King charles Heckled in Australia

[Albaamy121]

Did anyone see that King Charles was heckled in Australia this week by an Australian senator, Lidia Thorpe.

She shouted at him "you are not my King, this is not your land, you have stolen our land".

Any thoughts?

I didn't see any thread on it, so I started this one.

Slavery had not been allowed within the UK for many centuries, but they were the first to ban it in all the colonies they had (which largely ran their own economies) and they also tried to force other nations, like France for example, to follow suit, both through diplomacy and military action. They blockaded the Atlantic slave trade and were trying to finally eradicate slavery in Africa well into the 20th century.

It's all well and good to say they never should have been involved at all, but maybe worth remembering that slavery has been almost completely ubiquitous and accepted throughout human history, and this is the first real instance of it being banned by law on principle and of any nation trying to enforce that on others on moral grounds. And that's not just within Europe, you don't find it on any other continent either.

He would have been from the UK then?

And before anyone else comments on the recent "The Voice" referendum, please do a tiny bit of research.
It was a shitshow ( even Labor who were championing it couldn't explain it) To this day ( and I follow politics very closely ) I can not understand what it meant.
So please, stop referencing it .. A lot of indigenous people didn't vote for it. It was stupid and ill-thought out and needs to go in the bin. The millions it cost should have built houses and schools and facilities for Aboriginal communities.
Also, it is sadly true that all health outcomes are worse as a whole for Aboriginal people. That is hugely skewed by people living in areas that are so remote is you run out of petrol you are likely to die. Medics have to be flown in , it's not like the Scottish highlands it's more like the Arabian desert. I will try to find the article but indigenous people who live in cities/ suburban Australia have very similar health outcomes to non-indidgenous Australians. Billions have been spent but it's a fecking hard place and sooooooo far. A lot of people have been trying very hard for decades to improve the health of the remote indidgenous people. It's a very complex problem.
So please don't label my country racist on a few wiki searches. As I said before the most multiculturally diverse country in the world and almost always super peaceful.

The Voice referendum was a vote on inserting an instrument into the Constitution to create a permanent advisory body consisting of First Nations people.

That's it.

The problem was the messaging on both sides was so incredibly muddy, people became overwhelmed and divided. Few understood the purpose of the referendum, sadly, and at its core, it was quite simple.

It was unnecessary for him to intervene. It would have triggered an election to take care of the situation if Kerr hadn’t inserted himself into it, and the Whitlam Government likely would have lost office anyway.

As it has come out in the fullness of time, the real reason Kerr sacked Whitlam is that Kerr thought Whitlam was going to sack him first. It was nothing to do with what was good for Australia.

Even Malcolm Fraser, who benefited from the Dismissal, later said it should not have happened and he was sorry for his role in it.

Yes. as I said a shitshow, if only a "few understood" then somethiing is seriously wrong.
Even my most left wing friends were all "so does every group get one"? and it went on and on and I could not answer most of their questions. Why not a "disabled voice to Parliament"?
Also who was electing these people to be "the voice?" Never explained.
Besides when you got down to the nitty gritty it was advisory only and could be instantly overruled. Waste of time and money. Total crap that threw away the vast majority of good will and clear wish for Aboriginal people to live just like the rest of us that Australia holds. . I've always voted Labor but that was moronic.

I have lived in Australia my whole adult life. Lidia Thorpe is generally viewed as a bit unhinged and she has form for shouting at people in public. She was said to have had a relationship with a member of a bikie gang although later denied it. This has not helped her reputation or trustworthiness.

However, there are mixed race aboriginal people alive today who were removed from their families in order to assimilate them with white culture. ATSI people die on average 20+ years earlier and suffer more ill health, homelessness, imprisonment, sexual assault and DV than their white counterparts. Aboriginal people are approx 5% of the population yet 50-70% (it varies by state) of children in youth detention are Indigenous. If you are really interested in learning about the conditions in remote aboriginal communities I recommend reading some coronial findings from the Northern Territory. It far exceeds the deprivation of Britains worst council estates. In my opinion Lidia Thorpe is understandably angry but she is a problematic representative for indigenous people.

Read the Uluru Statement from the Heart which was composed by Aboriginal elders and representatives from around the country and cleary states the request for a Voice to Parliament
https://ulurustatement.org/the-statement/view-the-statement/

These situations are messy and don't happen very often. It's easy to be wise after the fact. Whatever Kerr's motives may or may not have been, the reality is that the monarch or the monarch's representative isn't ever going to dismiss a Prime Minister who has the support of Parliament.

Nb: Whitlam absolutely could have had Kerr sacked: by advising the Queen that he wanted Kerr gone - by convention she would have had to dismiss Kerr. Ie, only the Queen had the legal power to dismiss Kerr, but by convention she would have had to have acted on Whitlam's request. The point of my rather rambling paragraph is that this really doesn't show a neo-colonial plot by those dastardly Pommy overlords but actually a big mess made right in Australia.

@marmadukedoggo "He would have been from the UK then"

Why do you ask?

As an Australian I was deeply ashamed by Lidias disgraceful display. She is always showboating, has no good intentions other than to see herself in the press, and she does untold damage to relations between white and indigenous Australians.

Because it's obvious

And yet, and at the time, the British government took out an equivalent of £16.5 billion loan, to compensate the slave owners for the loss of their slaves, ending only in 2015. But not one single freed slaves, received any kind of a compensation, at all. In fact, upon being freed, often there was this apprenticeship set up, where by the freed slave individual worked, but for free, and they were still very restricted in what they could do. So the British abolished slavery, after having made an immeasurable amounts of money, over centuries. But then once they were done, they decided to do the „”right thing”, and abolish slavery. But instead of compensating the very human beings that they had enslaved, abused, exploited and brutalised, they instead decided to compensate themselves, for their own loss of free slave labour. As mentioned above, not one single freed slave received a single penny of compensation. And then on top of that, any kind of official apology is refused, because you know, it’s in the past, it might make us look weak, and then other wronged by people will want an apology also, and some kind of recognition for their suffering.

@marmadukedoggo Sorry, not playing games. If you want to make your point comprehensibly then I'll happily respond. Otherwise it's a waste of both our time.

Not sure where you got the idea anyone thinks it was a neo-colonial plot. Again, I only mentioned it because somebody asked, “What power does the UK have over Australia?”

well it's not valid is it - Charles the person didn't do anything, frankly I think the whole thing is a bit pathetic, categorising people into those who arrived 5,000 years ago and those who arrived 500 years ago and saying one is entirely virtuous and one is evil is the view of a simpleton.

We were talking about the transatlantic slave trade, the root of slavery everywhere.

Thats not even slightly true:

" the transatlantic slave trade, the root of slavery everywhere."

Slaves have been around since there have been humans. We have records of slaves for at least 5,000 years, way before we called the Atlantic the Atlantic and certainly before we could cross it.

Slaves still exist now - with no roots to the transatlantic slave trade either. Why so keen to assign blame?

All right, the transatlantic slave trade doesn't account for every slave in history, but it was responsible for the vast bulk of slavery in modern history.

I don't think leaders of former colonies care what happened so very long ago; I think reparations is just a way to try to squeeze money out of the UK. Those leaders who say sorry isn't enough are just on the make. If the past truly bothered them, and it was truly about amends rather than money, they'd accept apologies and work towards ways the UK could atone without bankrupting itself - which is what the UK-haters want.

The UK could apologise and also offer work visas for a couple of years to young people of those countries, like the kind of arrangement Australia has. The UK could also make it possible for young people from those countries to come to university in the UK and give them some help with fees, or favourable loans. They could offer inexpensive online degrees for people in those former colonies. The UK could do the twin-town thing with towns in those countries, like they already do with European countries, and schoolchildren could do exchanges. And former colonies could accept their artefacts back as part of the amends. There are lots of ways the UK could atone.

But no, it's all about the greenbacks. Leaders of former colonies want cold hard cash. Today's news reports that an independent review says Britain should pay 18 TRILLION pounds to former colonies! 😂

I mean, where on earth does the international community think Britain's going to find 18 trillion? Do they think we're Saudi Arabia or something? Have they not heard of the cost of living crisis and the broken NHS?

Apologies and actions to amend are one thing, but being conned is another. We're not stupid; we can see what these leaders are after, and it isn't apologies and atonement!

https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/king-charles-urged-to-confront-the-37-trillion-call-for-colonial-reparations/38ggrnrnf

No it wasn't.

Not only does it not account for the vast majority of slaves that have existed, it has nothing at all to do with slavery after it ended.

Why do you want to feel so guilty?

I don't really know what you mean. We were talking about the transatlantic slave trade and the abolition of slavery, and while modern slavery exists, we're talking about the times when it was perfectly legal to buy and sell human beings, who when had no rights as humans and were seen as chattels, and it was enshrined in law.

Are you mad ? Australia is a relatively new country and even when it isn’t the atrocities stil matter just as they do in the US. It’s exactly the same as saying we should erase and forget slavery in the US or the holocaust.

In Australia we chanted the statute of limitations on sex abuse.

There are some crimes and violations that we should never forget and history should mark because if we didn’t, we’d be no different from animals. We need to acknowledge, amend and learn from inhumane actions and errors

I would say that stealing kids off their parents to make them more white, massacres of Aboriginals and throwing them enmasse in unmarked graves, constitutes inhumanity.

You talk of time and history meaning nothing and yet that is the very premise that your aristocratic titles and royal family is built on. History is the very reason why Charlie boy didn’t stay in the Four Seasons and cuddle a koala but instead sat in parliament and visited as our head of state to remind us who is big boy king.

In a country where we are healing and trying to build respect and acknowledgment for indigenous people it’s hard to do that with a King visiting. It’s fairly symbolic to have a British King reminding us all that he is in power - because of his ancestors that were responsible for inhumane things.

No, Charlie did nothing wrong, he doesn’t have to, his ancestors already won the power for him & did the dirty work, he is in power because of the history that you want to forget.

How very convenient that the timeline of British arrival and the worlds oldest Indigenous people are all just a blur for you.

Yes, Lydia wasn’t very white the other day. She failed to stand on a rug with everyone else and stuff all the dirty secrets under it. Pretend the king was a symbol of strength, not one of a horrific history of massacres and stolen land and stolen babies.

Ironic we are all imploring her to act more English, more white, more British and ladylike and controlled, to conform & fit in with the white folk.

Not so long ago an Aboriginal woman, Ms Dhu was arrested for not paying fines and imprisoned. Her excruciating pain was ignored and pleas for help from her prison cell. She presented at the hospital and wasn’t properly triaged and assessed. Ms Dhu died in pain and was dismissed when she had a serious infection.

We are racist systemically and our Indigenous people have suffered and continue to. Our laws and systems are English, our dominant culture is English and we fail to empathise with what it would be like to be an Indigenous person living in a white world.

How ironic that Lydia has been admonished for not nodding and smiling at the royals and labelled as unhinged for expressing her disgust at the way her race has been treated.

let’s ne honest there was no alternative other than expecting her to sit down and nod along with all the other peasants and subjects.

You have more say as a voter, you can go for a republic and change your systems.