Senator Lidia Thorpe has a well-documented history of using inflammatory language.
Senator Lidia Thorpe has attempted to present herself as merely expressing a personal opinion, feigning innocence in the face of public scrutiny. However, this is not an isolated incident, nor is it a simple matter of misinterpretation. The reality is that Senator Thorpe has a well-documented history of using inflammatory language, provocative rhetoric, and at times, even violent imagery to advance her political messages. These are not casual remarks made in the heat of the moment — they are part of a broader pattern of deliberate and confrontational behaviour that seems designed to provoke, to intimidate, and to stir up division.
It’s important to acknowledge that public figures, especially elected officials, carry a unique responsibility when they speak.
Their words don’t just reflect personal opinions; they can influence public discourse, sway opinions, and even incite action. In this particular instance, Senator Lidis Thorpe’s choice of language and her delivery cannot be dismissed as mere political theatre. She knew precisely who her audience was, and she was fully aware of the potential consequences of her statements. Her words were not issued into a vacuum — they were targeted, intentional, and, in the view of many legal experts, meet the threshold of what the law defines as incitement.
Now, as someone who believes firmly in the principles of free expression — even expression that is uncomfortable, controversial, or offensive — I am not quick to call for censorship or legal penalties over speech. I lean toward the view that more speech, not less, is the best response to troubling ideas. But at the same time, we live in a society that claims to uphold the rule of law. And if the law explicitly prohibits incitement — particularly incitement to violence or hatred — then we have to ask a serious and fair question: Will that law be applied equally, regardless of the identity or political affiliation of the person in question?
Because if the law is to mean anything, it must apply to everyone — not just to those who are unpopular or outside the mainstream, but also to those who present themselves as activists, as victims, or as untouchable due to their identity or cause. We have seen others face legal scrutiny, social condemnation, and even prosecution for words that were deemed dangerous or incisive. Will the same standards be applied here? Or will there be a double standard, one in which certain people are given a pass because of who they are or what they claim to stand for?
This is not about silencing dissent, nor is it about targeting anyone unfairly. It’s about the consistent and principled application of the law. If Senator Thorpe’s statements meet the legal threshold of incitement — and there is a strong argument to suggest that they do — then the appropriate authorities should investigate and act accordingly. Anything less would erode public trust in our legal institutions and send the message that the rules only apply to some, not all.
