Censorship of Members of Parliament (such as Lydia Thorpe and Ralph Babet) recently in parliament sets a dangerous precedent that undermines the very principles of democracy in Australia some would say.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-11-18/lidia-thorpe-and-ralph-babet-censured-by-parliament/104613292

Parliament House in Canberra is the place where diverse views should be expressed, debated, and scrutinised and this includes on contentious issues and matters where MP's have taken a strong stance on something.

Silencing them through censorship, stifles free speech and an ability to express a viewpoint or take action on something.

While there must be limits to prevent hate speech or things such as racism and homophobia, the idea of censuring someone for expressing legitimate opinions or criticisms in Australia risks creating a culture of conformity or some sort of cancel culture. Can politicians truly be representatives of the people after being censored? My view is they cannot.

Censorship only serves to protect the status quo. If MPs and Senators are silenced, the voices of the people they represent are, too.

'While there must be limits to prevent hate speech or things such as racism and homophobia'

Why must there?

The West has found itself in an ideological dilemma.
We in the west like to constantly beat everyone else over the head with virtuous bs.

Don't like multiculturalism or immigration, you MUST be racist.
Don't like women in leadership positions, you MUST be sexist or a misogynist.
Don't celebrate homosexuality, you MUST be homophobic or xenophobe.
Complain about old people, you MUST be ageist.
Don't celebrate people eating themselves to death, you're fatphobic.

We've invented words to denigrate and show our intolerance of anyone.

No matter what the issue is, stepping out of line is akin to going awol, and requires being beaten over the head with some high and mighty virtue signalling crap.

The problem is - all this high and mighty virtuous bs amounts to absolutely nothing, when the West shows itself who it REALLY is.

When the West and our 'democracies' give tacit support to Israel, to pursue a policy of ethnic cleansing and land theft, the West for all its virtuous bs, shows that it actually stands for absolutely nothing at all.

The emperor has no clothes.

They were censored. They were censured.

Those vowels make a big difference.

or...

They wereN'T censored. They were censured.

Those vowels make a big difference.

I would have thought that a society where all people's opinions counted equally and where people had the freedom to discuss their opinions on a wide range of subjects was the basis of healthy democracy. In this respect the Voice and MAD bill are surely far greater threats to democracy than chiding a polly for bad behavior?

Hi Nathen,

The short answer is no, in the case of Thorpe me thinks she was "charged" with insulting the king. Having seen the incident on telly I'm not sure why she would be censured by the Senate, is Charlie that fragile? The other fella Babet, seems is some far right homophobic racist nut job, got a few of them on here, providing he's not calling for physical violence against others, which by default he could be, so could Thorpe for that matter, the Senate doesn't get so petulant about them anyway. I think the Coalition was big on censuring Thorpe, but no so Babet.

p/s Thorpe has been denied going on the next Senate holiday to Fiji. Don't know what was the "penalty" imposed on Babet was, they might have taken away his picture of Trump from his office and replaced it with a painting by Albert Namatjira, who knows.

Good one mhaze. People shitposting really need to take English lessons before they start sounding off.

On Thorpe and her disgusting abuse of the King, anyone else would have been arrested and charged with disorderly conduct.

Is it right to censor Senators in Australia?

Yes - if their words and behaviour incite hatred
and division.

In the case of Lidia Thorpe and Ralph Babet -
parliament decided - to censor. The pair will be given
an opportunity to respond to the censure.

Thorpe was censored for her disrespectful and
disruptive protest in parliament during the
visit of King Charles. She, as a senator having
taken an oath of loyalty to the monarch
(she claims she didn't) her behaviour was considered
inappropriate for a senator.

As for Ralph Babet? his posts aimed at people of
colour, people with disabilities, LGBTQ people - were
considered as "hate speech".

Parliament took a stand in both cases.

Freedom of speech is not absolute. It carries with it
responsibilities. The limits on free speech should be'
few and far between but there are limits on
free speech to protect the rights of others. For example,
tech companies are being held accountable for the
elimination of terrorist and violent extremist content
online. Action will be taken if they fail to do so.
Online safety laws will apply. No one will be above the law.

We have the right to speak but just because we have this
right does not mean we have the right to use that power
to hurt others. People should recognise this right's
limitations.

Words are powerful. What is said can affect people,
change people, hurt people, incite people, create
hatred and division, or encourage people, unite people,
and give hope to people.

Senators who represent people should be made to realize
they need to comply to higher standards of behaviour.
And, they will be judged accordingly. Their positions
must carry responsibilities.

People who can't accept these responsibilities should
not hold the positions of senators. After all they
represent everyone in their electorates, not just a select
few.

mhaze,

You can focus on two vowel differences and slight differences in points or focus on the bigger picture issue which I'm trying to do here. My point is with the censure motion is that the aim is to censor and silence senators in this case and is subsequently limiting their ability to represent voters and people who elected them. It is now clear the Labor and Liberal parties are in bed here to shut down people they don't agree with in parliament and the Senate here. It is a form of silencing and has wide and severe implications for democracy in Australia.

Hi Nathan,

Surely all of our senators should be able to engage
in debates and commentary respectfully and to refrain
from inflammatory and divisive comments both inside
and outside the chamber?

If they can't then it is not appropriate for them to
be in the Senate. This is not about censorship or
silencing the senators. It's about the way in which
they behave and how they act. We should demand more
from them for the high positions they hold and the
high salaries they receive.

Hi Foxy,

A transcript of what Thorpe said to Charles;

“You‘re not our king. You’re not sovereign.
You‘re not our king. You’re not sovereign.

You committed genocide against our people. Give us our land back. Give us what you stole from us - our bones, our sculls, our babies, our people.
You destroyed our land. Give us a treaty.

We want a treaty in this country. You’re a genocidalist. This is not your land. This is not your land.
You’re not my king. You’re not our king.

F'k the colony. F'k the colony. F'k the colony.”

Thorpe represents a certain constituency within society who would hold with that above view. Saying words must not incite hatred and division is reasonable, but presenting what many would believe is a distasteful view is not necessarily inciting hatred and division. I don't see anything in Thorpe's words that does that.

On Ralph Babet he said this on "X";

My n*r nailed this one. One hundred percent [sic].”
“In my house we say ph*t, r*d and n*r. We are sick of you woke ass clowns. Cry more. Write an article. Tweet about me. No one cares what you think.”

I don't know what else he has posted but again he also has a constituency that agrees with his views, they may be distasteful to many but he has a right to say things.

People need to make up their mind if they want a Democracy or free speech which includes blatant lying that favours minority groups !

Dear Paul,

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

cont'd ...

I think our politicians should be accountable for
their behaviour. And I found both Lidia Thorpe
and Ralph Babet used inflammatory and divisive
comments both inside and outside the chamber.

Hi Foxy,

We can disagree on this, there is nothing wrong with that, if we were all to agree on everything then that could in itself be far worse than having diverse opinions. If you read into Indy's opinion;

"People need to make up their mind if they want a Democracy or free speech which includes blatant lying that favours minority groups!"

What that tells me is this bloke simply sees democracy as nothing more than a regimented state of compliant citizens. Something the fascists Mussolini believed was the ideal. Everyone who disagrees with state edicts is telling blatant lies, and therefore are disloyal and attempting to undermine the good of the state, and must be dealt with severely. Guys like Indy are very strong on punishment for disloyalty to what he sees as the rights of the state over the individual.

.

Dear Foxy & Paul,

.

I see freedom as the concomitance of possibility, capability, desire, will, and opportunity. When the green lights are shining on all five of those factors, we can think, express, and act freely. Just one red light is sufficient to prevent freedom.

Nature, nurture, culture, and society all attempt to impose constraints on our freedom. The first three plant internal (moral) constraints and the fourth, external (physical) constraints.

But freedom is no guarantee of the success of our endeavours.

Tom Crooks, who tried to kill Trump in Pennsylvania on 13th July 2024 was free to do so but only succeeded in slightly grazing his right ear with a bullet, despite firing eight rounds at him with a semi-automatic rifle.

Neither the internal (moral) constraints of nature, nurture, and culture nor the external (physical) constraints of society prevented Crooks from exercising his freedom to attempt to kill Trump.

The same principle applied to Lidia Thorpe and Ralph Babet who exercised their freedom of expression.

In each of these cases, society reacted proportionately to the infractions of its rules. But while the spontaneous shooting of Crooks qualified indisputably as legitimate defence, I see no justification for the precipitation of the senate to censor Senator Thorpe in her absence, for reasons beyond her control (airflight delay).

I’m inclined to think she should have been given the opportunity to explain why she acted as she did. Having had time to reflect calmly on the matter, perhaps she may have realised that she should not have acted so aggressively towards the present-day descendants of the British monarch who commanded the colonisation of Australia and was responsible for the confiscation of the land her people had occupied undisturbed for more than 65,000 years

.

Hi BP,

"society reacted proportionately to the infractions of its rules" no I disagree, some politicians reacted against other politicians to the infractions of their rules. Who is the arbitrator of societies rules?

In the case of Lidia Thorpe, maybe she is sick and tired of people like Charles Windsor who represents the status quo of polite society, blowing in with their condescending platitudes towards her people, whilst her people detrimentally suffer from the effects of post colonialism.

Thorpe could have penned a polite correspondence to his gracious majesty the king, and in polite general terms expressed her concerns with certain aspects of modern Australian society, as they pertain to the situation of her people in that society. Equally an underling of the king could have penned an equally polite reply, informing Ms Thorpe of the king's deep concern with such matters, but informing her of the fact his majesty leaves such trifling matters of state to his duly elected colonial government of Australia. (Particularly when his majesty has more pressing business to attend to, like delivering more condescending platitudes to the little black people of say Fiji, or alternatively, opening the local flower show!

Paul1405,
Is that as hard as you can try to be hypocritical ? Rather poor effort really !

If people want censorship shouldn't they be starting by censuring themselves ? There won't be any need for official censorship then !

Dear Banjo and Paul,

I agree that Lidia Thorpe should have been an
opportunity to explain her position. Hopefully,
she would have seen that it may not have been
what she said - but the way she said it. She was
very aggressive and disrespectful.

Thank you both for giving me much more to think about.

Ah, so words are equal to an assassin's bullets? True for the DGR where the Stasi was always vigilant in the hunt for spreaders of misinformation and disinformation, just as Albo aspires to be with his mad bill. At least Senator Thorpe has come out in favour of free speech, but how ironic that the forum discusses the right of pollies to express themselves freely while the Senate ponders a bill that could shut us up here.

Hi Foxy,
"We have the right to speak but just because we have this
right does not mean we have the right to use that power
to hurt others. People should recognise this right's
limitations."

We do have a right to protest, we do have a right to dissent, and we do have the right to vote, which means often we all end up with leadership we don't want.

That said, where does genuine dissent end, and where do hurt [feelings] begin?
There is no specific law that protects one from being offended

Where does my right to say 'screw these people' on merit end because someone else takes offense to it and needs a box of tissues thrown at their feet?

Hi AC,

I think the question needing to be asked is - "what
motives you?" If the answer is - "malice", surely
that's not appropriate - right?

Common sense.

Hi Fester
Words can be a sword or a shield, to attack or to defend.

Last night I had an issue going thru McDonalds.
I wonder now whether I handled the situation very well.

[Idiot] girl passes me a small Fanta, and she hadn't put the lid on properly, 1/4 cup of Fanta ends up in my lap and all over my seat at 9:30pm.
Yes I was a little incensed, even more so when the girl took no responsibility and blamed me for it, then I was a bit mad.

So I jack up and am told, 'If you're going to be rude we won't serve you' - after they had already taken my money.

The manager got a dressing down after that, maybe I was a little harsh and thrown off by the whole thing, I dunno.

If you are getting paid to do a job, and the only thing you have to do is put lids on drinks and pass them to customers and you can't do that right, then you more or less dump a drink in someones lap, refuse to apologise and are then upset that the person got up you, well I don't know what things are coming to.

What should I have done?
How would one be expected to react?

It's getting worse. Online Opinion, or Online Ignorance?

NathanJ

Mhaze’s point is not mere pedantry, the difference between the meanings of censure and censor is huge and important. To censor something is to prevent it being said; to censure it is to express disapproval of what was said and/or how/when it was said. Thorpe’s comments deserved censure, but should most definitely not be censored.

Hi AC,

Pay peanuts you get monkeys. BTW Fanta is no good for you, higher in sugar than Coke, now that's saying something. Were you at a "Drive Through"? Best takeaway around here is a Vietnamese Pho Soup at 15 bucks. How great is Multiculturalism, Pho Soup, Laska Soup with extra hot chilli sauce, plus fresh chilli on top, my wife can't get enough chilli, and she's not even Mexican, isn't Multiculturalism wonderful. The Thai place we like WOW, Multiculturalism just terrific, otherwise it would be a plate of E-coli from Greasy Freddie's Aussie Takeaway.

If you have problems with Macca's again, go straight to the top and talk to the big cheese himself Ronald, if Ronald can't help, then talk to the brains trust employee, Grimace, who according to Maccas is actually "the embodiment of a milkshake" I thought Grimace was the embodiment of a purple turd. Seems I'm wrong.

Hi Paul,
I've actually been cutting back on the takeaways recently.
It was the first time I'd been to McDonalds in a while, maybe a month or so.
It seems like in the last 6 - 12 months the prices of everything have skyrocketed to a point where you just can't justify paying that much.
Better to do more homecooked meals, not that they're getting any cheaper either.
Plus I've got this magpie with it's babies in my backyard, I made the mistake of giving it some mince, and it's been coming back for more ever since for the last 3 weeks.
My 19yo female housemate has been bragging to me about these Youfoodz meals, they actually look and smell pretty good, I'm keen to try them, but even they're $11 a pop.

Found this article before forum members may find interesting.

Not just kids: Everyone to be age verified for social media
Proposed under-16s ban has wider implications for Australians.
http://ia.acs.org.au/article/2024/not-just-kids--everyone-to-be-age-verified-for-social-.html

"During a Senate Committee hearing last week, Greens senator David Shoebridge probed the means of delivery for an age-based social media ban – revealing the technology currently trialled for the initiative would effectively require users of all ages to run through an age assurance check."

- As expected.