Ray Schriever writes: “Magnificent,” says Guy Rundle (“Lidia Thorpe’s gutsy Mardi Gras protest is the return of actual politics”). The Cambridge dictionary defines it this way: making a splendid appearance or show; of exceptional beauty, size, etc; extraordinarily fine; superb; noble; sublime etc. I just can’t see Thorpe as any of those things.
Gutsy? I think not. There was never any risk involved to her in her actions and she knew it. Audacious? It was probably that. It’s pretty audacious to enter an agreement on conditions then flout them.
I’ve been trying to understand Thorpe’s ideas while keeping an open mind. I sort of get it. However, I don’t like the feeling of being bullied. We are too comfortably smug in our belief that we will do the right thing by our fellows in the Aboriginal community, while not doing much at all. Will Thorpe’s actions change that? I very much doubt it. I compare her with Bob Brown’s approach and demeanour to institute change. I believe he was very successful, took real risks, was audacious and never behaved like a prat. Thorpe is a prat and her actions will result in real damage to all she touches. That’s a great pity.
David Snell writes: I had to read and reread Guy Rundle’s article looking for his point and how he links the corporatisation of Mardi Gras to the politics of an Indigenous voice. Partly because it’s written in that meta-shit language that characterises academic radical politics and is just hard to understand, but also because the connection was so tenuous. Just because an academic argues a university should hold an official position on the referendum when Rundle thinks that undermines free speech, doesn’t make the whole Voice movement “soft totalitarian” or equate it with the corporatism of Mardi Gras.
David Trembath writes: The proposition that a senator with no clear agenda is making a valid political gesture by lying in the street in front of a trans children’s float trundling at less than walking pace in a performative sequin-heavy extravaganza using an incoherent rationale that inter alia the extravaganza was initiated years ago by Brown and Black trans activists and that this action struck at the heart of police brutality is sillier than absurd. It is hardly throwing yourself in front of the king’s horse — but it does have the hallmarks of impulse triggered by the presence of cameras.
Bob Head writes: Spot on. How else would I have discovered that the floats have been corporatised — and at the expense of community involvement. I had no idea and I’m annoyed too at commerce taking over — again. Your point, too, about the irony of it all, is hilarious — except that it’s true!
Vivien Encel writes: Thorpe has been derided as attention-seeking and narcissistic. I fail to see why she should be criticised for seeking attention for her cause. While this country fails to acknowledge the original and ongoing theft of Aboriginal lands and come to terms with Aboriginal people in real terms, such as by means of making treaties, should we expect Aboriginal people to “make nice”?
The police are one of the main instruments by which continued attempts to erase Aboriginal sovereignty are implemented. I don’t know the truth of Thorpe’s statement about Pride being started by Brown and Black trans people in protest against police brutality, but there is no question that we have a history of brutal police suppression, not only of queer people but of defiant Aboriginal people who dare to assert their sovereignty.
Thorpe’s dramatic actions are no less important than the work being done by Aboriginal people who have succeeded in having their voices heard within academia, public service and indeed government.
Doug Fraser writes: No, Thorpe was not “gutsy”. She would have known well that her well-cultivated notoriety serves her as a protective shield. She stood as much chance of being run over by a truckload of trans support kids or even of being roughed up by the police as she did of being thrown into the tower when she referred to the late Queen Elizabeth as a running dog of British imperialism at her swearing-in. You can guarantee that any risks Thorpe takes are carefully calculated ones, and there is little prospect of her ever following in the wake of the suffragettes.
Nor does this kind of stunt represent any return to “actual politics” but more the continuation of a strand of mock radicalism (like the Mock Turtle) that has run through the extra-parliamentary left ever since Rundle and I were young and active: the posturing pantomime revolutionary who views the progressive movement not as an opportunity to bury personal or ideological differences and get together behind a shared cause, but as a source of individual self-aggrandisement.
Kerry Henry writes: As a gay Aboriginal friend commented: “When you don’t have a lot of support to back up your various beliefs, one has to attract attention in other ways.”
Dave Martin writes: If readers think that disrupting one minority’s progressive advance should be spoiled by another’s, where is the collective thinking?
Pam Gurner-Hall writes: Rundle is conflating two completely different causes. I’m not a great fan of the tinsel and bare arses but I am happy there is an event that celebrates difference. Thorpe is no warrior.
Delfina Manor writes: Never have I agreed less with an article than Guy Rundle’s panegyric on Thorpe. That Mardi Gras is now a commercial tourist event attracting corporate sponsorship is for me a plus. Gay people are now a boring part of our society and hopefully unlikely to be murdered in parks, forced to hide their identity, or dismissed from jobs.
If Thorpe chooses to be an activist, all power to her. But if she chooses to be a senator, I expect gravitas which leads to laws. Activists are just that: individuals whose job it is to show up how rotten the system is e.g. Joana Partyka. MPs and senators have the job of translating activism into law. It can be done and it has been done.
Warren Mundine, Jacinta Nampijinpa Price and Thorpe attack the Yes vote. What is their plan for advancing First Nations justice? And how do Price and Thorpe, the former elected by conservatives and the latter by progressives, intend to fulfil their parliamentary obligations? Give me a David Pocock and a Helen Haines any day to this “Look at me!” narcissist, who is squandering her parliamentary powers.
Kerri Laidlaw writes: Why not ask the Indigenous LGBTQIA+ community if Thorpe was gutsy or attention-seeking?
Roger R Collins writes: I fear Thorpe’s patterns of behaviour will alienate many who are marginal supporters of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders’ cause. Extreme language and behaviour have always characterised protests but I suspect that it polarises the population and confirms some of the worst stereotypes of her movement.
Stephen Costello writes: Rundle is convinced, but I’m not. The police were historically part of the problem no doubt, but don’t we need them on the team and against queer oppression?
David Childs writes: Gee, let’s think. Per Thorpe’s previous form we have performative actions with little or no substance. She “takes a stand” on an “issue” that nobody else has an issue with and makes it all about her. In the process she manages to further alienate a large sector of the populace that has reinforced the belief that she, along with those allied with her on actual real issues, are nothing more than attention-seeking, self-interested grandstanders.
Well done, Lidia. Way to go to advance your cause.
Roger Livsey writes: Lying down on a nice smooth dry road, a little wriggle to get comfy.
Sure the police won’t mug her. I can sure think of more appropriate times to make her point.
Roger Lee writes: Couldn’t agree less with Rundle. Thorpe is divisive, self-promoting, and disloyal to her Greens supporters, and it’s very hard to see how her many actions can help advance First Nations causes. A thoroughly inappropriate and unnecessary distraction from the aims of the Voice.
Ean Herniman writes: Absolutely agree with Rundle. It was a bit of fresh air.
Richard Gray writes: Contrary to Comrade Rundle’s assertion that Thorpe’s protest was gutsy and magnificent I would counter that most Australians who saw it thought of it as nothing more than a “Look at me!” moment from a woman who is the biggest publicity seeker since ScoMo. I think this was a moment that most Australians viewed as being a pathetic, grubby little attention-seeking exercise. Kudos to the AFP for not arresting her to give her more publicity.
Claire O’Connor SC writes: Thank you, Guy Rundle, for your article on Senator Lidia Thorpe. Wise. And true. Protests are meant to change minds and hearts. Peaceful yes, but also effective if done right.
Let’s remember those effective protests. Many were imprisoned over the Franklin River protest by refusing to take bail. Many risked their health and safety protesting against old-growth forests being targeted around the nation. Many were arrested and dealt with cruelly in South Africa, the US, New Zealand and Australia. Think segregation. Think Springbok tours. Think the Maori protests. Think our tent embassy.
Protest. It’s not meant to be pretty.
Tim Stephens writes: For me, Thorpe is losing all credibility. Police behaviour in the past certainly deserves condemnation. However, today it’s better; not perfect, but better. Mardi Gras just didn’t seem to be the place for this kind of protest.
Her stance on the Voice is also perplexing. Granted we need a treaty but hey let’s get the Voice and then start the treaty push. And let’s do it with dignity even if the racists of the past (and now) are/have been arseholes.
Maxine Barry writes: I reckon both are true. Gutsy and audacious, yes. Also, playing to the fan base with an attention-seeking flourish. There’s an irony in the vehicle she incorrectly chose, a trans children’s float.
David Tomà writes: Rundle’s article was excellent. I also suspect that the intelligent Thorpe has created an action that will be repeated by many at every Mardi Gras parade until the festival represents the real communities.
Andy Bell writes: We student activists in the 1970s knew that if you took direct action you needed to rapidly explain why. Thorpe’s “protest” lacked any context from either herself or her supporters for 12 hours and more. The video of the event was shot by a “random” rather than a co-protester. And she wasn’t charged. Not an optimal piece of direct action in the era of social media immediacy.
Hal Colebatch writes: I have been reading political writing and reporting all my adult life, but Rundle’s piece on Thorpe’s “protest” would be one of the most inane and pointless ones I have ever read. Her “protest” was purely a stunt for the media. The procession was moving at a walking pace, there were lots of officials, and there was no chance of her being injured. And it was not clear what she was protesting against, or what she wanted instead.
Thorpe is not an otherwise-powerless nobody; she is a part of the government of the Commonwealth, and could have used her position as a senator to generate support for whatever it was she was supporting. Instead, she made no argument for anything, but got plenty of air and print time.
The real losers are those who want good government — and, of course, taxpayers.
If you’re pleased, peed off or piqued, get it off your chest by writing to letters@crikey.com.au. Please include your full name to be considered for publication. We reserve the right to edit for length and clarity.
