Australia: Senator Lidia Thorpe escorted out of the Great Hall after disturbance at the end of King Charles's speech.

[RestlessSoul]

I tried to do a cursory search for polls on where the aboriginal Australians stand on this issue of colonialism, or European imperialism, or being ruled by the monarch from London (or whatever you want to call it), and I couldn't find anything. Does anyone have any sources for this?

Now there's an idea; Get yourself informed, form an opinion, then share it. Rather than the other way round.

 

[anotherneil]

Yes, that's political theatre too. Welcome to the point.

Wonderful! We're making progress.

Now, what do you call it when the London dude has the muscle to push out the aboriginal Australian senator?

 

[anotherneil]

Now there's an idea; Get yourself informed, form an opinion, then share it. Rather than the other way round.

What was "the other way round"?

Here's an opinion: I think opposition by aboriginal Australians against European monarch rule has been, up until now, suppressed by & in the interests of such European imperialism.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Wonderful! We're making progress.

Now, what do you call it when the London dude has the muscle to push out the aboriginal Australian senator?

The 'London dude' didn't push anyone anywhere. She was removed from the Australian Parliament, by Australian officials, presumably for breach of protocol. Do you seriously believe, btw, that Australia is ruled from London, by the King?

 

[Hooded_Crow]

'"You are not our king, you are not sovereign," she said.

"Give us our land back, give us what you stole from our people."'

Source: Senator Lidia Thorpe removed from Parliament House reception after King Charles's speech — as it happened

I don't know whether yelling at the King helped her cause or not but I can understand her grievance in my view.

Absolutely behind her. Britain has profited immensely from what it has done to indigenous peoples over the centuries. Ms Thorpe has every right to voice her anger.

 

[RestlessSoul]

What was "the other way round"?

Here's an opinion: I think opposition by aboriginal Australians against European monarch rule has been, up until now, suppressed by & in the interests of such European imperialism.

Perhaps you are right, but you have admitted on this thread that before today, this was a subject you knew nothing about. Given that you've already displayed your ignorance of the political relationship between the UK and Australia, and of the nature of constitutional monarchy in Europe, perhaps you should consider learning something about the issues first, before spouting off. That's what I meant by 'the other way round'.

 

[Audie]

'"You are not our king, you are not sovereign," she said.

"Give us our land back, give us what you stole from our people."'

Source: Senator Lidia Thorpe removed from Parliament House reception after King Charles's speech — as it happened

I don't know whether yelling at the King helped her cause or not but I can understand her grievance in my view.

Hong Kong was a crown colony until quite recently.
i remembrr well the handover.

British rule was relatively benign after they quit dealing dope.

But we’d have been ethnically cleansed like in OZ, Canada, and NZ
if there’d not been too many of us

 

[anotherneil]

The 'London dude' didn't push anyone anywhere. She was removed from the Australian Parliament, by Australian officials, presumably for breach of protocol. Do you seriously believe, btw, that Australia is ruled from London, by the King?

Although I don't know where or how you got these details about specifically who did what, I'll stipulate for now that that's what happened. Your response begs for so many questions. Given that that's what happened, how did things end up with this being the protocol to begin with? What Australian officials? Isn't she an Australian official herself? What protocol put the London dude there to begin with?

 

[anotherneil]

Perhaps you are right, but you have admitted on this thread that before today, this was a subject you knew nothing about. Given that you've already displayed your ignorance of the political relationship between the UK and Australia, and of the nature of constitutional monarchy in Europe, perhaps you should consider learning something about the issues first, before spouting off. That's what I meant by 'the other way round'.

Ok, and since you've chosen to participate in this discussion and expressed quite a bit of interest in this issue, I'm sure you'd be willing to enlighten me on what you're talking about. If you don't enlighten me, I'll dismiss this as that there's nothing to enlighten me about.

 

[Augustus]

the king may not have the power to decide that, but he could at least investigate it and advocate it if he finds it a worthy idea.

No he couldn’t.

Either the monarch is apolitical or they are not ( and they are supposed to be)

That's what I hear all the time, that this dude's power is "ceremonial". It's not just ceremonial; monarchism by definition is power, very centralized, concentrated power.

No, it is entirely ceremonial and it is silly to pretend otherwise.

This has been legally established for a long time.

The monarch is subservient to parliament.

Maybe throw in some beanstalks and evil stepmothers though if you want to make a fairytale.

There are situations where the Governor General (acting in the authority of the monarch) or the monarch (if they ever bothered to live in Australia and "reign" directly) gets to make decisions that actually make a difference.

The governor general is appointed by the PM of Australia.

But we can always pretend they are some devious agent of the crown, eh?

 

[RestlessSoul]

Although I don't know where or how you got these details about specifically who did what, I'll stipulate for now that that's what happened. Your response begs for so many questions. Given that that's what happened, how did things end up with this being the protocol to begin with? What Australian officials? Isn't she an Australian official herself? What protocol put the London dude there to begin with?

Well then why don’t you do your own research, as the saying goes, then base your opinion on what you learn, rather than going off half cocked?

For the record, I am neither a monarchist, nor an apologist for imperialism. I am broadly sympathetic to the plight of indigenous peoples colonised by Europeans around the world, including America.

 

[Debater Slayer]

'"You are not our king, you are not sovereign," she said.

"Give us our land back, give us what you stole from our people."'

Source: Senator Lidia Thorpe removed from Parliament House reception after King Charles's speech — as it happened

I don't know whether yelling at the King helped her cause or not but I can understand her grievance in my view.

I would have preferred to see those comments thrown in the face of Elizabeth II rather than Charles, but either way, since Australia can become a republic through referendum, I don't see the point of this. The British monarchy has no real power over Australian politics (or British politics, for that matter).

 

[RestlessSoul]

Ok, and since you've chosen to participate in this discussion and expressed quite a bit of interest in this issue, I'm sure you'd be willing to enlighten me on what you're talking about. If you don't enlighten me, I'll dismiss this as that there's nothing to enlighten me about.

Im sure that if you are genuinely interested in this or any other subject, you can find better sources of information than some random bloke on a forum.

 

[Subduction Zone]

DShe is an indigenous senator, and I understand her to want a treaty with first nations people.

Her grievance I understand to be the dark side of colonisation including that aboriginal land was taken and I think in the clip in the link she also mentioned the stolen generation.

She looks awfully white. I see that she is at least part aboriginal. I do not doubt that the aboriginal people did not get the best treatment from the British when they settled Australia. But King Charles is the wrong person to complain to. And she knows that.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Her use of political theatre got some publicity for her cause, which I imagine was the intent.

"Political theatre" is very much in keeping with a royal visit to Parliament.

Wether it was good publicity, and wether there is any other kind, I don’t know tbh.

It got the issue of aboriginal treaties into at least one news cycle, so I'd say that's a good thing.

 

[Augustus]

Her use of political theatre got some publicity for her cause, which I imagine was the intent. Whether it was good publicity, and whether there is any other kind, I don’t know tbh.

Treaty talk gets enough publicity as it is. Was an entire referendum recently where it played a role and got masses of media coverage (albeit subsidiary to the main issue)

It’s not like she broke through some cultural taboo, it was entirely expected.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

She looks awfully white. I see that she is at least part aboriginal. I do not doubt that the aboriginal people did not get the best treatment from the British when they settled Australia. But King Charles is the wrong person to complain to. And she knows that.

Yes and no.

As prince, Charles showed no hesitation in using backdoor channels and informal influence to further his agenda. It's unclear to me if he's stopped doing this as king; if he's continuing to influence stuff behind the scenes, we'll likely only find out years from now when letters get leaked.

Overall, I think it's probably a good thing for Australia if it doesn't get that much attention from Charles, but I'm not sure how much of an interest he'll take in people doing stuff in his name (albeit symbolically).

 

[danieldemol]

No he couldn’t.

Either the monarch is apolitical or they are not ( and they are supposed to be)

Is investigating the human rights abuses of your ancestors and looking at ways to address the problems it has caused too political for the crown?

How about being a monarchist, is that also a political stance?

Perhaps if he truly wants to be apolitical he could step down as king which I see as very much a political figure.

 

[danieldemol]

I would have preferred to see those comments thrown in the face of Elizabeth II rather than Charles, but either way, since Australia can become a republic through referendum, I don't see the point of this. The British monarchy has no real power over Australian politics (or British politics, for that matter).

I believe if he didn't have sufficient respect he wouldn't be king. I believe this unearned respect gives him a greater power of advocacy than the average citizen.

And what better way to use that advocacy than to advocate for human rights redress. It's a sad state of affairs if human rights redress is too political for a king in my view.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The governor general is appointed by the PM of Australia.

But we can always pretend they are some devious agent of the crown, eh?

The Governor General is appointed by the monarch on the advice of the Prime Minister.

It's rare for the monarch to deviate from the PM's advice, though this is due in large part to Prime Ministers knowing better than to present an unacceptable GG candidate for approval.