By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The Australian Senate voted 46-12 to censure Senator Lidia Thorpe for her expletive-laden outburst directed at King Charles III during his recent visit. Senator Thorpe’s condemnation, deemed by government leader Penny Wong as an attempt to incite outrage, involved accusations of genocide and demands for land restitution. Despite the censure, Thorpe vowed to repeat her actions should the King return. Opposition to the censure motion highlighted the systemic issues of white privilege within the parliament.
Read the original article here
An Indigenous Australian senator’s outburst during King Charles III’s visit has sparked significant controversy and resulted in her censure. The senator, known for her inflammatory pronouncements and controversial past actions, publicly yelled “You are not our king” at the monarch during a formal event. This act, considered by many to be disrespectful and inappropriate given the ceremonial context, has drawn criticism from across the political spectrum.
The senator’s history of provocative statements and actions certainly adds context to the incident. She’s been previously accused of making intentionally inflammatory remarks to garner media attention, a tactic seemingly intended to maintain her public profile. Her past actions, including a relationship with a gang member while serving on an anti-gang parliamentary committee, further fuel the perception of her as a divisive figure in Australian politics. This raises questions about her judgment and suitability for public office.
The senator’s claim to represent all Indigenous Australians is also a point of contention. Many question the legitimacy of this assertion, given her controversial past and the diverse range of views within the Indigenous community. This lack of broad-based support undermines her claim to represent a unified Indigenous voice. Further emphasizing this, her past actions demonstrate a disregard for established political norms and procedures, raising concerns about her suitability for public office.
Her assertion that she didn’t actually swear allegiance to the King during her oath of office, claiming she substituted “heirs” with “hairs,” is another noteworthy incident. This claim, while initially presented as a humorous blunder, underscores a disregard for established parliamentary procedures. The video evidence that contradicts this claim highlights a lack of transparency and integrity in her actions, furthering the justification for her censure. Such behavior not only calls into question her commitment to upholding the rule of law but also undermines public trust in political institutions.
This censure, however, is not without its complexities. The timing of the censure, coinciding with the censure of another senator for using offensive language on social media, raises questions about consistency in applying parliamentary disciplinary measures. The comparison raises concerns about the application of equal standards across the political spectrum and whether the decision regarding the Indigenous senator reflects a targeted approach.
While many Australians advocate for a republic, the current constitutional reality is that the King remains Australia’s head of state. The senator’s actions, even if motivated by strong feelings about the monarchy or colonialism, fail to acknowledge this reality. The actions demonstrate a disregard for the established rules and decorum of parliament. Ignoring this legal and political reality does not negate its existence.
Furthermore, the incident highlights the ongoing debate about Indigenous rights and representation in Australia. While the senator’s intentions might be rooted in genuine concerns about Indigenous sovereignty and historical injustices, the manner in which she expressed them proved highly counterproductive. The incident unfortunately overshadowed any potential positive message or call for action. She has used inflammatory rhetoric as a tool to attract attention, while potentially harming the cause she claims to represent.
The incident serves as a potent reminder of the ongoing complexities surrounding Indigenous representation, political discourse, and the symbolism of the monarchy in a modern Australia. The event raises important questions about the balance between expressing dissent and respecting established norms, a question not easily answered and that remains at the forefront of Australian political conversation. The long-term consequences of this incident for the senator’s political career remain to be seen. But one thing is clear: her actions have generated a substantial debate about appropriate political behavior, Indigenous representation, and the future of the monarchy in Australia.