Greens Senator and DjabWurrung, Gunnai and Gunditjmara woman Lidia Thorpe continues to set out her stall as the new Parliament’s chief conservative baiter. Today she wrangled a front page on The Australian with her black power salute after being forced to take a second oath of allegiance after describing the Queen as “colonising” in her first attempt. It made news around the world and prompted an entirely predictable flurry of outrage, such as from Jacinta Price, Pauline Hanson and Ben Fordham.
But one doesn’t have to be an unequivocal Thorpe fan to observe that what she said is simply an observable statement of fact — Queen Elizabeth is not just England’s monarch (and Australia’s, of course, as England’s cricket fans are always so happy to remind everyone).
To pick only the most obvious example: we are fairly sure Scotland and Northern Ireland did not petition anyone asking for the benevolence and wisdom of the English crown. Beyond that, and Australia, her majesty reigns in Canada, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea and a scattering of Caribbean states. In total, she is the monarch of 15 countries.
The fact that — by sheer historical coincidence, of course — England has become a lot less explicitly colonial since her 1952 ascension to the throne, the fact that these countries are independent sovereign states in which the crown has largely symbolic power (then again, tell that to Gough Whitlam…) is kind of irrelevant: the dominion of the English monarchy, however diluted, is a result of colonialism; the wealth of the crown comes in part from colonial spoils; and the monarchy was instrumental in setting up slavery.
In its bones, the crown is a symbol and a projection of colonialism.
This swearing of allegiance to Queen Elizabeth her goers and successors is a just silly anachronism. Swearing allegiance to a person is itself an anachronism. The swearing in ceremony should be an oath to swear allegiance to the Commonwealth of Australia. That will mean simply that you will serve the interests of Australia in serving as a member of parliament. Other anachronisms that should be removed include the ceremony of the black rod and the Speaker being dragged to the Speaker’s Chair. These rituals recall absolute Regal authority in the UK, which is utterly irrelevant to Australia today and should not be fondly remembered but straightforwardly condemned. What about a project of renovating parliamentary procedures. We don’t have to fondly recollect our old status as a colony in the British Empire at the highest level of political authority in our country today.
Spell check: “heirs” not “goers”. Can anyone persuade Apple to abandon changing words with one letter out to what their spell checker, with its limited capacity , considers a better word, despite its having not one but all letters except one out? What sort of “spell-checking” is that? And with a delay so that you might only notice it after it is checked in passing and then posted?
Ian, your attempt to persuade Apple to abandon anything has about as much chance as persuading Australians to abandon allegiance to the/our monarch.
I thought that by ‘goers’ you meant Andrew, as in Monty Python Eric Idle’s Nudge-Nudge sketch.
Hear hear. It would be a good project to celebrate the anniversary of Federation.
I agree with the first part, but I think some degree of ceremony is necessary to give solemnity to the institution. Even many African countries still go in for judges’ wigs etc.
I doubt that Thorpe would want to do that either. Remember that considers anyone who is not indigenous to be a coloniser. That probably includes nearly everyone in this forum. Who here is going to agree that they are a coloniser?
Lidia has probably scored a few points with some First Nation people.
But overall she has probably done more harm to her cause than good.
After actually gaining a “voice to parliament” for herself and her people she then acts in an unparlimentary manner, and plays right into the hands of the naysayers.
Just a reminder to all that one of aims of the Uluru Statement from the Heart is the establishment of a Makarrata Commission for the purpose of treaty making and TRUTH-TELLING.
Ms Thorpe is simply speaking the truth.
Time and place?
How many more deaths before it’s the time and place? How much longer will you feel shame for having a country built upon stolen land?
The Makarrata Comission is the culmination of the process, says so right there in the statement. So it is the final phase. Which means the Voice must come before it.
The Voice will probably end up as an incoherent whisper.
Agree. It just seemed gross and aggressive to me (and I’m keen to have a republic here). Silly. Let’s have some maturity in our Parliament, it’s been sorely lacking for some time.
Maturity.. yep. We need a truth telling, a treaty and reparations and then we can move towards a UNITED REPUBLIC free of colonial rule, with a new flag that doesn’t contain a reminder of the massacres, the stolen children, the slavery, the stolen land…
Oh,yes. How inappropriate, using parliament to make a political statement.
Charlie, give it a rest. The requirement for Thorpe to re-state her Oath of Affirmation (she wasn’t ‘forced’ to do anything) has nothing to do with historical accuracy, forgetting colonialism, or any of the other breathless claims in your piece.
Like many other circumstances (join the ADF, joining the police for example, giving evidence, getting married for example ), becoming a senator requires an oath to be made in a specified form. If the words are not spoken in the required form, they are invalid.
Thorpe’s actions were merely a performance. Which is fine or not, depending on your point of view, but let’s not pretend that she’s somehow being silenced or censured for being required to utter an oath in a form that is mandated..
Yassmin Abdel-Magied might have warned Lidia Thorpe what will happen if she states an obvious truth. After all, some commentators take umbrage against some, simply because they are : 1/ A woman 2/ A woman of colour 3/ Have intelligence.
4/ Have a point of view.
Ms Thorpe will continue to annoy the conservative press simply because she is alive, well and in a position of potential influence. This is the opposite to the sorry lot in the opposition and Hanson, who has nothing but stunts left.
The threat to their comfort is almost too much for them.
In this” sorry lot from the opposition”
would you be including Jacinta Price ; 1/A woman 2/ A woman of colour 3/ Has intelligence 4/ Has a point of view
Jacinta Price is a pawn for the far right,
So all Aboriginal people must be left leaning and any transgression from this makes them a non thinking pawn for the far right eh.
I didn’t know that this was a left/right issue. How is this so?
Keep up Zeke, I was answering julieblue who said Jacinta Price is a pawn for the far right
I’ve been listening to Price since before it was fashionable (whether you agree with her or not). She has never struck me as a “pawn” and anyone who thinks she is, is underestimating her.
There are always “uncle toms” but they’re hardly the majority. Get with the program.
Not sure what you mean here but if you are inferring that Jacinta Price is some sort of ” uncle tom” who is subservient to white people then that’s just insulting.
I knew someone would call her an Uncle Tom (or should that be an Aunt Thomasina?) eventually!
Yep so called progressive white people disrespecting intelligent Aboriginal people who hold a different view.
Yasmin was treated appallingly. She is a great commentator and role model.
The thing that irritated me was the mocking and defiant tone. Sure, she is entitled to express her views and advocate as strongly as she can for her ideas and opinions. But the Oath is not the place for this. his should have been a time of humility and offering of self in service to the nation and fellow citizens. I agree it IS a bit grating to have to acknowledge the monarch, but until we get around to being a republic, we just have to suck it up. Or find another set of words.