Indigenous Australian senator calls the Queen a coloniser while being sworn in to parliament

[hoshiarpurexpress]

Indigenous senator Lidia Thorpe forced to redo oath of allegiance after Senate president interjects and others voice criticism.

ndigenous senator Lidia Thorpe was told to repeat the oath of allegiance for Australian parliamentarians on Monday after she initially described the Queen as a coloniser.

Thorpe, a Greens senator for Victoria, was chided by her parliamentary colleagues, one of whom yelled, “You’re not a senator if you don’t do it properly.”

Thorpe was absent from parliament last week when other senators were officially sworn in, so took her oath on Monday morning. Walking to the Senate floor with her right fist raised in the air, Thorpe was asked to recite the words written on a card.

“I sovereign, Lidia Thorpe, do solemnly and sincerely swear that I will be faithful and I bear true allegiance to the colonising her majesty Queen Elizabeth II,” she said.

The word “colonising” is not in the formal oath.

The Labor Senate president, Sue Lines, interjected, as other senators voiced criticism and began calling to Thorpe.

“You are required to recite the oath as printed on the card,” Lines told the Greens senator.

“Please recite the oath.”

Thorpe turned to speak to a Labor senator behind her who appeared to voice further criticism, before repeating the oath as printed.

Another senator was heard to say “none of us like it”.

Thorpe later tweeted “sovereignty never ceded” as she shared a photo of her swearing-in.

Section 42 of the Australian constitution states that “every senator and every member of the House of Representatives shall before taking his seat make and subscribe” the oath.

But Prof Anne Twomey, a constitutional expert at the University of Sydney, said it was unclear whether failing or declining to make the oath would block someone from taking their place in federal parliament.

“As this is an internal proceeding in the Parliament, I doubt whether it would be ‘justiciable’ – ie I don’t think it is something that could be enforced before a court,” she told Guardian Australia.

Advertisement

“It is a matter for the presiding officers of the Houses to enforce section 42.”

Twomey said Thorpe could have decided not to take up her seat, if she was not prepared to swear allegiance to the Queen.

“Failure to do so would mean that she could not sit or vote. She would be entitled to other rights and privileges ... However, if she failed to attend for two consecutive months without the permission of the Senate, her place would become vacant under section 19 of the constitution,” she said.

The assistant minister for the republic, Matt Thistlethwaite, last week told Nine newspapers that swearing allegiance to the Queen was “archaic and ridiculous”.

“It does not represent the Australia we live in and it’s further evidence of why we need to begin discussing becoming a republic with our own head of state,” he said. “We are no longer British.”

However, under the Australian constitution all senators and MPs must swear an allegiance to the Queen and her heirs and successors before sitting in parliament. The provision cannot be changed without a referendum, which Thistlethwaite said would only be done as part of a broader move towards a republic in a future term of government.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Sovereignty never ceded. <a href="https://t.co/OowLrlUApy">https://t.co/OowLrlUApy</a></p>— Senator Lidia Thorpe (@SenatorThorpe) <a href="https://twitter.com/SenatorThorpe/status/1553902401496961024?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 1, 2022</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

https://www.theguardian.com/austral...n-coloniser-while-being-sworn-into-parliament

 

[Robert]

So become a Republic. I have no idea why the Australians retain the British Sovereign as Head of State.

 

[JaDed]

No Idea why Canada and Aus do this, I can imagine so many members having a problem with this.

 

[SportsWarrior]

This is dumb. England is a colonizer, but it is current Australians decision to retain queen as the head of state. If you are so hurt by colonizers, why not get rid of them as the head of state. If you don't have any enough support, let few indigenous folks start a hunger strike in front of parliament. Let's see who will oppose and who will join them in the movement to remove queen as the head of state. Action is in your hand, and you do that rather than whining about it and making a grandstand.

 

[Champ_Pal]

If the woman in the picture is an Aborigine, then I am a Viking.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

No Idea why Canada and Aus do this, I can imagine so many members having a problem with this.

It's so weird that they still feel attached to the British royal family. We really should count all of these countries as part of our ongoing empire if they bend the knee to Her Majesty.

 

[Stewie]

If the woman in the picture is an Aborigine, then I am a Viking.

Maybe you do have some Viking in you, you never know. But this woman has verified Aboriginal roots.

Wht she said was not wrong, by the way.

 

[Champ_Pal]

Maybe you do have some Viking in you, you never know. But this woman has verified Aboriginal roots.

Wht she said was not wrong, by the way.

She may be 5% or 10% Aborigine. But she is white as hell. There are no 2 ways about it. People do anything to associate themselves with an oppressed group as it benefits them.

The same here in US. Many are 2% or 1% Cherokee and they claim to be native American. A complete joke.
British and many European countries are colonizers. Its not breaking news.

 

[Robert]

She may be 5% or 10% Aborigine. But she is white as hell. There are no 2 ways about it. People do anything to associate themselves with an oppressed group as it benefits them.

The Aboriginal look was deliberately “bleached out” by generations of forced marriage to white colonial oppressors.

 

[Champ_Pal]

The Aboriginal look was deliberately “bleached out” by generations of forced marriage to white colonial oppressors.

Hence she is white now. She is not Aborigine as she seems to claim.

 

[JaDed]

It's so weird that they still feel attached to the British royal family. We really should count all of these countries as part of our ongoing empire if they bend the knee to Her Majesty.

British should , maybe then they can get rid of it. Quebec(easy to get them riled) goes crazy everytime Royals visit Canada.

But this woman is a cunning politician, she can play all the cards she want ,she blamed her bankruptcy on domestic issues and now is claiming this.

 

[KingKhanWC]

Great lady.

Her ancestors were colonised by the Brits inc the Royals.

In Tasmania a WHOLE ethnicity of people were wiped off completely.

Why any decent sane person would want to pledge allegiance to the degenerate Royals in a far away land is strange.

Royals should compensate the aboriginal people for their horrific crimes against them.

 

[Robert]

Hence she is white now. She is not Aborigine as she seems to claim.

It’s up to her how she self-identifies. We don’t know her story, her generational trauma.

 

[Champ_Pal]

It’s up to her how she self-identifies. We don’t know her story, her generational trauma.

She can identify as a Walrus. But for anyone who looks at her, they know she is not.

I don't know what generational trauma is. Is it passed on from parent to offspring like genetically transmitted diseases?

 

[KingKhanWC]

She can identify as a Walrus. But for anyone who looks at her, they know she is not.

I don't know what generational trauma is. Is it passed on from parent to offspring like genetically transmitted diseases?

What her face got to do with the topic. ? I.e Most Indians are dark and skinny so any fat light person who identifies as Indian cant be?

 

[Champ_Pal]

What her face got to do with the topic. ? I.e Most Indians are dark and skinny so any fat light person who identifies as Indian cant be?

Racist spotted.

 

[KingKhanWC]

Racist spotted.

I stated a fact, you observed something from your mind which showed you care about someone's face more than their views. Who is the racist?

 

[Champ_Pal]

I stated a fact, you observed something from your mind which showed you care about someone's face more than their views. Who is the racist?

Telling a White person is white and an Aborigine person looks Aborigine is not racist.

But saying all Indians are black and skinny is racist. You know what you meant there. Its okay. Just say it out loud that you are one.

 

[KingKhanWC]

Telling a White person is white and an Aborigine person looks Aborigine is not racist.

But saying all Indians are black and skinny is racist. You know what you meant there. Its okay. Just say it out loud that you are one.

I said MOST which is a FACT. You have a terrible habit of diverting threads. Most Indians are dark, skinny, utidy hear, bad odour too but this doesn't mean a person who is fair skinned, muscles, nice hair and smells nice cannot be Indian.

 

[Champ_Pal]

I said MOST which is a FACT. You have a terrible habit of diverting threads. Most Indians are dark, skinny, utidy hear, bad odour too but this doesn't mean a person who is fair skinned, muscles, nice hair and smells nice cannot be Indian.

Most are not black and skinny. Most are brown and normal built.

Alright racist.

 

[Robert]

She can identify as a Walrus. But for anyone who looks at her, they know she is not.

I don't know what generational trauma is. Is it passed on from parent to offspring like genetically transmitted diseases?

Generational trauma is what is passed down from previous generations. For example, the children of Holocaust survivors in Canada were observed to do worse at school than the children of born Canadians.

So the descendant of Aboriginals, even though (for the sake of argument) 1/16th Aboriginal and 15/16th Caucasian, will still feel the generational trauma of the oppressed Aboriginals.

 

[KingKhanWC]

Most are not black and skinny. Most are brown and normal built.

Alright racist.

I wrote dark.

Lets leave it as you have reading issues.

Back on topic.

The history of the natives in Australia has also been hidden.

In UK schools we were taught of Captain Cook discovering these lands. I still remember as a kid asking the teacher, nobody else went to these islands before? She had no answer and moved on swiftly to proudly say we found new lands and the rest of the bsss she was taught.

Here is a good link esp for British who are ingorant of their colonial past.

Ill only post the summary.

CONCLUSION
The war on the pastoral frontier in Tasmania had terrifying consequences for the Tasmanian Aborigines. At the outset, in 1823, an estimated 2,000 Aborigines were in the war zone. By 1831, an estimated 448 at least, had been killed by the colonists, or 22% of the population, and that an estimated 413 had lost their lives in 27 known multiple killings of five or more.

The practice of multiple killings, matches the evidence from the pastoral frontier in the colony of Victoria between 1835 and 1859 and in the Gulf Country in Northern Australia between 1872 and 1900 (Clark, 1995; Broome, 2005; Roberts, 2005). In Victoria, it has been estimated that 10% of the Aboriginal population were directly killed by the colonists, mostly in multiple killings (Broome, 2005:80-81).

So in Tasmania, more Aborigines were killed in a shorter period, than perhaps in any other part of Australia.

However, there was also a high loss of life among the colonists on the Tasmanian pastoral frontier. It has recently been estimated that at least 250 colonists were killed by Aborigines in at least 113 separate incidents where between one and two colonists were killed and two incidents where four colonists were killed (Ryan, 2006; Plomley, 1992:58-100). This makes an Aboriginal/colonial death ratio of less than 2:1, far lower than the nearby colony of Victoria where in the period 1835 to 1859, the death ratio is estimated at 12:1 (Broome, 2005:80-81).

The major difference between Tasmania and pastoral frontiers in other parts of Australia is that the combatants on both sides lost their lives in great numbers. The Black War in Tasmania was a mighty struggle for possession of the country. The Aborigines lost the war, with a huge loss of life. The survivors were deported from their country.

https://www.sciencespo.fr/mass-viol...e-killings-aborigines-tasmania-1804-1835.html

 

[Romali_rotti]

Indigenous senator Lidia Thorpe forced to redo oath of allegiance after Senate president interjects and others voice criticism.

ndigenous senator Lidia Thorpe was told to repeat the oath of allegiance for Australian parliamentarians on Monday after she initially described the Queen as a coloniser.

Thorpe, a Greens senator for Victoria, was chided by her parliamentary colleagues, one of whom yelled, “You’re not a senator if you don’t do it properly.”

Thorpe was absent from parliament last week when other senators were officially sworn in, so took her oath on Monday morning. Walking to the Senate floor with her right fist raised in the air, Thorpe was asked to recite the words written on a card.

“I sovereign, Lidia Thorpe, do solemnly and sincerely swear that I will be faithful and I bear true allegiance to the colonising her majesty Queen Elizabeth II,” she said.

The word “colonising” is not in the formal oath.

The Labor Senate president, Sue Lines, interjected, as other senators voiced criticism and began calling to Thorpe.

“You are required to recite the oath as printed on the card,” Lines told the Greens senator.

“Please recite the oath.”

Thorpe turned to speak to a Labor senator behind her who appeared to voice further criticism, before repeating the oath as printed.

Another senator was heard to say “none of us like it”.

Thorpe later tweeted “sovereignty never ceded” as she shared a photo of her swearing-in.

Section 42 of the Australian constitution states that “every senator and every member of the House of Representatives shall before taking his seat make and subscribe” the oath.

But Prof Anne Twomey, a constitutional expert at the University of Sydney, said it was unclear whether failing or declining to make the oath would block someone from taking their place in federal parliament.

“As this is an internal proceeding in the Parliament, I doubt whether it would be ‘justiciable’ – ie I don’t think it is something that could be enforced before a court,” she told Guardian Australia.

Advertisement

“It is a matter for the presiding officers of the Houses to enforce section 42.”

Twomey said Thorpe could have decided not to take up her seat, if she was not prepared to swear allegiance to the Queen.

“Failure to do so would mean that she could not sit or vote. She would be entitled to other rights and privileges ... However, if she failed to attend for two consecutive months without the permission of the Senate, her place would become vacant under section 19 of the constitution,” she said.

The assistant minister for the republic, Matt Thistlethwaite, last week told Nine newspapers that swearing allegiance to the Queen was “archaic and ridiculous”.

“It does not represent the Australia we live in and it’s further evidence of why we need to begin discussing becoming a republic with our own head of state,” he said. “We are no longer British.”

However, under the Australian constitution all senators and MPs must swear an allegiance to the Queen and her heirs and successors before sitting in parliament. The provision cannot be changed without a referendum, which Thistlethwaite said would only be done as part of a broader move towards a republic in a future term of government.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Sovereignty never ceded. <a href="https://t.co/OowLrlUApy">https://t.co/OowLrlUApy</a></p>— Senator Lidia Thorpe (@SenatorThorpe) <a href="https://twitter.com/SenatorThorpe/status/1553902401496961024?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 1, 2022</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

https://www.theguardian.com/austral...n-coloniser-while-being-sworn-into-parliament

Looks like she copied the Ex Eagle Malcolm Jenkins's hand raise...

 

[Technics 1210]

Australia did hold a referendum in 1999, where the question was asked, whether Australia should become a republic.

Almost 54% voted No.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/199...al monarchy,formally appointed by the monarch).

 

[Champ_Pal]

Generational trauma is what is passed down from previous generations. For example, the children of Holocaust survivors in Canada were observed to do worse at school than the children of born Canadians.

So the descendant of Aboriginals, even though (for the sake of argument) 1/16th Aboriginal and 15/16th Caucasian, will still feel the generational trauma of the oppressed Aboriginals.

Then I must be a victim of British atrocities committed on my ancestors. My great grandfather and grandfather lived through British Raj. It was chaos and whoever revolted used to disappear.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Australia did hold a referendum in 1999, where the question was asked, whether Australia should become a republic.

Almost 54% voted No.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/199...al monarchy,formally appointed by the monarch).

They don't want to let go their roots at the end of the day. They know where they came from even after generations have passed.

 

[dildilpak]

They don't want to let go their roots at the end of the day. They know where they came from even after generations have passed.

Don’t understand the fascination for the monarchy - such an outdated/superfluous concept in today’s age. The indigenous have a right to protest their suppressors & Australia/Canada need to show seriousness in acknowledging their racist past by removing allegiance to their suppresors like Jamaica recently did.

 

[James]

Australia did hold a referendum in 1999, where the question was asked, whether Australia should become a republic.

Almost 54% voted No.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/199...al monarchy,formally appointed by the monarch).

Interested to see if they still would vote No today.

Same with Canada and NZ.

 

[Technics 1210]

They don't want to let go their roots at the end of the day. They know where they came from even after generations have passed.

Yeah, probably because the Monarchy is the only tangible link to the Western world.

 

[James]

Yeah, probably because the Monarchy is the only tangible link to the Western world.

Culture, ethnicity, family, language, sport, banter, humour, food, alcohol, etc.

 

[Technics 1210]

Culture, ethnicity, family, language, sport, banter, humour, food, alcohol, etc.

Sure but neither of these are symbolic like a Union Jack on Australia's flag.

 

[KingKhanWC]

Interesting, so many natives in the land are alcoholics. The Aussie governments continue to treat these badly after so many years.

 

[James]

Sure but neither of these are symbolic like a Union Jack on Australia's flag.

They’re not but to say that Australia’s only tangible link to the West is the British monarchy is not an accurate statement imo.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

They’re not but to say that Australia’s only tangible link to the West is the British monarchy is not an accurate statement imo.

It's THE most tangible link though.

 

[James]

It's THE most tangible link though.

Original statement said only. My responses have stemmed from this.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Original statement said only. My responses have stemmed from this.

Which original statement are we talking about?

 

[James]

Which original statement are we talking about?

“Yeah, probably because the Monarchy is the only tangible link to the Western world.”

Reply to you from another user.

I then replied to said statement, disagreeing that it was the only tangible link.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

“Yeah, probably because the Monarchy is the only tangible link to the Western world.”

Reply to you from another user.

I then replied to said statement, disagreeing that it was the only tangible link.

Right. But you could maintain cultural and linguistical roots without paying homage to some ancient Royal family on the other side of the world unless you agree that British roots are more important than the rest of the west.

 

[James]

Right. But you could maintain cultural and linguistical roots without paying homage to some ancient Royal family on the other side of the world unless you agree that British roots are more important than the rest of the west.

For me personally, I think the monarchy should begin a progress of removing itself from countries around the world and should be gradually diminished within the UK as well, until it barely even has a functioning purpose beyond ceremony and tradition. But it’s up to the people in Australia to decide how much they do or don’t want to be connected to Britain still, is not my decision.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

For me personally, I think the monarchy should begin a progress of removing itself from countries around the world and should be gradually diminished within the UK as well, until it barely even has a functioning purpose beyond ceremony and tradition. But it’s up to the people in Australia to decide how much they do or don’t want to be connected to Britain still, is not my decision.

No doubt, but it does still reflect how ancient ties still reflect British loyalties across the globe.