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.

Rhian,

<<Mhaze’s point is not mere pedantry, the difference between the meanings of censure and censor is huge and important.>>

I didn't say is was mere pedantry. What I am saying is that there are reasons behind certain things being done and that is what is important here and it's a bigger picture issue we simply cannot avoid or turn away from.

The senators here were not censured for nothing. There was a reason for doing so more than just a token act in parliament or it wouldn't have happened. It was to censor them in terms of future activity. Very much to tell the senators in question to keep their mouths shut, be wary in terms of future things they say, keep an eye on their words and actions etc.

It is a form of silencing. No one here knew what the senators were going to say or do beforehand, so this is the best way to do what those who supported the censure motion wanted - and they will do it all again if it goes unquestioned and left unchallenged.

We face politicians doing things in our lives and to ourselves and to other elected representatives by backdoor ways which are not helped by simplistic assessments over censure or censor regarding this particular case which aren't reflective of my views either in terms of moves to silence our elected representatives and senators in Australia.

.

Dear Paul,

.

I largely sympathise with your post.

Regarding your objection followed by a question :

« "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? »

I see that the censure was voted by the senate and passed by 46 votes to 12, describing Thorpe's actions as "disrespectful and disruptive" and said they should disqualify her from representing the chamber as a member of any delegation.

According to a BBC article, “A censure motion is politically symbolic but carries no constitutional or legal weight”.

Here is the article :

http://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cz0memjm3jro

.

Hi BP,

What is disrespect? It implies subservience to some higher authority eg 'The child was disrespectful to its mother." if you don't recognise that authority to begin with, how can you disrespect it. Then there is "disruptive", disruptive in what way? Upsetting the social order. This whole episode reeks of class authority and class distinction, which I don't hold with. providing Thorpe was not violent, although she could well argue that Charles represents a regime that was extremely violent towards her people, then there is nothing to worry about.

In fact if I met Lidia Thorpe I would congratulate her for the courage she shows in attempting to highlight very important issues, that are not being properly addressed by "polite" society.

BTW; Should not the Senate now censure the dissident 12 as they to have shown themselves to be "disrespectful and disruptive" by not supporting the motion! 58 voted where were the rest of the gang, dereliction of duty possibly, more censure required. This could lead to a very unsatisfactory state of affairs. Next thing you know uppity blacks will be wanting something totally undeserved from "polite" society.

Hi AC,

Maybe the kid serving you had a history of omissions? I think I'd sooner cook something, although I have had drive through food on long trips.

Hi Fester,
Some of you may think me unfair and unreasonable for referring to young female McDonalds employee as 'idiot', when it likely was a genuine mistake.

The reason I called her that was because this same girl has a history of messing things up, although I haven't been to Macca's much recently I do remember 2 other incidents earlier in the year where the same girl has been incompetent at her job and had an attitude.

The last thing I want to do is hassle kids that are out there having a go contributing and doing so on poor wages.
But you still have to try to take your job professionally, and accept it when you make a mistake.

I was only a little bit incensed when the Fanta was spilled on my lap and all over my seat, I got mad when she insinuated that it was my fault.

We've all been out driving and someone cuts you off.
There's 2 types of people, the ones who acknowledge their error and the ones who want to abuse you for calling their dangerous driving out.
Metaphorically speaking, this girl was in the second category.

Hi AC,

"this same girl has a history of messing things up" Why isn't she running the country?

"earlier in the year" now we're in the month of November, obviously this girl is a long term employee, when she turns 16 she will be moved into a senior managerial position next to grimace!

Of course its your fault! Why are you going into Maccas with a LAP! Next time leave your lap at home. Given the amount of sugar in Fanta, I'm surprised you weren't attacked by a swarm of bees.

Hi Paul,

>>"this same girl has a history of messing things up" Why isn't she running the country?<<
- She'd be in good company.
Probably no worse than the current crop of pollies.

I did actually plan to go down to Woolies earlier fyi, and grab a few things, but it was already after 9pm so it was too late.

"Given the amount of sugar in Fanta, I'm surprised you weren't attacked by a swarm of bees."
- What do you mean exactly?
There's ONLY 38 grams of sugar in the small size!

Maybe I did myself a favour spilling it, especially given I'm off to the dentist this arvo.

Well AC,

With only 38g, about 8 teaspoons of sugar, in a small Fanta, you can afford to 'Super Size' and have the 1 gallon Mega Fanta.

Killer bees like sugar, seeing there was so much of it about, maybe the killer bees could have got a bit of the sweetness from you, that would have made your day, attacked by a swarm of killer bees as well. BTW why were you going into Maccas late at night dress only in a lap-lap? BBTW did you have a side order of fries, What else did you order? Did you have a couple of Big Mucks. What about their Apple Pies, just like the ones my Grandma used to make, Granny was a sh!t-house cook as well.

NathanJ

I very much doubt that either senator will moderate their behaviour as a result of the censure motions – in fact, given the nature of their ideologies and supporters, they probably welcome the explicit disapproval of more conventional and decent politicians. Transgressive contrarianism is part of both of their political brands, albeit from different parts of the ideological spectrum.

However, in both cases their behaviour deserved to be condemned. The censure motions were appropriate. Censorship – trying to prevent them from expressing their opinions – would be an entirely different thing that I would fiercely oppose.

I think one of the problems in our political discourse is that we have lost sight of the difference between things we ought not to do – in this case, the despicable behaviour of both senators – and things we ought to be prevented from doing, which is what censorship would entail. So let’s censure, not censor, offensive behaviour.

My only concern abut the motions is that, apparently for reasons beyond their control, neither senator was present to defend themselves. Natural justice would suggest they should have been there to present their sides of the argument.

Hi AC,

I think it awful that you copped a lap full of Fanta and were treated rudely. I hope the kid learns a few manners and skills. On the positive side I am amazed at how places like KFC and Maccas can be run by a bunch of kids.

.

Dear Paaul,

.

You wrote :

« What is disrespect? It implies subservience to some higher authority eg 'The child was disrespectful to its mother." if you don't recognise that authority to begin with, how can you disrespect it. Then there is "disruptive", disruptive in what way? Upsetting the social order. This whole episode reeks of class authority and class distinction, which I don't hold with. providing Thorpe was not violent, although she could well argue that Charles represents a regime that was extremely violent towards her people, then there is nothing to worry about.

… if I met Lidia Thorpe I would congratulate her for the courage she shows in attempting to highlight very important issues, that are not being properly addressed by "polite" society »
.

Once again, Paul, I sympathise with your indignation, and I understand Lidia Thorpe’s revolt.

She is, and, apparently, always has been a particularly virulent activist. Her father says she is a “very racist person” even though she has English and Irish ancestry as well as Aboriginal.

She describes herself as “a straight shooter, straight talker”.

“So, you know, we all have our own lives and our own complications, but I’m a loving person, and I’m genuinely wanting to bring this country together”.

"What do you want me to be like? Do you want me to be like Pauline Hanson, do you want me to be like Jacinta Price? You know, what’s a good model politician that you want me to be like?" she said in the interview posted on Anzac Day."

“They want me to resign, and this is what they do to people to shut them down. I'm not going to be shut down. I'm there for five years and I came into that place because I want to get justice, real justice for Blak fellas in the country.”

She has been condemned by her peers for disrespectful and disruptive behaviour. That is the least they could do. In my opinion, it is also all they could do.

.

(Continued …)

.

.

(Continued …)

.

Allow me, simply to disagree with your definition of disrespect and your qualification of the incident as an episode of “class authority and class distinction”.

It seems to me that disrespect does not necessarily imply subservience to some higher authority as you suggest. I consider that a mother may be just as disrespectful to the child as the child may be disrespectful to the mother. I don’t see disrespect as a question of authority but of discourtesy and lack of consideration for others, of their rights and quietude.

Nor would I qualify the episode as “class authority and class distinction”. I see it as a volent protest of the foreign invasion and confiscation of her Abriginal peoples' sovereign territory committed by the British.

.

At first I thought that the Thorpe / King spectacle was not at all a good look.
As time passes however, the less I care.

By default, I have to stand up for Australians not foreigners, so if Lidia wants to take some foreigner to task in defence of Australian interests, then it really doesn't have anything to do with me.

The royals have become so pathetic that anything to do with them reeks of a paid-for publicity campaign to keep them relevant, it's sad.

And I think what she did would've earned her a lot of clout.
Every indigenous in the country will be saying:
'We're grateful for what you've done for us standing up to the king like that sis'
She probably earns more respect amongst her own for her 'stuff the system' attitude, rather than being someone who passively tries to work within it.

Hi BP,

I agree with several of your remarks, I don't deny Lidia Thorpe is racists, racism isn't based on colour, its based on prejudice, and Thorpe is certainly prejudice in favour of her people. I also agree with;

“So, you know, we all have our own lives and our own complications, but I’m a loving person, and I’m genuinely wanting to bring this country together”.

That's the ideal, but any cause of significance needs those on the fringe to be jumping up and down and demanding action to receive justice. I believe the "No" vote at the referendum did more to harm the advancement of justice for Aboriginal people than any number of bigoted white racists could ever do. Saying that, I don't believe the majority of "No" voters would see themselves as racist, just the opposite.

"Disrespect" I watched that whole episode on telly and for me it reeked of what I'll call "classism". No matter how one paints it, no matter the amount of feel good platitudes extended, King Charles personifies class distinction within society, and class distinction is a root cause of racisms.

cont

cont

"What do you want me to be like?" In the ideal world, sometimes I want you to be like Pauline Hanson, sometimes I want you to be like Lidia Thorpe and sometimes be like Jacinta Price, be pragmatic, but without losing sight of the final objective. To give an analogy; i want to cook a spud for dinner. I put it in a pot of cold water on top of the stove, the element is off, that's no good, I turn the element up to high, that gets the spud boiling as I want, but it cooking too fast and boiling over, so I turn it down to medium, that works well and the spud cooks nicely, so I turn it down to low, keep it warm just as I want it, now I turn the element back to where it started "off" and enjoy my spud. The question is what was the right setting for the element, high, medium, low or off. The answer is none and all, they combined together to give the desired outcome.

" i want to cook a spud for dinner."

At your age you ought to be cutting back on the carbs.

Just as Australia should be cutting back on electing loud-mouthed morons only interested in self-promotion.

Of coarse the antidote to these people isn't censoring (which she wasn't) or even censuring which is just parliament's way of saying 'don't blame us, it was her fault'.

The correct response is bad speech is good speech. If only our pollies were capable of that they might have gone down that road rather than the cowardly censuring path.

Good speech? Well how about telling the silly shiela that rather than denouncing Chuck and his ancestors, she should be thanking them for taking them under their wing and treating them far better than another other colonising power would have done. Perhaps she should also thank them for giving her the English language that she used to make herself look the fool.

Thank goodness the Greens aren't supporting the MAD bill. My guess is that they realize that they represent the people rather than tell them what to think. A triumph of democracy over cult leader Albo's serfdom.

mhaze,

No comment on the censure of Ralph Babet, then again Babet is your kinda guy, is he not? I said;

"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 not so Babet.

Oh Paul, so you're telling us the silly shiela and Babet are equally bad.

I agree.

But neither should be censored or even censured. It should merely be explained why they're wrong, or in their cases, deranged.

Unfortunately these days there are few who can do that, hence the left's rush to censorship.

Sorry I forgot to address you properly last post,

Trumpster,

Do you have telepathic medical qualifications? "deranged" why do you say they are "deranged", they might consider you "deranged"

In your book if someone says, "Your're not my sovereign" then they must be "deranged"? Hummmmm. we have a bad case of "King Worship" from the Trumpster.

More loyal to the King, to Israel and the U.S. than to Australians.

I think the Lidia Thorpe / King thing, was merely an inevitable point in our history.
Sooner or later someone with indigenous blood would rise to the level of Australian Senator, stand up for the indigenous, and tell the King to go and get stuffed.

We should all just accept it and move past it.

What are Australian values?
What are Australian interests?

One horse of this 2-horse race thinks its unquestionable loyalty to a genocidal nation lead by religious extremists.

Somehow Australia to them equals 'Christian values'
and Christian values equal Judeo-Christian values, which is bs
And even on that basis they are a minority.
Christians only represent 44% of the country, they are in an unwinnable position on this basis.

I've seen articles in the Australian which expect us to immediately pledge to disregard the ICC's arrest warrant should Netanyahu or Gallant ever come to Australia.

How is unconditional loyalty to Israel in Australias interests?
It's not logical.

Unconditional support of the U.S. to ones own detriment is also not logical.
- Plenty of nations stand as examples right now in the world.

Its not deranged to say "Your're not my sovereign". It is deranged to gate-crash a formal event wearing some dead animals and shout your opinions as though anyone else there cared a jot what you think. A serious case of narcissism with this shiela.

" Hummmmm. we have a bad case of "King Worship" from the Trumpster."

Now you might have to read this a few dozen times to understand it, but there is a middle ground here. Yes, really, in most things there is a middle ground not that you've ever noticed it. So just because I don't think its in the slightest appropriate to rave about you views in a singularly inappropriate place doesn't mean I don't agree with those views or at least a subset of them.

I've said it many times before (but more than 24 hours ago, so clearly beyond your memory), given the right referendum question I'd vote to remove the monarchy from our constitution. But I'd never vote to accept that some bozo who got elected on a sliver of votes has the right to speak out in a deranged fashion at an otherwise unimportant event just so as to satisfy her narcissistic traits.

Rhian,

<<in both cases their behaviour deserved to be condemned.>>

Well really that's for the voters to decide at the ballot box. Any move in parliament will be politically driven. We know from history. It is important the public keep an eye on what members of parliament are doing, as I strongly doubt Labor or Liberal members of parliament would face any type of censure or censoring simply because the numbers from other politicians and political parties are not there. It would have to be something really serious, or generally it is ignored or brushed under the carpet.

Another question coming into play is with morals and a censure motion or censoring as it becomes a debate on what is acceptable and what is not. Once again, it really should be something for the public to decide when they vote at a future election.

If people had a better understanding of some of the appalling things being done by existing politicians, including in the Senate in terms of legislation for example and other matters, many would vote differently, but all we have here are two politicians being singled out, yet the actions of Labor/Liberal and other politicians are regularly ignored, particularly when there is broad support for a particular piece of legislation and change and people voting on party lines under "acceptable standards" or what is considered that by some in parliament.

I want politicians in Australia to have freedom to move, act and vote but be held responsible by the voters, before, during and after election campaigns. It's a balance issue, but at the end of the day a few politicians can't remove elected representatives who may act in a way some of them find off putting, the voters though can and should.

NathanJ

I also want politicians in Australia to have freedom to move, act and vote but be held responsible by the voters. Only voters have the power to decide whether the senators’ behaviour means they don’t deserve to keep their jobs. Rightly so.

But every legislature in every country I can think of has standards of behaviour it expects its members to abide by. In Westminster parliamentary systems such as ours, the penalty for failing to comply is weak and inconsequential; precisely because, as you say, members are ultimately accountable to the electorate, not the legislature, government or party. The senate only has the right to condemn behaviour that breaks the rules. That’s all a censure motion does. I think it entirely appropriate that the Senate should set standards of conduct, and that it should express disapproval of members who don’t abide by the rules. That has no effect on the senators’ freedom to move, act and vote.

I think the Lidia Thorpe / King thing, was merely an inevitable point in our history.
Armchair critic,
And, totally predictable. The kind of mindless hypocrisy as practised by Thorpe et al is in a way a good thing as it is a social & cultural self-harm as the inevitable result. Thorpe et al think they can defeat stupidity by becoming even more stupid or rather that's how they're indoctrinated by the utterly stupid.
Imagine going through life as a parasite with no self-pride & utterly dependent on those whom you accuse of literally everything that is wrong yet actually being of that heritage ?

Calls for TikTok suspension after shock election result in Romania
http://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/calls-for-tiktok-suspension-after-shock-election-result-in-romania-20241128-p5ku5j.html

Hang on... did the truth about social media censorship just rear it's ugly head in the above headline?