"You are not our king. You are not sovereign.
You are not our king. You are not sovereign.
You committed genocide against our people. Give us our land back. Give us what you stole from us - our bones, our skulls, our babies, our people. You destroyed our land. Give us a treaty. We want a treaty in this country. You are a genocidalist. This is not your land. This is not your land. You are not my king. You are not our king.
Fuck the colony. Fuck the colony. Fuck the colony."
- Senator Lidia Thorpe, to King Charles III
This outburst from Senator Lidia Thorpe to King Charles III, has made more of a pointed and directed statement than many many years of platitudes which meant well and did nothing, and undirected cries which have also done nothing. The immediate lie perpetrated by Sky News, Nine Ent Co., Seven West Media and the ABC, was that Senator Thorpe interrupted proceedings. We know that this is untrue because not only was the video there for all to see but the media demands that we reject the evidence of our own eyes and ears. The truth which is there for all to see, is that she waited until the official proceedings had concluded and waited for a quiet hush to descend upon the crown in the room.
Yes, Senator Thorpe's comments were rude. However, as someone speaking on behalf of first peoples in Australia, rudeness is but a trifle in comparison to the directed genocide which happened in this country (starting at the charge rate of ninepence per head), the dispossession of land, and the trampling of original sovereignty which happened. If you have a problem with the word "fuck" but 9no problem with the systemic killing of people, then you are demonstrated ghoul whose moral compass was flushed down the toilet some time ago.
There are some interesting things of note about Senator Thorpe's outburst. The first thing is that she has a legal right to do this:
https://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/act/consol_act/bor16881wams2c2306/s5.html
Right to petition
That it is the right of the subjects to petition the King and all commitments and prosecutions for such petitioning are illegal.
When people tell you that we do not have a Bill of Rights in Australia, they are either ignorant or lying. We have at least the Bill of Rights 1688, the Scottish Claim of Right 1688, and various schedules in several pieces of legislation which includes the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Convention on the Rights of the Child; which are not just conventions which have been ratified but they have been accepted and passed as pieces of legislation at law. Under Section 5 of the Bill of Rights Act 1688, Senator Thorpe has the express right to petition the King. Although she may have used language from a vulgar tongue, the politeness or impoliteness of language pales into insignificance in comparison with the claims of genocide, dispossession and the trampling of original sovereignty which she is holding out.
However, the outburst contains a problem at law, which although directed at the right person, is materially untrue. That is the use of the word "you". Who is "you"? It should be apparent to all that Charles personally did not genocide anyone. He has not personally stolen anything. He has not personally destroyed the land. I do not know to what degree Senator Thorpe is personally blaming Charles for the actions of the people who came before him.
This is where the lovely legal concept of The Crown comes in. The Crown is that legal person, which both contains and owns the state. The idea of a separate legal person is what underpins the entire of corporate law and the Crown is Corporation Sole. The Crown has one share. The Crown owns itself. The Crown can not sell its share. Charles is not the Crown but the King; which means that he is in fact the current occupier of the office which acts as agent for the Crown. There are loads of rules surrounding that office but it should be noted that Charles as King is actually separate from the Crown as legal entity. Perhaps the most stark demonstration of this in action, was when Parliament also acting as agents for the Crown appointed the High Court at Westminster Hall to indict Charles I for tyranny. When Charles I's head was separated from his body on Jan 30th 1649, although he ceased to be the agent for the Crown, the person of the Crown did not die with him.
The fact that a corporate person does not die when its shareholders do, should be immediately obvious to anyone who has ever owned shares in a listed company. BHP and the Commonwealth Bank do not die when their CEO dies. It should also be immediately obvious to anyone who has ever owned shares in a listed company that not only does the company outlive the shareholders but that a corporate person has all kinds of legal abilities including to sue and be sued, to own real and unreal property, to appoint agents, and to enter into contracts.
This is where I do not know to what degree Senator Thorpe is personally blaming Charles for the actions of the people who came before him. If Senator Thorpe is directing her comments to Charles III as King acting as agent for the Crown, then "you" is correctly attributed but if not, then not. If incorrectly attributed, then Senator Thorpe has made the same mistake as the United States Declaration of Independence, which apart from stating many things which are materially untrue, attributes those things to the person of King George III with many "He has" statements.
This same mistake was repeatedly made and owned, either through ignorance or racism (or both) during the referendum on The Voice To Parliament when a repeated refrain by opponents was that they shouldn't be held responsible for what happened in the past. The Persons who should be held responsible are the persons of the Crowns of the several states and the persons of the Crowns of the Commonwealth. Just like we can and should hold other corporate persons responsible for the things that they have done and even sue them for damages, not only can we and should we hold the Crowns responsible for the things that they have done, but that may very well mean equitable restitution for damages. James Hardie was taken to the Dust Diseases Tribunal many times; especially over its actions in Wittenoom.
As for Senator Thorpe's demand for a treaty, although there are opponents to this who claim that the Crown of the Commonwealth can not enter into treaties with its own people, the treaty making power never specifies this.
The executive power of the Commonwealth is vested in the Queen and is exercisable by the Governor-General as the Queen's representative, and extends to the execution and maintenance of this Constitution, and of the laws of the Commonwealth.
- Section 61, Australian Constitution Act 1900
As part of the executive functions of the Governor-General per Section 61, the Crown of the Commonwealth can enter into treaties with literally anyone it jolly well wants to. Section 61 provides no direction nor disability as to whom or what the Crown can enter into treaties with.
The Crown of the Commonwealth can enter into treaties with its own people, and the various State Constitutions are such that they practically have plenary powers; which means that they can also enter into treaties with their own people. Anyone who tells you otherwise is a straight up liar.
I also find in interesting but not unexpected, that Senator Pauline Hanson as self-appointed spokesperson for the 1930s, not only claimed that Senator Thorpe should be removed from Parliament for taking either invalid oath and was therefore ineligible to sit in Parliament, but also claimed that First Peoples should count as a foreign power.
As for the first of those claims, that is for the High Court to decide (which I suspect will be thrown out as a vexatious case); but it does kind of invite speculation about whether or not any and all people who want Australia to become a republic are also ineligible to sit in Parliament.
The second of those claims if we take it at face value, actually concedes the point that if First Peoples should count as a foreign power, then a Treaty absolutely does need to be discussed and concluded. Senator Hanson by default admits that she represents a foreign hostile power; thus confirming every single one of Senator Thorpe's outbursts as a valid complaint.
I personally think that we should retain the monarchy in Australia. Yes I will confess some liking for the very big community which is the Commonwealth but by itself, that's no reason to do anything. No, the reason why I think that we should retain the monarchy in Australia, is that the alternative which will we be given is one in which the Grand Poobah will be elected.
Whatever the replacement for the Governor-General is, the people of Australia will want to elect them. Whenever you elect someone, that automatically implies a mandate for that person to act. The problem is that I do not really want that person to act. As it stands, the only time that anyone can remember the Governor-General acting was in the sacking of the Prime Minister, Gough Whitlam. The part that of that story which is frequently neglected is that Governor-General stayed on Rupert Murdoch's estate on the weekend of October 4th and 5th 1975. This happens to fall right in the middle of the duration of Kerr's letters to the Palace which begin on August 14th.
I have no doubt that as Kerr was by that stage, a drunkard, and a very weak minded individual, as evidenced by his blithering in the letters to the Palace, that his mind had been made up for him by either Rupert Murdoch or Malcolm Fraser.
The very obvious danger about electing that same position, is that instead of having someone unsure about their constitutional powers and being loath to used them, we will now have someone with powers defined and a mandate to use them. I can guarantee that those powers can and will be weaponised to sack future governments which have been duly elected by the people. I hate that.
No comments:
Post a Comment