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.

 

[Crankyhawk]

Such an angry person

your needling and sniping has angered me absolutely.

 

[Gralin]

your needling and sniping has angered me absolutely.

Land back

 

[Sphynx]

They'll finally buy in?


Dude it's still stolen lans its not equal and the idea that removing the union jack fixes things is such hopes and prayers

This is such woo woo crap

The issues are much much bigger than we're a constitutional monarchy removing that and saying ok now buy in we're all equal now is about as useful as have a voice to Parliament that can't do anything

So what’s equal then in your scenario and what’s the fair end result to resolve this?

And you must be talking about freehold land, so every single m2 of land in the country? Outside of Crownland there’s approximately 1,000km2 of freehold land in the country with a huge portion in urban and built up areas.

You are talking something with commercial land value of 500+ Trillion $AUD.

So what’s the resolution here, every land owner in the country has to pay restitution to the 250 individual indigenous nations based on that land value or the land value they own? Or the government has to pay some sort of land payment based on that value and bankrupt the economy? Or pay a % of GDP for the next 500 years as restitution for that amount of money?

All distributed into 3.2% of the population, all split into 250 individual nations.

You will develop huge resentment and division and something akin to citizen stratification that is present in Middle East in countries like Qatar etc

 

[Gralin]

So what’s equal then in your scenario and what’s the fair end result to resolve this?

And you must be talking about freehold land, so every single m2 of land in the country? Outside of Crownland there’s approximately 1,000km2 of freehold land in the country with a huge portion in urban and built up areas.

You are talking something with commercial land value of 500+ Trillion $AUD.

So what’s the resolution here, every land owner in the country has to pay restitution to the 250 individual indigenous nations based on that land value? Or the government has to pay some sort of land payment based on that value and bankrupt the economy? Or pay a % of GDP for the next 500 years as restitution for that amount of money?

All distributed into 3.2% of the population.

You will develop huge resentment and division and something akin to citizen stratification that is present in Middle East countries like Qatar etc

I think the best thing to do is just leave you to your little creative writing piece

 

[Sphynx]

I think the best thing to do is just leave you to your little creative writing piece

OK, so when presented with the actual issue to discuss, you can’t?

Got it.

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

 

[Gralin]

OK, so when presented with the actual issue to discuss, you can’t?

Got it.

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

No I'm just not interested in engaging with your scenario given its not an extension of what I wrote

Nor is it the main purpose of this thread

 

[rank and file]

I mean she's had death threats she gets a lot of hate

Don't worry the Feds got there man,averting a political assassination.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

I’d be interested in your thoughts on Lidia’s legacy then.

My thoughts aren't that important, the views of Aboriginal people like campbell and South of the Yarra are more important to hear. I know both of them have been pretty unimpressed with her in the past.

But since you asked:

Thorpe represents a particular current of thought amongst some Aboriginal people that heretofore hasn't been represented in parliament, which is Blak sovereignty. This movement demands redress for the crimes of colonialism. For that reason, it is always going to be perceived as threatening by those who have become very rich and powerful in an economy that is still in large part built upon land and mineral resources taken through colonialism. As the Australian media is, at their core, a mouthpiece for the rich and powerful, they have always sought to depict her in the worst possible light and make her an object of hate and ridicule.

For her part, Thorpe hasn't helped her own image. The rhetoric of Blak sovereignty will be uncomfortable to a lot of mainstream Australia, however she's made no real effort to endear herself to them or appear relatable. There's no spoonful of sugar to help the medicine go down with her. While some would argue she shouldn't have to do so, she is a politician, this is a democracy and change often involves winning hearts and minds, so it might have been more effective to at least make an effort at it. But who knows, maybe it wouldn't have made a difference when the message is hard to swallow.

And yes, she's courted controversy many times. Sometimes, she's in the wrong and tarnishes the cause she's speaking for. She shouldn't have insulted Hollie Hughes for example, that was indefensible. But many other times, it's nonsense where the muckraking media tries to spin it as some horrible crime against society. I'd argue Barnaby Joyce has engaged in worse behaviour as a politician, yet he's not copped it as badly as Thorpe has. I think the media use every opportunity they have to take a shot at her. It's also fair to say she's given them ammunition.

When a person is trying to bring a message into the mainstream, it usually isn't a good thing if the focus is on the person rather than the message. But in a celebrity-obsessed culture, with an inherently biased (and in some cases, frankly racist) media, I think that was always going to be the case. Maybe Thorpe is not the best spokesperson Blak sovereignty could have ever had, but she's endured a lot of garbage and is not only still standing, she still has the energy to tell some posh old shitbag exactly what she thinks of the institution he represents. I'm glad she had the chance to do that, no matter how many people are annoyed by it. And I hope the Blak sovereignty movement sticks around longer than she does.

Only democratically elected for 1 term

Six years is more than three. Twice as much, in fact.

and where being in a relationship with a major organized crime figure whilst sitting on Parliaments law enforcement committee sits on your corruption scale..

Except she says she didn't date him. And he had no criminal convictions. And he left the Rebels before this was alleged to have occurred anyway.

https://www.theguardian.com/austral...oss-and-is-cleared-of-wrong-doing-by-senators

So I don't care about it, it's nonsense.

 

[Rotayjay]

The chances of a country that comprehensively rejected the Voice accepting a land handback program are extremely remote.

 

[Sphynx]

No I'm just not interested in engaging with your scenario given its not an extension of what I wrote

Nor is it the main purpose of this thread

LOL, this is why some in this thread are ridiculous hypocrites. I swear they just want to bicker and pump their fist at the clouds and cry at “conservatives” every third post.

Your hero has done exactly what you have wanted, stirred genuine discussion and debate reagarding Treaty.

What do you do?

“It’s not the thread for it”

Yet just continue the bickering and snide remarks.

Why don’t you want to discuss it seriously? Or are you simply just happy being argumentative and never want to actually discuss the issue at all?