Lidia Thorpe claims NT Chief Minister ‘complicit' in genocide amid ire over deaths in custody
Independent senator Lidia Thorpe has accused the Northern Territory's chief minister of being 'complicit in the ongoing genocide' of Indigenous Australians.
The claim came after two men recently died in police custody in the Top End, sparking ire across the country.
Senator Thorpe said on Tuesday 'there's no trust in the Northern Territory Police Force'.
'We know that they have systemic racism,' she told the ABC.
'We know through the Kumanjayi Walker inquest that the Northern Territory Police are racist, so families do not trust the Northern Territory Police and we need federal leadership.
'We need the feds to step in here.'
There have been calls, including from Indigenous Affairs Minister Malindiri McCarthy, for an external review of deaths in NT Police custody.
But Chief Minister Lia Finocchiaro has pushed back, instead saying she trusted the Territory's police to review itself.
'I think that shows how out of touch the Northern Territory Chief Minister is and that she is complicit in the ongoing genocide against our people,' Senator Thorpe said.
Pressed on what grounds she was making the claim, Senator Thorpe said Ms Finocchiaro was playing a role in the system that causing 'ongoing harm of our people'.
'The definition of genocide, according to the Geneva Convention, is causing harm to a group of people,' she said.
'The ongoing killings of our people in custody is ongoing harm of our people.
'The incarceration rates of our people, particularly in the Northern Territory, particularly of our children, is an act of genocide.
'The stealing of children and putting them in with white families is an act of genocide.
'So we meet all the definitions of genocide and I've certainly seen that over my time.'
Article II of the Genocide Convention states a party must act with 'intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group'.
NewsWire has contacted Ms Finocchiaro's office for comment.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Age
4 hours ago
- The Age
Anglican Church can't grow if it fails to accept gay reality
The other day a friend showed me photos of her friends' same-sex wedding. Such joyful scenes as family and friends celebrated with the happy couple. It wasn't a church wedding, and certainly not an Anglican wedding – not even a wedding blessing. While the Anglican Church's highest court has said it is not against the church's constitution to bless same-sex weddings, only a handful of Australian dioceses have permitted that. And now Melbourne Diocese – once the progressive capital of the Australian church – has elected an archbishop firmly opposed to same-sex weddings. There will be no wedding blessings here. He is quoted in last Sunday's Age as saying that church must welcome people in same-sex relationships. But that rings hollow. How can you welcome people while damning their relationships as sinful? The newly elected archbishop, Ric Thorpe, a bishop from London, is first and foremost a church planter. That is why his Melbourne supporters have chosen him. The church is in decline in Melbourne, with numbers of worshippers dropping and many small parishes struggling for survival. His supporters want to see significant growth in the church, and think that means planting lots of new congregations. But will those brave new plants be attractive to Australians in the 21st century, when presumably they will be preaching against same-sex marriage, given the core group of Melbourne Anglicans who campaigned for his election hold the same view? When more than 60 per cent of Australians voted in favour of same-sex marriage in the 2017 plebiscite? Bishop Thorpe claims the Scriptures are clear that marriage is between a man and a woman, and that cannot be set aside. Many significant scripture scholars read the Bible differently. They say the very few Bible verses that are claimed to prohibit same-sex relationships actually prohibit only promiscuous, predatory relationships. But conservatives have latched on to same-sex prohibition as their line in the sand. Some would argue they took up the cause when they lost the debate in the 1990s about ordaining women. It has given them a stick to knock progressive Anglicans into the ground. The election of Bishop Thorpe shows they are winning. The debate has echoes of the nasty debate that raged in the Anglican Church over divorce last century. Divorced people could not remarry in church, and often were made distinctly unwelcome in congregations. It was Melbourne Diocese in the 1970s that overturned that, and pushed the national church to change. And in 1972, Melbourne Diocese called for homosexuality to be decriminalised, eight years before the state government agreed. How sad that Melbourne has now joined the conservatives. Bishop Thorpe is quoted as saying that the same-sex debate is 'a distraction' from the message of the church. No, it is harming the church's message. The church's message is that God is love, and loves all people unconditionally – and that includes gay people, their spouses and their families.
Sydney Morning Herald
4 hours ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
Anglican Church can't grow if it fails to accept gay reality
The other day a friend showed me photos of her friends' same-sex wedding. Such joyful scenes as family and friends celebrated with the happy couple. It wasn't a church wedding, and certainly not an Anglican wedding – not even a wedding blessing. While the Anglican Church's highest court has said it is not against the church's constitution to bless same-sex weddings, only a handful of Australian dioceses have permitted that. And now Melbourne Diocese – once the progressive capital of the Australian church – has elected an archbishop firmly opposed to same-sex weddings. There will be no wedding blessings here. He is quoted in last Sunday's Age as saying that church must welcome people in same-sex relationships. But that rings hollow. How can you welcome people while damning their relationships as sinful? The newly elected archbishop, Ric Thorpe, a bishop from London, is first and foremost a church planter. That is why his Melbourne supporters have chosen him. The church is in decline in Melbourne, with numbers of worshippers dropping and many small parishes struggling for survival. His supporters want to see significant growth in the church, and think that means planting lots of new congregations. But will those brave new plants be attractive to Australians in the 21st century, when presumably they will be preaching against same-sex marriage, given the core group of Melbourne Anglicans who campaigned for his election hold the same view? When more than 60 per cent of Australians voted in favour of same-sex marriage in the 2017 plebiscite? Bishop Thorpe claims the Scriptures are clear that marriage is between a man and a woman, and that cannot be set aside. Many significant scripture scholars read the Bible differently. They say the very few Bible verses that are claimed to prohibit same-sex relationships actually prohibit only promiscuous, predatory relationships. But conservatives have latched on to same-sex prohibition as their line in the sand. Some would argue they took up the cause when they lost the debate in the 1990s about ordaining women. It has given them a stick to knock progressive Anglicans into the ground. The election of Bishop Thorpe shows they are winning. The debate has echoes of the nasty debate that raged in the Anglican Church over divorce last century. Divorced people could not remarry in church, and often were made distinctly unwelcome in congregations. It was Melbourne Diocese in the 1970s that overturned that, and pushed the national church to change. And in 1972, Melbourne Diocese called for homosexuality to be decriminalised, eight years before the state government agreed. How sad that Melbourne has now joined the conservatives. Bishop Thorpe is quoted as saying that the same-sex debate is 'a distraction' from the message of the church. No, it is harming the church's message. The church's message is that God is love, and loves all people unconditionally – and that includes gay people, their spouses and their families.
Sydney Morning Herald
13 hours ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
‘Unpolished' Rogan's style wins the popular vote
Jordan Baker's article on Joe Rogan started off strong and nuanced, but ultimately fell short in a few areas (' Joe Rogan is unpolished. So why do men idolise him? ' June 15). At least three times Baker calls Joe Rogan a vaccine sceptic, yet does not include any evidence for this (such as a quote) other than just saying he is mates with RFK Jr. I'm a long-time listener of Joe Rogan and I thought this was a bit unfair. Baker also claims that Rogan declined an interview with Kamala Harris, yet the only evidence relating to this actually points to the opposite. Rogan has said he reached out to Harris, as well as Tim Walz, JD Vance and Donald Trump. I consider myself very left-wing, yet appreciate Rogan's generous and accommodating approach to conservatives and people who don't fit into mainstream politics, media and science. What journalists like Baker fail to consider is that to get three hours of unfiltered commentary from these people, you can't hammer them with questions Laura Tingle-style. I believe if a podcast is good enough for Bono and Bernie Sanders to appear on, then it's good enough for me to listen to. Wesley Thomas, Lilyfield Motley mobs Parnell Palme McGuinness is right, of course, about the loathsomeness of online mobs, and some of the treatment she received after appearing on the ABC's Q+A is truly disgusting (' I loved confronting the lefties on Q+A ', June 15), but these extremists aren't the only online group guilty of 'lazy thinking'. If you've ever been on the sewer that is X, formerly Twitter, and engaged with those challenging the Australian election result, the provision of social welfare, the plight of Ukraine, the championing of diversity in all its forms, the human rights of the LGBTQIA+ community and refugees, or the benefits of sunscreen (yes, I kid you not) and the efficacy of vaccines, you'd know what I mean. Idiots, zealots and trolls who subscribe to 'maxi-hatreds' come in all stripes, from far left to far right. Kerrie Wehbe, Blacktown Palme McGuinness suggests that the ABC's Q+A audiences didn't reflect the spectrum of community opinion as evenly as they were purported to. She seems not to have considered that they may have been representative of public opinion. Perhaps those representatives of social conservatism, to whom she refers as feeling intimidated and outnumbered when they go on such discussion panels, should consider why their contributions often meet such resistance from an audience that may, in fact, represent a fair balance of Australian social opinion. Alynn Pratt, Grenfell Parnell, since you are at the extreme right of opinions, those with views to the left of you aren't the 'left-wing mob', rather they are in the sensible centre. Peter Kamenyitzky, Castle Hill Young at heart The joy and exuberance exhibited in Sam Mooy's photo is simply wonderful (' Want to be bright? Talk to a 90-year-old ', June 15). The regular experience of the youthful meeting of young and old minds raises us all up as a community. Our public schools and our aged care facilities should all be commended for their deep links. It is a very special program and should be widened where possible around the state. Janice Creenaune, Austinmer
