Vic Lidia Thorpe: Not the subject for every thread!

[Gethelred]

Seeing as Lidia discussion is cropping up across multiple threads, let's have us a thread for people who want to discuss her contribution to Australian politics.

It should go without saying but seeing as she's a bit of a beacon for controversy - for a variety of reasons - let's just remind ourselves what the board rules are around racism and sexism, shall we?

You agree to not use the Service to submit or link to any Content which:

• is dangerous to health, anti-vax, Covid denial etc,
• is hateful, including sympathetic discussion of far-right/neo-Nazi tropes,
• misinformation or disinformation,
• defamatory,
• threatening,
• abusive,
• bigotry,
• likely to offend,
• is spam or spam-like,
• contains adult or objectionable content,
• risks copyright infringement,
• encourages unlawful activity (including illegal drug use, buying, selling etc),
• or otherwise violates any laws,
• or contains personal information of others.

Standard board rules apply, but let's make this abundantly clear: let's play nicely in here.

Go nuts.

 

[Freomaniac]

Interesting that Dutton and co didn't go after Bob Katter for making similar statements to Lidia Thorpe.

Bob Katter 'confesses he refuses to pledge allegiance to the Queen' in interview with The Chaser | 6NewsAU

If the claim is true, it could mean a breach of the Australian Constitution.

www.6newsau.com

No one argues with Bob Katter and wins lol

 

[Freomaniac]

Such an angry person

She is an angry person.

 

[Gough]

She is an angry person.

I'd argue the hard right on the Senate hoping the make-up of the chamber changes at the next election and they end up with the balance of power represent a far more malignant danger. Imaging having to negotiate with Hanson again or Ralph Babet just to get legislation passed.

 

[Chief]

Do you have a practical idea to the solution other than “it’s their land, it’s stolen, give it back”?

This and other questions like this are specificity traps.

Non-experts like us won't have these plans - how could we? These sorts of frameworks and plans are the remit of legal experts and the people directly involved.

Any specific ideas we have would likely be the subject of more and more questions asking for specifics. Each of those specifics get picked apart as lacking.

My main thought on this is fairness. Justice.

The answer to these issues isn't to kick the can down the road, expecting our children and grand children to deal with it.

 

[Gralin]

She is an angry person.

I wasn't talking about her

 

[Carn The Berries]

According to the wiki



Here we see that Ms Thorpe saying she pledged allegiance to the Monarch and their 'hairs' instead of 'heirs', meaning she hasn't pledged allegiance to those who follow the Monarch. Bit of some funny. Some yuks to be had.

I like Lyds

Al that we've seen from this side-show is that she is actually weak as p155. Talked a big game that she deliberately fudged the taking of the oath to look like some kind of "stick it to the man" hero... Then backtracked almost immediately when she realised that it may have actually impacted on her (though highly unlikely given she signed a document with the correct wording).

About as tough as a wet paper bag she is....

 

[Kram]

She's a bit of an embarrassment and I'm not sure if she's really helping anyone.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

Al that we've seen from this side-show is that she is actually weak as p155. Talked a big game that she deliberately fudged the taking of the oath to look like some kind of "stick it to the man" hero... Then backtracked almost immediately when she realised that it may have actually impacted on her (though highly unlikely given she signed a document with the correct wording).

About as tough as a wet paper bag she is....

Well, she's trapped by the current political structure there, isn't she? She can't owe her allegiance to the People of Australia to sit in its Parliament or Senate, but must owe it to someone who doesn't even live here!

 

[Carn The Berries]

Well, she's trapped by the current political structure there, isn't she? She can't owe her allegiance to the People of Australia to sit in its Parliament or Senate, but must owe it to someone who doesn't even live here!

That's all well and good, and she is welcome to disagree with it (which I do, it's an archaic system, the sooner we are rid of the monarchy the better).

But she came in all guns blazing saying "screw the monarchy, I didn't even really pledge allegiance to you". Then ran away like a scolded child when somebody pointed out that if that was the case she may not be allowed to continue in the parliament.

If she actually had some conviction on this matter she should be sticking to her guns and copping whatever the ramifications might be. Instead she's all over breakfast TV trying to renege on her statement.

In saying that, it's absolutely pitiful that the LNP are going after her about it... Nobody actually gives a toss about it anyway.

 

[Reg Grundy35]

Al that we've seen from this side-show is that she is actually weak as p155. Talked a big game that she deliberately fudged the taking of the oath to look like some kind of "stick it to the man" hero... Then backtracked almost immediately when she realised that it may have actually impacted on her (though highly unlikely given she signed a document with the correct wording).

About as tough as a wet paper bag she is....

weak as piss? i'm trying to understand how someone who hides behind an alias on a footy forum could seriously dare to call someone who took on calling out the monarchy and colonisation face to face "weak as piss" i know I have an alias too but its not me calling people "weak as piss". Though I'm tempted!

 

[Reg Grundy35]

Nobody actually gives a toss about it anyway.

Thats the problem - they should.

 

[Reg Grundy35]

She's a bit of an embarrassment and I'm not sure if she's really helping anyone.

she's not and she is. She's shining a torch on the truths that people either deny or look away from. Much easier to say she's an embarrassment or bonkers than to address what she is saying. Denying that colonists committed genocide and rejecting the idea of a treaty is 10 times worse than anything Thorpe has done.

 

[Carn The Berries]

weak as piss? i'm trying to understand how someone who hides behind an alias on a footy forum could seriously dare to call someone who took on calling out the monarchy and colonisation face to face "weak as piss" i know I have an alias too but its not me calling people "weak as piss". Though I'm tempted!

I made absolutely no reference to what she said to the King. I was talking about the claim that she deliberately mis-quoted the oath of allegiance, which she very quickly walked away from when the heat came.

I don't think what she said to the King was weak as piss. I don't think it was overly productive in achieving anything, but it had nothing to do with my post.

 

[Carn The Berries]

Thats the problem - they should.

Again, I was only referencing the circus around what she did or did not say while taking the oath. I don't think anyone should really care about it, particularly given they sign a bloody document anyway.

 

[Romeoh1]

No concerns with her outburst at Charles, but the comments re heirs/hairs is real dumb and could bring her undone. The fact she's trying to walk it back and is claiming that she just had bad pronunciation, when she was gleefully boasting about it yesterday, is a clear sign she realises she's done goofed.

I read somewhere that she did an affirmation as well as the pledge, so she should be fine.

 

[Sphynx]

This and other questions like this are specificity traps.

Non-experts like us won't have these plans - how could we? These sorts of frameworks and plans are the remit of legal experts and the people directly involved.

Any specific ideas we have would likely be the subject of more and more questions asking for specifics. Each of those specifics get picked apart as lacking.

My main thought on this is fairness. Justice.

The answer to these issues isn't to kick the can down the road, expecting our children and grand children to deal with it.

Asking for specifics is not a trap, it's an essential part of resolving and discussing the issue. It's how discussion points like this gain traction, by public discourse like this. If we avoid discussing the specifics because they are challenging or because they will be scrutinized, we won’t be able to develop any practical, realistic solutions.

Whilst issues like this may require legal or direct political involvement, it doesn’t mean non-experts like us can’t engage in a practical conversation about possible outcomes or the implications of proposed solutions.

Broad philosophical approaches don't address the realities of some issues.

If we avoid discussing the specifics because they are challenging or because they will be scrutinized, we won’t be able to develop any practical solutions. If we genuinely want to resolve this issue for our kids or grandkids, it’s necessary to have these hard conversations now, or we are, actually, kicking the can down the road by refusing to engage in the realities of the situation.

 

[Festerz]

No fan of Thorpe or any politician who stands for one party on a platform to get elected under their collective banner and then walks away not soon after. Not forgetting that she is not even half way through her 6 year Senate term and is not up for election at the next Federal election. The role she played in codling up to the Dutton conservatives to help defeat the Voice Referendum was a bloody disgrace.

No surprises that Dutton's mob and the conservative press have turned on Ms Thorpe at the first chance they had of gaining some political traction from it. Although it has to be said they are not alone in this with plenty on Albo's benches wanting to strike back at Thorpe as well. But however it might play out domestically I think Albanese is smart enough to know that the best response here is to just move on. Thorpe will remain a PITA in for the next 3 and a half years so why give her more attention than she deserves.

Especially as, as others have said, the hypocrisy in taking action against Thorpe would be much bigger news globally than Thorpe's comments themselves.

 

[ferball]

Far more indirectly than the King. He's directly benefiting still, based on heritage alone. Most other beneficiaries have a lot of steps/factors between the invasion and today.

A home, a country and a society - non indigenous Aussies are benefiting still. Every benefit we've had in our lives because we are living in Australia is a direct result of the invasion.

... in some ways even existence cos without it how many of us would have been born? (This applies to alot of indigenous people as well, those with mixed ancestry and without.)

 

[Saint]

A home, a country and a society - non indigenous Aussies are benefiting still. Every benefit we've had in our lives because we are living in Australia is a direct result of the invasion.

... in some ways even existence cos without it how many of us would have been born? (This applies to alot of indigenous people as well, those with mixed ancestry and without.)

If you follow that logic far enough, many of us are beneficiaries of the Norman invasion of Britain, the exploitation of India by the British and all sorts of other historic foibles.

No doubt indigenous peoples are owed a debt, but the extent to which current generations owe it is debatable. You could argue it should be the British Govt/King owes the most rather than the Australian Govt/people.

 

[kickazz]

If you follow that logic far enough, many of us are beneficiaries of the Norman invasion of Britain, the exploitation of India by the British and all sorts of other historic foibles.

No doubt indigenous peoples are owed a debt, but the extent to which current generations owe it is debatable. You could argue it should be the British Govt/King owes the most rather than the Australian Govt/people.

If they could find heirs of those who were just 'given land' by the settlers that would be a good place to start.

 

[ferball]

If you follow that logic far enough, many of us are beneficiaries of the Norman invasion of Britain, the exploitation of India by the British and all sorts of other historic foibles.

No doubt indigenous peoples are owed a debt, but the extent to which current generations owe it is debatable. You could argue it should be the British Govt/King owes the most rather than the Australian Govt/people.

You don't have to follow it very far tho. Charles would still be a billionaire monarch without the invasion but very few of the readers of this thread would be living on this land now, maybe none of them. The British gov. would have still taken control of India in the 1850s whether or not they were here.

 

[Sphynx]

You don't have to follow it very far tho. Charles would still be a billionaire monarch without the invasion but very few of the readers of this thread would be living on this land now, maybe none of them. The British gov. would have still taken control of India in the 1850s whether or not they were here.

Yes and we might be talking about a Portuguese colonisation not British. I don't think they would have just been left in peace during that era of exploration.

The Portuguese mapped Australia in the 1500's and had conquered East Timor over 100 years prior to Cooks arrival. They called Australia, Jave la Grande

Despite the horrific treatment they received from the British, based on history it was a hell of a lot better than that alternative.

There's a fair chance we'd be talking about Aboriginal Australians sold and exported under slavery forming part of the racial makeup of Brazil. Like the 6m Africans they sold into slavery there and the near full extinction genocide they conducted on the Brazilian indigenous population. Like they also did in Angola, Mozambique, Guinea, Indonesia etc.

I'm not trying to infer this makes them lucky in any way, to be clear.

 

[Pakenhamsaint]

Given about half the parliament are republicans the oath is pretty irrelevant. Don’t they have to swear on a bible as well?

They can do an oath on a religious text or make an affirmation.

 

[ferball]

Yes and we might be talking about a Portuguese colonisation not British. I don't think they would have just been left in peace during that era of exploration.

The Portuguese mapped Australia in the 1500's and had conquered East Timor over 100 years prior to Cooks arrival. They called Australia, Jave la Grande

Despite the horrific treatment they received from the British, based on history it was a hell of a lot better than that alternative.

There's a fair chance we'd be talking about Aboriginal Australians sold and exported under slavery forming part of the racial makeup of Brazil. Like the 6m Africans they sold into slavery there and the near full extinction genocide they conducted on the Brazilian indigenous population. Like they also did in Angola, Mozambique, Guinea, Indonesia etc.

I'm not trying to infer this makes them lucky in any way, to be clear.

Hypotheticals don't count tho. This is a real situation we need to deal with. Or at least acknowledge.

I know people who won't reveal their grandparents diaries cos of how it makes them look and because they're on multigenerational farm land. They won't even talk about them most of the time. We live in a country with places named Murdering Gully, Murdering Creek, Black Shoot Gully, Poisoned Waterhole Creek and so many more. Talking about how hypothetically it could have been worse misses the point.

Talking about how the crown has an enormous debt is true (not just to blackfellas either, to whitefellas too across the last 250 years,) but so do we in modern Australia. Until we acknowledge that and act on it properly we're behaving like colonists and visitors. Not owning who we are, where we live and what we've done.

"We're just here to wreck the place and leave it all behind." That's how the T-Bones described it decades ago. Surely as a nation we should be capable of better.

 

[HairyO]

Gotta love Bolt, 3AW listeners and all the other conservatives getting all upset and offended on the King's behalf over this. Calling for her to be chucked out and all that. The same people that complain about other people being offended on behalf of others.

I guarantee you Charles could not give a fat frog's arse about her outburst. I mean really.

Play on, it will all be forgotten in a few weeks.

But enjoy your little outrage for now if it makes you feel better.

Given he has had a nutjob rush at him with a gun he probably is quite okay with a few naughty words.

Fahey did a pretty good job that day.

The big pity is instead of serious issues being discussed we are instead focussing on a "WHATABOUTME" individual.