Australia - you're standing in it
southernraw wrote:views from the cockpit wrote:Agree VJ and good post udo.
One of these two people in the media right now is a very well educated, intelligent, considered, sensitive and humorous individual.
The other one is a dullard, a bogun blinkered bore. To tie your mast to the Thorpe train is to tarnish oneself imo.Disagree. I think sometimes it takes a radical outburst, or ten, ruffle the feathers, keep the establishment uncomfortable, to get the spotlight shining and to help effect change. Granted, it doesn't shine a great light on Lyds, nor those who support it, i support it. But i don't think it's about shining a good light on her in the view of the Australian public. I don't think she cares and i think she'd have alot of supporters that aren't Nova Perris.
Just my opinion, and yeah, great post and points above VJ. I reckon Charlie would be keen to see change anyway. He doesn't strike me as the kinda fella that would feel comfortable with the way things are here.
Yep it will be fascinating to see how sovereignty is returned to the Aboriginal people. So much extra has been added onto the land in the form of roads, titles, dwellings, whole cities - I wonder if there will be a dual system of sovereignty, a bit like incorporating Native Title within the Crown's system of land and title. Ie two end up existing at once. A path will have to be found between the two.
And - if we are going to get deep - the whole system of title to land itself, is deeply flawed because it rests upon a great theft and huge lie and dispossession. I am of course talking about the Enclosure Acts, which nicked the common land of the peoples of the British Isles (and Ireland too? - plantations had been doing this for ages beforehand). What resulted was hundreds of thousands of dispossessed, hungry people, some of which resorted to poaching game on the Lord's new sheep farms. So many were imprisoned there needed to be an outlet - which was transportation.
This is a great wrong that the system has not corrected, 300 years later. It is also the system that gives many of us personal wealth today, when we go pledge a title as security for a new loan, etc... So again, a dual solution might be the only way.
*Final point - there are two systems of law that I know of, common and statutory existing simultaneously within the system, again a fascinating development of history ("Policeman, I identify as a Man and your statutory laws will not apply in our interaction," - lol). One thing in all the Brexit hoo-ha was that EU law (around for a grand total of up to 70 years) was beginning to override the UK courts in places and for worse or better, this will be unwound and Westminster law will continue back there.
Extra final point - at Federation the Australian constitution was framed by a similarly talented group of people to the US one, it's continued on it's own way from the Westminster system and is evolving as we go.
Good insight there VJ thanks.
To be clear, and this is all in the other thread, but sovereignty of land isn't something i've ever thought of as the ultimate solution.
Sovereignty of culture within that land, and a fair and just amount of autonomy within that land. That's more where i see healing and growing together taking place and that's where i see all of us from both sides can work towards.
Less of a taking away one from the other and more of a giving of one to the other and vice versa, if that makes sense.
The ins and outs, legalities, i can't say how that works but that's what seems fair to me.
The Voice was going to be the very first stone in the foundation of that, but it got rejected, and now you have Thorpy throwing bombs in parliament because, i'd imagine she seemingly feels this is alls that's left to do, as do the people she represents.
I said during the voice, if No got up, expect a pretty negative and maybe violent backlash and i'd say this is the start of it.
You really couldn't expect anything less nor blame them in my opinion.
southernraw wrote:The Voice was going to be the very first stone in the foundation of that, but it got rejected, and now you have Thorpy throwing bombs in parliament because, i'd imagine she seemingly feels this is alls that's left to do, as do the people she represents.
I said during the voice, if No got up, expect a pretty negative and maybe violent backlash and i'd say this is the start of it.
You really couldn't expect anything less nor blame them in my opinion.
Thorpey voted No in the referendum.
If Lydia's actions are viewed as violent ( aggressive ) and a reaction to a NO vote , the average Australian won't be happy .
The Foundation Stone of sorting out the Many Issues , is 2 listen and understand the Magnitude of What Needs 2 B done imho .
The Big Solution 2 The Big Problem , IS out there .
We need a Big Plan 2 sort out Hundreds of Years of festering problems .
I Vote Yes , to set Up a Group , 2 make a Plan .
Will a Royal Commission help ?
ahh true, she was in the it doesn't go far enough camp yeah Stu?
southernraw wrote:ahh true, she was in the it doesn't go far enough camp yeah Stu?
Not sure. TBH I don't pay that much attention to her.
From Wiki:
"In August 2022, when still Greens Indigenous affairs spokesperson, Thorpe called for Treaty before Voice.[127] Defecting from the Greens in February 2023, she said that she wished to lead the "Blak sovereignty" movement and campaign for such a treaty[128][129][130][131] before implementation of the Voice, which would be "powerless".[132][133][b] In May 2023, she ruled out supporting the No campaign and said she would consider abstaining.[135] On 20 June Thorpe joined the official No campaign,[136] after she had voted No to the referendum bill in the Senate on 19 June.[137][138] On 20 July, Thorpe released her own pamphlet advocating against the Voice, criticising both the official Yes and No pamphlets, and claiming that she had been unfairly excluded from contributing to the official No case, which she condemned as racist.[139]"
Make of that what you will.
velocityjohnno wrote:southernraw wrote:views from the cockpit wrote:Agree VJ and good post udo.
One of these two people in the media right now is a very well educated, intelligent, considered, sensitive and humorous individual.
The other one is a dullard, a bogun blinkered bore. To tie your mast to the Thorpe train is to tarnish oneself imo.Disagree. I think sometimes it takes a radical outburst, or ten, ruffle the feathers, keep the establishment uncomfortable, to get the spotlight shining and to help effect change. Granted, it doesn't shine a great light on Lyds, nor those who support it, i support it. But i don't think it's about shining a good light on her in the view of the Australian public. I don't think she cares and i think she'd have alot of supporters that aren't Nova Perris.
Just my opinion, and yeah, great post and points above VJ. I reckon Charlie would be keen to see change anyway. He doesn't strike me as the kinda fella that would feel comfortable with the way things are here.Yep it will be fascinating to see how sovereignty is returned to the Aboriginal people. So much extra has been added onto the land in the form of roads, titles, dwellings, whole cities - I wonder if there will be a dual system of sovereignty, a bit like incorporating Native Title within the Crown's system of land and title. Ie two end up existing at once. A path will have to be found between the two.
And - if we are going to get deep - the whole system of title to land itself, is deeply flawed because it rests upon a great theft and huge lie and dispossession. I am of course talking about the Enclosure Acts, which nicked the common land of the peoples of the British Isles (and Ireland too? - plantations had been doing this for ages beforehand). What resulted was hundreds of thousands of dispossessed, hungry people, some of which resorted to poaching game on the Lord's new sheep farms. So many were imprisoned there needed to be an outlet - which was transportation.
This is a great wrong that the system has not corrected, 300 years later. It is also the system that gives many of us personal wealth today, when we go pledge a title as security for a new loan, etc... So again, a dual solution might be the only way.
*Final point - there are two systems of law that I know of, common and statutory existing simultaneously within the system, again a fascinating development of history ("Policeman, I identify as a Man and your statutory laws will not apply in our interaction," - lol). One thing in all the Brexit hoo-ha was that EU law (around for a grand total of up to 70 years) was beginning to override the UK courts in places and for worse or better, this will be unwound and Westminster law will continue back there.
Extra final point - at Federation the Australian constitution was framed by a similarly talented group of people to the US one, it's continued on it's own way from the Westminster system and is evolving as we go.
Most want existing structures dismantled but have nothing to replace them with. My warning is; you can drive for change but your proposed solution needs to bring more value to broader population. And make sure you can demonstrate that. Brexit was a disaster, you lost EU governance and markets and replaced it with what? With nothing really, UK has detoriated and gone backwards. This is why the voice failed. Never in my life have I seen such terrible and ambigious proposal. Life in Australia is good and no one is keen to jeopardise it unless the offer is really good. Personally, I love the idea of the republic but I'm very keen for Aus to stay as monarchy to keep the status quo. I might change my mind if someone comes with a clear cut, very implementable republic design. But until then, life is too short to take such risks and I, like most people, like for things to stay as stable as possible.
Thanks Stu.
Ultimately its a moot point. 3.8% of the population is indigenous, perhaps 2/3 of voting age, and say half of them voted ni for abovementioned reasons. Its not my place to say if it was right or wring of them to vote ni, but ultimately thats probabably less than 1% of a 60% no vote.
Pretty sure majority of non indigenous didn't vote no because they favoured the black sovereignty movement.
southernraw wrote:Fijian government overthrown by military. Not a republic.
Isn't their head of state their President?? Ours is some pompous grey haired geezer. If we tried to overthrow him it would be called a war of independence and not a coup d'état.
Not sure if Brexit has anything 2 do with how Far the UK has fallen Flollo .
I wouldn't like Australia , 2 be Governed by an EU , no way .
The UK Westminster System has gone Gaga in the UK and has Changed .
The US has gone backwards 2 and seems to be Dragging us ALL down imho .
I am with U on US becoming a Republic and having an Australian Head of State .
As soon as someone works out how we can choose , a good 1 .
Someone who will protect Free Speech in Australia !
Lidia's position on the Voice is consistent with the argument she and others have that Cook's proclamation was and is insufficient at law to constitute an act of claiming sovereign possession or the transfer of sovereign possession, it's consistent with the High Court's finding in Mabo that terra nullius was a legal fiction, and consistent with the position that sovereignty therefore still resides with FNP.
Customary International Law at the time of Cook's proclamation had the mechanism of treaty and ceding of sovereign possession. A mechanism used elsewhere by English monarchs.
The argument runs that it should have happened here, and Cook's acts were not sufficient.
And what flows from that logically is that every act of sovereign possession based on that since is therefore invalid. Including establishing a Voice, which is why Lidia said no.
It's an argument with merit.
There is a counter argument too.
What you do about the hot mess created by the (disputed) fact the whole thing is found to be not legit is another story.
some appropriate replies when the bank asks you why you are withdrawing your cash...
good on lidia for doing lidia...
but geez, she just comes across as a dumb bogan
and a bit of an attention slut
being in that room, with ol' kingo, was a golden opportunity to do something smart...
but nah, she just did hysterical and shouty shouty
he supporters should feel ripped off... her constituents should feel ripped off, given the salary and benefits she reaps...
when you have the likes of marcia langton and linda burney saying she just pushed more people away than achieving any net benefits... ya gotta go... yep...
good on her, someone has to be the biggest dickhead in the room...
but what is her real goal?
she's spot on with her legal argument and some other stuff, but then other times she just drifts into pure fiction
just seems to her the attention is more important than anything...
re. blak sovereign movement... good on em... they made their point... and to cede to what was offered, gives up on decades of dedication...
and, my suspicion is they all voted yes once in the booth anyway...
why wouldn't they?
nothing to lose once you're in the privacy of the booth
get to make their point, save some face, and fuck it, vote yes anyway...
You know who Lidia reminds me of?
You remember that serial pest "peter hore" in the late 90s early 00's.
Both just do crazy stunts to gain attention.
Okay Peter was more loopy but Lidia isn't all their either.
&t=21s Curious to know why a female pollie who has a polarising way of expressing herself gets referred to as a “slut” and especially by someone who routinely holds people to his perceived standards and likes to call out all out others for real and confected misdemeanors!!
My my @sippy your misogyny is showing …. shameful
@sypkan true, it was brash and in your face and bogan like, but the question is, what is it she could have done any different that would have drawn the same attention? She couldn't have approached him. No way. If she'd talked calmly she'd be talked over and quietly escorted away. A sign. A banner? no way. Really the only choice she had and i think reflective of not having a voice in general in Australian society in regards to these matters.
@Adam12, thanks for the headsup on the legalities and hence her no vote. I didn't know that.
@lowinfo. Pot, kettle, black. You're in no position to make judgements on nutjobs.
GuySmiley wrote:Curious to know why a female pollie who has a polarising way of expressing herself gets referred to as a “slut” and especially by someone who routinely holds people to his perceived standards and likes to call out all out others for real and confected misdemeanors!!
My my @sippy your misogyny is showing …. shameful
very good points GS. I was going to say something yesterday about him being a woman hater after reading his Kamala rants but let it go, but this is getting a bit much. Showing your true dislike for women here syp. But don't worry,...it's a safe space...right?
@GS & @SR, I think you are focussing too heavily on the one word rather than the two in the sentance ie "attention s*^t", as in attention seeker. I actually don't believe Sypkan is referring to her as a "s*^t". That's how I read it anyway.
Yeah i dunno @fitzroy. I reckon Syps smart enough to know that 'slut' is dangerous territory to label any woman, no matter its context. I'd say theres an underlying intention to his words. Words have power yeah. Probably not a great idea to be using that kinda language about females in any context.
GuySmiley wrote:Curious to know why a female pollie who has a polarising way of expressing herself gets referred to as a “slut” and especially by someone who routinely holds people to his perceived standards and likes to call out all out others for real and confected misdemeanors!!
My my @sippy your misogyny is showing …. shameful
Yes I’m sure a lot of the Trump no matter what. mentality , in another thread
Is due to some misogynistic tendencies.
I get why Sypkan's comment has triggered some.
But to be fair it's a slang term that isn't really sex/gender related it can be used for both sexes or for any of the 72 genders.
"attention slut
An attention slut runs from person to person in attempt to satisfy a deep need for attention that they can never fulfill.
It doesn't really matter who they get attention from, just as long as they get lots of it.
They don't normally enjoy attention from one single person for very long and skillfully seek attention from as many people as they possibly can in any given day. Often brags about how many people they got attention from and purposely sets goals to establish new records that are realistically unattainable.
This helps the attention slut reinforce how shitty they feel about themselves.
Wow, for someone who has so much attention, Carla is really hard on herself. I think she might be an attention slut."
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=attention%20slut
Attention whore is the more commonly used term though.
nothing you write is worth reading or even considering @lowinfo.
next...
southernraw wrote:nothing you write is worth reading or even considering @lowinfo.
next...
Yet here you are reading my comments and always mentioning my name, funny that.
southernraw wrote:Yeah i dunno @fitzroy. I reckon Syps smart enough to know that 'slut' is dangerous territory to label any woman, no matter its context. I'd say theres an underlying intention to his words. Words have power yeah. Probably not a great idea to be using that kinda language about females in any context.
Oh well, apparently and obviously smart enough to know a single word would trigger the pair of you.
fitzroy-21 wrote:southernraw wrote:Yeah i dunno @fitzroy. I reckon Syps smart enough to know that 'slut' is dangerous territory to label any woman, no matter its context. I'd say theres an underlying intention to his words. Words have power yeah. Probably not a great idea to be using that kinda language about females in any context.
Oh well, apparently and obviously smart enough to know a single word would trigger the pair of you.
ha. Apparently! And whatever indo said that i didn't read ;-)
The "I can't believe it's not politics" thread.