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.

 

[Big Papa Ted]

That second statement doesn’t sound like racism to me; more anger at any individual (who happened to be black) supporting the individual (who happens to be white) who was arguing with her.

Apparently though I do not see racism as easily as many others

Swap Lidia for Pauline and change races in the statement accordingly. How do you react to a statement like that?

It's divisive and tries to discriminate people based on the colour of their skin. It's racist.

 

[Crankyhawk]

Swap Lidia for Pauline and change races in the statement accordingly. How do you react to a statement like that?

It's divisive and tries to discriminate people based on the colour of their skin. It's racist.

Probably no different. I look for a more directly racist statement beyond just a skin colour description

 

[Northalives]

Using Parliamentary privilege to make accusations against an individual or organisation is not in itself wrong. Parliament is the place to raise serious issues and matters.

Using Parliamentary privilege to spread scuttlebutt and misinformation is wrong but Thorpe did not do this: she made a serious allegation about what happened to her in her workplace (Parliament House) and it must be treated with absolute seriousness.

Her allegations must be investigated vigorously so justice can be attained for both Thorpe and the alleged perpetrator. That is what our whole system of justice is predicated upon, that is, innocent until proven guilty and with a deep and vigorous investigation by an independent authority but that does not in any way, mean that Lidia Thorpe making these allegations under Parliamentary privilege was wrong or that she "made it up".

Unfortunately, Dutton has used this deeply shocking and distressing allegation for political expediency and attempted to show that he is "serious", about sexual harassment and assault, by throwing the accused under a bus without any sort of enquiry so as to try and get Albanese to do the same with Gallagher.

For Thorpe's part, she too has used this deeply shocking and distressing allegation to score political points outside of Parliament and to give further substance to the suspicion that she is a racist by saying on ABC Radio National that she, "became the perpetrator and was demonised by EVERYBODY and it wasn't until a white women stood up that people took notice.". It was the right wing and the racists who laid into her; the vast majority of people both within the media and in public from across the political spectrum and skin colours took notice of her and were distressed and showed sympathy towards her for what she alleges happened to her. To say "everybody", implying that all white people are "the same" is disgraceful.

She is absolutely correct though that there is "systemic racism" within the police force but to say that she was "demonised for speaking truth" by everybody because she is Indigenous, is Thorpe attacking white fellas again as if all of us, are racists and untrustworthy.

When it comes to the Voice to Parliament, how in heaven's name can anyone have doubted that she would vote against the Voice in the Senate? She was always going to. She was one of the 19 out of the 76 that voted against the Bill. There were 52 for, 19 against and 5 abstentions. Considering that there are 32 LNP Senators and 3 knuckledragers (Hanson x2 Palmer x1) then Thorpe has voted with the racists - how ironic and some would say predictable.

The reason she didn't abstain as she said she might, was that she and her Indigenous fascist group were waiting for the Labor Party to meet with them about Treaty even though the ALP has, on countless occasions both in the Parliament and outside of Parliament, made their position on the Voice and Treaty crystal clear. Thorpe wanted the Minister to meet with the "Black Sovereign movement" (whoever they are) and talk to "important people and highly esteemed Elders and activists" (RN Breakfast 16 Jun 2023) and because she didn't, that is why she voted No in the Senate. It seems that the "important people and highly esteemed Elders and activists" in her little group are far more important than the "important people and highly esteemed Elders and activists" that she has screamed and shouted at, she has ridiculed, intimidated and made to feel worthless both within the walls of Parliament and outside of Parliament.

Thorpe is the one who verbally abused Aunty Geraldine Atkinson, a key member of the Victorian Indigenous TREATY process because Aunty Geraldine and the other Victorian Indigenous people would not accept Thorpe and her clique's prescription for a Victorian Treaty holus-bolus. Thorpe began the meeting in Parliament house to discuss Victoria’s treaty process by telling Aunty Atkinson they were not friends and that she did not respect her. Thorpe repeatedly screamed at Aunty Geraldine that, "I am an Australian senator. You are in my meeting!" which left a women in her 70's traumatise and needing medical attention. So much for showing respect for "important people and highly esteemed Elders and activists". Thorpe also heckled and made fun of Aunty Pat Anderson AO at the Canberra Airport as Aunty Pat, a 79-year-old, struggled to board her flight and when another person said to Thorpe, "Really is that necessary? You can see Aunty Pat is upset, come on she’s an Elder." Thorpe said "where’s an Elder, I don’t see no Elder, she’s not my Elder". (Miriah Davis, 29/3/23). That's who Lidia Thorpe is without all the fawning from apologists.

Regardless though of a persons political persuasion, the colour of their skin, gender, whether they are right, left, center, whether they are racists, humanitarians, bigots .... whatever; no-one has the right to sexually abuse another human being and any accusations made by a person must be investigated thoroughly by an independent authority free of outside influence and interference. It is a basic human right.

 

[Chief]

Unsure how you can make that claim when she lied about the Mardi Gras, and then lied about the incident regarding the strip club.

Wrong.

 

[Chief]

She's on video saying (and i quote) "Any black man that stands with a ******* white little c**t like that, yous can all get ****ed to".

How is that racist? It mentions race, sure.

Might need your super intelligence skills to explain this one to us.

 

[Big Papa Ted]

Wrong.

We've gone down this rabbithole before Chief. You take what Lidia says as gospel, and dismiss all other evidence. You do you Champion.

How is that racist? It mentions race, sure.

Might need your super intelligence skills to explain this one to us.

"Any white man that stands with a ******* black little c**t like that, yous can all get ****ed to"

You wouldn't see any racist overtones if someone said this? Surely you aren't this obtuse.

 

[Chief]

You take what Lidia says as gospel, and dismiss all other evidence.

The "other evidence" backs up what she says.

 

[Chief]

"Any white man that stands with a ******* black little c**t like that, yous can all get ****ed to"

You wouldn't see any racist overtones if someone said this? Surely you aren't this obtuse.

Yeah: look up racial power imbalance.

As the whitest, straightest guy you'll likely meet I don't give a s**t about that sort of comment. I don't give a crap when the odd gay person calls straight people stuff like "breeders" and the like. Affects me in no way whatsoever. White people who shriek about it have other motives most of the time.

I don't think it helps her cause and just gives some people an excuse to call her names.

 

[Big Papa Ted]

The "other evidence" backs up what she says.

No it doesn't. I'm not going through this with you again Chief. Refer to our previous discussion if you need to be re-educated again.

Yeah: look up racial power imbalance.

As the whitest, straightest guy you'll likely meet I don't give a s**t about that sort of comment. I don't give a crap when the odd gay person calls straight people stuff like "breeders" and the like. Affects me in no way whatsoever. White people who shriek about it have other motives most of the time.

I don't think it helps her cause and just gives some people an excuse to call her names.

I'm going to humour you and ignore that Lidia Thorpe is a federal senator arguing with some random pundits at a low end strip joint.

Please explain how her racism was justified. Out of curiosity, if she had physically attacked someone while calling them a "white dog", does that get excused as non racist too? If not, why not?

 

[Romeoh1]

No denying, she does have dreadful politics.

 

[Chief]

No it doesn't. I'm not going through this with you again Chief. Refer to our previous discussion if you need to be re-educated again.

The one where you were wrong on every point? With video evidence proving it?

 

[Big Papa Ted]

The one where you were wrong on every point? With video evidence proving it?

I mean you flat out refused to acknowledge video evidence. But you do you clown Chief

 

[Chief]

Was this the one outside the club? Where "they weren't stopping her" - video literally shows they guy standing in front of the door of the car, having to be shoved out of the way by opening said door.

So many people scared of one little lady.

 

[Big Papa Ted]

Was this the one outside the club? Where "they weren't stopping her" - video literally shows they guy standing in front of the door of the car, having to be shoved out of the way by opening said door.

So many people scared of one little lady.

She walked away from an open cab door to walk back towards people and hurl abuse.

Go to bed Chief.

 

[Chief]

She walked away from an open cab door to walk back towards people and hurl abuse.

Go to bed Chief.

Yes you tool, she said that she did that. She said that she was wrong to let herself be baited.

Every time you get schooled you resort to personal insults.

Bye now.

 

[Northalives]

Lets get a couple of things absolutely clear.

Firstly, Aboriginal people did NOT put on the first Mardi Gras in Sydney. The Gay Solidarity Group organised the first Mardi Gras and indeed, Indigenous were in that first Mardi Gras but to say that the Indigenous people organised the first one is a complete and utter lie.

Secondly, if Senator Claire Chandler or Senator Hollie Hughes or even David Fawcett or Slade Brockman, both Senators as well, were captured on film saying as clear as daylight, "Any white man that stands with a ******* black little c**t like that, yous can all get ****ed to", would be called a racist, pure and simple.

I could have been that "f*** white little c**t" who stood next to the black fella who copped a tirade from Thorpe and I found what she said grossly offensive and racist.

I have been bashed by coppers for mixing with n****rs and been set upon by bovver boys for the same reason. I have been abused by "upstanding" citizens of Adelaide for speaking up for the Aboriginal peoples and I could have been, the white fella standing next to the black fella outside the club who was getting the same kind of treatment from Thorpe as I got from white fellas, so lets not try and sugar coat nor pretend that what Thorpe said was anything else but racist. The c***s that bashed me black and blue, the chaps that accused me of being naive and foolish for championing the cause for "savages" (their words, not mine) they were and are racists.

 

[Chief]

the white fella standing next to the black fella outside the club who was getting the same kind of treatment from Thorpe as I got from white fellas,

Were you standing around taunting and baiting and menacing women at the time?

 

[geoffjennings79]

I only heard the first part of Thorpe's interview with Trioli this morning on ABC Melbourne, but she didn't do a great job of explaining why she's in the "No" camp, and Trioli was starting to run rings around her asking how she felt being grouped on the same side of the debate as racists such as ON/Hanson, etc. She may feel strongly about the Black Sovereign movement and treaty being a greater step forward than a voice, but she's left wanting when asked to explain why, other than mainly hyperbole with no substance.
("Yes" campaign not doing themselves many favours either atm, with seemingly every "Yes" proponent I hear lacking a degree of consistency at even a base level to mount a concerted campaign, but many of them still streets ahead of Thorpe explaining the context.)

 

[Chief]

she didn't do a great job of explaining why she's in the "No" camp

She has explained long and loud, though.

Funny about some of the wording in Murdoch reports:

In answering questions about her family’s ongoing role in the collective, and whether it would be donating to the No campaign, Senator Thorpe brushed off the journalist, instead saying it was set up to “address the effects of genocide”.

“I don’t have any decision making, and I don’t think your information is up to date,” she said.

So she answered saying she has no role in making any decisions. That's not a deflection.

Pressed further, and questioned about the financials and what else Pay the Rent pays for, Senator Thorpe said she didn’t have any details or access to the collective’s bank accounts.

“With all due respect, you’re one of the journalists that throws me under the bus all the time, so I’m going to just hold you for a moment,” she said, as the journalist asked her to answer the question.

“I don’t have any details, any bank accounts, I’ve never been a signatory to any bank accounts so you’ll have to follow that up with the Pay the Rent crew.”

Basically gets negative reports because she doesn't answer questions about a body over which she doesn't have any power or even any knowledge of their financials.

 

[Gralin]

Gotta love the media

They run headline Hanson and Thorpe on unity ticket

Then interview Thorpe and ask her how she feels about standing with racists.

They don't want nuance they want headlines and gotcha quotes

 

[geoffjennings79]

She has explained long and loud, though.

Trioli challenged her on many points, and they were fair challenges, not anything aggressive, but she seemed to struggle to explain why she disagrees with the senior indigenous leaders in the "Yes" camp, and trying to sidestep the unfortunate truth that she is on the same side of this argument as people who have no respect for her anyway. She spends a lot of argumentative capital decrying fellow indigenous leaders, plus she had stated previously she wasn't going to actively campaign for "No", in effect abstaining. This has now changed.
Given her position in thus debate, and the expectation on "Yes" supporting indigenous leaders to continually explain and justify their position, I would expect Thorpe, as a notable politician in this debate, to be prepared to do the same. It's actually in her interests to do so.
Contrast that with Linda Burney, who patiently reiterates her position, and the context, without throwing barbs at Thorpe, or Price, or Mundine.

 

[geoffjennings79]

Gotta love the media

They run headline Hanson and Thorpe on unity ticket

Then interview Thorpe and ask her how she feels about standing with racists.

They don't want nuance they want headlines and gotcha quotes

Trioli asked far more than that, even just in the portion I heard.
I use Burney or McCarthy or Dodson as yardsticks for reasoned explanation (not because of their political affiliation, but their steady commitment and patience in restating their position). I don't have an issue with Thoroe throwing the "colonialism" tag around for context, but it's effect is diluted by peppering every sentence with it.
You speak of nuance, but I don't think she uses it it all herself, which is a pity, because it would empower her argument. IMO, anyway.

 

[Chief]

she seemed to struggle to explain why she disagrees with the senior indigenous leaders in the "Yes" camp, and trying to sidestep the unfortunate truth that she is on the same side of this argument as people who have no respect for her anyway.

TBH if she has a bad interview it doesn't change her publicly stated reasons. She has explained a number of times.

Did she say anything that didn't agree with her own position and reasoning stated elsewhere?

IMO she doesn't REALLY have to explain the "but racists want the same outcome" questions when that's simply wrong, longer term. It's a bad question as it has been explained often and loud, so journos are wasting everyone's time with that question. They just want the sound bite and the drama.

Long term, the LNP and other racists don't want Indigenous people to have any say or any power that isn't closely monitored and controlled by them.

Long term, Thorpe and others want a treaty.

It sounds like journos have nothing substantial to ask. The real question would be "you've stated your reasoning behind supporting the no vote, so... " then they just fade out because they haven't thought that far.

Why aren't they asking what a treaty would mean? What it might contain? What problems it might help alleviate?

But no, it's "WHY ARE U A RACERST N U R LIKE TEH OTHER RACERSTS?!!?!!?"

 

[Chief]

They run headline Hanson and Thorpe on unity ticket

Then interview Thorpe and ask her how she feels about standing with racists.

Classic case of journos creating a story then looking for soundbites to back it up. Then getting stroppy that they can't get their way and might have to do some actual journalism.

 

[geoffjennings79]

TBH if she has a bad interview it doesn't change her publicly stated reasons. She has explained a number of times.

Did she say anything that didn't agree with her own position and reasoning stated elsewhere?

IMO she doesn't REALLY have to explain the "but racists want the same outcome" questions when that's simply wrong, longer term. It's a bad question as it has been explained often and loud, so journos are wasting everyone's time with that question. They just want the sound bite and the drama.

Long term, the LNP and other racists don't want Indigenous people to have any say or any power that isn't closely monitored and controlled by them.

Long term, Thorpe and others want a treaty.

It sounds like journos have nothing substantial to ask. The real question would be "you've stated your reasoning behind supporting the no vote, so... " then they just fade out because they haven't thought that far.

Why aren't they asking what a treaty would mean? What it might contain? What problems it might help alleviate?

But no, it's "WHY ARE U A RACERST N U R LIKE TEH OTHER RACERSTS?!!?!!?"

Trioli went down the path you suggest, and why a treaty is preferable to a voice, but yes, just as I was turning off the radio in my car to go and do some work, she then came in with the "gotcha" about siding with racists, but I didn't hear Thorpe's response. I'll try and catch up on the full interview later (was also driving for the part I heard, but I can walk and chew gum at the same time - sometimes! )