News

Landmark Decision: Australians to Vote on Indigenous ‘Voice’ to Parliament in Historic Referendum

(CTN News) – On October 14, Australians are set to participate in a referendum aimed at incorporating a provision into the country’s constitution.

This provision would establish a framework for Indigenous individuals to offer guidance to the parliament regarding policies that have an impact on their lives.

Proponents argue that the integration of the ‘Voice to Parliament’ within the constitution would not only acknowledge the unique significance of Indigenous people in Australia’s history but also grant them a platform to contribute their insights to governmental decision-making processes.

Critics contend that such a move could potentially create divisions among Australians based on racial lines, all while not effectively addressing the significant inequalities that Indigenous people continue to experience.

These are some of the fundamental considerations underlying the upcoming referendum, which marks the first of its kind in a generation.

Australia’s Indigenous Heritage: Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders

Australia’s Indigenous population encompasses both Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, who maintain distinct cultural identities.

For over 60,000 years, Indigenous communities inhabited Australia before the British colonization in 1788.

The settlers established a colony in what they deemed an “empty” land, resulting in the dispossession of Indigenous territories, the loss of countless lives due to violence and disease, and enduring consequences.

Currently exceeding 800,000 individuals, Indigenous people constitute approximately 3.8 percent of the 2021 population, yet they remain the most marginalized segment of the society.

Tragically, Indigenous Australians experience an average life expectancy approximately eight years lower than their non-Indigenous counterparts. Additionally, they face alarmingly higher rates of suicide, domestic violence, and incarceration.

Between 1910 and the 1970s, around one-third of Indigenous children were forcibly separated from their families in an attempt to assimilate them into white culture—an era known as the ‘Stolen Generation’.

In 2008, the government issued an official apology for this period of profound suffering and injustice.

What is the ‘Voice’ Proposal?

On the day of the referendum, Australian citizens of legal age will be presented with a pivotal choice: to vote either ‘yes’ or ‘no’ in response to a single question:

“A Proposed Law: to amend the Constitution in recognition of the First Peoples of Australia through the establishment of an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice. Do you support this proposed amendment?”

Should the answer be “yes,” the constitution would be modified to stipulate that this Voice holds the capacity to “present views” to both the Parliament and the executive government on matters concerning Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities.

Advocates stress that this alteration does not grant Indigenous communities the authority to veto governmental policies; elected officials would remain empowered to disregard the perspectives presented by the Voice.

Nevertheless, critics posit that the legal scope of the Voice’s constitutional powers could be interpreted variably by the courts, potentially introducing legal ambiguity.

Proponents assert that the Voice would encompass Indigenous individuals from all eight states and territories, as well as the Torres Strait Islands, spanning remote and regional areas.

Selection of members would be carried out by local Indigenous communities, and their terms would be stipulated for a fixed duration.

The constitution would further clarify that the Parliament possesses the authority to legislate pertaining to the composition, functions, powers, and procedures of the Voice.

What’s the Origin of the Concept?

Australia began including Indigenous individuals in its census data following a constitutional amendment in 1967.

The notion of the Voice emerged in 2017 from a gathering of 250 Indigenous leaders convened at Uluru, a culturally significant sandstone monolith in central Australia.

Prompted by the government, this group was tasked with advising on how to acknowledge the Indigenous population within the constitution.

However, the conservative government of the time rejected the proposal, expressing concerns that the Voice might be perceived as an additional parliamentary chamber.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s center-left Labor Party, upon winning elections the previous year, pledged to establish the Voice as a fundamental issue.

What Are the Arguments For and Against the Voice?

Albanese has made the referendum a centerpiece of his agenda, asserting that it could help ameliorate long-standing disparities faced by Indigenous communities.

Backing the referendum are the left-leaning Greens party, various independent legislators, multiple welfare organizations, as well as national religious and ethno-religious groups.

Nonetheless, opposition exists on both sides of the political spectrum.

Independent Indigenous senator Lidia Thorpe parted ways with the Greens due to reservations about the Voice proposition. She advocates for a treaty between the government and Indigenous people prior to such an alteration, akin to arrangements in New Zealand and Canada.

The conservative Liberal Party and the rural-oriented National Party remain steadfast against the idea, urging Australians to vote against it.

The Australian Electoral Commission has begun distributing informational pamphlets penned by lawmakers that present the arguments for both “yes” and “no” votes.

Moreover, the Voice could serve as an initial stride toward Indigenous claims for repatriation and compensation.

How Does Australia Amend Its Constitution?

Constitutional amendments in Australia have historically been challenging, with over 80% of referendums failing.

For a constitutional change through a referendum, a “double majority” is required—support from a majority of Australians nationwide along with approval from a majority of voters in the majority of states.

Five referendums have floundered because, while they garnered majority support among Australians, they failed to secure majorities in at least four out of the six states. Voting is obligatory.

Of the 44 referendums conducted since the constitution’s enactment in 1901, merely eight have succeeded, and none have been successful since 1977.

How Do Other Former British Colonies Approach Their Indigenous Communities?

Indigenous peoples in other former British colonies confront marginalization, though some countries have made strides in safeguarding their rights.

Canada recognizes the rights of its Indigenous population under the Constitution Act 1982.

New Zealand’s 1840 Treaty of Waitangi pledges to protect Maori culture. The country has also established Maori seats in parliament, allowing Indigenous individuals to vote for representatives in these seats or participate in general elections.

Te reo Maori, the Maori language, is recognized as an official language and is employed in educational institutions, universities, and public offices.

News

Google’s Search Dominance Is Unwinding, But Still Accounting 48% Search Revenue

Google is so closely associated with its key product that its name is a verb that signifies “search.” However, Google’s dominance in that sector is dwindling.

According to eMarketer, Google will lose control of the US search industry for the first time in decades next year.

Google will remain the dominant search player, accounting for 48% of American search advertising revenue. And, remarkably, Google is still increasing its sales in the field, despite being the dominating player in search since the early days of the George W. Bush administration. However, Amazon is growing at a quicker rate.

Google’s Search Dominance Is Unwinding

Amazon will hold over a quarter of US search ad dollars next year, rising to 27% by 2026, while Google will fall even more, according to eMarketer.

The Wall Street Journal was first to report on the forecast.

Lest you think you’ll have to switch to Bing or Yahoo, this isn’t the end of Google or anything really near.

Google is the fourth-most valued public firm in the world. Its market worth is $2.1 trillion, trailing just Apple, Microsoft, and the AI chip darling Nvidia. It also maintains its dominance in other industries, such as display advertisements, where it dominates alongside Facebook’s parent firm Meta, and video ads on YouTube.

To put those “other” firms in context, each is worth more than Delta Air Lines’ total market value. So, yeah, Google is not going anywhere.

Nonetheless, Google faces numerous dangers to its operations, particularly from antitrust regulators.

On Monday, a federal judge in San Francisco ruled that Google must open up its Google Play Store to competitors, dealing a significant blow to the firm in its long-running battle with Fortnite creator Epic Games. Google announced that it would appeal the verdict.

In August, a federal judge ruled that Google has an illegal monopoly on search. That verdict could lead to the dissolution of the company’s search operation. Another antitrust lawsuit filed last month accuses Google of abusing its dominance in the online advertising business.

Meanwhile, European regulators have compelled Google to follow tough new standards, which have resulted in multiple $1 billion-plus fines.

Pixa Bay

Google’s Search Dominance Is Unwinding

On top of that, the marketplace is becoming more difficult on its own.

TikTok, the fastest-growing social network, is expanding into the search market. And Amazon has accomplished something few other digital titans have done to date: it has established a habit.

When you want to buy anything, you usually go to Amazon, not Google. Amazon then buys adverts to push companies’ products to the top of your search results, increasing sales and earning Amazon a greater portion of the revenue. According to eMarketer, it is expected to generate $27.8 billion in search revenue in the United States next year, trailing only Google’s $62.9 billion total.

And then there’s AI, the technology that (supposedly) will change everything.

Why search in stilted language for “kendall jenner why bad bunny breakup” or “police moving violation driver rights no stop sign” when you can just ask OpenAI’s ChatGPT, “What’s going on with Kendall Jenner and Bad Bunny?” in “I need help fighting a moving violation involving a stop sign that wasn’t visible.” Google is working on exactly this technology with its Gemini product, but its success is far from guaranteed, especially with Apple collaborating with OpenAI and other businesses rapidly joining the market.

A Google spokeswoman referred to a blog post from last week in which the company unveiled ads in its AI overviews (the AI-generated text that appears at the top of search results). It’s Google’s way of expressing its ability to profit on a changing marketplace while retaining its business, even as its consumers steadily transition to ask-and-answer AI and away from search.

google

Google has long used a single catchphrase to defend itself against opponents who claim it is a monopoly abusing its power: competition is only a click away. Until recently, that seemed comically obtuse. Really? We are going to switch to Bing? Or Duck Duck Go? Give me a break.

But today, it feels more like reality.

Google is in no danger of disappearing. However, every highly dominating company faces some type of reckoning over time. GE, a Dow mainstay for more than a century, was broken up last year and is now a shell of its previous dominance. Sears declared bankruptcy in 2022 and is virtually out of business. US Steel, long the foundation of American manufacturing, is attempting to sell itself to a Japanese corporation.

Could we remember Google in the same way that we remember Yahoo or Ask Jeeves in decades? These next few years could be significant.

SOURCE | CNN

News

The Supreme Court Turns Down Biden’s Government Appeal in a Texas Emergency Abortion Matter.

(VOR News) – A ruling that prohibits emergency abortions that contravene the Supreme Court law in the state of Texas, which has one of the most stringent abortion restrictions in the country, has been upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States. The United States Supreme Court upheld this decision.

The justices did not provide any specifics regarding the underlying reasons for their decision to uphold an order from a lower court that declared hospitals cannot be legally obligated to administer abortions if doing so would violate the law in the state of Texas.

Institutions are not required to perform abortions, as stipulated in the decree. The common populace did not investigate any opposing viewpoints. The decision was made just weeks before a presidential election that brought abortion to the forefront of the political agenda.

This decision follows the 2022 Supreme Court ruling that ended abortion nationwide.

In response to a request from the administration of Vice President Joe Biden to overturn the lower court’s decision, the justices expressed their disapproval.

The government contends that hospitals are obligated to perform abortions in compliance with federal legislation when the health or life of an expectant patient is in an exceedingly precarious condition.

This is the case in regions where the procedure is prohibited. The difficulty hospitals in Texas and other states are experiencing in determining whether or not routine care could be in violation of stringent state laws that prohibit abortion has resulted in an increase in the number of complaints concerning pregnant women who are experiencing medical distress being turned away from emergency rooms.

The administration cited the Supreme Court’s ruling in a case that bore a striking resemblance to the one that was presented to it in Idaho at the beginning of the year. The justices took a limited decision in that case to allow the continuation of emergency abortions without interruption while a lawsuit was still being heard.

In contrast, Texas has been a vocal proponent of the injunction’s continued enforcement. Texas has argued that its circumstances are distinct from those of Idaho, as the state does have an exemption for situations that pose a significant hazard to the health of an expectant patient.

According to the state, the discrepancy is the result of this exemption. The state of Idaho had a provision that safeguarded a woman’s life when the issue was first broached; however, it did not include protection for her health.

Certified medical practitioners are not obligated to wait until a woman’s life is in imminent peril before they are legally permitted to perform an abortion, as determined by the state supreme court.

The state of Texas highlighted this to the Supreme Court.

Nevertheless, medical professionals have criticized the Texas statute as being perilously ambiguous, and a medical board has declined to provide a list of all the disorders that are eligible for an exception. Furthermore, the statute has been criticized for its hazardous ambiguity.

For an extended period, termination of pregnancies has been a standard procedure in medical treatment for individuals who have been experiencing significant issues. It is implemented in this manner to prevent catastrophic outcomes, such as sepsis, organ failure, and other severe scenarios.

Nevertheless, medical professionals and hospitals in Texas and other states with strict abortion laws have noted that it is uncertain whether or not these terminations could be in violation of abortion prohibitions that include the possibility of a prison sentence. This is the case in regions where abortion prohibitions are exceedingly restrictive.

Following the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, which resulted in restrictions on the rights of women to have abortions in several Republican-ruled states, the Texas case was revisited in 2022.

As per the orders that were disclosed by the administration of Vice President Joe Biden, hospitals are still required to provide abortions in cases that are classified as dire emergency.

As stipulated in a piece of health care legislation, the majority of hospitals are obligated to provide medical assistance to patients who are experiencing medical distress. This is in accordance with the law.

The state of Texas maintained that hospitals should not be obligated to provide abortions throughout the litigation, as doing so would violate the state’s constitutional prohibition on abortions. In its January judgment, the 5th United States Circuit Court of Appeals concurred with the state and acknowledged that the administration had exceeded its authority.

SOURCE: AP

News

Supreme Court Rejects Appeal From ‘Pharma Bro’ Martin Shkreli, To repay $6.4 Million

Washington — The Supreme Court rejected Martin Shkreli’s appeal on Monday, after he was branded “Pharma Bro” for raising the price of a lifesaving prescription.

Martin appealed a decision to repay $64.6 million in profits he and his former company earned after monopolizing the pharmaceutical market and dramatically raising its price. His lawyers claimed the money went to his company rather than him personally.

The justices did not explain their reasoning, as is customary, and there were no notable dissents.

Prosecutors, conversely, claimed that the firm had promised to pay $40 million in a settlement and that because Martin orchestrated the plan, he should be held accountable for returning profits.

Supreme Court Rejects Appeal From ‘Pharma Bro’ Martin Shkreli

Martin was also forced to forfeit the Wu-Tang Clan’s unreleased album “Once Upon a Time in Shaolin,” which has been dubbed the world’s rarest musical album. The multiplatinum hip-hop group auctioned off a single copy of the record in 2015, stipulating that it not be used commercially.

Shkreli was convicted of lying to investors and defrauding them of millions of dollars in two unsuccessful hedge funds he managed. Shkreli was the CEO of Turing Pharmaceuticals (later Vyera), which hiked the price of Daraprim from $13.50 to $750 per pill after acquiring exclusive rights to the decades-old medicine in 2015. It cures a rare parasite condition that affects pregnant women, cancer patients, and HIV patients.

shkreli

He defended the choice as an example of capitalism in action, claiming that insurance and other programs ensured that those in need of Daraprim would eventually receive it. However, the move prompted criticism, from the medical community to Congress.

Supreme Court Rejects Appeal From ‘Pharma Bro’ Martin Shkreli

Attorney Thomas Huff said the Supreme Court’s Monday ruling was upsetting, but the high court could still overturn a lower court judgment that allowed the $64 million penalty order even though Shkreli had not personally received the money.

“If and when the Supreme Court does so, Mr. Shkreli will have a strong argument for modifying the order accordingly,” he told reporters.

Shkreli was freed from prison in 2022 after serving most of his seven-year sentence.

SOURCE | AP