Senators are required to make an Oath or Affirmation as follows:
OATH
I,…, do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King Charles the Third, His heirs and successors according to law. SO HELP ME GOD!
AFFIRMATION
I,…, do solemnly and sincerely affirm and declare that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King Charles the Third, His heirs and successors according to law.
Regardless of what you think of the monarchy, and whether you think that oath is an outright stupid anachronism, it’s still the oath she took. It comes across as plain poor conduct to act that way while acting in her capacity of Senator.
A coerced oath isn’t really an oath at all. But Thorpe wasn’t coerced into becoming a senator. She wasn’t forced to run for election. Once elected she wasn’t forced to take an oath. She chose to do those things because she thought it would benefit what she’s trying to achieve.
Now, I’m not pro monarchy, and I’m not against Thorpe advocating for aboriginal sovereignty. But saying “you are not my king” but also having sworn “faithful and true allegiance” to that king just doesn’t sit well together for me.
Have you actually watched the oath? You’re acting as if there is some kind of hypocrisy here, like she was perfectly happy at the time and is now contradicting a previous position. But her swearing in was also a form of protest, she intentionally got it wrong the first time around and was quite literally coerced into correcting it by the President of the Senate.
Thank you for posting this. I hadn’t seen it. Not sure how I feel about it - she is clearly uncomfortable making that oath. But, if she’s going to change government from within as she chose to do, she does need to play by the rules. That means yes: swearing in like anyone else and then being the change she wants to see.
Basically, I agree with pretty-much everyone in this thread.
I can’t believe anyone is seriously advancing this as a point 😆 But I’ll give the benefit of the doubt and give it a serious response:
If the 1999 republic referendum had succeeded, the government of the day would have advised the monarch to abolish their rule over Australia. Senator Thorpe is simply doing the same thing, albeit in a different way. Sometimes true friendship allegiance means telling hard truths.
Hmmm but did you consider the magical words written down on a sheet of paper 200 years ago by old racists? Hmm? Bet you didn’t, and so chortles you’ve exposed yourself for a fool.
If I indeed think that oath is, as you said, an outright stupid anachronism, then why should I consider it poor conduct to openly reject the oath?
On the other hand, I think it’s the appropriate conduct for anyone who wants to be a political representative of me, because I am an anti-monarchist. I do want my representatives to falsely affirm the oath, only because if they reject it then they can’t represent us in the electoral system. I see no positive meaning in that oath, no honour in upholding it, no hypocrisy in betraying it.
@Echinoderm I’m just seeing this as anachronistic rhubarb…that is showing signs of being the outrage-of-the-week by the shallow meeja (which includes ABC, BBC, etc.), and the gubment…to distract from their execrable stance on Netenhyahu’s atrocities.
No. This is not false equivalence. It is that the Oaths and Affirmations are hypocrisy.
Senators are required to make an Oath or Affirmation as follows:
Source: https://peo.gov.au/understand-our-parliament/your-questions-on-notice/questions/what-is-the-oath-of-office-that-is-taken-by-new-senators-and-members-of-the-house-o-representatives-when-they-are-sworn-in
Regardless of what you think of the monarchy, and whether you think that oath is an outright stupid anachronism, it’s still the oath she took. It comes across as plain poor conduct to act that way while acting in her capacity of Senator.
A coerced oath isn’t an oath worth keeping
A coerced oath isn’t really an oath at all. But Thorpe wasn’t coerced into becoming a senator. She wasn’t forced to run for election. Once elected she wasn’t forced to take an oath. She chose to do those things because she thought it would benefit what she’s trying to achieve.
Now, I’m not pro monarchy, and I’m not against Thorpe advocating for aboriginal sovereignty. But saying “you are not my king” but also having sworn “faithful and true allegiance” to that king just doesn’t sit well together for me.
If the only way to achieve political impact is to swear that oath, then it’s coerced, because the only other option is disenfranchisement
Have you actually watched the oath? You’re acting as if there is some kind of hypocrisy here, like she was perfectly happy at the time and is now contradicting a previous position. But her swearing in was also a form of protest, she intentionally got it wrong the first time around and was quite literally coerced into correcting it by the President of the Senate.
Thank you for posting this. I hadn’t seen it. Not sure how I feel about it - she is clearly uncomfortable making that oath. But, if she’s going to change government from within as she chose to do, she does need to play by the rules. That means yes: swearing in like anyone else and then being the change she wants to see.
Basically, I agree with pretty-much everyone in this thread.
Oath, smoath…
She was elected, he was born to rule. Let’s not get all technical. It’s not as if she had a choice of not including kings. The system is rigged.
I can’t believe anyone is seriously advancing this as a point 😆 But I’ll give the benefit of the doubt and give it a serious response:
If the 1999 republic referendum had succeeded, the government of the day would have advised the monarch to abolish their rule over Australia. Senator Thorpe is simply doing the same thing, albeit in a different way. Sometimes true
friendshipallegiance means telling hard truths.Seriously. That’s the kind of centrist respectability politics that I thought I had left behind on that other site.
Hmmm but did you consider the magical words written down on a sheet of paper 200 years ago by old racists? Hmm? Bet you didn’t, and so chortles you’ve exposed yourself for a fool.
If I indeed think that oath is, as you said, an outright stupid anachronism, then why should I consider it poor conduct to openly reject the oath?
On the other hand, I think it’s the appropriate conduct for anyone who wants to be a political representative of me, because I am an anti-monarchist. I do want my representatives to falsely affirm the oath, only because if they reject it then they can’t represent us in the electoral system. I see no positive meaning in that oath, no honour in upholding it, no hypocrisy in betraying it.
Ahaha oh wait you’re serious.
Anyone stupid enough to bind themselves to such a ridiculous oath is showing poor conduct.
@Echinoderm I’m just seeing this as anachronistic rhubarb…that is showing signs of being the outrage-of-the-week by the shallow meeja (which includes ABC, BBC, etc.), and the gubment…to distract from their execrable stance on Netenhyahu’s atrocities.
No. This is not false equivalence. It is that the Oaths and Affirmations are hypocrisy.