this post was submitted on 21 Oct 2024
47 points (98.0% liked)

Australian News

599 readers
4 users here now

A place to share and discuss news relating to Australia and Australians.

Rules
  1. Follow the aussie.zone rules
  2. Keep discussions civil and respectful
  3. Exclude profanity from post titles
  4. Exclude excessive profanity from comments
  5. Satire is allowed, however post titles must be prefixed with [satire]
Recommended and Related Communities

Be sure to check out and subscribe to our related communities on aussie.zone:

Plus other communities for sport and major cities.

https://aussie.zone/communities

Banner: ABC

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 months ago (3 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 3 months ago

If the only way to achieve political impact is to swear that oath, then it's coerced, because the only other option is disenfranchisement

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago

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.