Lidia Thorpe Stars In “The King And I”!
A few years ago I wrote about this elective class I taught called “Oral English”. It consisted of students making short speeches, having debates and discussing various issues.
Now when I say “discussing” what I actually mean is getting louder and louder until the various opposing forces were shouting at each other at which point I would stop them and remind them that they needed to discuss their differences at the sort of volume that wouldn’t have the principal concerned about the riot going on in my class. Eventually, I put forward a simple idea:
“Has anyone ever changed your mind by shouting at you?” I asked.
“No,” was the general consensus.
“Then why do you think you’ll change someone else’s mind by shouting at them?”
“We don’t,” said one girl at a slightly lower volume than was her usual want.
“Then why do you do it?”
“It feels good,” she replied. A response which got approving nods from most of the class.
I shrugged and told them to shout away, because who was I to stand in the way of progress. After all, this was before social media where it has become customary to insult, belittle and abuse anyone with a different viewpoint.
Which, of course, brings me to Lidia Thorpe and the various interperations of her… um, assertion… protest… assault…lack of understanding that wearing fur may attract a protest…
Anyway, her “Chuckie ain’t my King!” has a certain resonance with a lot of people.
Now before I show myself to be a representative of the colonial forces which have done so much damage, I’d like to say that my thoughts on the matter have a very limited perspective and I’ll certainly need to be educated on all the things that are wrong with my limited perspective.
Notwithstanding that, I couldn’t help but be reminded of Sam Newman’s statement that he was going to boycott the AFL grand final because of the “Welcome to Country”. Nobody cared…
Ok, some people cared. I mean the people who have the same views as Sam all agreed with him and…
Yeah, I suspect that people who agree with Lidia are all going, “Yeah, not my King. Great! Well done…”
And, as Lidia Thorpe said in an interview, “I don’t need votes…”
Which raises an interesting question about what she hoped to achieve because, well, I’ve given up the idea of a revolution so if you don’t hope to get votes how are you hoping to enact change?
Being old enough to remember the Republican debate I remember the argument Phil Cleary (and others) put forward, which I can simplify as if we reject this, then we can regroup and get the model we want… Mm, awesome Phil… who are you these days and why don’t the monarchists give you a forum any more?
Mm, not my king, except that he IS our king. I mean, I can say that accept the fact that as the Constitution stands he is the King of Australia and he can sack our governor-general and install himself… except for the precedent that British monarchs don’t do anything…
Ok, that’s a little unfair because they spend a lot of time shaking hands and opening things and it’s more work than some people have done… particularly those who only have to turn up to some Murdoch media outlet and pretend that they have something original to say about all the things that the others in the same outlet agree on…
I must say that I’ve found it difficult to write about Lidia because I agree with a lot of what she says but did she need to say it there and then because… and yes, once we start arguing about the most appropriate way to say it and the appropriate forum and where and when we can say that outrageous things are just not acceptable without spoiling the cucumber sandwiches, the battle for diplomacy has been lost and we might as well start ducking because those serving the cucumber sandwiches will always win…
It’s just that I can’t help but think of my time as teacher when I hear Senator Thorpe say that she only promised allegiance to the “hairs” and not the heirs.
It sounds clever and you can amuse your friends but – in the end – the people with the power don’t care and you haven’t exactly rocked their castle!
Like what we do at The AIMN?
You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.
Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!
Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be greatly appreciated.
You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969
29 comments
Login here Register here-
Kerri -
Ian Joyner -
Terence Mills -
Canguro -
Anon. E. Mouse -
Andrew Smith -
Steve Davis -
Terence Mills -
uncletimrob -
corvusboreus -
Arnd -
paul walter -
Terence Mills -
leefe -
leefe -
Anon. E. Mouse -
Anon. E. Mouse -
Bert -
paul walter -
Arnd -
Canguro -
RomeoCharlie -
wobbles -
JulianP -
Arnd -
JulianP -
john c -
Arnd -
Rossleigh
Return to home pageHave to say, when l tuned in to aunty to see wall to wall coverage by 3 commentators on Charles and Camilla’s sausage skills………
Mmm.. maybe that’s not gonna read so well when my next line was going to be
Maybe Lidia has a point coz he sure ain’t my Tampax.
It is not that the King should say sorry. That would be all very well. But in our democracy the power is with the people. What Australia showed last year is that a majority of people are still unable to say sorry.
And Lidia was actually on their side and fed it.
What Australia needs is a change in the heart of its people, not an apology from the King.
It now seems that our Lidia was not sworn in to bear true allegiance to Her Majesty, Her heirs and successors according to law but rather she inadvertently or as a joke swore allegiance to Her Majesty, Her hairs and successors……………
Whatever the case, she appears not to have been correctly sworn in according to Section 42 of our Constitution so therefore cannot sit [not literally as she doesn’t do much sitting in between her rants] in the Senate until that is remedied.
Section 44 can exclude certain people from being chosen to sit as a senator or member of the House of Representatives based on various criteria including owing allegiance to a foreign power. As Senator Thorpe has said that she does not accept the King of Australia as her King or her head of state then it could well be that she owes allegiance to some other entity in which case she cannot sit as a senator in our parliament.
Further, as she was elected to the senate as a Green senator for Victoria and then jumped ship to become an independent she has alienated quite a few Green voters and whilst this is not unconstitutional, perhaps her best and most honourable course of action would be to resign from the senate thus creating a casual vacancy to be filled by a Green in accordance with section 15 and then re-nominate in the 2015 election as an independent and see how she goes.
However, as she has been pocketing close to $300K as a senator, the honourable course of action may not be to her liking !
Chukka as a princeling was sort of okay; a polo player… I liked that at the time by association as I was then employed by one of this country’s land barons who was also in the national polo team and I got to ride his ponies which was a cool thing for the young idiot that I then was, but time brings change as it inevitably must, and Chukka the cool dude on the polo field became Charlie the would be a tampon in his mistress’s intimate inners and a player in the field of infidelity and eventually the Prince that lingered longer whilst waiting for Mama to kick the bucket and now to eventually arrive at his predestined position… ridiculously garbed in ermine-robed swaddling and crowned with gold tiara and gemstones and looking… let’s be totally frank… like a right dickhead, royal ponce, as if this is the highlight of his existence on the planet, this gag-worthy excrescence of nauseating posturing of something -what exactly? – that signifies meaning and depth? It’d be better to put the poor prick out of his misery… lead him back into the garden where he can spend his days chatting to the plants and ruminating on how to save the planet by capturing bovine methane eructions and channelling them into British households as a form of fuel for heating mouldy terraces.
Terrence, holding to the swearing allegiance of her majesty and offspring of the head of the country that colonised Australia, that still positions us as a colony of Britain, is more than a little sad.
If expecting First Nations people in our government to bow down to the British monarchy that caused so much damage to the original inhabitants is a tall order. Bearing in mind that it is not possible to actually know whether anyone actually means to honour the allegiance they swear to.
At least Lidia has made international news.
Unfortunately Lidai went lukewarm on Voice, seemingly listening to the No campaign, but one’s issue is how too many MPs, Senators and related influencers, with media complicit by using politics for free content and visual stunts, are displaying symptoms of raging narcissism….
Rossleigh has the uncanny ability to cut right to the heart of an issue in a manner that both informs and delights, but on this occasion?
Yeah, nah, dunno.
A couple of days ago First Dog on the Moon made the point that white folks have no right to instruct black folks on how to protest colonialism.
What this all points to is the deplorable condition of our Constitution which is groaning and creaking with age and irrelevance and points to the need for a major overhaul to eliminate the British Crown from its overbearing position in the management of our polity.
It is quite bizarre, as Mouse has noted, that we are talking about our elected politicians pledging allegiance to a foreign monarch.
I call for a constitutional convention that will, among other things, finally remove the British monarch from our foundation document (operating manual) would introduce a Bill of Rights and recognise first nations people as the first settlers on this continent and acknowledge the contribution of immigrants to the development of modern Australia. That would limit the term of the senate to three years in line with that of the House of Representatives and tidy up the very messy situation in section 44 as it applies to nationality and heredity of our representatives.
Much as I agree with Lidia that the monarchy should have no place in a modern Australia, I think that her approach and opposition to The Voice has done more damage to indigenous Australians that Charlie and co.
That one small step in a long pathway would have achieved much more than abusing a man who was only here for a couple of days. So, I have little respect for her misguided beliefs in that regard – frankly I don’t think she does much for the indigenous community (admittedly that may be because the gives her little time)
My pallid ancestry precludes me from contributing much to discussion of Indigenous affairs, but I can offer some basic practical advice for Senator Thorpe;
When conducting confrontational protests, it is better to wear sensible shoes rather than stylish stilettos.
Crawling across the turf on hands and knees with your arse stuck up in the air like a grazing cow (or Barnaby on a bender) is not a particularly good look for an elected member of parliament.
Canguro:
That’s just about the extent of it.
For many decades now, I have felt, in the main, just very, very, very, very sorry for the guy. His life was, and is, just about completely determined for him, by tradition, and expectation, and position, and inertia. And a whole army of courtiers, advisors, secretaries, equerries, man servants, butlers. I don’t know that there’s anything at all that Chazza III is allowed to decide himself.
I figure that in that sense, Lydia was trying to piss against the wrong tree. But the symbolism did reverberate right around the world, so she obviously did hit a nerve somewhere.
God bless Lidia Thorpe.
The only “oral” that has occurred is the one the country’s leaders performed on the Windsor shopfront.
Terence Mills’ comment, for mind.
……
ps, I agree with Thorpes’ comment about “the Hares”- no one should worship mere mammals, even oversized rabbits.
Horrors in the real world go unmentioned while clots like Birmingham became transfixed on a non-issue.
Paul
I just wish they would leave the possums alone – those possum cloaks are getting bigger by the day !
Thorpe went through the approved channels and asked for an interview with Chuckles to discuss certain matters. They didn’t want to know. So she used the only opportunity she had to air her community’s grievances. It wasn’t about changing minds, it was to bring attention to the issues, and she achieved that in spades.
As for the bit about the “fur” – the possum skin cloak is a traditional item of clothing for her people and mentioning it like that was a cheap shot.
Andrew:
The Voice, as the referendum would have enshrined it, would have ceded sovereignty, which is why certain Aboriginal activists were against it.
I’m coming around to their view; perhaps this business should have been conducted in another way. I just don’t know. All I’m sure about is that it isn’t for us non-Aboriginal people to decide what the right or best thing is.
ps
Terence:
With you all the way re the Constitution. It’s way past its use-by date on that front.
Terrence, the possums are sourced from NZ where they are a listed intorduced pest. It is making use of the pelts that would otherwise be destroyed after being killed.
Those objecting to Lidia being so vocal and grandstanding surely realise that a quiet polite request, as in the Voice, was easily ignored.
Lidia has successfully raised Indigenous Australians issues on an international stage.
We will now wait to see if an apology is forthcoming, but Charlie is not likely to apologise for the wealth accumulated by his family through the colonisation of other people’s lands.
Re the constitution, should we send it back to Westminster for revision, where it was written in the first place?
The possum problem.
As other have suggested, the possum issue can be solved with shipment of these to NZ. It has been suggested that possums in NZ, without major predators, have become a big (sometimes aggressive) feral pest, like cats are here, turning carnivorous and eating out already depleted stocks of kiwis, kaka, etc.
Yes, she looked majestic in her possum cloak, far more so than Hanson draped in a union jack.
These nonsenses are, of course, traced back to modes of US cultural imperialism.
Bert, what sort of question is that supposed to be? Not serious, obviously. Rhetorical? Snarky?
Besides, your assertion is incorrect:
Arnd, apology accepted… my bad, I don’t usually get snarky (nice word!) or bilious with fellow punters.
Segue alert; On kings, and other people of massive and undeserved wealth, the Guardian today notes that “the richest 1% of humanity is responsible for more carbon emissions than the poorest 66%.”
Former Google CEO Eric Schmidt – estimated net worth ~USD $23bn – suggests we do nothing about the climate crisis and just let AI come up with a list of suggestions for humanity as things go from bad to worse to bugfuckingly insane as rivers boil, birds fall from the skies, shorelines become mortuaries for countless millions of oceanic flippers and humanity descends into unparalleled savagery as people fight for food, water, housing, energy and other elements currently deemed essential for survival.
Re Lidia. Some interesting comments here. I thought ‘good on you’ but that sentiment was muted a bit by the reminders she opposed the voice. Whatever her reason I believe that position, like Price’s was a betrayal of her people. Anyway.. back to her Parly outburst and the question I want to ask is on whose orders,,or by what statute, was she — a senator of Australia – escorted from the chamber by ‘security’?
As for Birmingham and his pathetic, prissy posturings he becomes less relevant by the day
Lidia has since walked back from her “heirs/hairs” remark, possibly to protect her Senate position but she also signed that written oath so the argument itself is irrelevant.
What she has attempted is to attract attention to herself and her cause and should be grateful to the monarchist-loving media for their contribution.
It’s also reminded us of how Senators are chosen not individually on merit but via a quota system and how voting “above the line” can deliver odd results. For example Malcolm Roberts only received 77 “below the line” votes and is more extreme and unhinged than Thorpe.
Tho’ late to this discussion, I have the advantage of seeing the existing comments – each interesting in their own way.
For me, the simple fact that some monarchist acquaintances were reduced to incoherent splutterings at the antics of Ms. Thorpe was amusing enough, but the pinnacle of absurdity was reached by those who claimed her behaviour was “un-Australian” – as if the rest of us were all supposed to immediately understand what that meant and then nod sagely in agreement and mutter approving noises about her getting the sack.
Senator Birmingham’s grand-standing was wonderful to behold, – indeed some have suggested that in his letter of complaint to the Senate President, the words “off with her head” had been crossed out – the letter having been written in such a hurry.
There will always be dispute about “a time and place” to protest one’s point of view, but in this case Charles is our Head of State, and however much one may dislike royalty and its trappings, that simple fact remains – and while it costs nothing to say “Sir”, I draw the line at “Your Highness”, or “Your Majesty”. I regard such terms as beyond parody in Australia in the 21st century.
However, as Arnd has noted, our monarch’s ability to act independently is heavily proscribed, and the poor chap must deserve a bit of sympathy – or so it’s said. I don’t believe so as Charles could have left “the firm” at any stage and the fact that he was whingeing to Sir John Kerr in 1975 about being kept waiting to fulfill his destiny told me all I ever needed to know about his character.
More generally, one curious byproduct of Australia having a foreign head of state is that those being appointed or elected to public office have traditionally been required by law to take some oath or affirmation which is relevant to the duties required, and while in some cases, such as legal officers, a person may also be required to take an oath or affirmation of allegiance, in the case of a parliamentarian all that’s required is the oath of allegiance – nothing at all about how they will do their job.
Another curious thing that many “new-Australians” may discover to their discomfort and annoyance is that upon becoming an Australian citizen by the grant of a certificate of Australian citizenship and a pledge of commitment to Australia and its people, they nonetheless, and by operation of law, can owe a duty of allegiance without ever having taken an oath or affirmation of allegiance. Of course that’s all the same to a monarchist, but to many others it remains offensive.
JulianP:
What, and follow the footprints of his great-uncle Teddy 8 into utter ignominy? His mum would’ve drummed that idea out of the minds of any of her sprogs with unbending determination.
I really do not see that “learning how to think for yourself” could possibly be part of the curriculum for the members of the British nobility generally. “Stiff upper lip!”, definitely. But “thinking”? One has advisors and secretaries and speech-writers for that sort of thing!
Interesting, thanks Arnd.
I dare say you’re right about the plethora of advisors and such, but as I inferred, the chance to leave was always there; the fact that he essentially stuffed around for almost 50 years until his mother left the business had, I think, little to do with “the virtue of patience”, but everything to do with a well-developed sense of entitlement.
I formed that view of his character in 1975 and have no reason to change it.
May not be the most appropriate way to get your point across but as you said about your student’s shouting, it felt damn good to get it off their chest! Far better to express yourself than hold it inside.
JulianP:
At the risk of coming across as possessed of churlish pettiness, but:
Entitlement is the very essence of the raison d’etre for the British (or any other) monarchical dynasty. Take away the (inherited) title, and what’s left?
That’s right: nothing. NOTHING!!
With reference to my personal experience: some three decades ago, I did find myself at the endpoint of Karl Marx’s famous:
The realisation that NOTHING can be taken for granted was very confronting, including at a directly personal level. Taking the next step into what really is a void of unlimited anarchist liberty, coupled with its necessary corollary, unlimited personal responsibility, did take some nerve. And – as I realised subsequently – I came prepared. I had been introduced to the possibility and indeed need for critical thinking.
I can see why Charles III wouldn’t want to go there, and in all likelihood doesn’t even perceive the possibility of going there.
Very few people do.
In my defence, leefe, the reference to fur attracting a protest wasn’t about Senator Thorpe’s decision, it was more about the idea that we – all of us, I include myself here – feel like we can decide something is outrageous and protest it when one person does it but are strangely silent when another person does. There may be many reasons for this, including the one you mention, but it’s always worth taking a step back and asking ourselves why.
It was a cheap shot, sure, but it wasn’t actually about someone embracing tradition…
Although now I write about “embracing tradition”, I’ve raised a whole new series of problems that I need to work through before I can have any like a coherent defence…