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.

[–] ada@lemmy.blahaj.zone 21 points 1 month 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

[–] Ilandar@aussie.zone 12 points 1 month ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Nath@aussie.zone 3 points 1 month ago

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.

[–] slickgoat@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month 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.