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.

 

[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?

 

[barreness]

Australian society created Thorpe(as it does with all of us), if you don't like it look within

N.B charlie does have some good views regarding population and the environment but he's a royal tosser with sausage fingers so **** him and the horse we pay(kinda) someone to look after

 

[Reg Grundy35]

I've been following these issues since I was 18 - fifty years back. I can't detect one iota of a reduction in the level of base racism that underlies the majority of the anti-Thorpe posts in this thread. On the monarchy, yes there's been a cooling off but not enough - still too many want to debase themselves and tug the old forelock. But I knew 12 months ago, when this country disgraced itself at the ballot box, that the colonisers are still calling the shots. Their job isnt finished yet it seems.

 

[Gethelred]

Oh please. Men are attention whores too. Now you’re just looking for sexism where it doesn’t exist.

But if it pleases yiu, Lidia acted like an attention troll. Better?

Much.

 

[ferball]

It’s clearly not sufficient for lidia though. And I do not think what she wants will pass muster with the rest of the country. I do NOT value First Nations people above others in this country and those who demand that I “must” can go **** themselves.

As far as they're concerned you're part of the occupation by invaders.

 

[ferball]

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

There have been. But they're extremely limited.

You may be right about how things are now but that just shows how far this country has gone backwards in its treatment of indigenous people this century.

 

[QuietB]

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

No one has ever asked for anything like that. Your post is pure alarmism.

 

[Gralin]

No one has ever asked for anything like that. Your post is pure alarmism.

exactly

 

[TheEscapeClub]

Land back

They lost.

 

[Reg Grundy35]

They lost.

not just them

 

[Sphynx]

No one has ever asked for anything like that. Your post is pure alarmism.

We've never even progressed to that point in the debate. It's not alarmism; you just don't want to consider one of the possible outcomes because it disrupts the simplicity and vagueness of framing the issue solely as "their land was stolen, hand it back."

One of the ultimate end discussions of the issue is being deliberately obscured to avoid causing a public outcry.

Why is the core of her petition around Treaty "handing back stolen land" when that's exactly what's been done for the best part of 50 years at a historical global quantity?

There's a clear legal avenue to already achieve this. There's been well over 500+ applications heard to recognize native title rights under existing laws.

50% of the Northern Territories total land mass has been handed back to native title under the Aboriginal Land Rights Act.

The cases and applications that have failed under these legal avenues relate to the law itself and not being able to hand back land that has been previously sold to private citizens under freehold title recognition.

What other land is there to hand back if it's not remaining crownland (which I already covered in my post yesterday and the issues around it) and then freehold?

It's a simple question, you seem unable to answer.

If her intention is to look for restitution for land stolen/conquered etc and then allocated to freehold by the British/Australian (it's not just the British) Governments, that is an acceptable position to take, I'd just like to hear thoughts of how we practically achieve this without absolutely destroying the country. Does anyone on that side of the debate even want to address it?

 

[Happy Mastenator]

Disagreeing on where to go is not sticking fingers in ears. If not “land back” then what. What would satisfy those who share lidias view but be acceptable to the rest of Australia?

They started doing that 40 years ago and there’s a perfectly legal avenue to achieve that at the moment.

Lidia isn’t interested in crown land, she knows she can already claim that, she wants to bypass the crown land restrictions of the Native Land Act and the Aboriginal Land Rights Act so that she can claim freehold land ownership. Land handed back as part of these two acts since the 70’s and more noticeably since Mabo is approx 3 million square kilometers or 40% of Australias total land mass.

She’s not interested in that, she’s interested in urban areas.

She wants restitution/payment for the land which isn’t or can’t be handed back. As per similar terms in the agreement of the NZ treaty of 1840 which she so regularly cites. However this wasn’t a retrospective one…

I think that a lot of the complaints by some are based on ignorance. "Land back" is not simply taking your house and giving it back to aboriginal people. Its a phrase that is used to describe a concept.

I truly recommend reading the article at the link below.

Land Back | Common Ground

Land back is about changing systems that harm Country. It means a reckoning with the unjust ways land was stolen.

www.commonground.org.au

 

[Reg Grundy35]

I think that a lot of the complaints by some are based on ignorance. "

No question about THAT!

 

[Happy Mastenator]

I'm not indigenous so don't pretend to speak for the indigenous community, which has a wide range of view points.

What i will say, from my experience in discussions with indigenous leaders (we have an active program through my workplace), is that there is a lot of generational trauma in a lot of indigenous folk. In many case their grandparents/parents/themselves, were victims of the stolen generation, severe institutional racism, and a whole range of other issues as can be seen in things like the closing the gap report.

As a result, there is a wide range of how people express themselves. Some have been conditioned and accept it as they won't speak out. A new, louder generation have embraced "Blak, Loud and Proud" and are doing what they can to drive changes for them and more importantly their children and future generations.

I'm not sure there is one right answer, but i know something has to be done to close the gap and bring things to a level playing field.

 

[Gough]

Thorpe isn't alone in her views.
King Charles faces calls to confront the $37 trillion bill the UK owes for colonialism

King Charles faces calls to confront the $37 trillion bill the UK owes for colonialism

Some groups from countries colonised by the UK have called for widespread apologies while others have demanded financial compensation.

www.sbs.com.au

 

[Reg Grundy35]

Thorpe isn't alone in her views.
King Charles faces calls to confront the $37 trillion bill the UK owes for colonialism

https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article...sm/38ggrnrnf?cid=newsapp:socialshare:eek:ther

apparently, they should all be grateful and stop their cash grabs, according to some in here?

 

[Sphynx]

I think that a lot of the complaints by some are based on ignorance. "Land back" is not simply taking your house and giving it back to aboriginal people. Its a phrase that is used to describe a concept.

I truly recommend reading the article at the link below.

Land Back | Common Ground

Land back is about changing systems that harm Country. It means a reckoning with the unjust ways land was stolen.

www.commonground.org.au

It completely oversimplifies the issue.

How does a non-ownership approach coexist with modern systems of private land ownership in a modern society?

I also think despite the article’s broad philosophical argument, many Indigenous groups are absolutely interested in securing legal title ownership.

As I said, it's been happening for decades.

It's still happening now - see Balmoral Beach & Burleigh Headland in the GC.

I also want to preface it by saying I'm not at all against land restitution at it's core, it just requires a balance between historical justice and the rights of current Australians.