Recently, the Yes campaign in Australia has been engaging in some unpleasant behavior during the campaign for a change to the Australian Constitution. This change is being pushed by globalists who want to alter the contract between the Australian people and their federal government. Some of the actions by the Yes camp include name-calling and physical assaults, such as the recent incident in Cooma where an academic activist spat on someone. What makes this particularly distasteful is that the Yes camp is also heavily promoting the Covid plandemic narrative.
In addition to these behaviors, the Yes campaign has also been resorting to dirty tricks. One example of this is the use of campaign posters that bear a striking resemblance in color to the official signage of the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC). This can be problematic for voters who are colorblind, as it might mislead them into thinking that the AEC is endorsing the Yes campaign. I personally encountered this issue when I visited the Atherton pre-poll center in Queensland.
Upon arrival at the pre-poll center, the first thing I noticed was a Yes campaign sign placed next to an AEC sign. As someone with colorblindness, the colors appeared to be the same, giving the impression that the AEC was supporting the Yes vote. To ensure that this was not a misleading tactic, I consulted the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 on my phone and discovered that it is indeed against the law to distribute any material that could mislead voters.
Armed with this knowledge, I approached the AEC queue supervisor and requested to speak with the pre-poll supervisor. After explaining my concerns, she searched for a complaint form but struggled with how to word it. Understanding that it was my right to express my concerns, I offered to write a statement myself. The pre-poll supervisor accepted my offer, and I composed a complaint outlining my observations and citing the relevant section of the Electoral Act.
With my statement attached to the AEC complaint form, I thanked the pre-poll supervisor for her assistance. I inquired about the timeline for a response from the AEC and when any necessary actions would be taken. She informed me that these forms are typically submitted to the AEC headquarters at the end of the voting period. However, I decided to take matters into my own hands and contacted the AEC headquarters directly, requesting expedited action.
Outside the polling center, I shared my experience with members of the No camp so that they could use this information if needed. To my surprise, I noticed an AEC official photographing the signs shortly after. Before leaving, I witnessed the Yes camp workers changing their signs to a different color, a pale pink.
It is important to address these misleading tactics and dirty tricks employed by the Yes campaign. By closely resembling the official AEC signage, they risk deceiving voters, especially those with colorblindness. Such behavior is not only deceptive but also discriminatory towards individuals with disabilities. It is crucial that the AEC takes urgent action to remove these deceptive signs and ensure a fair and transparent voting process.
In conclusion, the Yes campaign’s behavior during the Australian Constitution change campaign has been disappointing. From name-calling and physical assaults to deceptive campaign tactics, it is clear that their approach lacks integrity. However, by speaking out and lodging complaints, we can highlight these issues and work towards a more transparent electoral process. The AEC must take swift action to address these concerns and ensure a fair referendum for all Australians.