#Blak Sovereign Movement

[newsbites]

News from Australia, 21 June.

Independent senator Lidia Thorpe has announced her opposition to the Voice to Parliament, saying it violates ancient protocols and does not align with Blak sovereignty.

Thorpe voted against the bill to enshrine the Voice in the constitution and is calling for Australians to boycott the referendum.

She is working on an alternative proposal with other groups opposing the Voice, and has launched the Blak sovereign movement to represent the power of First Nations people in Australia.

2. Influenza is currently on a resurgence in Australia, with children most affected. The rise in cases could be an indication of what will happen in the US later this year.

3. Brisbane City Council's Kurilpa Sustainable Growth Precinct Plan could lead to buildings as tall as 90 storeys and will require green design and community benefit standards.

[akajustmerry]

also while i am here ranting about Australian things. i think non-indigenous Australian #VoteYes campaigners need to give a little space for the No voters whose primary concern is the Voice being used as a replacement for a Treaty. Please, remember that Australia is one of the only colonial countries without a treaty with Indigenous people and the Voice to Parliament is not a treaty. First Nations grassroots movements that have been working toward a treaty for decades do not deserve to have their objections to the Voice to Parliament being lumped in with the objections of racists who simply don't want Blak people to have rights. In truth, we need a treaty, we need to have a collaborative binding document that mutually recognises first nations peoples' humanity and right to self-determination before we have a voice! before a treaty, any Voice permitted by the government is built on inequity and built without recognition of Aboriginal peoples' sovereign rights.

[cutebutalsostabby]

Voice Referendum P2

Some very weird anon just sent me a very weird anonymous essay about my post on the Voice referendum (link). I'm not going to give the essay itself any airtime, but I am happy to share some extra info for education purposes.

Terminology

The term "settler" refers to anyone non-Indigenous, regardless of ethnic background. Sometimes it is useful to be more specific, e.g. white, Asian, African and so on, but the Voice was a proposal created for the sake of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people (aka Indigenous, First Nations or Blak), therefore settler is a useful term to describe the non-Indigenous population - who were, unfortunately, invited to have an opinion on this matter.

The above is not to say that whiteness is totally irrelevant here: while I couldn't find any data on how different racial demographics voted, the survey conducted by Octopus Group and Accent Research (link) shows a telling correlation between those that voted No in the referendum and those that believed (falsely) that white people face more discrimination than Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.

I also note ABC's analysis (link) that those living in inner city locations were more likely to vote yes than those in rural areas. There are a few ways you could interpret that; one of them is that inner city areas tend to be more multicultural.

Do White People Experience More Discrimination than Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander People?

No.

Given the above graph, it's not hard to interpret how the anon that messaged me about "shitting on white people" voted, but it's really not hard to fact check this claim: even beyond the catastrophic breaches of human rights during the original invasion of so-called Australia - from murder to disease to destruction of land and property to forced evacuation to the death of several Indigenous languages - the effects of genocide continue today. Indigenous people are about 15 times more likely to be in prison and have a roughly 10-year lower life-expectancy than non-Indigenous people (source). Even before the Voice "debate" arrived, The Guardian reported that discrimination against Indigenous Australians had risen rapidly in 2021 (link). It only really takes a few minutes of independent research for any claims that the Voice would provide "special privilege" to fall apart.

I'm Queer and Have Racial Opinions, Hear Me Roar

Queer settlers are still settlers. Queer white people are still white. Specifically in regards to this part of the message I received:

im a queer woman in a relationship that is not heteronormative and i agree with almost everything the left wing says. i just think

I don't think this lovely lady did think so I'mma cut her off right there. Thanks for your very exciting opinion :) please dispose of it responsibly.

...So Now What?

Well, the vote has already happened, and unfortunately it was a No. Honestly, I'm a bit confused about receiving this ask now? Ah well.

As I said in my last post, I don't think settlers should have been voting on this in the first place, but since we were, I believe it was our duty to vote Yes. All past opinion polls showed that as the majority Indigenous opinion. I do respect that some Indigenous people voted No themselves, whether due to Jacinta Price's perspective on the "Voice of Division" or Lidia Thorpe's as representative for the Blak Sovereign Movement. Indigenous people are not a monolith, nor should they be expected to behave that way. In the case of settlers voting No however: I don't believe there is a good excuse for this. I think it was a racist result. I'm not overly surprised, but I am disappointed. Even so, the Voice was never going to be the end of it.

A few years ago, I made a commitment that at least 1% of my income would go towards paying the rent to Indigenous people (further info here). I've kept this commitment and would encourage others with an income to do the same. I've also written to my local MP to remind him of the unactioned recommendations from the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody as well as the Bringing them Home Report.

I'd really encourage all settlers, in Australia or elsewhere, to find some way to get involved. Let's make use of our privilege and make the world a better and more equal place for all.

Thanks for reading.

[wildfloweronwheels]

Today I’ll be voting yes. Yes, I do believe in a constitutionally enshrined Voice to Parliament for First Nations people. That is my personal opinion. It belongs only to me. I’ve come to this decision after a lot of listening and learning generously shared by friends and people I respect as advocates. What strikes me most is the explanation that they are ‘already living in no’ and it’s clearly not working.

In my view, as someone who knows something of what it is to live on the margins, albeit not for the colour of my skin, anything that prioritises, values and gives agency to lived experience is a good thing. That is how I interpret what the Voice is doing. I’m ’m sharing this not because I want to tell YOU how to vote but because I believe in transparency. In using my voice as a white woman with privilege to lighten the load if I can.

I can’t imagine how exhausting and traumatising the last few months have been for First Nations people on both sides of the aisle. It’s entirely unfair that your lives are used as political footballs. It’s insidious that advocating for yourselves is an experience so stained in racism and bigotry. I’m sorry that this is where we are.

I hope that if the Voice goes through, it is a legitimate step to better. That our government doesn’t tick the box and consider the work done. 80% of First Nations people want to move forward with the Voice. By simple maths, that means 20% don’t. And you know what? That’s valid.

I spend entirely too many minutes in my life painstakingly explaining that disabled people are not a monolith or a hive mind. No group of human beings are. And that’s OK. I want to acknowledge the validity of the progressive no and the Blak Sovereign Movement and throw my support behind the fact that this conversation should not end with the Voice. It should continue to treaty and sovereignty. This should only be the first Yes.

With that in mind, I like to think of advocacy and politics as a bus ride from one place to another. It’s a metaphor that always helps me make decisions. You hop on the bus to move away from where you are. If the bus doesn’t get you precisely where you want to go, you ride it as far as is useful and then you change buses. There’s no rule that says you have to stay on. The only point is to actually go somewhere. Move forward.

Given we are all being asked to get on the bus, when the other option is to stay where we are in a place I think we can all agree is not working, and where some pretty vile people who want to dismantle rights everywhere have decided they want to call home, I think we should get on the bus.

Once the bus has moved us away, then we can look at other modes of transport, and trip details. But if we stay where we are, then we’re stuck. We get lost. The bad guys win. And even the people who wanted us to travel some other way lose. Because we go nowhere. Today I have a bus to catch. I’ll save you a seat?

[kyrlarchive]

Update:

Full article under the read-more, but the highlights:

The ABC went through the archives to find the video of her taking the oath to determine that she did indeed say hairs

The Coalition (opposition, right-wing) is now trying to get her kicked out of the Senate on the basis of not taking the parliamentary oath properly

please simon birmingham i'm begging you start a constitutional crisis over this it would be so funny and backfire on you so much

Senator Lidia Thorpe says she pledged allegiance to the queen's 'hairs', not heirs, in defence of royal protest

Independent senator Lidia Thorpe has offered an extraordinary defence of whether she breached her parliamentary oath, claiming she pledged allegiance to Queen Elizabeth II's "hairs" rather than her "heirs" when she was sworn into parliament.

The revelation comes after Senator Thorpe interrupted a royal reception in Parliament House on Monday, shouting "you are not our king" and "this is not your land" to King Charles III.

On Wednesday, the Indigenous senator was asked by the ABC's Afternoon Briefing if she had renounced her sworn parliamentary affirmation to bear true allegiance to the monarch in her heckling of the king.

"I swore allegiance to the queen's hairs," she replied.

"If you listen close enough, it wasn't her 'heirs', it was her 'hairs' that I was giving my allegiance to, and now that, y'know, they are no longer here, I don't know where that stands.

"I'm not giving up my job, I'm not resigning."

Senator Thorpe was sworn in as a Greens senator for Victoria in 2022, during which she described the queen as a "coloniser" before being told to recite the oath as printed on the card.

The oath reads: 

"I … do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, her heirs and successors according to law. So help me God."

A re-examination of the swearing-in appears to show that Senator Thorpe did pronounce "heirs" as "hairs", though it is recorded as "heirs" in the Hansard. 

Constitutional law expert Anne Twomey said Senator Thorpe had also signed a written oath before witnesses, which would have spelled the word "heirs" correctly.

"It would be a matter for the presiding officer in the Senate to make an assessment as to whether or not she has validly bound herself by making an oath, both to the queen and the queens heir, in this case, King Charles," she said.

"As far as I know, this issue has never arisen before so I don't think there are any precedents about it."

Opposition leader in the Senate Simon Birmingham said the "deeply serious" claims had created questions over Senator Thorpe's eligibility to sit in the chamber.

"The Coalition will explore options and consider legal opinions as to the implications of Senator Thorpe's admission," he said.

"Being a Member of Parliament is a privilege and extends certain privileges to senators. Taking the oath or affirmation is one of the few requirements placed upon a senator other than their election."

Thorpe doubles down on protest 

In the wide-ranging interview, Senator Thorpe referred to King Charles as "Charlie" and repeated that she did not believe he was the sovereign of Australia.

"We are the sickest and poorest people in our own country, and he has the audacity to sit up there like he's a king or something — he's not the king of this country," she said.

Senator Thorpe quit the Greens Party last year to advance the "Blak sovereign movement", saying she wanted to "speak freely" on all issues without being constrained by party positions.

Her message to Charles has been widely condemned by her political colleagues, with Opposition Leader Peter Dutton calling for her to resign on principle.

But it has divided First Nations Australians, with some describing her as a "modern-day warrior" while others said her actions were "deeply disappointing".

The Gunnai, Gunditjmara and Djab Wurrung senator told the ABC she had been overwhelmed with supportive messages since her actions on Monday.

"For those who don't agree with what I have said and what I have done, I can tell you now there are elders, there are grassroots Aboriginal people across this country and Torres Strait Islander people who are just so proud," she said.

"They say it's lit a fire back in their belly and they want to join the resistance."

She also added that she had gained international exposure and allies since her protest.

Article by ABC political reporter Stephanie Dalzell, 23rd October 2024

For those not tapped into Australian politics, King Charles is in Australia to conduct his "historic first tour to the commonwealth realm" i.e visting countries that King Charles is supposedly a monarch to.

Indigenous senator Lidia Thorpe had requested an audience with King Charles for weeks prior to this visit, she wrote countless letters to speak to him. Unlike other commonwealth nations and other former Brisitish colonies, a treaty with Indigenous peoples in Australia was never formed. Their land was never ceded to the British Crown. After being denied and ignored, Lidia Thorpe, draped in a traditional possum skin cloak, stormed in the Great Hall during the reception for Charles at Parliament House in the capital shout the following:

I literally can't even look at these photos without getting goosebumps.

[nadiasindi]

IN FULL: Blak Sovereign Movement says it opposes the 'worthless' Voice |...

https://youtu.be/kFcXo_8bcMQ

[newsbites]

News from Australia, 20/21 July.

Senator Lidia Thorpe's Blak Sovereign Movement (BSM) has released her own pamphlet criticizing both the Yes and No campaigns in the upcoming referendum on the Voice to Parliament in Australia.

Do not be bullied by the Yes campaign and do not be intimidated by the racists. Do not let yourself be emotionally blackmailed. There are many good reasons to say No.

The BSM urges Australians to vote against the referendum, claiming that the Voice is "cheap window dressing" and a distraction from the real issues of truth-telling and recognition of Indigenous sovereignty.

The BSM argues that the Voice is powerless and would acquit the government of its continued crimes against Indigenous people.

They also criticize the government for ignoring other areas of reform and allowing worsening rates of suicide, incarceration, and out-of-home care for Indigenous children.

The BSM rejects the fear mongering from the No camp and claims that the proposed constitutional change is worded to ensure parliamentary supremacy and maintain the powerlessness of the Voice.

The BSM also criticizes the process that led to the Uluru Statement From the Heart, claiming it was top-down and did not represent the diverse views of First Nations communities.

2. The inaugural Ron Hurley Memorial Lecture, hosted by the Queensland College of Art, took place last night to honor the legacy of Ron Hurley, the first Aboriginal graduate of the Queensland College of Art and a respected figure in Indigenous communities.

The lecture featured a talk by prominent artist Gordon Hookey, who discussed both Ron Hurley's legacy and his own career, followed by a panel discussion led by Ron's daughter, Angelina Hurley, with emerging artists reflecting on the influence of those who came before them.

3. - Labor members have called on the Albanese government to withdraw from the AUKUS partnership, ahead of high-level talks between Australian and US ministers.

And, in a joint statement on Wednesday, Defence Minister Richard Marles and Foreign Minister Penny Wong confirmed they will meet with Secretary of State Antony Blinken.