retrospective justice only applied to aboriginals? Where can I lodge legal complaints about the wrongs done to my ancestors?

                            It just does make sense.

                            • Muppet Detector on 15/09/2025 - 17:47
                              +2

                              @EightImmortals:

                              And why do you keep referring to 1595?

                              Australia adopted her laws from England. Many of those property laws are still in place today, with some dating back to the 1400's, but mostly the 1700's or thereabouts.

                              I still really don't know what is being gained

                              The application of the law.

                              And why does this retrospective justice only applied to aboriginals?

                              This particular justice applies to ATSI because they're the ones to whom it happens to apply.

                              A more recent retrospective justice that you may be familiar with are the historical child abuse cases following the conclusion of the 2017 Royal Commission.

                              Where can I lodge legal complaints about the wrongs done to my ancestors?

                              Start by securing some representative legal counsel.

                              They would be able to help you determine if you have any potential legal avenues to pursue.

                              If there is believed there is a possibility, your next step is probably with the relevant Magistrate or District Court and if required, pursue all the way through to the High Court if that what it takes to determine if there is a legal avenue for you to achieve your objective.

                              This is the process that Eddie followed. Presuming that you are subject to protection by Australian laws, it's a pathway also available to you or anybody else who believes they have a claim.

                              • EightImmortals on 16/09/2025 - 07:01
                                +1

                                @Muppet Detector: "Australia adopted her laws from England. Many of those property laws are still in place today, with some dating back to the 1400's, but mostly the 1700's or thereabouts."

                                So now we're into sovcit territory, I'm not disagreeing with you on this point but the there is a rather large number of people who have contested things in court while appealing to Magna Carta and other older laws only to have the cases summarily thrown out by the beak who believes legislation trumps all of those older laws. I've even seen people appeal to the constitution act only to have their claims fall on deaf ears. So while you might be technically correct about the the power of those older laws, it seems to be that they are subject to the whims of whoever is running the show on the day.

                                "This particular justice applies to ATSI because they're the ones to whom it happens to apply."

                                Huh? You said that law was written back in 1595, Australia hadn't even been discovered then so how could a law specifically apply to ATSI's?

                                "Start by securing some representative legal counsel.

                                They would be able to help you determine if you have any potential legal avenues to pursue."

                                Nice. OK will do. Umm, will the government pay for that like it does all this other stuff or am I on my own?

                                • Muppet Detector on 26/09/2025 - 10:02

                                  @EightImmortals:

                                  So now we're into sovcit territory,

                                  I don't know where you are, but it isn't on the right page.

                                  the there is a rather large number of people who have contested things in court while appealing to Magna Carta and other older laws only to have the cases summarily thrown out by the beak who believes legislation trumps all of those older laws

                                  Hey?

                                  I don't think Magna Carta says what you think it does because the principles that were established there are still very much in force today. In fact, they create the very foundation on which our legal framework is built.

                                  The legislation has to actually exist before it has the potential to replace previous law whether that be legislation or common law principles.

                                  I've even seen people appeal to the constitution act only to have their claims fall on deaf ears

                                  You can appeal to whatever you want (sort of), but if the law doesn't say what you want it to say then you will lose your appeal.

                                  Not everybody who initiates an appeal has a successful outcome.

                                  So while you might be technically correct about the the power of those older laws,

                                  I am not "technically correct", I am absolutely correct.

                                  it seems to be that they are subject to the whims of whoever is running the show on the
                                  day.

                                  I don't think you really know how (or when) new laws can be created.

                                  It is certainly not "on a whim" as to start with we have Separation of Powers to specifically prevent what you are saying.

                                  Huh? You said that law was written back in 1595, Australia hadn't even been discovered then so how could a law specifically apply to ATSI's?

                                  Because native title only applies to ATSI. That was the case put before the High Court to decide.

                                  I thought you said that you knew Mabo?

                                  Nice. OK will do. Umm, will the government pay for that like it does all this other stuff or am I on my own?

                                  Why would govt pay for that? Legal aid is pretty much limited to family law matters where children are involved and for criminal defence where there is the potential for a term of imprisonment for ten years or more.

                                  Otherwise, like every other Australian, if you can't get someone to act pro bono for you, then raise the damn money yourself.

                                • simulacrum on 17/10/2025 - 14:39
                                  +1

                                  @EightImmortals:

                                  So now we're into sovcit territory, I'm not disagreeing with you on this point but the there is a rather large number of people who have contested things in court while appealing to Magna Carta and other older laws only to have the cases summarily thrown out by the beak who believes legislation trumps all of those older laws.

                                  It's not enough to refer to an older law.. the reference has to actually make sense and follow established legal principles. Sov cits refer to magna carta, admiralty law, the Constitution and all sorts of other things in ways that make zero sense. They use legal sounding words in ways that make it clear that they have no idea what those words actually mean, and they're generally self-represented (because on the off chance that they try to retain counsel, the counsel will advise them that their arguments are nonsense and will refuse to make those arguments in court).

                                  I've even seen people appeal to the constitution act only to have their claims fall on deaf ears.

                                  It's not that the claim fall son deaf ears its that the claim makes no sense. Just because a person thinks there is a constitutional argument in a particular matter doesn't mean there actually is one. This is why barristers who specialise in constitutional cases are so highly paid. It's a very specialised and complex field.

                                  So while you might be technically correct about the the power of those older laws, it seems to be that they are subject to the whims of whoever is running the show on the day.

                                  They're actually applied very consistently pursuant to established principles of Constitutional law. The reson for thoise adverse outcomes is that the arguments are being run by yahoos who think they can magic their way out of legal obligations by shouting "joinder" "natural person" "magna carta" and "constitution" the same way that Harry Potter shouts "expeliamus". Unfortunately it doesn't work that way. The legal profession is a trade and it requires knowledge and experience to do it right.. Just like carpentry or electrical work. It might look easy to a layman when you watch an experienced team put a house frame up or do the wiring in a house quickly and efficiently, but if I tried to build a house, and by some miracle it didn't collapse immediately under its own weight, I would weep for anyone who would be unlucky enough to try to live in it.

                                  • EightImmortals on 19/10/2025 - 10:47

                                    @simulacrum: "It's not that the claim fall son deaf ears its that the claim makes no sense. Just because a person thinks there is a constitutional argument in a particular matter doesn't mean there actually is one. This is why barristers who specialise in constitutional cases are so highly paid. It's a very specialised and complex field."

                                    You've nailed the problem right on the head. If a law that is meant to apply to everyone is only understandable by a small number of paid professionals then either the the system or the rule itself needs changing. If words are not clearly understandable on their commonly accepted definitions then the 'law' is adrift at sea subject to the whims and vagaries of who ever is calling the shots on the day.

                                    "Just like carpentry or electrical work. It might look easy to a layman when you watch an experienced team put a house frame up or do the wiring in a house quickly and efficiently, but if I tried to build a house"

                                    Except nobody is going to haul you into house court and force you to build a house while telling you that bricks are not bricks and frames are not frames when you try to build it yourself. :).

                                    • Muppet Detector on 19/10/2025 - 12:25

                                      @EightImmortals:

                                      If words are not clearly understandable on their commonly accepted definitions then the 'law' is adrift at sea subject to the whims and vagaries of who ever is calling the shots on the day.

                                      Legislation generally has definitions included within the legislation.

                                      Similarly, where common law principles apply, the definitions and reasoning is found within the court cases in which these principles were established.

                                      Regardless, there is even legislation that tells you how to interpret legislation called "Acts Interpretation Act" (relative to jurisdiction).

                                      Among other things, this tells you that if the definition is not included in the specific legislation, the next point of reference is…. a legal dictionary, the Macquarie or Oxford dictionaries….

                                      Funny that, eh?

                                      There are also instructions for what to do in there if your situation happens to fall through those steps.

                                      Most people don't need legal counsel to look at a dictionary.

                                      You're going to love this, in Qld there are at least three definitions of death depending on what purpose your death is being recorded for!

                                      Yes, you can be "dead enough" (Transplant Act), "just a little bit dead" (Kincaid- Homicide), or "yep, he really truly is dead, there's definitely no doubt about it" (Bland - Withdrawal of life support).

                                      Presumably every other state/territory has at least two definitions of death as they are subject to both Commonwealth and State laws.

                                  • tenpercent on 19/10/2025 - 11:17
                                    +1

                                    @simulacrum:

                                    Sov cits refer to magna carta, admiralty law, the Constitution and all sorts of other things in ways that make zero sense.

                                    This is fallacy of composition silliness. Yes there are some mad hatters and deluded people who do the things you say. But there are many people who are simply unable to speak legalese fluently to properly present their positions succesfully to a court; that includes professionally qualified legal counsel! It doesn't mean they are inherently wrong.

                                    And the idea of of "sov cits" is oxymoronic nonsense. Bandying the term about to link people who cannot afford professional legal counsel, "and they're generally self-represented", is ignorance at best but probably just ad hom. People who self-represent are more likely do so because of financial limitations. Despite the myth, not everyone is equal before the law because the costs of defending one's rights are prohibitive for most people.

                                    There is also an unconscious (or sometimes conscious) bias when someone self-represents. It can be perceived as a personal slight against the magistrate / judge, their profession / their life choices, and against all the other LLB folks in the room who wrongly believe (consciously or not) that justice ought only be accessed through them and their peers.

                            • Muppet Detector on 15/09/2025 - 20:25

                              @EightImmortals:

                              I am aware of Mabo and all the other legal shenanigans,

                              Then why are you asking me such very basic questions that suggest that you aren't?

                              the courts have ALWAYS worked hand in glove with the state to achieve their aims.

                              We've got:

                              • Separation of Powers protected by Chapter III of the Constitution.

                              • Rule of Law protected by Clause 5 of the Constitution.

                              What you're saying, cannot happen.

                              • EightImmortals on 16/09/2025 - 06:53
                                +1

                                @Muppet Detector: lols. It's all a fiction used to control the masses, plenty of time government changes or sidesteps the law when it suits them. Not going to provide examples as the list is pretty long and too far off topic. But feel free to hold your own beliefs on the subject.

                                • Muppet Detector on 26/09/2025 - 11:48

                                  @EightImmortals:

                                  It's all a fiction used to control the masses, plenty of time government changes or sidesteps the law when it suits them.

                                  The government can only create the laws that the Constitution says it can.

                                  The High Court protects the Constitution.

                                  NOBODY CAN CHANGE THE CONSTITUTION

                                  The Government cannot change the Constitution.

                                  The High Court cannot change the Constitution

                                  The only way the Constitution can be changed is if all Australian Citizens eligible to vote, do so at the relevant referendum.

                                  If the majority of the people vote "yes", then the relevant law will be changed.

                                  If the majority of the people vote "no", then the law cannot be changed.

                                  The govt can only change the Condtitution if the majority of eligible voters give them permission to do that.

                                  • EightImmortals on 26/09/2025 - 11:53

                                    @Muppet Detector: Yes I understand the theory….. :)

                                    • Muppet Detector on 26/09/2025 - 11:54

                                      @EightImmortals: ITS THE LAW

                                      • EightImmortals on 26/09/2025 - 11:55

                                        @Muppet Detector: In theory. :)

                                        • Muppet Detector on 26/09/2025 - 12:40
                                          -1

                                          @EightImmortals: You are going to absolutely hate this…

                                          Have you worked out what "the Crown" is yet?

                                          Also, technically, the government doesn't even create any legislation (or do anything else with it).

                                          Remember that Separation of Powers thing?

                                          Legislation is created by the LEGISLATURE

                                          And there is a whole process involved with this including Hansard and two reading speeches and bills, which both sides of the legislature guide through before the actual legislation even comes into existence.

                                          Then, that legislation must be approved by the Governor General.

                                          Any idea who the Governor General works for?

                                          :HINT He doesn't work for the Australian government.

                                          ==> He works for the Crown, who at the moment happens to be King Charles III.

                                          The legislation only begins to exist once GG approves and signs it.

                                          He does not work for Gov, so even another layer of protection to stop whatever rogue govt you're claiming exists.

                                    • Muppet Detector on 26/09/2025 - 11:55

                                      @EightImmortals: WHY ARE YOU NEGGING ALL OF MY POSTS?

                                      I am just the messenger. I'm not making this up. This is what the law is.

                                  • tenpercent on 19/10/2025 - 11:26

                                    @Muppet Detector: But the double majority of eligible voters can only vote in a Referendum to get the Constitution changed if the Parliament (which is composed of mostly the same people as the Government) passes a Bill for it. And they can make the wording of the Bill as vague or sneaky as they like so they can get their buddies in the courts to determine the meaning and ultimately what the change actually is about. Thankfully a few people picked up on the vagueness trick at the last Referendum and the people resoundingly said "No".

                        • Muppet Detector on 15/09/2025 - 18:42
                          -2

                          @EightImmortals:

                          And if land ownership

                          Also, be careful not to confuse ownership with possession of real property.

                          Only the Crown has any ownership of land in Australia, everybody else just has a bundle of rights that collectively determine what agency and legal possessory rights you have to the land that you're permitted to occupy.

                          • EightImmortals on 16/09/2025 - 06:50
                            +1

                            @Muppet Detector: So are you saying that nobody actually owns the land they pay for? That they simply have permission to rent it from 'the crown' (whatever that is?). And what transcendent right does 'the crown' have to own everything? Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords?

                            • Muppet Detector on 26/09/2025 - 10:12
                              -1

                              @EightImmortals:

                              So are you saying that nobody actually owns the land they pay for? That they simply have permission to rent it from 'the crown' (whatever that is?)

                              Absolutely! That's exactly what I'm saying. You aren't paying to own the land (the Crown isn't selling ownership). They are however selling you exclusive possession until such time as the true owner (the Crown) wants it back.

                              You are buying the rights to it over everybody except the true owner (the Crown).

                              => you're gonna love this. There's those pesky laws from 1595 again.

                            • Muppet Detector on 26/09/2025 - 11:12

                              @EightImmortals:

                              And what transcendent right does 'the crown' have to own everything? Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords?

                              Missed this bit.

                              Cos they're the ones that turned up in 1788 and declared themselves the owners illegally usurping the ATSI who had already done that.

                              Hence why Eddie was able to successfully challenged terra nullius.

                              C'mon. If you didn't learn this at school, you have already claimed to know all about Mabo "and all those shenanigans".

                              This is basic stuff.

                    • Muppet Detector on 15/09/2025 - 18:35
                      -1

                      @EightImmortals:

                      OK, then look up the amount of the land in Australia that is now under some kind of 'native title'.

                      Just pointing out that the university I attend is situated on native title land. I think it's spread across something like 600 hectares.

                      The reality is that the uni caters for about 25,000 students, and you know how much of that is allocated to occupation for native title purposes?

                      They've got a 20 inch plaque out the front in one of the garden beds.

                      If that's true of this native title land, it probably applies to other allocations as well.

                      So, perhaps they're given what equates to lip service possession, but they're not really using as much as you probably believe.

                      • EightImmortals on 16/09/2025 - 06:51
                        +1

                        @Muppet Detector: Last time I checked, around half the country was under some kind native title, not all of it exclusive of course, but some of it is.

                        • Muppet Detector on 26/09/2025 - 10:17

                          @EightImmortals:

                          Last time I checked, around half the country was under some kind native title

                          You're really going to hate this.

                          But just because they hold the title, does not mean that they have possession.

                          Bloody 1595 laws! Here they are ruining my day again.

                          You need to work out these distinctions because I think this is contributing to your confusion and frustration.

                    • Brianqpr on 16/09/2025 - 16:44
                      +1

                      @EightImmortals: "Free land" for the original owners only, not immigrants or those descended from immigrants (i.e. the rest of us).

                      The referendum is over Jacinta, let it go.

                      • EightImmortals on 16/09/2025 - 16:49
                        +2

                        @Brianqpr: The original 'owners' have been dead for hundreds of years dude. Yes the referendum is over, someone need to let state government activists know.

                        • Muppet Detector on 26/09/2025 - 10:22

                          @EightImmortals:

                          The original 'owners' have been dead for hundreds of years dude

                          Did you read anything that I explained to you?

                          Have you heard of Succession Law?

                          Ever heard of a Last Will & Testament?

                          If you have land at the time of your death, what are you going to do with it? Leave it to your spouse, child or other family member perhaps?

                          How many of your ancestors are dead?

                          • EightImmortals on 26/09/2025 - 10:36

                            @Muppet Detector: "Did you read anything that I explained to you?"

                            yes. Still doesn’t make it right though.

                            "Ever heard of a Last Will & Testament?"

                            Ever heard of them being contested?

                            "If you have land at the time of your death, what are you going to do with it? Leave it to your spouse, child or other family member perhaps?"

                            Yes, unless the government steals it. I know we don't have inheritance tax here any more but it's always on the lips of some kleptocrat and it is a thing in other western countries (unless you are above the law of course). Which would mean that it's OK for government to steal my kids inheritance but for some reason it's not OK if they steal other other kid's inheritances based on their skin colour? (referring to the British government here as they were ones who colonised Australia).

                            "How many of your ancestors are dead?"

                            All of them, and I'm still not getting any compensation from the descendants of those who did them wrong. Why do you ask?

                            • Muppet Detector on 26/09/2025 - 10:38

                              @EightImmortals:

                              All of them, and I'm still not getting any compensation from the descendants of those who did them wrong.

                              Have you asked? That's what Eddie did.

                              • EightImmortals on 26/09/2025 - 10:40

                                @Muppet Detector: Eddie got his expenses paid for by the government, where do I fill out that form?

                                • Muppet Detector on 26/09/2025 - 10:56

                                  @EightImmortals:

                                  Eddie got his expenses paid for by the government, where do I fill out that form?

                                  Now you're being deliberately obtuse.

                                  Eddie's solicitor, Greg McIntyre, organised Mabo's funding.

                                  Yes, McIntyre secured a govt grant. Certainly didn't cover all expenses as you are implying.

                                  Eddie had already secured legal counsel and proceedings had already commenced when that grant came through, but McIntyre helped to sort out that and the rest.

                                  As I said, source your own legal representation and see what they can or will do for you.

                                  And stop expecting everyone else to pay for your legal tantrums.

                            • Muppet Detector on 26/09/2025 - 11:20

                              @EightImmortals:

                              Ever heard of them being contested?

                              Holy Moly.

                              How do you manage being an adult?

                              Just because somebody contests a will does not mean they will win.

                              Anybody can contest a will.

                              The judge then has a look at the will, considers your challenge and then reflects on the relevant Succession Laws, and work's out if the claimant has a legal claim on the estate as per the laws.

                              Even you can google the Succession Laws in the relevant jurisdiction.

                              How about probate? Come across that yet?

              • Daabido on 14/09/2025 - 16:00
                +6

                @Brianqpr: Who!? Who doesn't want to wear the ribbon!?
                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4rytZa77B54

            • SlickMick on 12/09/2025 - 18:04

              @AngoraFish: I'm pretty sure op refused (I think avoided is more what they mean) to attend "naming ceremonies", not chisel the name on the door or something.

              Likewise I'm quite sure Op hasn't been expected to make Aboriginal art.

            • owli on 13/09/2025 - 18:44
              +2

              @AngoraFish:

              Also, tell us more about what kind of Aboriginal artwork they are expecting you to make. Are you an Aboriginal artist?

              OP was hired as some consultant for Aboriginal art and naming, but hes just a really lazy guy hiding under the guise of "this is political correctness gone mad".

          • JIMB0 on 12/09/2025 - 07:54
            +15

            @dimes: The "Crackatinnie" room has a nice ring to it.

          • WorstAgreeableRadish on 12/09/2025 - 09:12
            +3

            @dimes: With those two examples it sounds like you're being unnecessarily difficult. Boardroom names and art activities usually have a theme, and Aboriginal can be a theme like any other. Both are things that have actual practical value.

            Think about themes that you have such strong negative sentiments about that you refuse to draw a picture of it, or put a name of that theme on a boardroom? There are some that would annoy me (Billie Eilish albums or contemporary rap legends), but to flat out refuse to take part? That's a list of things I find particularly offensive.

            • brendanm on 12/09/2025 - 09:36
              +19

              @WorstAgreeableRadish:

              Both are things that have actual practical value.

              Press (x) for doubt

            • SlickMick on 12/09/2025 - 18:09
              +4

              @WorstAgreeableRadish: I don't see why.

              I avoid everything I don't agree with. Our office has so many morning teas, lunches, meetings and workshops on all sorts of things. I avoid most of them. I couldn't care less what they do or name things or whatever, although I do point out that a meaningful name that identifies a room would be far more useful.

          • smartazz104 on 12/09/2025 - 14:30
            +10

            @dimes: How often are you having to name office rooms? Seems a bit weird to get bent out of shape over something so inconsequential.

            • Wraith on 15/09/2025 - 19:44
              +1

              @smartazz104: Ok, this one I actually can understand. At a previous site I worked, rooms used to be named things like 2.5 (level two, fifth room from the lifts), 3.1 etc.

              Then they got renamed to Aboriginal place or animal names. I get the sentiment and was on-board initially. But it played bloody havoc forever in finding where your damn meeting was. "oh, Meeting room Djiti Djiti is free - we'll hold it there" (actual example room name). It wasn't because they were aboriginal names. It was that we had a perfectly practical, if boring system and replaced it with a system that nobody was familiar with. You could have named them after beers and had the same issue (Where the bloody hell is "Heineken?").

              Yes, we did eventually learn the names of rooms we used regularly. Yes, we also often accompanied invites with things like "Djiti Djiti - room 2.2" in the invite to help people. I got used to this system, but I can also appreciate why people would have issues with this.

            • McFly on 12/09/2025 - 16:39
              +19

              @dankru: Of course. Racist, Nazi, climate denier, Charlie Kirk lover… Get them all in!

              • moar bargains on 12/09/2025 - 17:06
                +10

                @McFly: I think he forgot a homophobe and transphobe as well

            • brendanm on 12/09/2025 - 19:05
              +9

              @dankru: Not naming something after a certain race, at the exclusion of all other races, is racist? That's some impressive mental gymnastics.

          • CalmLemons on 12/09/2025 - 21:07
            +1

            @dimes: my god where on earth do you work?

            I'm guessing you guys are wfh 50% of the time and the other 50% of the time the staff are out getting coffee.

            • CalmLemons on 12/09/2025 - 21:09
              +3

              @CalmLemons: Edit: From your preivous post state government agency.

              Look, if it's the vic government, honestly, when we all voted 70%+ No and the government still goes through with a treaty I'm not surprised your workplace doesn't do flailings of staff members who don't include the right salutations in their emails.

              • CalmLemons on 12/09/2025 - 21:36
                +1

                @CalmLemons: The amount of graft and absolute wastage via inefficiency of public funds is absolutely abysmal.

                • Ademos on 13/09/2025 - 18:34
                  +1

                  @CalmLemons: I saw it fall out of favour in the last few years. It's been quietly rolled back from being a requirement in a few very large departments.

          • brigman on 13/09/2025 - 20:34

            @dimes: 'Real' Aboriginal artwork, like on the original Australian $1 note¹ (created by David Malangi, an Aboriginal male of the Northern Territory) or the 'dot painting' that has become prevalent since Geoffrey Bardon, a caucasian male teacher, introduced the dot painting to the Northern Territory Aboriginal community in 1971? Of course, it was sacred back then and females were not allowed to draw but as we weren't quite done, we accidentally imposed a little bit more of our culture on them and now Aboriginal art, which was relatively timeless, is almost something else entirely; but fawn we must.

            1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_one-dollar_note#/media/File:Australian_$1_-original_series-_reverse.jpg
      • bmxr on 14/09/2025 - 22:11
        -3

        I have not had to host any meetings or presentations yet

        And thankfully you will never, ever be in a position where you will.

  • ValueInvesting on 11/09/2025 - 23:49
    +38

    My question is, if I continue to refuse, would this be a career killer? Am I limiting my promotional opportunities because I don't want to conform in this respect?

    Based on what's in your post it would be a career limiting move. You're inviting scrutiny if you 'refuse to participate' (whatever that means) without giving reasons.

    I think it is the dumbest thing ever. I feel like if we really want to help Indigenous people then there are other more tangible things we can do

    So what tangible thing/s do you do personally or at work then? Perhaps you can refer to these things if people ask why you aren't participating

    • dankru on 12/09/2025 - 15:08
      +61

      We all know the answer to this question.

      • Ademos on 13/09/2025 - 18:35

        it's the flavour of the year

        We had an entire plebescite on this. No. It isn't.

        Please do not take from this comment any assumptions on how I voted.

        • Blunglefortness on 14/09/2025 - 01:25
          +3

          That has nothing to do with the plebiscite. I’d hope that’s not why you voted the way you did, as it would have been horrible misinformed.

      • hangdog on 14/09/2025 - 07:23
        +16

        “we aren't racist…not to mention the fact that Aboriginals already get many benefits that other races do not”

        Wow, the second part really convinced me of the first part.

          • peacay on 14/09/2025 - 20:16
            +3

            @Lt Frank Drebin: You say 'wrong', but we hear 'obnoxious'.
            More reflecting, less pontificating, perhaps

            • dwayne johnson on 15/09/2025 - 10:56
              +2

              @peacay: Except it is accurate that Aboriginal people receive certain benefits that others don’t, pointing that out isn’t pontificating, it’s just a fact.

              • Muppet Detector on 15/09/2025 - 19:17
                +1

                @dwayne johnson:

                Except it is accurate that Aboriginal people receive certain benefits that others don’t,

                Why didn't you bring this up before?

                Fk gender, now I want to identify as Aboriginal!

            • Lt Frank Drebin on 18/09/2025 - 11:22
              +1

              @peacay: That's rich. Obnoxious is asking for "Evil white man money" at every instance.
              It gets tiring having to apologise for things you've never done and hearing hard luck stories like its your fault. But hey, as long as the cash keeps coming, they'll keep whining. It's the only apology they'll accept

          • banana365 on 15/09/2025 - 12:42
            +4

            @Lt Frank Drebin: There's a reason they get those "benefits". It's an attempt to address centuries of disadvantage imposed by Australian society. Sometimes those attempts miss the mark, but the same can be said of every type of funding.

            • Lt Frank Drebin on 19/09/2025 - 12:20
              +1

              @banana365: Thanks for the chuckle.
              Tell me how the current generation have ANY disadvantage or which percentage of those alive are impacted by any historical wrong doing?
              Maybe I should be hitting up the German's for screwing over my ancestors over in WW2. Where's my $$$ for what they went through?
              It's all about money and NOTHING else.

              • banana365 on 19/09/2025 - 14:06

                @Lt Frank Drebin: There are still plenty of people alive that were taken from their families. "The Stolen Generation." If you've not heard of it then you're not in an informed position to argue your point from. If you have heard of it and you don't think it's relevant, then you may be a fool.The fact that you try to equate militarised nations going to war against each other with a government going against their population pretty much removes any doubt that you are.

              • Muppet Detector on 20/09/2025 - 22:38
                -1

                @Lt Frank Drebin:

                Maybe I should be hitting up the German's for screwing over my ancestors over in WW2.

                I don't think Germany declared war on Australia, did it?

                From memory, we declared war on them when Britain declared war on Germany following Germany's invasion of Poland.

                Where's my $$$ for what they went through?

                Petition the German govt. By your reckoning, they caused your concerns so shouldn't they be liable for the fallout?

                Australia persecuted the ATSI. Seems right to me that we go about trying to fix the problem we created, no?

  • Benoffie on 11/09/2025 - 23:54
    +12

    Maybe. But you can refer work to the recent FWA precedents making it difficult for them to do so. Many workplaces are adopting an opt out/come late approach when people complain. I know of a few different non government corps whove done this.

    Unfortunately in government, it's virtually unavoidable. And yes, as you say, does little to nothing in terms of real impacts. It's policy box ticking. Frustrating and disappointing on so many levels.

    Edit - OP, if you're a teacher or in education, my advice is tune out, fake it etc. In teaching, the ideology is so extreme atm that yes, to voice opposition, even in a supposedly 'safe space' like a staff room, will get you labelled.

    For those not in education and think Im kidding, I only wish I could photograph the posters and content I see in classrooms atm.

    • Far Cough on 12/09/2025 - 00:05
      +2

      I know the posters and all the activities you have, we have the posters in every meeting room.

      If I’m in the office and in a meeting room, it’s customary to ensure people can see the wall AKA no blur or background on teams/zoom.

      I’ve gone walkabout during work hours that many times to see new artwork or enjoy nature.

    • brendanm on 12/09/2025 - 11:55
      +6

      What a time to be alive.

    • humphrey623 on 12/09/2025 - 19:31
      +15

      'In teaching, the ideology is so extreme atm'. Please unpack which prominent ideologies in education you find to be 'so extreme'.

        • Goremans on 12/09/2025 - 20:54
          +1

          Meanwhile year 9 students write at a grade 4 level. Ive seen this first hand. Maybe a laptop in every students hands and "they're all going to be coders" was not a good strategy…

        • miicah on 12/09/2025 - 21:13
          +31

          Please link me to the Australian Curriculum content description for Critical Race Theory.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join