Indigenous senator who yelled 'You are not our king' at Charles III is censured in Australia
Indigenous senator who yelled 'You are not our king' at Charles III is censured in Australia
Australian senators have voted to censure an Indigenous colleague who yelled at King Charles III during a reception in Parliament House last month.
Summary
Australian senators censured Senator Lidia Thorpe for her outburst against King Charles III during his visit, calling him a colonizer and demanding land and reparations. Thorpe defended her actions, stating she would repeat them if Charles returned.
You're viewing a single thread.
-
How dare she say something true!
-
She also called him a colonizer and said he committed genocide, both very stupid statements. Shit happened hundreds of years ago, he had nothing to do with it. If she wants reparations and land she should be asking the UK and Australian governments for it, not an elderly monarch. And now she's gone and got herself censured, making her a pariah and reducing Aboriginal influence in parliament. This is nothing but a loss for her and the people she represents.
-
The crown greatly enriched themselves in the act. They should also pay reparations.
I disagree it reduced her influence. She's now made a name for herself. She likely wasn't given much influence to start with, but she's been handed a platform to speak with now.
-
The Commonwealth still owns land in Australia (and 14 other countries ) and still heads the government all be it with limited powers. Literally, they are still colonizers. Fuck em.
-
You really don't understand symbolism.
-
-
She's right, but outbursts like this are the equivalent of activists throwing paint at the Mona Lisa. It makes that side look petulant and doesn't effect change. If she really wants land and reparations, did she really think this grandstanding was the way to accomplish that goal?
-
If it made Charles momentarily uncomfortable then that’s enough justification for me.
-
Royalty should be uncomfortable, either temporarily or permanently
-
He’s used to it.
-
I have rarely seen him not acting like he's feeling awkward and uncomfortable.
-
It's the British way
-
The time is gone, the song is over
-
-
-
-
-
I think she's as fully aware as black and indigenous Americans are that she'll never actually get what she's owed, so she might as well tell the king that's been forced on her people to fuck off.
-
The news coverage on this was the point. Bringing awareness to her people's situation.
-
Although its still too damn high, only 50% of British people believe the monarchy thats been forced on us is important.
They are losing the popularity contest here too.
-
Noone's forcing Charles on Australia. Aussies are generally in favour of becoming a republic, thing is they can't agree on what kind of head of state they want so for the time being it's gonna continue to be the British Monarch.
There's lots to be said about the failure of Australia to properly address indigenous concerns, literally nothing Charles can do about that but be a symbol to throw ire at to get some press coverage. He can't even tell "his government" to deal with the issue, the thing he tells "his government" to do is whatever the government tells him to. They're writing their own marching orders.
-
Noone’s forcing Charles on Australia.
The aboriginals who ran the continent for tens of thousands of years before white people took over might disagree with you on that.
-
Last I checked Australia is independent, and last I checked I also said that Australia has to account for a lot of failures when it comes to addressing indigenous concerns.
Nothing of which has anything to do with Charles who has literally zero power over the situation. I'm pretty much as republican as people can possibly be but let's not blame on powerless monarchs what's actually the fault of elected representatives. Gets into the way of holding them accountable.
-
No one said he had any power.
That doesn't mean he's deserving of the title of king over the people who's land was taken from them. I'm not sure why you are insisting he is.
-
I'm not saying he deserves anything I'm saying he has no choice but to be the king, best he could do is abdicate but that only would put his son in the same position. It's up to Australia to abolish the monarchy, not House Windsor.
-
He could simply not go play king in Australia. If you don't want to be king of a country your ancestors forcibly colonized, you can just not. None of this is an obligation.
-
No blame on Westminster, at all? Like, we're ignoring that the UK was a (flawed, but still) democracy for most of Australia's colonial period?
And how would him abdicating help the situation in Australia?
He's taken up a duty, and he's fulfilling it. That includes being a symbol, and as such getting attacked for the past and present wrongs of Britain, Australia, etc. Still doesn't make him responsible, though, in precisely the same way that Bugs Bunny is not responsible for the acts of the board of Warner Brothers.
-
That other villains exist in the story of the British empire doesn't matter to whether he has to play king in Australia. It's not a duty and he's not a put upon civil servant. If he actually agreed that his position was illegitimate he could simply say so and stop performing it, with no meaningful loss to the world. But he's a rich douche who's happy to ride on his inherited privilege and claim to bestow his special personage to people across the world. People calling him illegitimate is the right and proper response to him pretending he has some special place in Australian society.
-
-
-
And yet he's still not their king.
-
-
-
They are not independent. They are under the rule of the crown. 4-5 years ago the governor of Australia, who reports to the crown, dissolved parliament.
-
The G-G dissolves parliament every time the Prime Minister (PM) advises them to do so. I think you don't grok the situation here, constitutionally speaking.
- The King (or Queen) of Australia has powers defined in our constitution. They can't issue commands at will.
- The King appoints the Governor-General (GG) on the advice of the PM
- The King delegates their powers to the GG
- The GG acts on the advice of the PM, to approve legislation (royal assent), and to dissolve parliament when the time comes. Also, awarding honors and some other non-political stuff. Head of state duties like greeting and hosting other heads of state.
- The GG does not seek permission or even advice from the King. Delegation of powers doesn't mean the GG may exercise those powers, it means they must exercise those powers. That's an important difference.
- There are reserve powers, "break glass only in emergency" powers. One of those is to sack the government. It's happened once in living memory, in 1975, when the elected government couldn't pass funding bills and the government was about to run out of money (sound familiar?). That's one of the few triggers where the reserve powers can be used. They can't be used for just anything. Sacking the government also means a full election, upper and lower house.
- The GG doesn't report to the crown (King or Queen) in the sense you mean. There's no "list of things I did today" and the King then sends back an "approved" stamp.
-
He dissolved parliament based on what rules written by whom, on whose orders?
Hint hint: Based on the Australian constitution, written by Australians, on the order (well, "advice", same thing in this case) of the Australian Prime Minister.
-
-
-
-
He is an extraordinarily wealthy man who has a platform that many will listen to. He can do a lot on his own to change things. Yeah, he doesn't control the government, but do you think anyone has ever accomplished anything who doesn't? Obviously havi g the government do what you wish on a whim is not the only method to get things done. Many have accomplished more good than him with less.
-
He is an extraordinarily wealthy man who has a platform that many will listen to.
And he did quite some of that indeed before his coronation. Couldn't shut up, some would say. Among other things, he's never been opposed to Australian republicanism. Now he's bound to protocol, and the protocol says that the King is not to voice any even remotely political opinion whatsoever. He can comment on how nice the food was, that's about it.
Regarding wealth he's something like the 2000th wealthiest person on earth. Theoretically, can't find him on the billionaire list though he reportedly just about makes it. Lots of people have inherited more money and done way worse with it. I don't think it should be possible to inherit that kind of fortune but that applies in general, not just to monarchs.
-
Your comment about wealth seems to be dismissive. Sure, many people have more and do worse. That's not an argument saying he can't do more. That's only an argument that he could do less also. He can obviously do more. Saying one thing is worse than another thing doesn't excuse either. Both can and should improve.
I don't know about the laws surrounding him as monarch. Maybe you're right that he can't say anything. I don't believe this is totally true because the monarchs platform people frequently. Maybe they aren't supposed to, but they obviously can do more than just keep quite. He could invite this woman to a state dinner, for example, and give her more of a platform. There are many options available. He is not powerless to do anything.
-
-
-
Aussies are generally in favour
Curious about how many of those are indigenous Australians...
-
It's a majority either way.
-
-
-
-
No, not the plastic sheeting in front of the Mona Lisa! It'll take minutes for a janitor the come wipe that off.
-
I think the whole point of acts like you describe show how you (people) care more about a painting than the continual ravaging of life on this planet by those who seek wealth and power.
What does the Mona Lisa matter when more and more of the worlds population is scrapping to survive under constant threat of environmental and economic collapse and war brought on by the people who host and visit such works of art.
-
The problem is that it doesn't help their cause in the least. If anything, it damages it. To onlookers, it makes supporters of the cause look crazy and makes them easier to dismiss by opposition.
Climate change is a very serious problem that requires billions of people working together to solve. Culturally significant objects being vandalised is a much less serious problem but it also only requires a few individuals to not do what they have done to become a non-issue.
By all means, protest polluters, badger policymakers, and argue in forums. But if you start being annoying to people equally as powerless to effect meaningful change you're only going to make people less likely to listen to you.
-
Whew thank you. You're the only person in this thread that has actually made good points about your opinion, instead of trying to be snarky or clever with one-liners. I'm in almost total agreement with you, although I still won't condemn those types of protests. I think they are probably more harmful than useful, but I understand the place it comes from is one of frustration with the absolute ridiculousness of our world and the powers that run it. I sympathize with those types of protesters, and what I assume is their frustration with the ineffectiveness of bottom-up solutions (to me, preferred) in the face of mass contributors to the problem -- heads of government, corporations, etc.
Once again thanks for the actual good-faith and thoughtful response.
-
Yeah no problem. It's always nice to be able to discuss something with others and be respectful even if you don't fully agree.
I understand where the protesters are coming from and the idea that doing anything sounds better than just allowing the world to deteriorate. But I genuinely believe the less dramatic strategies do work better, even if it's hard to feel the effects. Not too long ago, the idea that the climate change was happening and that humans were to blame was largely ignored. Now, most people acknowledge that it's the case, and it's a matter of making it a priority. But that's still meaningful progress.
Anyways, thanks for the conversation and being open to push back. It's great to see in spaces that seem more divisive than ever.
-
-
-
-
Cool strawman, that isn't why they did it, or relevant.
-
-
-
You're right, that's why thanks to those brave protesters, climate change is now a thing of the past! Oh, wait...
-
TIL activists have to achieve their goals in a single act.
-
I said: What an extraordinarily stupid argument.
I stand by that. The individual is not extraordinarily stupid. The argument is.
-
What an extraordinarily stupid argument.
Gee, thanks. We need people to actually do something tangible and useful, not teenage histrionics directed at completely irrelevant things. For example, I volunteer with a group that recently obtained protection for a large wetland in my area. That's something that directly impacts climate change and biodiversity. I also volunteer with my local green party which has successfully passed several pieces of environmental protection legislation. What have you personally done to help other than whine online and throw paint at inanimate objects?
Edit: phew a lot of folks here get really mad when told that crying online won't fix things.
-
Wow you're so great! thanks to you, climate change is now a thing of the past! Oh, wait…
(obviously, in jest. that's great you do that. You probably should've said something like that to begin with)
-
-
-
-
-
Muh civility
-
-