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.

 

[Happy Mastenator]

What did she say?
It was just incoherent rambling mixed in with the odd F-bomb.

She wants reparations but no discussion of how much, who gets it, who pays it or anything else of substance.

'Reparations' is a whole can of worms and is way too complex for someone of her intellect. For example, does Bruce Pascoe get the same amount as Lidia Thorpe or Jacinta Price or Megan Davis ?
What about those on welfare or those in prison?

These are questions that are automatically classed as 'racist' because they are too hard to answer. Much easier to scream and shout and achieve nothing.

What did she say?
“You committed genocide against our people. Give us our land back. Give us what you stole from us - our bones, our skulls, our babies, our people. You destroyed our land. Give us a treaty. We want a treaty in this country. You are a genocidalist. This is not your land. This is not your land. You are not my king. You are not our king.”

Seems pretty clear she wanted, among other things the return of stolen items, including the bones of her ancestors. Seems entirely reasonable.

Reparations, not once did she mention it. Also "'Reparations' is a whole can of worms and is way too complex for someone of her intellect" this just screams racism. Not to mention that your intellect seems to struggle with the concept that reparations might not just be a cash payment to individuals.

A Treaty? A treaty sets out the rights and obligations on both parties. It's something that would be hard, but could be done, and is probably reasonable. NZ has one.

 

[Inspecta Gadget]

What did she say?
“You committed genocide against our people. Give us our land back. Give us what you stole from us - our bones, our skulls, our babies, our people. You destroyed our land. Give us a treaty. We want a treaty in this country. You are a genocidalist. This is not your land. This is not your land. You are not my king. You are not our king.”

Seems pretty clear she wanted, among other things the return of stolen items, including the bones of her ancestors. Seems entirely reasonable.

Reparations, not once did she mention it. Also "'Reparations' is a whole can of worms and is way too complex for someone of her intellect" this just screams racism. Not to mention that your intellect seems to struggle with the concept that reparations might not just be a cash payment to individuals.

A Treaty? A treaty sets out the rights and obligations on both parties. It's something that would be hard, but could be done, and is probably reasonable. NZ has one.

Out of curiosity, what land does she want back? All of it? Or parcels of it where she can be a sovereign citizen?

 

[MPMonkeys]

What did she say?
“You committed genocide against our people. Give us our land back. Give us what you stole from us - our bones, our skulls, our babies, our people. You destroyed our land. Give us a treaty. We want a treaty in this country. You are a genocidalist. This is not your land. This is not your land. You are not my king. You are not our king.”

Seems pretty clear she wanted, among other things the return of stolen items, including the bones of her ancestors. Seems entirely reasonable.

Reparations, not once did she mention it. Also "'Reparations' is a whole can of worms and is way too complex for someone of her intellect" this just screams racism.

A Treaty? A treaty sets out the rights and obligations on both parties. It's something that would be hard, but could be done, and is probably reasonable. NZ has one.

Which particular bones is she referring to?
Which babies does she want returned? What are their names?
What do we mean by ‘treaty’? What are these rights and obligations? Can you be specific?

This is the problem - there is no concrete measure.

Gough has posted the closing the gap document which at least tries to put some targets even though some are completely unrealistic. I have never heard Thorpe refer to this document because she knows if that were the benchmark all her ranting would be obsolete.

Btw - stop treating all Indigenous people like they are children or they are different to us. They have faults just like all of us. Thorpe is an idiot and just because she has some Indigenous blood doesn’t make her any less of an idiot.

 

[Gralin]

What did she say?
It was just incoherent rambling mixed in with the odd F-bomb.

It was? Huh guess all the transcripts of what she said must have just been made up then

She wants reparations but no discussion of how much, who gets it, who pays it or anything else of substance.

I thought she was incoherent where did you get reparations from?
Also was this some policy speech in the senate I missed?

'Reparations' is a whole can of worms and is way too complex for someone of her intellect.

What does someone of her intellect mean?

For example, does Bruce Pascoe get the same amount as Lidia Thorpe or Jacinta Price or Megan Davis ?
What about those on welfare or those in prison?

What do you think the answer should be?

These are questions that are automatically classed as 'racist' because they are too hard to answer. Much easier to scream and shout and achieve nothing.

You've been doing a pretty good job of the last part

So why not be helpful and answer the questions that only you have raised

 

[Happy Mastenator]

Out of curiosity, what land does she want back? All of it? Or parcels of it where she can be a sovereign citizen?

Which particular bones is she referring to?
Which babies does she want returned? What are their names?
What do we mean by ‘treaty’? What are these rights and obligations? Can you be specific?

This is the problem - there is no concrete measure.

Gough has posted the closing the gap document which at least tries to put some targets even though some are completely unrealistic. I have never heard Thorpe refer to this document because she knows if that were the benchmark all her ranting would be obsolete.

Btw - stop treating all Indigenous people like they are children or they are different to us. They have faults just like all of us. Thorpe is an idiot and just because she has some Indigenous blood doesn’t make her any less of an idiot.

I imagine she couldn't give a detailed list answering all your queries given she had 30 seconds to shout it out. I also can't speak for her, but i imagine it may include.

1. Land back. Simply not having a foreign born monarch as ruler might be a starting point. Linked to Treaty is a right to be involved in how land is used. This happens to a degree already and MABO is in place. I expect that there are plenty of policy papers on options and how it potentially would all work.

2. Which particular bones is she referring to? Which babies does she want returned? What are their names?

You realise that there are aboriginal bones and artefacts sitting in museums in the UK? Like you know this right? You know it's still an issue and deeply upsetting to many aboriginal people? IF you don't know this you should probably remove yourself from a thread like this and do some research before you return.

One such example: https://www.sbs.com.au/nitv/article...of-items-held-in-the-british-museum/8hrlhu2ti

3. What do we mean by ‘treaty’? What are these rights and obligations? Can you be specific?

Again, there's a stack of research/papers on what a treaty may look like. It's a very complex area. There are treaty's in place in NZ and Canada among others. Its not my area of expertise, but i imagine if you sat down with experts, and even if Senator Thorpe, they'd be able to give you some very detailed positions.

 

[Sqotty from office works]

Out of curiosity, what land does she want back? All of it? Or parcels of it where she can be a sovereign citizen?

Only the 98% stolen.
Don't like her, but her speech yesterday was spot on.

 

[MPMonkeys]

It was? Huh guess all the transcripts of what she said must have just been made up then


I thought she was incoherent where did you get reparations from?
Also was this some policy speech in the senate I missed?


What does someone of her intellect mean?

What do you think the answer should be?

You've been doing a pretty good job of the last part

So why not be helpful and answer the questions that only you have raised

It was? Huh guess all the transcripts of what she said must have just been made up then


I thought she was incoherent where did you get reparations from?
Also was this some policy speech in the senate I missed?


What does someone of her intellect mean?

What do you think the answer should be?

You've been doing a pretty good job of the last part

So why not be helpful and answer the questions that only you have raised

'Someone of her intellect' means she is intellectually weak. In fact, very weak.
She struggles to string a coherent sentence together without swearing.

Indigenous people are the same as other humans. There are smart people, stupid people, weak people, strong people.

I'm also bemused as to why you want me to provide answers to my own questions?

Anyway, I better leave it there as it sounds like I am being set up to being suspended or banned.
I know how this works.

 

[Inspecta Gadget]

Only the 98% stolen.
Don't like her, but her speech yesterday was spot on.

Give 98% of the land to 3% of the population? Sounds like a no brainer

 

[burge13]

Only the 98% stolen.
Don't like her, but her speech yesterday was spot on.

You start with yours. Lead by example

Unrealistic nonsense

She also didn't have a speech, she had a tanty

 

[Gralin]

'Someone of her intellect' means she is intellectually weak. In fact, very weak.
She struggles to string a coherent sentence together without swearing.

So your view is her swearing means she's not intelligent?
Or is it that because you can't understand her point the problem must be her intellect and not your knowledge?

Indigenous people are the same as other humans.

what an odd phrasing

There are smart people, stupid people, weak people, strong people.

I'm also bemused as to why you want me to provide answers to my own questions?

because nobody else was asking them and you seem to think being able to answer them is a sign of intellect

so go on, answer them, explain to us how it should work seeing as you think its so important

Anyway, I better leave it there as it sounds like I am being set up to being suspended or banned.
I know how this works.

ah yes preclaiming victim status

bingo again

 

[Sphynx]

Reparations, not once did she mention it. Also "'Reparations' is a whole can of worms and is way too complex for someone of her intellect" this just screams racism. Not to mention that your intellect seems to struggle with the concept that reparations might not just be a cash payment to individuals.

A Treaty? A treaty sets out the rights and obligations on both parties. It's something that would be hard, but could be done, and is probably reasonable. NZ has one.

Yes, signed in 1840 and written in English then translated to Te Reo Māori in 1 night. It's caused a lot of historical problems regarding interpretation. So completely irrelevant, really. Especially as their major reforms in 75' & 85' were brought about to investigate and enforce grievances relating to violation of the original treaty. Not for items and issues predating it.

That treaty cedes land rights, governance of the country, submits to british laws on the condition of equal rights for for Maori subjects etc. Now of course this would have been particularly important for first nations people during the White Australia Policy, however it's not as relevant to modern policy. Further, it's almost completely the opposite of what Thorpe wants as part of the treaty she is continually petitioning for.

She's wants a Treaty which effectively recognizes First Nations peoples right to self govern their own affairs and in their own areas, special concessions of laws, land ownership concessions etc. Nothing like the NZ Treaty which is intended to legally incorporate their Aboriginal population into their country. The proposed one by Thorpe is intended to divide and segregate (to an extent) the population from the rest of the country.

The only comparable one based on modern economies and government are the Nisga Treaty in Canada in 2000 and the Treaty of Recognition in Columbia in 2020.


South Africa (Restitution of Land Rights Act) and Zimbabwe (Fast Track Land Reform Program) didn't introduce a treaty, they went via way of land reform initiatives.

Not to dissimilar to Australia with the Indigenous Land Rights Act (1976) and the Native Title Act (1993). Which already provides a framework for this (But not enough for Thorpe and co. because it provides legal protection for freehold title owners of property in Australia having property stripped off them) Almost all of the land awarded under this framework is Crown Land. Which is the sticking point in reality and the biggest risk to division between the country in the future regarding it.

 

[JackFlash]

What exactly is her agenda? What does she really want. i'd like to know so i can start preparing the back seat of my car for living. (not that i will be able to park anywhere).
In 1986 under Bob Hawke The Australia Act came into being, granting Australia legal independence from the United Kingdom by removing the power of the Parliament of the United Kingdom to legislate with effect in Australia and its states and territories. This act formally severed all legal ties between Australia and the United Kingdom. The Australia Act removed the power of the British government to be involved in the governing of any Australian state.
Lydia Thorpe is a disgrace and should be expelled.

 

[Inspecta Gadget]

You start with yours. Lead by example

Unrealistic nonsense

She also didn't have a speech, she had a tanty

Speaking of 98%. She has a better platform to air her opinions than 98% of the population, but chose that 30 seconds to carry on like my 3 year old when she doesn't get her own way.

 

[Sphynx]

What exactly is her agenda? What does she really want. i'd like to know so i can start preparing the back seat of my car for living. (not that i will be able to park anywhere).
In 1986 under Bob Hawke The Australia Act came into being, granting Australia legal independence from the United Kingdom by removing the power of the Parliament of the United Kingdom to legislate with effect in Australia and its states and territories. This act formally severed all legal ties between Australia and the United Kingdom. The Australia Act removed the power of the British government to be involved in the governing of any Australian state.
Lydia Thorpe is a disgrace and should be expelled.

Land.

Her agenda is securing land rights and sovereignty for all first nations Australians, full legal recognition and control over their ancestral lands.

It's why she was so aggressively apposed to the Voice as it never provided the same legal framework a Treaty would.

The Voice was going to provide a lot of the self governance outcomes of a Treaty, however not with the same level of absolute autonomy, self-governance, reparations, and authority over land and resources she gets with this angle.


How this would look in 40 years for the everyday Australian, is where you start getting accused of racism apparently if you are simply concerned of Citizenship Stratification in one of the wealthiest countries on the planet regarding its natural resources.

 

[TheEscapeClub]

If I got up in a town hall meeting and said that to the boss, I'd be gone that day.

 

[South of the Yarra]

Nah.

I dislike her because she is rude, a terrible role model for young Australians (girls particularly) in how she conducts herself, the language she uses in formal settings, how divisive and aggressive she is and how she misuses her station (regularly) for self interest. She longs for a divided country.

She only has to deliver her message differently and it would be a different matter. She loses her message constantly in her behavior.

The likes of Mandela, MLK, Gandhi, Chavez are legends of history, not solely because of their message, but in the way they delivered it and achieved it.

Lidia has dined out too much on the stories of Robert Mugabe, Che Guevara, Huey Newton I think…

Yet you don't seem to have rushed to a Pauline Hanson thread to comment. Pauline is 'a terrible role model for young Australians (girls particularly) in how she conducts herself, the language she uses in formal settings, how divisive and aggressive she is and how she misuses her station (regularly) for self interest. She longs for a divided country.'

I wonder why

 

[Sphynx]

Yet you don't seem to have rushed to a Pauline Hanson thread to comment. Pauline is 'a terrible role model for young Australians (girls particularly) in how she conducts herself, the language she uses in formal settings, how divisive and aggressive she is and how she misuses her station (regularly) for self interest. She longs for a divided country.'

I wonder why

Because I've never even opened the thread tbh.

I wouldn't waste my time, and last I looked, she wasn't in the news yesterday.

Everything you stated about that POS Pauline is true. You wouldn't admit it the other way though...

 

[South of the Yarra]

Because I've never even opened the thread tbh.

I wouldn't waste my time, and last I looked, she wasn't in the news yesterday.

Yet I have seen you in threads talking about Pauline Hanson yet you don't rush to make comments like this. Strange.

 

[Sphynx]

Yet I have seen you in threads talking about Pauline Hanson yet you don't rush to make comments like this. Strange.

Quotes please.

 

[South of the Yarra]

Quotes please.

Why didn't you rush in and slam Hanson in this conversation. label her as a racist, how divisive she is, how poor a role model she is. Interesting.






I don't like Thorpe and I have made that clear many times, but it is amazing at how quickly someone comes in to slam Thorpe but won't rush into a thread to slam Hanson. There is a pretty simple reason why

 

[South of the Yarra]

What exactly is her agenda? What does she really want. i'd like to know so i can start preparing the back seat of my car for living. (not that i will be able to park anywhere).
In 1986 under Bob Hawke The Australia Act came into being, granting Australia legal independence from the United Kingdom by removing the power of the Parliament of the United Kingdom to legislate with effect in Australia and its states and territories. This act formally severed all legal ties between Australia and the United Kingdom. The Australia Act removed the power of the British government to be involved in the governing of any Australian state.
Lydia Thorpe is a disgrace and should be expelled.

Nah, we will take your car too brother

 

[Sphynx]

Why didn't you rush in and slam Hanson in this conversation. label her as a racist, how divisive she is, how poor a role model she is. Interesting.

View attachment 2149484




I don't like Thorpe and I have made that clear many times, but it is amazing at how quickly someone comes in to slam Thorpe but won't rush into a thread to slam Hanson. There is a pretty simple reason why

Tell me the simple reason why?

Given I have mentioned Pauline Hanson once (in that above post) in 12,000 posts, it must be important to you and very obvious. And lol at this is what you are basing this all on? 1 single post which was inferring Roby calling everyone a racist (lol, some things never change with this group of posters tbh) with an opposing view to his.

I wasn't even commenting on Hanson you absolute drip

I generally don't waste my time on her.

 

[Sqotty from office works]

You start with yours. Lead by example

Unrealistic nonsense

She also didn't have a speech, she had a tanty

Reckon you will squeal like a pig when the Chinese take your land

 

[wannabewinner]

If I got up in a town hall meeting and said that to the boss, I'd be gone that day.

Same… yet the British monarchy has had a few genocides on its hands. How the tv channels go on and talk about the best way to curtsy is beyond me.

 

[burge13]

Reckon you will squeal like a pig when the Chinese take your land

Might be the dumbest reply on the SRP. Go have a lie down, whatever you're on will wear off