Lidia, Oh Lidia

[old man emu]

Elsewhere many of us have expressed our ire at the behaviour of Senator Lidia Thorpe towards King Charles III. Calls have been made to have her expelled from the Senate. Here is a non-biased explanation of what can and cannot be done as a result of what she did.

 

 

[nomadpete]

OME I am disappointed that you saw value in starting a thread just for this. I don't think it is worth the paper it's written on.

[old man emu]

25 minutes ago, nomadpete said:

OME I am disappointed that you saw value in starting a thread just for this.

 

I just wanted to post the video to provide some information. If I had posted it in the thread that contained the comments, it would have been buried. This way people can quickly be informed of what action might be taken against Thorpe - which appears to be no action at all, according t out Constitution and Laws.

 

I don't expect this thread to attract hundreds of posts.

[facthunter]

IF we do anything  substantial we will be going into unchartered territory and establish dangerous precedents.  NOT over reacting to this would be the best way of dealing with it.  Changes to this Jumping ship and still serving out the time should be addressed but at a less divisive time when cooler heads prevail. There's political advantage for some by creating a divisive electorate. Just like Trump does. it's not good for the Country. Just for the Newspapers. and Politicians Lacking Ethiical Principles.   Nev

[old man emu]

3 minutes ago, facthunter said:

If we do anything  substantial we will be going into unchartered territory and establish dangerous precedents.

As explained in the video, there were no parliamentary rules broken. The words were uttered outside the House, so simply have the status of personal expression. Did words used to express the sentiments amount to "offensive language"? I'd sat, "No". Were the actions and circumstances - time and place - such that they constituted "offensive behaviour"? To the "reasonable person", they probably did. Would what happened be offensive to the person, King Charles? No doubt they raised an emotion, but having such things shouted to him was probably water off a duck's back. 

 

I think that the real victim of the incident is Thorpe herself. Now she's going to be labelled as just another nutter, and come the time when her Senate seat is up for election, I can see her perusing the Positions Vacant, or its internet equivalent.

[facthunter]

One should comfortable say SHE wont' get the  Senate seat in her own right and hasn't done her cause much good but who really knows these days? Speaking in public removes the protection afforded when speaking in the Parliament but this was in the great Hall.  Nev

[old man emu]

1 minute ago, facthunter said:

this was in the great Hall.

The Constitution says that it has to be in the Chamber to be wrong. 

 

This is how she ended up in the Senate:

Parliamentary service

State: Elected to the Victorian Legislative Assembly for Northcote at by-election 2017, vice the Hon. F Richardson (deceased). Defeated 2018.

Federal: Chosen by the Parliament of Victoria on 4.9.2020 under section 15 of the Constitution to represent that State in the Senate, vice R Di Natale (resigned). Elected to the Senate for Victoria, 2022.

 

That replacement of Di Natale (Greens) in 2020 simply followed normal protocol for replacing a deceased or resigning Senator. So, she gets into the Senate as a Green, and is elected normally in 2022 as a Green. Then she quits the Greens, saying, “This country has a strong grassroots black sovereign movement, full of staunch and committed warriors, and I want to represent that movement fully in this parliament. It has become clear to me that I can’t do that from within the Greens." Seems that she was anti-Voice. She had previously said she would oppose the body unless she is satisfied that it “guarantees First Nations sovereignty is not ceded”.

[red750]