against genocide
October 27, 2024 4:45 AM Subscribe
Lidia Thorpe, an Aboriginal Australian politician, first made claims of “genocide.” ... Then, as she was being escorted out of the Great Hall of Parliament House, she kept calling out, “This is not your land, This is not your land. You are not my King, you are not our King.” [people]
elsewhere:
elsewhere:
Trump Encourages Genocide [truthout] 3/24
Trump administration rejects Congress vote on Armenia 'genocide' [bbc] 2019
“it is our duty to advocate for what is right and against what is wrong, and that often requires nuance and pragmatism” [guardian]
“A Problem From Hell”: America and the age of genocide [g] by Samantha Power [wiki]
I feel like the Australian angle on this deserves its own FPP, rather than being lumped in with the nth tiresome discussion of USian politics. They're not the same.
posted by fight or flight at 5:34 AM on October 27 [54 favorites]
posted by fight or flight at 5:34 AM on October 27 [54 favorites]
'It's Real': How Two Words by Kamala Harris Set Off a Firestorm About Genocide in Gaza
Counter-point: It did not set off a firestorm about genocide, because it happened a week ago and I haven't heard about it and doing a news search only finds three articles that mention it. They're just cheap words to placate the left and the media is trying to turn it into an exciting and controversial firestorm for clicks.
It was just two ambiguous, quickly forgotten words.
posted by AlSweigart at 5:38 AM on October 27 [10 favorites]
Counter-point: It did not set off a firestorm about genocide, because it happened a week ago and I haven't heard about it and doing a news search only finds three articles that mention it. They're just cheap words to placate the left and the media is trying to turn it into an exciting and controversial firestorm for clicks.
It was just two ambiguous, quickly forgotten words.
posted by AlSweigart at 5:38 AM on October 27 [10 favorites]
"Charles was reported to be unruffled by the protest"
"and another thing: im unruffled. please dont put in the newspaper that i got ruffled"
posted by AlSweigart at 7:38 AM on October 27 [5 favorites]
"and another thing: im unruffled. please dont put in the newspaper that i got ruffled"
posted by AlSweigart at 7:38 AM on October 27 [5 favorites]
Her 15 minutes of fame are up.
posted by Czjewel at 7:45 AM on October 27 [2 favorites]
posted by Czjewel at 7:45 AM on October 27 [2 favorites]
It's his job: show up and be unruffled.
posted by ocschwar at 7:50 AM on October 27 [2 favorites]
posted by ocschwar at 7:50 AM on October 27 [2 favorites]
Her 15 minutes of fame are up.
So your contribution to MetaFilter today is that decrying the British genocide against the Aboriginal people of Australia is famewhoring?
posted by Horace Rumpole at 7:58 AM on October 27 [33 favorites]
So your contribution to MetaFilter today is that decrying the British genocide against the Aboriginal people of Australia is famewhoring?
posted by Horace Rumpole at 7:58 AM on October 27 [33 favorites]
It was the most bizarre thing I've read this week.
When asked if shouting "not our King" meant she broke her oath, she claimed she pledged allegiance to Queen Elizabeth II's "hairs" rather than her "heirs" when she was sworn into parliament, so her oath was not valid and thus she didn't break it.
So of course it raised questions about whether she was eligible to be a senator... so she had to backtrack and changed her story from deliberately mispronouncing her oath to merely mistakenly pronouncing her oath, now arguing her oath was still valid. (but that she broke it? who knows)
What an utter embarrassment to make the world news...
posted by xdvesper at 8:13 AM on October 27 [5 favorites]
When asked if shouting "not our King" meant she broke her oath, she claimed she pledged allegiance to Queen Elizabeth II's "hairs" rather than her "heirs" when she was sworn into parliament, so her oath was not valid and thus she didn't break it.
So of course it raised questions about whether she was eligible to be a senator... so she had to backtrack and changed her story from deliberately mispronouncing her oath to merely mistakenly pronouncing her oath, now arguing her oath was still valid. (but that she broke it? who knows)
What an utter embarrassment to make the world news...
posted by xdvesper at 8:13 AM on October 27 [5 favorites]
Making oaths to monarchs is embarrassing, although not quite as embarrassing as demanding them.
posted by Kitten as a cat at 8:39 AM on October 27 [41 favorites]
posted by Kitten as a cat at 8:39 AM on October 27 [41 favorites]
What an utter embarrassment to make the world news...
I'd say the greater embarrassment is having a "king" and claiming divine right to live on land stolen from victims of genocide.
posted by pattern juggler at 9:07 AM on October 27 [34 favorites]
Like he's the damn king in any way other than the purely ceremonial. To the extent he has any policy ideas, they're purely advisory and mostly environmentalist. He's got zero effect on the Australian government: it's just pageantry. They don't pay him any taxes. This senator's got a beef with the Australian government (that she's a member of) is one thing, but shouting at Old Chuck?
posted by outgrown_hobnail at 9:12 AM on October 27 [4 favorites]
posted by outgrown_hobnail at 9:12 AM on October 27 [4 favorites]
Pride without achievement, guilt without a crime.
He didn't do much to be king. Congrats on being born.
He didn't genocide anyone either.
I happen to agree that the genocide was bad. I also think it's a terrible shame to misuse it's memory for your personal publicity.
posted by adept256 at 9:20 AM on October 27 [2 favorites]
He didn't do much to be king. Congrats on being born.
He didn't genocide anyone either.
I happen to agree that the genocide was bad. I also think it's a terrible shame to misuse it's memory for your personal publicity.
posted by adept256 at 9:20 AM on October 27 [2 favorites]
The urgency with which middle aged white dudes need to express how insignificant they consider a woman's criticism is a pretty good indicator of how much trouble she's causing. We've all heard the same defensive, dismissive "who cares" directed at Sacheen Littlefeather, Malala Yousafzai, Greta Thunberg, and a dozen others.
As long as you have to swear oaths to him to sit in government, and he's on the money, and the government calls him the head state, I'd say he's worth telling to fuck off. He's the living symbols of the legitimacy of the states built on his ancestors' criminality. As long as he calls himself a king, to hell with him.
posted by pattern juggler at 9:22 AM on October 27 [42 favorites]
As long as you have to swear oaths to him to sit in government, and he's on the money, and the government calls him the head state, I'd say he's worth telling to fuck off. He's the living symbols of the legitimacy of the states built on his ancestors' criminality. As long as he calls himself a king, to hell with him.
posted by pattern juggler at 9:22 AM on October 27 [42 favorites]
Americans have no business issuing moral guidelines on how oppressed colonised peoples should interact with their own monarchy.
As someone who lives and was born in the country responsible for said colonisation: more people should tell "Old Chuck" (eugh) to fuck off, preferably on a daily basis.
posted by fight or flight at 9:24 AM on October 27 [20 favorites]
As someone who lives and was born in the country responsible for said colonisation: more people should tell "Old Chuck" (eugh) to fuck off, preferably on a daily basis.
posted by fight or flight at 9:24 AM on October 27 [20 favorites]
There are MeFites who provoke me to spit in disgust
Their contributions bring me immediately to understand, with clarity, the truth of a matter in the opposite of whatever they've stated
Fuck the monarchy and fuck any tepid criticism of any challenge to genocide
posted by ginger.beef at 9:56 AM on October 27 [20 favorites]
Their contributions bring me immediately to understand, with clarity, the truth of a matter in the opposite of whatever they've stated
Fuck the monarchy and fuck any tepid criticism of any challenge to genocide
posted by ginger.beef at 9:56 AM on October 27 [20 favorites]
Dudes just rushing in to explain in several posts how little they care about this.
posted by Pyrogenesis at 10:18 AM on October 27 [11 favorites]
posted by Pyrogenesis at 10:18 AM on October 27 [11 favorites]
Metafilter: the urgency with which middle aged white dudes need to express how insignificant they consider a woman's criticism
posted by splitpeasoup at 11:21 AM on October 27 [10 favorites]
posted by splitpeasoup at 11:21 AM on October 27 [10 favorites]
Eh...I do want to gently suggest a couple of the Americans commenting here might want to learn more about Lidia Thorpe's history before making snap judgments.
posted by lwb at 12:33 PM on October 27 [7 favorites]
posted by lwb at 12:33 PM on October 27 [7 favorites]
Stupid attention-getting stunt. Like, we get it, your mom was queen of england and now she's dead. Fuck off.
posted by stet at 12:36 PM on October 27 [15 favorites]
posted by stet at 12:36 PM on October 27 [15 favorites]
Eh...I do want to gently suggest a couple of the Americans commenting here might want to learn more about Lidia Thorpe's history before making snap judgments.
Can you point to some reasonable sources? I've been trying to do some reading on her -- she sounds pretty complicated, with allies and detractors in both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal political spaces, but my unfamiliarity with Australian news sources makes any given article hard to evaluate.
That being said, I can't find fault with her sentiments towards Charles, and it's not my place as a non-Aboriginal non-Australian to criticize her method of expressing them.
posted by GenjiandProust at 1:00 PM on October 27 [4 favorites]
Can you point to some reasonable sources? I've been trying to do some reading on her -- she sounds pretty complicated, with allies and detractors in both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal political spaces, but my unfamiliarity with Australian news sources makes any given article hard to evaluate.
That being said, I can't find fault with her sentiments towards Charles, and it's not my place as a non-Aboriginal non-Australian to criticize her method of expressing them.
posted by GenjiandProust at 1:00 PM on October 27 [4 favorites]
fight or flight, thank you; was deleted
to your second comment, you may appreciate how honour of the Crown is now understood in Canada, North America:
posted by HearHere at 1:54 PM on October 27 [1 favorite]
to your second comment, you may appreciate how honour of the Crown is now understood in Canada, North America:
it has evolved into a foundational principle of Aboriginal law[centre for constitutional studies, 5 page pdf]
...
duties and obligations are tied to virtue and to distinct notions of “the good, the beautiful, and the sacred.”
posted by HearHere at 1:54 PM on October 27 [1 favorite]
From an Australian point of view, it’s been more or less a shrug and non-controversy except for a bunch of monarchists who are fanning themselves. The consensus is people saying ‘yep, she’s got a point, anyway’. Senators tell foreign leaders to go fuck themselves all the time, it happens.
For context. Thorpe broke with the Greens during the vote on the Voice to Parliament referendum, because they had a policy of voting Yes, and she supported No, on the grounds that an elected Voice would be a token institution preventing a more serious Treaty and Indigenous sovereignty, and supporting a Truth Commission. She has a point, but the obvious rejoinder to that argument for No, is if you aren’t making a treaty with the existing Australian state, or instituting sovereignty via electing a representative body, then how and with who?
The answer can’t be ‘with Buckingham Palace’, because why should a British monarch have any say in reconciliation or land rights political questions in Australia in 2024? That’s a non-starter from everyone’s priors, including and especially the monarchists.
[FWIW, my country might still have a King on the coins but to have Americans sneer when you’re a toss-up away from electing an autocrat is, well…]
posted by Fiasco da Gama at 1:55 PM on October 27 [12 favorites]
For context. Thorpe broke with the Greens during the vote on the Voice to Parliament referendum, because they had a policy of voting Yes, and she supported No, on the grounds that an elected Voice would be a token institution preventing a more serious Treaty and Indigenous sovereignty, and supporting a Truth Commission. She has a point, but the obvious rejoinder to that argument for No, is if you aren’t making a treaty with the existing Australian state, or instituting sovereignty via electing a representative body, then how and with who?
The answer can’t be ‘with Buckingham Palace’, because why should a British monarch have any say in reconciliation or land rights political questions in Australia in 2024? That’s a non-starter from everyone’s priors, including and especially the monarchists.
[FWIW, my country might still have a King on the coins but to have Americans sneer when you’re a toss-up away from electing an autocrat is, well…]
posted by Fiasco da Gama at 1:55 PM on October 27 [12 favorites]
She's the only Aboriginal woman ever to be represented in Australian government.
She has consistently and loudly declared that she does not hold herself beholden to colonialism or its monarch figureheads.
Saying she failed her oath of monarchist allegiance is silly when it's a ridiculous oath in the first place.
So what is the non-snap judgement we are supposed to be making?
posted by splitpeasoup at 1:57 PM on October 27 [3 favorites]
She has consistently and loudly declared that she does not hold herself beholden to colonialism or its monarch figureheads.
Saying she failed her oath of monarchist allegiance is silly when it's a ridiculous oath in the first place.
So what is the non-snap judgement we are supposed to be making?
posted by splitpeasoup at 1:57 PM on October 27 [3 favorites]
Hear here: there are absolutely fundamental differences between the Canadian and Australian contexts here that that article doesn’t cover or is wrong about. Australian law and history is different.
posted by Fiasco da Gama at 1:58 PM on October 27 [4 favorites]
posted by Fiasco da Gama at 1:58 PM on October 27 [4 favorites]
She's the only Aboriginal woman ever to be represented in Australian government
This isn’t even close to true.
posted by Fiasco da Gama at 2:02 PM on October 27 [20 favorites]
I am not sufficiently well-informed to pass judgment on Lidia Thorpe as an Australian politician generally. But is Mefi forcing me to read complaints with my own two eyes about an Aboriginal representative telling the figurehead representative of the country that stole her people's land that his authority is illegitimate? In 2024?
posted by praemunire at 2:04 PM on October 27 [14 favorites]
posted by praemunire at 2:04 PM on October 27 [14 favorites]
Making oaths to monarchs is embarrassing, although not quite as embarrassing as demanding them.
I'd say the greater embarrassment is having a "king" and claiming divine right to live on land stolen from victims of genocide.
I'm always here for mocking royalty. Stupid medieval junk we started shedding. Let's finish the job.
posted by doctornemo at 2:16 PM on October 27 [2 favorites]
I'd say the greater embarrassment is having a "king" and claiming divine right to live on land stolen from victims of genocide.
I'm always here for mocking royalty. Stupid medieval junk we started shedding. Let's finish the job.
posted by doctornemo at 2:16 PM on October 27 [2 favorites]
When asked if shouting "not our King" meant she broke her oath
Let's stop right there; none of it matters. Who cares what she said or if she did or didn't break her "oath". It's all made up Calvinball anyway. She said some words that challenged a king's reputation, and they'll use any rationalization or rule-lawyering to make her pay.
If they could charge her with practicing alchemy or witchcraft and have her executed, they would. Those have always been the convenient excuses for hereditary dictators, er, sorry, monarchs, to punish their detractors before. They can't go that far today, but they'll come up with some bullshit to make an example of her to keep everyone else in line. All while the wimps and cowardly journalists shuffle their feet and say, "Well, technically she violated the oath she took, so..."
The royals are just another crime family of white supremacists, and should be dealt with as such.
posted by AlSweigart at 3:52 PM on October 27 [11 favorites]
Let's stop right there; none of it matters. Who cares what she said or if she did or didn't break her "oath". It's all made up Calvinball anyway. She said some words that challenged a king's reputation, and they'll use any rationalization or rule-lawyering to make her pay.
If they could charge her with practicing alchemy or witchcraft and have her executed, they would. Those have always been the convenient excuses for hereditary dictators, er, sorry, monarchs, to punish their detractors before. They can't go that far today, but they'll come up with some bullshit to make an example of her to keep everyone else in line. All while the wimps and cowardly journalists shuffle their feet and say, "Well, technically she violated the oath she took, so..."
The royals are just another crime family of white supremacists, and should be dealt with as such.
posted by AlSweigart at 3:52 PM on October 27 [11 favorites]
why should a British monarch have any say in reconciliation or land rights political questions in Australia in 2024?
posted by Fiasco da Gama at 1:55 PM
Not that he should have input into the decision, given notions of responsible government and such, but he’s the Australian monarch. It’s a completely different person, legally speaking, than the British one.
posted by The Notorious SRD at 4:18 PM on October 27 [3 favorites]
posted by Fiasco da Gama at 1:55 PM
Not that he should have input into the decision, given notions of responsible government and such, but he’s the Australian monarch. It’s a completely different person, legally speaking, than the British one.
posted by The Notorious SRD at 4:18 PM on October 27 [3 favorites]
[FWIW, my country might still have a King on the coins but to have Americans sneer when you’re a toss-up away from electing an autocrat is, well…]
Our system is also obsolete and worthy of derision, and our weird little civic religion is equally idiotic.
More people (especially Indigenous Americans) should get to tell the president to fuck off.
posted by pattern juggler at 5:01 PM on October 27 [4 favorites]
Our system is also obsolete and worthy of derision, and our weird little civic religion is equally idiotic.
More people (especially Indigenous Americans) should get to tell the president to fuck off.
posted by pattern juggler at 5:01 PM on October 27 [4 favorites]
[FWIW, my country might still have a King on the coins but to have Americans sneer when you’re a toss-up away from electing an autocrat is, well…]
January 6th should be reason enough for Americans not to make any more comments about monarchy.
At the same time, it's not like anyone believes there's a causal chain starting from King Charles being told off to life improving on any Aboriginal reserve in Australia.
posted by ocschwar at 5:09 PM on October 27 [2 favorites]
January 6th should be reason enough for Americans not to make any more comments about monarchy.
At the same time, it's not like anyone believes there's a causal chain starting from King Charles being told off to life improving on any Aboriginal reserve in Australia.
posted by ocschwar at 5:09 PM on October 27 [2 favorites]
Saying she failed her oath of monarchist allegiance is silly when it's a ridiculous oath in the first place.
I have to disagree here. I don't want any government official to feel that they can neglect their oath of office because they mispronounced a word. The oath (in Thorpe's case, I think it was an attestation, which doesn't involve God) is also where she promised to serve the Australian people. I don't think that's ridiculous, and I'm not keen on public servants who feel they can ignore their oaths (even if I agree with their actions), never mind that it's all to common.
I was trying to get my head around what exactly she swore to, and I found an Australian legal scholar who pretty much rejected the idea that Thorpe's saying "airs" has any validity, as she also signed the attestation, where it's spelled correctly, and the phrasing is "heirs and successors," so even if Thorpe was talking about QEII's hairs, Charles is pretty clearly her successor, so... However, the scholar went on to say that there is some doubt that the oath/attestation binds for more than the moment you take office -- i.e., you have to say it to take office, but, after that, you can do as you like. Which seems bizarre to me, but I'm not an Australian legal scholar, so what do I know?
My impression is that the Australian Senate as the upper house of Parliament, will decide if all of this is actually a problem or not, for Thorpe or anyone else.
posted by GenjiandProust at 5:30 PM on October 27 [2 favorites]
I have to disagree here. I don't want any government official to feel that they can neglect their oath of office because they mispronounced a word. The oath (in Thorpe's case, I think it was an attestation, which doesn't involve God) is also where she promised to serve the Australian people. I don't think that's ridiculous, and I'm not keen on public servants who feel they can ignore their oaths (even if I agree with their actions), never mind that it's all to common.
I was trying to get my head around what exactly she swore to, and I found an Australian legal scholar who pretty much rejected the idea that Thorpe's saying "airs" has any validity, as she also signed the attestation, where it's spelled correctly, and the phrasing is "heirs and successors," so even if Thorpe was talking about QEII's hairs, Charles is pretty clearly her successor, so... However, the scholar went on to say that there is some doubt that the oath/attestation binds for more than the moment you take office -- i.e., you have to say it to take office, but, after that, you can do as you like. Which seems bizarre to me, but I'm not an Australian legal scholar, so what do I know?
My impression is that the Australian Senate as the upper house of Parliament, will decide if all of this is actually a problem or not, for Thorpe or anyone else.
posted by GenjiandProust at 5:30 PM on October 27 [2 favorites]
If I recall correctly, the British monarchy has been clear that they are happy to sign off and let Australia become a republic and leave the British commonwealth, since the referendum on this issue. In 1999, we voted No to ditching the monarchy, in every state and territory except for Canberra, and 55% No overall.
The fact that Australia still has a king, is on Australians, and Australian governments.
posted by other barry at 5:51 PM on October 27 [6 favorites]
The fact that Australia still has a king, is on Australians, and Australian governments.
posted by other barry at 5:51 PM on October 27 [6 favorites]
I have to disagree here. I don't want any government official to feel that they can neglect their oath of office because they mispronounced a word. The oath (in Thorpe's case, I think it was an attestation, which doesn't involve God) is also where she promised to serve the Australian people. I don't think that's ridiculous, and I'm not keen on public servants who feel they can ignore their oaths (even if I agree with their actions), never mind that it's all to common.
Oaths are meaningless theatre. If the goal of a politician is to serve the public, the oath isn't needed. If that isn't their intention, the oath won't do a thing to bind them.
Politicians violate their oaths continually in the service of wealth and power and we know that nothing will happen to them. Getting hung up on it the moment one of them ignores their oaths to do something decent is counterproductive.
posted by pattern juggler at 6:01 PM on October 27 [7 favorites]
Oaths are meaningless theatre. If the goal of a politician is to serve the public, the oath isn't needed. If that isn't their intention, the oath won't do a thing to bind them.
Politicians violate their oaths continually in the service of wealth and power and we know that nothing will happen to them. Getting hung up on it the moment one of them ignores their oaths to do something decent is counterproductive.
posted by pattern juggler at 6:01 PM on October 27 [7 favorites]
January 6th should be reason enough for Americans not to make any more comments about monarchy.
Can you explain that, please?
posted by doctornemo at 6:18 PM on October 27 [2 favorites]
Can you explain that, please?
posted by doctornemo at 6:18 PM on October 27 [2 favorites]
Lidia Thorpe would have more defenders, if she hadn't repeatedly rejected solidarity. First with the Greens, then with the mainstream of Aboriginal activism when she came out against the Voice. She's the image of a left-wing splitter.
posted by other barry at 6:30 PM on October 27 [4 favorites]
posted by other barry at 6:30 PM on October 27 [4 favorites]
January 6th should be reason enough for Americans not to make any more comments about monarchy.
Can you explain that, please?
When a republic collapses to a the kind of populism we saw on the 6th, the resulting power vacuum is resolved by whoever is better with stealth and sudden violence and seizes power. That person will invariably be pretty high on the Dark Triad.
When a constitutional monarchy suffers this sort of thing, the king starts exercising royal prerogatives. The fact that he was born to the job is a feature, not a bug. The founder of his royal house was a sociopath, but his descendants revert to the mean. And nobody embodies reversion to the mean more than King Charles. I would not want him ruling me, but there are worse scenarios.
This. Actually. Happened. There was a coup attempt in Spain in the 1970s and the king stepped in to prevent it. In my view, just one such incident happening in my lifetime would be reason enough to continue the monarchy.
And apropos all this, there's nothing King Charles can do or would do to make life worse for Aborigines in Oz. Another feature of his job being basically nothing but pageantry. Some countries have kings. Some countries have a foreign king appointing a governor general. And the United States has pageantry revolving around a flag and around 9 people whose job is to do regular seances to consult on legal questions with people who died before 1840. It's all equally weird. Charles has the option of insisting that pageantry involving him in Oz should include Aboriginal leaders in regalia. And that may or may not be something that Aborigine communities would want and would gain something thereby. Not my call to make. But insulting him harms nothing and gains nothing.
And a Republic of Australia would still be the heir to all the violence and oppression Senator Thorpe was calling attention. Nothing would change.
posted by ocschwar at 7:28 PM on October 27 [3 favorites]
That pretty badly misstates the situation in Spain. There wasn't a break down in the constitutional order. The fascist dictator of Spain who ruled for decades died and the man whom he had appointed as his successor chose to give up power. That he was nominally King was largely irrelevant, and the situation was not at all like one in a constitutional monarchy.
And the coup leaders in 1981 claimed they were acting in his name. So while he did disavow them, arguably they would not have had any authority whatsoever without the monarchy.
posted by pattern juggler at 8:04 PM on October 27 [5 favorites]
And the coup leaders in 1981 claimed they were acting in his name. So while he did disavow them, arguably they would not have had any authority whatsoever without the monarchy.
posted by pattern juggler at 8:04 PM on October 27 [5 favorites]
The 1981 coup attempt in Spain. The king stepped in and quashed it. And apropos, the Pueblo nations in New Mexico continue to use mayor's regalia from King Juan Carlos for their governors.
posted by ocschwar at 8:10 PM on October 27 [2 favorites]
posted by ocschwar at 8:10 PM on October 27 [2 favorites]
Many people suspect that Juan Carlos only decried the coup leaders when it became clear the takeover was failing. Many of them were very close to him. And Spain was a fascist dictatorship for many years, with Juan Carlos hand picked by the dictator to be the new fascist leader. That he stepped down is good, but it hardly paints some picture of the utility of monarchs over all.
posted by pattern juggler at 8:13 PM on October 27 [6 favorites]
posted by pattern juggler at 8:13 PM on October 27 [6 favorites]
The clear and obvious flex on the heirs/broke oath thing is to say that Charles II is not the legitimate heir, and declare a counter succession.
posted by corb at 8:39 PM on October 27 [3 favorites]
posted by corb at 8:39 PM on October 27 [3 favorites]
The thing about oaths is that they're totally stupid and meaningless, until they're not. The US military famously takes its oath not to the person of the President (as Commander-in-Chief) but to the Constitution. Nothing good comes of testing that distinction, as the world might find out between now and January!
Thorpe has a very consistent view she's expressed, for a very long time, that Aboriginal sovereignty exists, now, and is embodied in both inalienable land rights and the ongoing community of Aboriginal people. As it happens that's also very close to the position of Australian [European] law, and is really when you get down to it, uncontroversial. She's a very theatrical politician, and that works for some and doesn't work for others. But she is absolutely part of the existing political order, broadly speaking, and committed to continuing democracy as it mostly is, which is what the oath is, when you get down to it.
Part of the reason I think the whole affair has been shrugged off in Australia so quickly is because there's a substantial fraction of people who'd say that telling the King to go and fuck himself was exactly part of the public service expected of Senators, just as it was when George W Bush visited.
posted by Fiasco da Gama at 8:56 PM on October 27 [8 favorites]
Thorpe has a very consistent view she's expressed, for a very long time, that Aboriginal sovereignty exists, now, and is embodied in both inalienable land rights and the ongoing community of Aboriginal people. As it happens that's also very close to the position of Australian [European] law, and is really when you get down to it, uncontroversial. She's a very theatrical politician, and that works for some and doesn't work for others. But she is absolutely part of the existing political order, broadly speaking, and committed to continuing democracy as it mostly is, which is what the oath is, when you get down to it.
Part of the reason I think the whole affair has been shrugged off in Australia so quickly is because there's a substantial fraction of people who'd say that telling the King to go and fuck himself was exactly part of the public service expected of Senators, just as it was when George W Bush visited.
My impression is that the Australian Senate as the upper house of Parliament, will decide if all of this is actually a problem or not, for Thorpe or anyone elseThat's right, and I would be shocked if they did consider it so. There are two pieces of context for overseas readers here. First, the Australian Parliament is currently trying to deal with just rolling scandals of bad behaviour and bullying by MPs, and trying to enforce a code of behaviour. I don't think this will be captured under that rubric, since everyone recognises it's different---it's very hard to bully a reigning King. The second is that there was, recently, a number of MPs and Senators declared ineligible to sit based on Section 44 of the Australian Constitution, which specifies that foreign and dual citizens cannot sit in Parliament, a silly provision that was broadly interpreted to capture potential eligibility, for diasporic countries like Ireland and Italy and Israel. It could cover dual citizenships or naturalisations in other countries by oath, but, as one of the other Aboriginal women MPs (Linda Burney) replied when she was asked if she had any other citizenships, 'are you serious'?
posted by Fiasco da Gama at 8:56 PM on October 27 [8 favorites]
(Probably the discussion of the U.S., as nonsense-filled as it is, is a derail.)
posted by praemunire at 9:35 PM on October 27 [1 favorite]
posted by praemunire at 9:35 PM on October 27 [1 favorite]
Mod note: I don't want to delete this post since there is already a lot of discussion, but please, everyone, avoid posts that are "News About Other Country (and by the way, US, US, US)." It's already difficult enough to get people not to derail every non-US post/thread into a US-centric discussion, so please don't frame posts in such a way (or use non-US news as a way to re-introduce currently active US news discussion). In this instance, it would be great if people concentrate on Australia and this incident and its background, and bypass a repetition of US arguments elsewhere on the site.
posted by taz (staff) at 12:35 AM on October 28 [9 favorites]
posted by taz (staff) at 12:35 AM on October 28 [9 favorites]
The irony of not being able to discuss an Aboriginal woman's protest without the citizens of another Empire making it all about them.
Let's have some further information:
“You‘re not our king. You’re not sovereign.
You‘re not our king. You’re not sovereign.
You committed genocide against our people. Give us our land back. Give us what you stole from us - our bones, our skulls, our babies, our people.
You destroyed our land. Give us a treaty.
We want a treaty in this country. You’re a genocidalist. This is not your land. This is not your land. You’re not my king. You’re not our king.
F*k the colony. F*k the colony. F*k the colony."
More reading on Senator Thorpe: If Australians Knew the Whole Truth about Indigenous History, Lidia Thorpe’s Royal Outburst Would Not Have Been a Shock.
posted by Jilder at 1:42 AM on October 28 [12 favorites]
Let's have some further information:
“You‘re not our king. You’re not sovereign.
You‘re not our king. You’re not sovereign.
You committed genocide against our people. Give us our land back. Give us what you stole from us - our bones, our skulls, our babies, our people.
You destroyed our land. Give us a treaty.
We want a treaty in this country. You’re a genocidalist. This is not your land. This is not your land. You’re not my king. You’re not our king.
F*k the colony. F*k the colony. F*k the colony."
More reading on Senator Thorpe: If Australians Knew the Whole Truth about Indigenous History, Lidia Thorpe’s Royal Outburst Would Not Have Been a Shock.
posted by Jilder at 1:42 AM on October 28 [12 favorites]
There was a coup attempt in Spain in the 1970s and the king stepped in to prevent it. In my view, just one such incident happening in my lifetime would be reason enough to continue the monarchy.
This argument may appear unconvincing to many Australians because the reverse happened here. In the 1970s the queen's representative (and possibly the queen herself) stepped in to dismiss the elected Prime Minister and dissolve both Houses of Parliament. For many of us, one such incident happening in living memory is reason enough to become a republic.
posted by happyfrog at 3:36 AM on October 28 [9 favorites]
This argument may appear unconvincing to many Australians because the reverse happened here. In the 1970s the queen's representative (and possibly the queen herself) stepped in to dismiss the elected Prime Minister and dissolve both Houses of Parliament. For many of us, one such incident happening in living memory is reason enough to become a republic.
posted by happyfrog at 3:36 AM on October 28 [9 favorites]
Looking from New Zealand (Australia is our closest neighbour; we aren't theirs; there's a kind of friendly sibling relationship), this all looks very familiar and non-shocking.
The difference is that New Zealand actually has a Treaty between the Crown and the Indigenous people.
As far as 'you swore an oath to this joker therefore telling him he's not the king either is lying now or was lying then' - completely unserious take. Thorpe has always been clear that she doesn't recognize the legitimacy of some specific English people as the head of government in Australia. Always. But she had to say the words to get her seat in the Senate. It's not an uncommon opinion.
At least she didn't call him 'King Eczema', which is something that happened on our side of the Tasman and passed in Parliament without comment (and in the British press with absolute outrage) because if you squint, yes, 'Harehare' is a plausible transliteration of 'Charles'.
Making Indigenous politicians swear allegiance to the person who is a symbol of the power that stole their ancestors' land, belongings, customs, and in many cases lives, is just offensive. Making that the cost of entry to having any kind of influence to undo the damage done is obscene.
posted by ngaiotonga at 3:48 AM on October 28 [13 favorites]
The difference is that New Zealand actually has a Treaty between the Crown and the Indigenous people.
As far as 'you swore an oath to this joker therefore telling him he's not the king either is lying now or was lying then' - completely unserious take. Thorpe has always been clear that she doesn't recognize the legitimacy of some specific English people as the head of government in Australia. Always. But she had to say the words to get her seat in the Senate. It's not an uncommon opinion.
At least she didn't call him 'King Eczema', which is something that happened on our side of the Tasman and passed in Parliament without comment (and in the British press with absolute outrage) because if you squint, yes, 'Harehare' is a plausible transliteration of 'Charles'.
Making Indigenous politicians swear allegiance to the person who is a symbol of the power that stole their ancestors' land, belongings, customs, and in many cases lives, is just offensive. Making that the cost of entry to having any kind of influence to undo the damage done is obscene.
posted by ngaiotonga at 3:48 AM on October 28 [13 favorites]
I have to disagree here. I don't want any government official to feel that they can neglect their oath of office because they mispronounced a word. The oath (in Thorpe's case, I think it was an attestation, which doesn't involve God) is also where she promised to serve the Australian people. I don't think that's ridiculous, and I'm not keen on public servants who feel they can ignore their oaths (even if I agree with their actions), never mind that it's all to common.
It'd be much easier to take the oath seriously on any level if it didn't include the silly bullshit about (currently) KC3. It's silly renfair style pageantry as long as it involves a monarch.
posted by Dysk at 4:07 AM on October 28 [9 favorites]
It'd be much easier to take the oath seriously on any level if it didn't include the silly bullshit about (currently) KC3. It's silly renfair style pageantry as long as it involves a monarch.
posted by Dysk at 4:07 AM on October 28 [9 favorites]
Fiasco de Gama, yes, as Jilder well-described
more than how various countries in the world are connected via history however, i also feel that it is important to highlight to everyone that this post is about, respectfully, GENOCIDE
posted by HearHere at 4:12 AM on October 28 [5 favorites]
200 years later, Australia remains the only Commonwealth country to have never signed a treaty with its indigenous people [bbc]there is one province in Canada which is comparable [gov.bc.ca]
more than how various countries in the world are connected via history however, i also feel that it is important to highlight to everyone that this post is about, respectfully, GENOCIDE
posted by HearHere at 4:12 AM on October 28 [5 favorites]
When there was chatter on Twitter about whether Thorpe would be ineligible for parliament if she'd not sworn her oath correctly, folks pointing out that conservative MP and noted buffoon Bob Katter had previously 'reveal[ed] that he had never formally pledged allegiance to the Queen on paper' (source) - and was (is) still merrily serving in parliament.
posted by brushtailedphascogale at 4:42 AM on October 28 [4 favorites]
posted by brushtailedphascogale at 4:42 AM on October 28 [4 favorites]
Lidia hails from East Gippsland and grew up not far from where I now live. She's always been a publicity-seeking bomb-thrower who gives no shits at all about being liked, and has basically no tact whatsoever.
As a consequence, she cops at least as much criticism from within the Gunaikurnai community as from anywhere else, and is frequently accused of sending the causes she gets involved with backwards just by displaying the kind of massive insensitivity that gets people's backs up.
I voted for her. She's no diplomat and her judgement isn't great but she's gutsy as hell, and the people she genuinely pisses off are pretty much always the kind of insufferably hypocritical stuffed shirt who can, as far as I'm concerned, go fuck themselves. I think she's fabulous and I think we need more like her.
Hearing her respond to Charles's failure to agree to a sit-down by demonstrating a complete lack of the respect that is allegedly the monarchy's due was the best thing I heard on the news that week.
posted by flabdablet at 4:48 AM on October 28 [21 favorites]
As a consequence, she cops at least as much criticism from within the Gunaikurnai community as from anywhere else, and is frequently accused of sending the causes she gets involved with backwards just by displaying the kind of massive insensitivity that gets people's backs up.
I voted for her. She's no diplomat and her judgement isn't great but she's gutsy as hell, and the people she genuinely pisses off are pretty much always the kind of insufferably hypocritical stuffed shirt who can, as far as I'm concerned, go fuck themselves. I think she's fabulous and I think we need more like her.
Hearing her respond to Charles's failure to agree to a sit-down by demonstrating a complete lack of the respect that is allegedly the monarchy's due was the best thing I heard on the news that week.
posted by flabdablet at 4:48 AM on October 28 [21 favorites]
A defense of monarchy was definitely not what I was expecting from metafilter today.
posted by Pyrogenesis at 5:07 AM on October 28 [10 favorites]
posted by Pyrogenesis at 5:07 AM on October 28 [10 favorites]
Although come to think of it, the weird belief in word magic in the form oaths is even more bizarre.
posted by Pyrogenesis at 5:08 AM on October 28 [11 favorites]
posted by Pyrogenesis at 5:08 AM on October 28 [11 favorites]
I promised
To do my best
To do my duty to God and the Queen
To keep the law of the wolf cub pack
And to do a good turn to somebody every day.
Oh well. Got halfway there. Good enough.
posted by flabdablet at 5:12 AM on October 28 [5 favorites]
To do my best
To do my duty to God and the Queen
To keep the law of the wolf cub pack
And to do a good turn to somebody every day.
Oh well. Got halfway there. Good enough.
posted by flabdablet at 5:12 AM on October 28 [5 favorites]
I honestly appreciate this post and love hearing more about Australian politics especially in regard to Britain and indigenous people. The initial news pieces all just said she shouted but not what she said, probably because it's hard to be unsympathetic about her actual words
The thing about power is that it often seeks to eliminate all legitimate modes of dissent, until illegitimate modes are the only ones left. I guess the question here is whether legitimate modes are actually helping indigenous people enough that illegitimate ones ( which this technically is) aren't needed/ are counterproductive. I wouldn't presume to know, but historically speaking it usually takes both kinds to get actual change.
posted by emjaybee at 6:24 AM on October 28 [7 favorites]
The thing about power is that it often seeks to eliminate all legitimate modes of dissent, until illegitimate modes are the only ones left. I guess the question here is whether legitimate modes are actually helping indigenous people enough that illegitimate ones ( which this technically is) aren't needed/ are counterproductive. I wouldn't presume to know, but historically speaking it usually takes both kinds to get actual change.
posted by emjaybee at 6:24 AM on October 28 [7 favorites]
appropriate respect
though I suppose it's quite another thing to call the Prince of Wales a "grovelling bastard" when you are a close pal: In reality, he and the prince were very close friends, and Milligan had already been made a Commander of the Order of the British Empire (CBE) in 1992 (honorary because of his Irish citizenship).
posted by ginger.beef at 6:42 AM on October 28 [2 favorites]
though I suppose it's quite another thing to call the Prince of Wales a "grovelling bastard" when you are a close pal: In reality, he and the prince were very close friends, and Milligan had already been made a Commander of the Order of the British Empire (CBE) in 1992 (honorary because of his Irish citizenship).
posted by ginger.beef at 6:42 AM on October 28 [2 favorites]
Thank you for answering my question, ocschwar. My apologies if that encouraged a USpolitics derail.
posted by doctornemo at 7:03 AM on October 28 [1 favorite]
posted by doctornemo at 7:03 AM on October 28 [1 favorite]
Thank you for answering my question, ocschwar. My apologies if that encouraged a USpolitics derail.
I think it's all a useful thing to think about in this context.
The USA has indigenous nations governed by a republic.
Canada and Australia have indigenous nations governed by an outsourced constitutional monarchy.
All three engage in a lot of political theater and pageantry, and all three have regular events where the powers that be rely on indigenous leaders showing up in, dare I say it, regalia, as a way of affirming the legitimacy of the social order. The indigenous communities have the option of showing up, backing out, or showing up and flipping the bird. All three are legitimate as far as I'm concerned.
The legitimacy of Lidia Thorpe's actions is solely a question of whether that's what her constituents, Aborigines in particular, wanted it. The next election will answer that question.
As to whether it's productive, I think that's a firm negative.
posted by ocschwar at 7:26 AM on October 28 [2 favorites]
I think it's all a useful thing to think about in this context.
The USA has indigenous nations governed by a republic.
Canada and Australia have indigenous nations governed by an outsourced constitutional monarchy.
All three engage in a lot of political theater and pageantry, and all three have regular events where the powers that be rely on indigenous leaders showing up in, dare I say it, regalia, as a way of affirming the legitimacy of the social order. The indigenous communities have the option of showing up, backing out, or showing up and flipping the bird. All three are legitimate as far as I'm concerned.
The legitimacy of Lidia Thorpe's actions is solely a question of whether that's what her constituents, Aborigines in particular, wanted it. The next election will answer that question.
As to whether it's productive, I think that's a firm negative.
posted by ocschwar at 7:26 AM on October 28 [2 favorites]
[Lidia Thorpe is] the image of a left-wing splitter.
"[Conservative leader] Peter Dutton has called for Senator Thorpe’s resignation (again) while essentially claiming she is a hypocrite for being in parliament pocketing the pay cheque when she doesn’t believe in “the system”. Several Aboriginal figureheads have also come out to join in the condemnation."
Uh, yeah, if unelected aboriginal figureheads are siding with the conservative leader and scolding elected aboriginal senators for being "disrespectful" to the *checks clipboard* King of the British Empire, then it's not Lidia Thorpe who is splitting the left-wing.
posted by AlSweigart at 8:47 AM on October 28 [7 favorites]
"[Conservative leader] Peter Dutton has called for Senator Thorpe’s resignation (again) while essentially claiming she is a hypocrite for being in parliament pocketing the pay cheque when she doesn’t believe in “the system”. Several Aboriginal figureheads have also come out to join in the condemnation."
Uh, yeah, if unelected aboriginal figureheads are siding with the conservative leader and scolding elected aboriginal senators for being "disrespectful" to the *checks clipboard* King of the British Empire, then it's not Lidia Thorpe who is splitting the left-wing.
posted by AlSweigart at 8:47 AM on October 28 [7 favorites]
As to whether it's productive, I think that's a firm negative.
Indigenous elder scolds Lidia Thorpe for yelling ‘disrespectful’ comments at King Charles
The elder [Aunty Violet Sheridan, 69, who said Thorpe's comment was "disrespectful"] acknowledged the pain and suffering brought by colonisation and the legacies still being felt but she said coming together as a nation would “bring healing”.
“We have a lot of unfinished business but I don’t want to be negative,” Sheridan said. “Let’s sit down and talk together, for our next generations to bring healing.”
LOL, if you want to talk about being unproductive...
posted by AlSweigart at 8:51 AM on October 28 [3 favorites]
Indigenous elder scolds Lidia Thorpe for yelling ‘disrespectful’ comments at King Charles
The elder [Aunty Violet Sheridan, 69, who said Thorpe's comment was "disrespectful"] acknowledged the pain and suffering brought by colonisation and the legacies still being felt but she said coming together as a nation would “bring healing”.
“We have a lot of unfinished business but I don’t want to be negative,” Sheridan said. “Let’s sit down and talk together, for our next generations to bring healing.”
LOL, if you want to talk about being unproductive...
posted by AlSweigart at 8:51 AM on October 28 [3 favorites]
Honestly, the idea that fucking Dutton is ever going to sit down and talk seriously about repudiating white supremacism just strikes me as delusional. Auntie Violet has way more faith in the existence of anything resembling a conscience inside that ambulatory potato than any stance I've ever seen him take on any issue could possibly justify. Given any opportunity to be on the wrong side of history, Dutton can be relied upon to take it.
Charles, though? Charles just might sit down and listen. I can't imagine Spike becoming friends with anyone who wouldn't. And I note without surprise Charles's complete absence from the screeching rabble demanding that Lidia now be put properly in her place. In fact I don't believe he would actually disagree with anything she shouted at him, and I don't believe she offended him by doing so.
posted by flabdablet at 9:20 AM on October 28 [8 favorites]
Charles, though? Charles just might sit down and listen. I can't imagine Spike becoming friends with anyone who wouldn't. And I note without surprise Charles's complete absence from the screeching rabble demanding that Lidia now be put properly in her place. In fact I don't believe he would actually disagree with anything she shouted at him, and I don't believe she offended him by doing so.
posted by flabdablet at 9:20 AM on October 28 [8 favorites]
"We will not blame him for the crimes of his ancestors if he relinquishes the royal rights of his ancestors; but as long as he claims their rights, by virtue of descent, then, by virtue of descent, he must shoulder the responsibility for their crimes."Séamas Ó Conghaile, hero of the Irish Republic. He was speaking of George V, but it remains true.
posted by adrienneleigh at 1:37 PM on October 28 [12 favorites]
He was unruffled, flabdablet! Unruffled!
posted by Jilder at 2:30 PM on October 28 [2 favorites]
posted by Jilder at 2:30 PM on October 28 [2 favorites]
Part of the reason I think the whole affair has been shrugged off in Australia so quickly is because there's a substantial fraction of people who'd say that telling the King to go and fuck himself was exactly part of the public service expected of Senators, just as it was when George W Bush visited.
Just as it was back when the Australian Democrats held the balance of power. The political party with the publicly-stated purpose to 'keep the bastards honest' held the power to decide the path of most legislation for many years.
Putting honesty before respect has been a hallmark of the Senate for a long time and Thorpe is just the latest in a long line of senators both criticised and lauded for their, often bizarre, outbursts, almost but not always in the Senate Chamber (where, of course, they are protected by Parliamentary Privilege). Without mentioning Hanson (because I'm gagging just typing the name), Jacqui Lambe is another whose statements are often outrageous (and sometimes hilarious). One that is lesser-known is Fatima Payman, who committed the sin of voting against party lines over the actions of Israel and was, effectively, booted out of the Labor Party for her sin. I met her recently and she is very passionate about all sorts of things, very softly spoken, but there is a backbone of steel there for sure. I think that Senators not being tied to a relatively small electorate gives them a lot more freedom to speak honestly in the chamber. Well, those not handcuffed to party demands, at least.
So, a Senator telling the King to fuck off doesn't surprise me at all and I doubt anyone was surprised it was Thorpe who said it. This is what free speech looks like in a country with no constitutional protection for free speech. Free speech doesn't have to be forced on the population by legislation when the population assumes it without it needing to be written down.
The idea that anyone would take a single word uttered by Dutton as anything more than a joke is, in and of itself, hilarious.
posted by dg at 3:57 PM on October 28 [7 favorites]
Just as it was back when the Australian Democrats held the balance of power. The political party with the publicly-stated purpose to 'keep the bastards honest' held the power to decide the path of most legislation for many years.
Putting honesty before respect has been a hallmark of the Senate for a long time and Thorpe is just the latest in a long line of senators both criticised and lauded for their, often bizarre, outbursts, almost but not always in the Senate Chamber (where, of course, they are protected by Parliamentary Privilege). Without mentioning Hanson (because I'm gagging just typing the name), Jacqui Lambe is another whose statements are often outrageous (and sometimes hilarious). One that is lesser-known is Fatima Payman, who committed the sin of voting against party lines over the actions of Israel and was, effectively, booted out of the Labor Party for her sin. I met her recently and she is very passionate about all sorts of things, very softly spoken, but there is a backbone of steel there for sure. I think that Senators not being tied to a relatively small electorate gives them a lot more freedom to speak honestly in the chamber. Well, those not handcuffed to party demands, at least.
So, a Senator telling the King to fuck off doesn't surprise me at all and I doubt anyone was surprised it was Thorpe who said it. This is what free speech looks like in a country with no constitutional protection for free speech. Free speech doesn't have to be forced on the population by legislation when the population assumes it without it needing to be written down.
The idea that anyone would take a single word uttered by Dutton as anything more than a joke is, in and of itself, hilarious.
posted by dg at 3:57 PM on October 28 [7 favorites]
Would be hilarious if this country wasn't so heavily populated with dimwits prepared to take him at face value.
Fucker pretty much single-handedly sunk the Voice with "if you don't know, vote No". If he'd had the grace or even the minimal foresight required to give it bipartisan support, it would certainly have got up. But he's never been even slightly interested in doing the right thing if he has a chance to do the Right thing instead. All the Voice ever was, to Dutton, was a chance to wedge Labor.
Morrison was the consummate slimy Coalition glad-hander and people did eventually spot that and got sick of him. But Dutton works a completely different way: he's a genuine fascist, he has his whole Strong Sensible Leader tone honed to a fine sharp edge, and he can smell Albo's blood in the water.
posted by flabdablet at 7:41 PM on October 28 [1 favorite]
Fucker pretty much single-handedly sunk the Voice with "if you don't know, vote No". If he'd had the grace or even the minimal foresight required to give it bipartisan support, it would certainly have got up. But he's never been even slightly interested in doing the right thing if he has a chance to do the Right thing instead. All the Voice ever was, to Dutton, was a chance to wedge Labor.
Morrison was the consummate slimy Coalition glad-hander and people did eventually spot that and got sick of him. But Dutton works a completely different way: he's a genuine fascist, he has his whole Strong Sensible Leader tone honed to a fine sharp edge, and he can smell Albo's blood in the water.
posted by flabdablet at 7:41 PM on October 28 [1 favorite]
He was unruffled, flabdablet! Unruffled!
Well, it's not like she gave him a leaky pen.
posted by flabdablet at 7:56 PM on October 28 [4 favorites]
Well, it's not like she gave him a leaky pen.
posted by flabdablet at 7:56 PM on October 28 [4 favorites]
I"m not American, but also not Australian, so I'll just limit myself to saying: Lidia Thorpe seems cool, everything I can find about her positions seems to indicate she's largely in the right, certainly in this case, and Charles can go fuck himself.
posted by Joakim Ziegler at 6:29 PM on October 30 [2 favorites]
posted by Joakim Ziegler at 6:29 PM on October 30 [2 favorites]
I don't bear Charles the kind of personal animus that would lead me to encourage him to go fuck himself; he strikes me as essentially decent, despite his difficult family background and a fondness for ill-considered woo.
I voted monarchist in the 1999 referendum. At the time, seven years into the Presidency of the oleaginous Clinton, it seemed to me that given Australia seems doomed to exist under some form of hierarchical control, it was important for the activities of those occupying the topmost positions in that hierarchy to remain visibly entirely farcical, just to give people a chance to understand how little respect hierarchy as a thing is actually due.
The US has since elected TFG, so we've all now had the chance to see what visibly entirely farcical looks like when given access to the actual levers of power. That's convinced me more than ever that there is value in keeping the social function served by fancy costumes, big sticks and tall fluffy hats separated from those served by the executive branch of government.
Obviously I would rather live in the kind of society in which Charles could go sack himself without risking a transfer of public sycophancy to some monster who has spent his life deliberately cultivating it for personal gain. The distinction between that kind of cultivation and the kind that put Charles in the position he now has is pretty nebulous, but it's not nothing.
It would be fantastic if the natural reaction of every Australian to Lidia Thorpe's characteristically spectacular shenanigans were to seek to understand why she does what she does instead of letting fucking Andrew fucking Bolt tell them what to think about it. But that's not an Australia that's accessible to me, and frankly I would rather an offshore Windsor sat atop our dung heap than whatever utter prick the Murdoch press would otherwise get its opportunity to install.
posted by flabdablet at 12:48 AM on October 31 [1 favorite]
I voted monarchist in the 1999 referendum. At the time, seven years into the Presidency of the oleaginous Clinton, it seemed to me that given Australia seems doomed to exist under some form of hierarchical control, it was important for the activities of those occupying the topmost positions in that hierarchy to remain visibly entirely farcical, just to give people a chance to understand how little respect hierarchy as a thing is actually due.
The US has since elected TFG, so we've all now had the chance to see what visibly entirely farcical looks like when given access to the actual levers of power. That's convinced me more than ever that there is value in keeping the social function served by fancy costumes, big sticks and tall fluffy hats separated from those served by the executive branch of government.
Obviously I would rather live in the kind of society in which Charles could go sack himself without risking a transfer of public sycophancy to some monster who has spent his life deliberately cultivating it for personal gain. The distinction between that kind of cultivation and the kind that put Charles in the position he now has is pretty nebulous, but it's not nothing.
It would be fantastic if the natural reaction of every Australian to Lidia Thorpe's characteristically spectacular shenanigans were to seek to understand why she does what she does instead of letting fucking Andrew fucking Bolt tell them what to think about it. But that's not an Australia that's accessible to me, and frankly I would rather an offshore Windsor sat atop our dung heap than whatever utter prick the Murdoch press would otherwise get its opportunity to install.
posted by flabdablet at 12:48 AM on October 31 [1 favorite]
Gary Foley: 'Educate YOURSELF, then educate the people'
posted by flabdablet at 6:45 AM on October 31 [1 favorite]
posted by flabdablet at 6:45 AM on October 31 [1 favorite]
Aboriginal Activist Reads His Intelligence File: Australia's Black Panthers | Full Spy Documentary (Witness, YouTube, 52m12s)
posted by flabdablet at 7:05 AM on October 31 [3 favorites]
posted by flabdablet at 7:05 AM on October 31 [3 favorites]
Charles, though? Charles just might sit down and listen.
I think that's still true.
He didn't just "look unruffled." I really don't think he gives a damn about being insulted in a house chamber that's known to be the scene of salty confrontation. He had a job to do (show up and look stiffer than Al Gore) and he did it. He didn't lose face.
If Senator Thorpe asked him for an audience, she might lose face from it, but then it would prove that she will do anything that might gain something for her community.
posted by ocschwar at 9:05 PM on November 1
I think that's still true.
He didn't just "look unruffled." I really don't think he gives a damn about being insulted in a house chamber that's known to be the scene of salty confrontation. He had a job to do (show up and look stiffer than Al Gore) and he did it. He didn't lose face.
If Senator Thorpe asked him for an audience, she might lose face from it, but then it would prove that she will do anything that might gain something for her community.
posted by ocschwar at 9:05 PM on November 1
The US has since elected TFG, so we've all now had the chance to see what visibly entirely farcical looks like when given access to the actual levers of power. That's convinced me more than ever that there is value in keeping the social function served by fancy costumes, big sticks and tall fluffy hats separated from those served by the executive branch of government.
Exactly. For all that the Monarchy is a farce, it does serve just one very useful purpose - as a last-ditch solution for dumping a government that has gone rogue. The fact the power has been used in the past makes that a lot more powerful, in my view. Any government is well aware that it is actually possible for them to just be sacked. When you look at the most likely alternative, something along the lines of what the US has, I would once again vote to retain the Monarchy if we were to be given the choice. It's far from perfect, but a mostly-ceremonial and mostly-disinterested head of state that can step in when everything is going pear-shaped and hit the reset button is a valuable thing to have.
posted by dg at 4:36 PM on November 3
Exactly. For all that the Monarchy is a farce, it does serve just one very useful purpose - as a last-ditch solution for dumping a government that has gone rogue. The fact the power has been used in the past makes that a lot more powerful, in my view. Any government is well aware that it is actually possible for them to just be sacked. When you look at the most likely alternative, something along the lines of what the US has, I would once again vote to retain the Monarchy if we were to be given the choice. It's far from perfect, but a mostly-ceremonial and mostly-disinterested head of state that can step in when everything is going pear-shaped and hit the reset button is a valuable thing to have.
posted by dg at 4:36 PM on November 3
"Gone rogue" is very much in the eye of the beholder. I would certainly not describe the only Australian Government to have been sacked by the Crown that way despite its "creative" approach to financing.
My view of monarchy as the least bad hierarchical form is despite, not because of, its vestigial ability to act in a non-farcical and genuinely consequential fashion.
posted by flabdablet at 8:30 PM on November 3 [3 favorites]
My view of monarchy as the least bad hierarchical form is despite, not because of, its vestigial ability to act in a non-farcical and genuinely consequential fashion.
posted by flabdablet at 8:30 PM on November 3 [3 favorites]
« Older 3 friends, an old-model printing press and a whole... | You Can't Take It With You Newer »
posted by outgrown_hobnail at 5:22 AM on October 27 [2 favorites]