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

[danieldemol]

'"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.

 

[RestlessSoul]

'"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.

What is her cause, and what is her grievance, in your opinion?

 

[danieldemol]

What is her cause, and what is her grievance, in your opinion?

She 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.

 

[Altfish]

'"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'm British and I totally agree with Lidia Thorpe

 

[RestlessSoul]

She 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.

Well there's no denying the evils of colonisation, nor the dreadful crimes perpetrated against indiginous Australians. But she didn't look very indiginous to me, and she might have found a more dignified means of expressing herself. Also, she must surely know that King Charles has no political power even in the UK, much less Australia.

 

[danieldemol]

Well there's no denying the evils of colonisation, nor the dreadful crimes perpetrated against indiginous Australians.

True.

But she didn't look very indiginous to me,

I would caution against judging a book by its cover in my view.

and she might have found a more dignified means of expressing herself. Also, she must surely know that King Charles has no political power even in the UK, much less Australia.

I believe he has the power to abdicate the throne, but perhaps he doesn't have the power to declare the independence of Australia I don't know.

 

[RestlessSoul]

True.

I would caution against judging a book by its cover in my view.

I believe he has the power to abdicate the throne, but perhaps he doesn't have the power to declare the independence of Australia I don't know.

Didn’t Australia have a referendum about independence fairly recently? Perhaps it’s time for another.

If Lydia Thorpe’s grievance is with the British Empire she’s not alone there, but she’s missed the boat because the Empire was laid to rest a long time ago.

 

[danieldemol]

Didn’t Australia have a referendum about independence fairly recently? Perhaps it’s time for another.

Probably too early for it since the public needs to be better educated away from the need for a king in my view.

If Lydia Thorpe’s grievance is with the British Empire she’s not alone there, but she’s missed the boat because the Empire was laid to rest a long time ago.

Sorry I did go off on a tangent there, I believe Thorpe's desire is for a treaty with first nations people and yes - 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.

 

[anotherneil]

Well there's no denying the evils of colonisation, nor the dreadful crimes perpetrated against indiginous Australians. But she didn't look very indiginous to me, and she might have found a more dignified means of expressing herself. Also, she must surely know that King Charles has no political power even in the UK, much less Australia.

What do you mean by political power? The monarch from London is the most powerful dude in both the UK and Australia; both say that they're monarchs and that he's their monarch.

If this dude has no political power, then why was this senator bounced out of her own parliament? If you say that it's because she was disrupting that dude, how can it make sense to say that she knows that the dude has no political power "much less" in Australia?

 

[anotherneil]

This reveals something about indigenous Australians that I never hear about here in the US, from our mainstream media, regarding political strife between them and the presence of European colonial imperialism, there.

The only foreign news stories the US mainstream media talks about regularly is the conflict between Israel and its adversaries, and to a much lesser extent, the war between Ukraine and Russia.

This story about this Australian indigenous senator may have been mentioned in US media, but if it was, it was probably very brief.

 

[RestlessSoul]

What do you mean by political power? The monarch from London is the most powerful dude in both the UK and Australia; both say that they're monarchs and that he's their monarch.

If this dude has no political power, then why was this senator bounced out of her own parliament? If you say that it's because she was disrupting that dude, how can it make sense to say that she knows that the dude has no political power "much less" in Australia?

In the UK, as in Australia, power lies with Parliament, not the monarch, whose position as Head of State is ceremonial.

The monarch and their immediate family undertake various official, ceremonial, diplomatic and representational duties. Although formally the monarch has authority over the government—which is known as "His/Her Majesty's Government"—this power may only be used according to laws enacted in Parliament and within constraints of convention and precedent. In practice the monarch's role, including that of Head of the British Armed Forces, is limited to functions such as bestowing honours and appointing the prime minister, which are performed in a non-partisan manner.[3] The UK Government has called the monarchy "a unique soft power and diplomatic asset".[4] The Crown also occupies a unique cultural role, serving as an unofficial brand ambassador for British interests and values abroad, increasing tourism at home, and promoting charities throughout civil society.[5][6]

From Wiki

 

[anotherneil]

In the UK, as in Australia, power lies with Parliament, not the monarch, whose position as Head of State is ceremonial.

The monarch and their immediate family undertake various official, ceremonial, diplomatic and representational duties. Although formally the monarch has authority over the government—which is known as "His/Her Majesty's Government"—this power may only be used according to laws enacted in Parliament and within constraints of convention and precedent. In practice the monarch's role, including that of Head of the British Armed Forces, is limited to functions such as bestowing honours and appointing the prime minister, which are performed in a non-partisan manner.[3] The UK Government has called the monarchy "a unique soft power and diplomatic asset".[4] The Crown also occupies a unique cultural role, serving as an unofficial brand ambassador for British interests and values abroad, increasing tourism at home, and promoting charities throughout civil society.[5][6]

From Wiki

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.

You pro-monarchism types like to hide monarchism behind such mundane words, or play games like saying that the British Empire no longer exists (as a brand). Even if the British Empire no longer exists, as a brand, the British empire (lower-case "e") is still around the world & the sun never sets on it even today.

Another example is using "governor general" instead of viceroy, and that's who runs Australia for the monarch from London at his pleasure: Governor-General of Australia - Wikipedia

 

[Martin]

Good for her! The French had the right idea.

 

[Martin]

Good for her! The French had the right idea.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Good for her! The French had the right idea.

They replaced a monarch with an emperor, and now they have a President whose nickname is Napoleon, so I dunno tbh.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

In the UK, as in Australia, power lies with Parliament, not the monarch, whose position as Head of State is ceremonial.

... mostly. 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.

But that's beside the point, since even if the king's position were entirely ceremonial and symbolic, you have to acknowledge the ceremony and symbolism in shouting at the king in front of Parliament.

 

[RestlessSoul]

... mostly. 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.

But that's beside the point, since even if the king's position were entirely ceremonial and symbolic, you have to acknowledge the ceremony and symbolism in shouting at the king in front of Parliament.

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

 

[anotherneil]

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

Is wearing a crown, sitting on a thrown, sporting a bunch of shiny medals - that sort of crap, also "political theater"?

From her, it totally worked on me; now I'm aware of where indigenous Australians stand, and it certainly isn't 100% support for this monarchism from Europe.

 

[anotherneil]

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?

 

[RestlessSoul]

Is wearing a crown, sitting on a thrown, sporting a bunch of shiny medals - that sort of crap, also "political theater"?

From her, it totally worked on me; now I'm aware of where indigenous Australians stand, and it certainly isn't 100% support for this monarchism from Europe.

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

If something works on you, is that a good recommendation, do you think?