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.

 

[Leeda]

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.

Awesome....you sound like a tightwad hi-pants dude who likes to speak eloquently but end up ruling the plebs
who deliver your coffee or tea bag and with a dash of silver...er sugar...
Welcome to my handy Andy tri colours...

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

Tell me, do you make 'might is right' arguments in every day life?

Of course they do. The Escape Club lives in the wild, wild west after all!!

 

[Donakebab]

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.

 

[Chief]

He is just a celebrity who has no actual real power. Even in his own country let alone ours.

He has special rights over land. Special accommodations. Special laws. And he does have powers over parliament, but would be foolish to abuse them.

Read up on Chuck's lurks and perks. His old ones were transferred to his son. The use of property that he can make, over the objections of elected local government.

Entailment in Australia and the UK is illegal. You can't pass down property with a restriction on it's sale by the inheritor, and a restriction on who that property can be inherited by into the following generations. The monarchy gets around this with aristocratic titles and the properties that come with those titles. This isn't available to all citizens.

Add to this the fact that those properties still owned by the same families were gained through theft and murder, and you have as illegitimate a claim to titles and property as ever.

On top of this you have a completely unelected house of parliament in the UK. Like, they are appointed or have a right by conquest hundreds of years ago.

Anyway, if the English like being ruled over by a German, that's not my business.

 

[Chief]

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?

This sort of thing is EXACTLY how the monarchy got their land in the first place. Now the idea is that it's unfair to try to undo this conquest, even a little bit and in practical and achievable ways? To do what most other Western countries have done and sign a treaty with the descendants of the earliest known inhabitants?

A monarch can apparently own land by right of ancestry (and lock it away from citizens, and develop it against local wishes) but for Indigenous people it seems to be out of the question that they have some claim to land they didn't willingly give up and were never compensated for.

Interesting.

 

[Sphynx]

This sort of thing is EXACTLY how the monarchy got their land in the first place. Now the idea is that it's unfair to try to undo this conquest, even a little bit and in practical and achievable ways?

I never said "unfair", you have made that up. I said there needs to be a balance or middle ground between historical justice and maintaining the equality for the remainder of the country

And I never put a caveat on "a little bit and in practical and achievable ways". A little bit has already been achieved, unless you define it differently to me?

In fact, how many times did I have to mention to other posters for suggestions for discussion on practical ways to achieve historical justice?

If it's so practical and achievable, what are they?

To do what most other Western countries have done and sign a treaty with the descendants of the earliest known inhabitants?

Who are these "most" other Western Countries?

Are you talking about Canada and Columbia? or the US?

Or are you talking about New Zealand, who agreed to a treaty almost 180 years ago? Do you think that's relevant to modern society and ownership implications?

The terms and intent of that treaty will be the opposite to the one that we would be negotiating. Indigenous Australians want self determination and ownership of their ancestral lands. The 1840 treaty at it's core was ceding self determination, obedience and recognition of Britain's laws and ownership of their ancestral lands (with compensation and recognition and surety of human rights) to the British/Monarch. Further, all updates to that treaty in the 20th century were around enforcement of abuse of the terms of the treaty by the British Government and NZ government. Not backdating claims from before 1840 until NZ's discovery.

A monarch can apparently own land by right of ancestry (and lock it away from citizens, and develop it against local wishes) but for Indigenous people it seems to be out of the question that they have some claim to land they didn't willingly give up and were never compensated for.

I never said it's out of the question. In fact I've argued the opposite, there's already mechanisms in place to claim the land back. I'm absolutely open to discussion how we fast track it and increase more areas under the scheme. But it doesn't represent all land does it? And Indigenous people aren't 1 people either in this respect. There's 250 different nations, with different historical claims and whom will all have a desire for different terms (as is their right based on their circumstances)

I think we also need to be clear here regarding practicality vs technicality. We really are talking about the Federal and State Governments in respect of crown land, not the monarch.

And it gets back to the discussion regarding national interests vs historical justice.

Should we give back the land title ownership and legal control to Pine Gap or Tullamarine Airport?

Then we have the topic of freehold land. There's then not only a right to compensation to solely indigenous nations is there? There will have to be compensation to the freehold owners whom have been titled stolen property.

 

[hawkman]

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.

Just to make sure she should have to do it again

 

[Roylion]

He has special rights over land. Special accommodations. Special laws. And he does have powers over parliament, but would be foolish to abuse them.

Read up on Chuck's lurks and perks. His old ones were transferred to his son. The use of property that he can make, over the objections of elected local government.

Entailment in Australia and the UK is illegal. You can't pass down property with a restriction on it's sale by the inheritor, and a restriction on who that property can be inherited by into the following generations. The monarchy gets around this with aristocratic titles and the properties that come with those titles. This isn't available to all citizens.

Add to this the fact that those properties still owned by the same families were gained through theft and murder, and you have as illegitimate a claim to titles and property as ever.

On top of this you have a completely unelected house of parliament in the UK. Like, they are appointed or have a right by conquest hundreds of years ago.

Anyway, if the English like being ruled over by a German, that's not my business.

There's a number of inaccuracies here, but that's a subject for another thread. Incidentally the English royal family is not German, but they do have German ancestors.

 

[Chetan Gupta]

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.

If she shouted that he is not her king did she break oath of allegiance that she swore to be senator?

If she on purpose did not swear correct oath is she valid senator?

 

[Reg Grundy35]

If she shouted that he is not her king did she break oath of allegiance that she swore to be senator?

If she on purpose did not swear correct oath is she valid senator?

The sooner we get rid of all that mumbo jumbo bullshit the better. I wouldnt swear that at gunpoint! lol

 

[Carn The Berries]

If she shouted that he is not her king did she break oath of allegiance that she swore to be senator?

If she on purpose did not swear correct oath is she valid senator?

Yes - All Senators & MPs also sign a declaration that includes the wording of the oath.

This is a complete non-event. The Opposition shouldn't be giving it any air... But here we are...

 

[Saint]

Imagine after 200 years of dispossession, genocide and oppression, people got upset when you say something nasty to pretty much the only person who is still a direct sole beneficiary of the genocide and invasion.

People who say he shouldn't be blamed for the deeds of his great-grandparents seemingly don't know what a monarchy is.

 

[ferball]

Imagine after 200 years of dispossession, genocide and oppression, people got upset when you say something nasty to pretty much the only person who is still a direct sole beneficiary of the genocide and invasion.

People who say he shouldn't be blamed for the deeds of his great-grandparents seemingly don't know what a monarchy is.

Every non-indigenous Australian is a direct beneficiary of those things.

 

[Saint]

Every non-indigenous Australian is a direct beneficiary of those things.

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.

 

[Gavin Excell]

She was elected as a Green not as an independent. She should have been given the arse completely and the Greens replaced her.

Correct

I have little respect for those who cynically attach themselves to a party then ditch it to go independent. A self indulgent fck you to the electorate who would never have voted her in without the Greens badge

 

[Rotayjay]

It probably won't end up having any legal effect, but what kind of idiot boasts about changing the wording of an oath and then walks it back when their office (and therefore paycheque) is questioned?

Does carry-on and saying 'You are not my king' constitute breaking the oath? I would say no, because the oath is clearly geared towards promising to not act in the interests of, or obey, the monarch's enemies. That would be anyone who is an enemy of Australia.

And the recording of her speaking the oath won't shed any light. We've had 55 years of pointless debate and audio analysis trying to work out whether Neil Armstrong said 'one small step for man' or 'one small step for a man'.

 

[Rotayjay]

Correct

I have little respect for those who cynically attach themselves to a party then ditch it to go independent. A self indulgent fck you to the electorate who would never have voted her in without the Greens badge

I think the Constutution should be amended to ban this sort of crap in the Senate. If you only took a seat in the Senate due to the party putting you there, you should relinquish that seat if you don't want to be in that party. But how would that work with the small number of below-the-line votes?

 

[RedStarUncle]

I think the Constutution should be amended to ban this sort of crap in the Senate. If you only took a seat in the Senate due to the party putting you there, you should relinquish that seat if you don't want to be in that party. But how would that work with the small number of below-the-line votes?

The Senate is setup to elect 12 individuals to represent each state. Because our political system is inherently party-based, the election process is aimed at making it easier to vote along party lines in selecting those 12 individuals.

But ultimately, they are elected as individuals and have no requirement to even vote in the Senate along party lines whether they nominally belong to a party or not. If Lidia Thorpe is removed from parliament, current conventions would have her replaced by a Greens candidate rather than someone of her choosing or someone from any new party she formed, as she was elected through the Greens. That seems sufficient to me as a control of fairness.

 

[Gavin Excell]

The reality is she hoodwinked the electorate

Zero respect

Same as Craig Kelly

 

[kickazz]

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.

 

[Ghost Patrol]

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

 

[QuietB]

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

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

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

Wow. Onya Bob!

Seriously, the ONLY allegiance that politicians should owe is to the AUSTRALIAN PEOPLE who make up the electorates that vote them in. Not an allegiance to Poms. Not an allegiance to Yanks.

 

[Chief]

There's a number of inaccuracies here, but that's a subject for another thread. Incidentally the English royal family is not German, but they do have German ancestors.

I am sure there are details I forgot off the top of my head.

The end result is pretty much the same.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

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

According to the wiki

Oath of Allegiance (Australia) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

All members of the Australian Parliament are required to make, before taking their seat in Parliament, an oath or affirmation of allegiance before the Governor-General of Australia. The requirement to take the oath is set out in section 42 of the Australian Constitution] and the wording of the oath and affirmation are set out in the Schedule to the Constitution.

The oath is:

I, A.B., do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King Charles the Third, His heirs and successors according to law. SO HELP ME GOD!

The affirmation is:

I, A.B., do solemnly and sincerely affirm and declare that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King Charles the Third, His heirs and successors according to law.

where A.B. is the name of the parliamentarian...

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