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.

 

[Gethelred]

The police wouldn’t do anything if Van had creeped her out by staring at her, asking her out and maybe grabbing her but uninvited. Why would you report that to them. Doesn’t mean it doesn’t classify as sexual assault and harassment

Especially if he denies doing it and there is no evidence for it having happened.

 

[Happy Mastenator]

So when forner Liberal Senator Amanda Stoker decides to come forward to outline her own history with this guy, does that strengthen Lydia Thorpe's story or what?

Wonder what Prue McSweeney or Jeff Kennett have to say now?

Whatever it is it will be a bit of mental gymnastics that places the blame on anyone other than Liberal white males, and accuses transgender people, drag queens, non-white females, non-white males, white females, white liberal males, in that order, of being in the wrong.

No blame can be placed on conservative liberal white males.

 

[Happy Mastenator]

Especially if he denies doing it and there is no evidence for it having happened.

Yeah. If there's one thing females know, it's how reporting something to police, can lead to heartache and further abuse without ever seeing anything resembling justice.

She reported it to the libs, got him moved away from her. That was probably a massive win for what she expected!

 

[Gethelred]

It is certainly showing tendency for acting in particular manner.

I am not happy that it required Thorpe to raise the matter in the senate before action was taken. Parliament requires a more robust complaints procedure to deal with these issues.

This.

 

[Gralin]

Victims of sexual harrasment or assault don't always react in logical ways, and that is assuming following the correct channels for sexual assault is logical in the first instance. From this link:

Women don't always come forward and report sexual assault, and there are plenty of reasons why Thorpe - as a survivor of domestic violence and an Indigenous woman - would not take this kind of thing to the police.

for example

https://www.theguardian.com/austral...issive-of-domestic-violence-victims?fs=e&s=cl

 

[Happy Mastenator]

It is certainly showing tendency for acting in particular manner.

I am not happy that it required Thorpe to raise the matter in the senate before action was taken. Parliament requires a more robust complaints procedure to deal with these issues.

They could start by banning alcohol in parliament house!

Our work (a professional office in the CBD) has a zero tolerance policy, if you have a beer at lunch, you have to go home.

I know that would upset Barnaby.

 

[Strange Cat]

Victims of sexual harrasment or assault don't always react in logical ways, and that is assuming following the correct channels for sexual assault is logical in the first instance. From this link:

Women don't always come forward and report sexual assault, and there are plenty of reasons why Thorpe - as a survivor of domestic violence and an Indigenous woman - would not take this kind of thing to the police.

I completely understand that and know from my own experience the truma of revisiting the experience through the legal system

I hate to inject a but/however into this but .. if she wanted real action taken against the perpetrators and wanted to highlight the incidents /perpetrators within the system but doesn’t want a further investigation into the matter I am unsure of what she actually wants to happen? Clearly she was unhappy with the action to just move him to another office but chose to not take further actions for years after that.

You can’t have consequences for the perpetrators without further action taken with a independent investigation or reporting the matter further legally , you are just allowing them to continue to be in the system with no further actions taken

And I understand the likelihood of the potential for the lack of legal consequences to the perpetrators, I just don’t agree with making a public accusation using parliament privllages to hide behind the legal protection that it provides to bypass the process to action a real investigation that takes it out of the Libs control with their inadequate response

Anyway I said my piece which clearly I haven’t articulated well enough with the attacks and responses I have received

I’ll leave you all be and I apologise for upsetting anyone in this thread

 

[Happy Mastenator]

I completely understand that and know from my own experience the truma of revisiting the experience through the legal system

I hate to inject a but/however into this but .. if she wanted real action taken against the perpetrators and wanted to highlight the incidents /perpetrators within the system but doesn’t want a further investigation into the matter I am unsure of what she actually wants to happen? Clearly she was unhappy with the action to just move him to another office but chose to not take further actions for years after that.

You can’t have consequences for the perpetrators without further action taken with a independent investigation or reporting the matter further legally , you are just allowing them to continue to be in the system with no further actions taken

And I understand the likelihood of the potential for the lack of legal consequences to the perpetrators, I just don’t agree with making a public accusation using parliament privllages to hide behind the legal protection that it provides to bypass the process to action a real investigation that takes it out of the Libs control with their inadequate response

Anyway I said my piece which clearly I haven’t articulated well enough with the attacks and responses I have received

I’ll leave you all be

I think she was ok with letting it end with what happened. What triggered her though was him then getting up and being the Libs spokesperson on sexual assault and harassment. The pure gall of it given what he has done was enough.

She makes a very fair point here, and porbably influenced why she hadn't spoken up before

https://www.news.com.au/national/nsw-act/politics/senator-lidia-thorpe-lashes-racist-reaction-to-sex-assault-allegation-claims-she-was-demonised-until-a-white-woman-spoke-up/news-story/ac469a8b0fdf0e692249a8ba5223bb95

 

[Gethelred]

I completely understand that and know from my own experience the truma of revisiting the experience through the legal system

I hate to inject a but/however into this but .. if she wanted real action taken against the perpetrators and wanted to highlight the incidents /perpetrators within the system but doesn’t want a further investigation into the matter I am unsure of what she actually wants to happen? Clearly she was unhappy with the action to just move him to another office but chose to not take further actions for years after that.

I'm struggling to disagree with Ghost Patrol:

Van's speech triggered Thorpe.

Those words emerging from his mouth brought what happened back. This is what happens when someone has been traumatised, SC.

You can’t have consequences for the perpetrators without further action taken with a independent investigation or reporting the matter further legally , you are just allowing them to continue to be in the system with no further actions taken

And I understand the likelihood of the potential for the lack of legal consequences to the perpetrators, I just don’t agree with making a public accusation using parliament privllages to hide behind the legal protection that it provides to bypass the process to action a real investigation that takes it out of the Libs control with their inadequate response

The question I have to ask you though is if this is an illegitimate use of parliamentary privilege why is it an illegitimate use of parliamentary privilege?

For the sake of argument, say it happened: David Van sexually assaulted Lidia Thorpe in a corridor near hers and his office in Parliament House, without any witnesses or cameras to verify her story. She makes a complaint, and anticipates going to the police but hang on. She has no evidence of inappropriate touching. She has no witness, and she has no camera evidence; if she were to try and find some, it would be at best heavily circumstantial and would at best prove they were in the same part of the building at the same time. All she has is a story, one he denies.

She goes to her party, and asks what her options are. They tell her there's small likelihood of him getting done for it without evidence; best they can do is see he's moved and to warn people around PH that he's trouble and to stay away. Only people who could actually do something to protect women would be the Libs - the ones whose power his is derived from - and they don't give a **** about women; or, at least, they don't care about women more than they care about power or the needs of realpolitik. So, she sits on it; for good or for ill, she sits on it.

For this hypothetical, what recourse is there for her to do to seek justice, SC? She goes public - outside of parliamentary privilege - and he promptly sues her for defamation; she not only has to retraumatize herself with a criminal trial or any form of allegation investigation, she now has to pay her assaulter money because she can't prove it.

How is that a just outcome, SC?

Is this use of parliamentary privilege exploitable? Potentially. But there's an issue with that assumption, too: look at the response to Thorpe's statements before other victims went public. She was forced due to standing orders to withdraw her accusation and was labelled a liar for it. She will be lucky to come away from this unscathed, despite the reality that it wasn't just one woman and he's done this before. Her story now has more legs than a centipede, and she's still not trusted.

As far as I am concerned this was about her only option if she was to seek justice for what happened to her and to others, SC. Go public, and pray others also come forward, making him easier to be got. If she can't prove it, others might.

While anyone could make an accusation of sexual assault or rape under the protection of parliamentary privilege, it takes more than a mere accusation to make something stick. As for the concept of reputational damage - for a career politician - I find myself struggling to see how his career is damaged by a false sexual assault allegation. Bill Shorten seems to have done okay, and I think it's worth remembering that no-one is entitled to be Prime Minister of Australia.

Anyway I said my piece which clearly I haven’t articulated well enough with the attacks and responses I have received

I’ll leave you all be and I apologise for upsetting anyone in this thread

 

[Chief]

Presumably Van's wandering hands didn't just emerge when he arrived in Canberra and that he was preselected with people being aware he was like this.

Very Christian of them.

 

[Saint]

I never said she was lying, I said she is a liar.

I know it's hard to comprehend, but they aren't mutually exclusive.

Just as Stokers revelations don't automatically mean everything Thorpe has said is legitimate, she has a big history of exaggeration and inflammatory language.

Just as Lehrmann's additional charges didn't make him any more guilty on the Higgins charges.

And based on the revelations of the last few weeks, theres a enough dirt on Sharaz/Wilkinson/Higgins that the right outcome has been reached, Lehrmann will face justice on his other charges, if they infact are proven.


Lidia is claiming racism from the media and public this morning (shock horror), but her statement was chalk and cheese compared to Stokers.

Stoker named Van, went into detail about the events that occurred, the follow up actions and had the conviction to present evidence if required.

Thorpe has offered none of those things. She's not even confident enough to fight a defamation charge on it, it seems.

Yeah, that's nice, but in your first sentence, you call her a liar, then you say she has a history of exaggeration and inflammatory language. Which is not the same as lying, is it?

Was it not racism that nobody believed Thorpe and were shocked and appalled at her use of parliamentary privilege, but when Stoker said it, most of the sensible ones withdrew back under their shells, just leaving a few people hoisting themselves on the petard of the poor-hard-done-by LNP Senator attacked by the uppity black woman.

I can absolutely see how this looks like racism. Sexism too, mostly. Almost certainly both. Thorpe did exactly the same as Stoker except for Senate standing orders couldn't use his name, but did enough that there was no doubt who she was talking about (none).

So a lady is accusing a powerful man with oodles of resources to launch a defamation suit. And they should expose themselves to economic hardship because you choose not to believe them? That's your problem, not Thorpe's. Your choice to believe a recidivist perpetrator over a victim says waaaay more about you than it does about Thorpe.

It's possible (very likely) that the attacks on Thorpe online are driven by racism. Indeed, the fact Thorpe stands up about race and racism is exactly why she's been attacked so much and that people like you think she's got a history of exaggeration and inflammatory language.

Have you seen the kind of inflammatory language and exaggeration people use against Thorpe all the time? Even you in the sentence quoted above have exaggerated "exaggeration and inflammatory language" as lying. So do we call you an outright liar now?

 

[Gralin]

What's that Peter?




Gotta say at this point Sphynx spending all their time attacking Thorpe is making me wonder if it's Van's account on here

 

[Happy Mastenator]

What's that Peter?




Gotta say at this point Sphynx spending all their time attacking Thorpe is making me wonder if it's Van's account on here

Is it a surprise though that he's such a creep.

Looking at his linkedin it's amazing he made it to Senator. He basically has no corporate experience worth mentioning for any extended period, other than running his own "PR Company".

Wouldn't trust anyone with his profile as far as i could throw them.

https://www.linkedin.com/in/david-van-7895a4/details/experience/

 

[Gough]

Is it a surprise though that he's such a creep.

Looking at his linkedin it's amazing he made it to Senator. He basically has no corporate experience worth mentioning for any extended period, other than running his own "PR Company".

Wouldn't trust anyone with his profile as far as i could throw them.

https://www.linkedin.com/in/david-van-7895a4/details/experience/

Seems to have disappeared which is a shame because he'll be needing it soon.

 

[Saint]

What's that Peter?




Gotta say at this point Sphynx spending all their time attacking Thorpe is making me wonder if it's Van's account on here

Poor dear just needs some help, does he?

I reckon they went harder at Thorpe when she accused Van than they've gone on Van when the accusations are all but proven. (here comes somebody to say something like "innocent until found guilty in a court of law")

 

[Saint]

Seems to have disappeared which is a shame because he'll be needing it soon.

His wife is a high profile lawyer and Vice President at a big mining company.

His gig in the Senate is cosplay for rich people (spouse of a big donor rep).

He doesn't need to work.

 

[Brad Goodman]

What's that Peter?




Gotta say at this point Sphynx spending all their time attacking Thorpe is making me wonder if it's Van's account on here

Next tactic will be 'Thorpe knew about Stoker so just tried to go along for the ride'.

 

[Happy Mastenator]

Seems to have disappeared which is a shame because he'll be needing it soon.

https://www.linkedin.com/in/david-van-7895a4/

Lol the clown has listed ski instructor on his profile.

 

[Happy Mastenator]

His wife is a high profile lawyer and Vice President at a big mining company.

His gig in the Senate is cosplay for rich people (spouse of a big donor rep).

He doesn't need to work.

Soon to be ex-wife.

If she has the money, she doesn't need to be known as the lady married to the creep who is no longer a Senator. What's he bringing once he's out of Parliament?

 

[Saint]

Soon to be ex-wife.

If she has the money, she doesn't need to be known as the lady married to the creep who is no longer a Senator. What's he bringing once he's out of Parliament?

Yeah, so he retires with his parliamentary pension ($103k payout) and half of the marital assets. I still don't think he'll need to work again.

 

[Romeoh1]

quick glance at newscorp media - the albrechtson led hysteria from earlier in the week is a little more restrained this morning .... go figure

Bunch of creeps.

 

[Ohitsthatguy]

Of course he went to 2GB

 

[Rob R]

They could start by banning alcohol in parliament house!

Our work (a professional office in the CBD) has a zero tolerance policy, if you have a beer at lunch, you have to go home.

I know that would upset Barnaby.

Strange it is banned everywhere in the public service except the place where the most important decisions are made...

On SM-A125F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[geoffjennings79]

They could start by banning alcohol in parliament house!

Our work (a professional office in the CBD) has a zero tolerance policy, if you have a beer at lunch, you have to go home.

I know that would upset Barnaby.

Ban needs to apply at all hours, given the hours parliament sits. Probably needs to apply to all who work there - including junior staffers who decide to pop in after hours. Security can easily screen them, as many other work places - office and trade, etc - do.

 

[Happy Mastenator]

Yeah, so he retires with his parliamentary pension ($103k payout) and half of the marital assets. I still don't think he'll need to work again.

Not denying that he'll be ok financially. Only that she may decide she doesn't need him anymore.