Respectful Dismissal

Senator Thorpe has made public statements that contradict her publicly given affirmed responsibilities. At face value, that seems grounds for her dismissal. Mark Powell’s previous piece explained this situation well. He follows the implication of promising one commitment in writing, but then clearly rescinding it in public. As it notes in section 42 of the Australian Constitution, for a person to be eligible to be a Senator, he or she shall “make and subscribe before the Governor-General or some person authorised by him [generic], an oath or allegiance in the form set forth in the schedule in this Constitution.”

Clearly, when one physically stands in front of the monarch whom the Governor General represents and says loudly, aggressively and crudely, with literally (now) millions of witnesses, that he is no longer her king, there is an unequivocal repudiation of the earlier oath of allegiance.

Unless of course, Senator Thorpe’s words are meaningless. That seems to be the two options. Either she willingly misrepresented her initial allegiance, or she melodramatically lied to the King.

This is critical for the heart and soul of the nation. We can only live peacefully if we can disagree honourably. That is even in the face of strong differences. Without such a commitment to what is called ‘the rule of law’, then we become subversive.

Our parliamentarians must demonstrate such respect for the rest of the nation if they expect to help those citizens who have elected them. But it is becoming harder for some of them because they create ‘categories of worth’ based on their ideologies (and an ideology is a belief system on which we put our faith).

For example, the concept of the worth of all people, regardless of sex, ethnicity and social status has only come into our world through the Biblical principle of all humans being made in the image of the Creator God. The concept of equal standing under the law comes from this first Biblical principle, and second close principle, which is that we are all broken. That is why justice applies to all, and more so, compassion (defined by what is good before God), within Biblical teaching.

But what if your ideology brings you to believe that some categories of people are automatically in the ‘oppressor’ class? Universal respect disappears.

It seems that this is the situation in which Senator Thorpe finds herself. However, she has given her word in writing that she will accept the current principles and structures of our Constitution. She is free to work to change the parameters of that Constitution, but only by being lawfully respectful if she wants to work from inside parliament. This is why I agree she should be reviewed as to whether she can validly stay in parliament.

Yet, in line with the principles above, this review should be respectful. Below are two imagined ways that such a conversation might go with Senator Thorpe. There are two different outcomes based on two different commitments demonstrated by the Senator.

SCENARIO 1:

Senator Thorpe is invited to a meeting by the Governor General or her authorized representative. She has described to her, in a respectful tone, that she has clearly demonstrated a repudiation of her signed oath (which is re-presented to her). The compassion given to the Senator is accepting that she would like to change the structure of Australian society in some core ways, from within the Parliament.

The Senator is offered ideas about how she can go about her agenda in lawful and respectful ways – for example, outlining her policies, engaging in debate on critical issues, listening to others and responding to their questions, framing legislation to be debated on the floor of parliament, and so on.

If she was accepting of this kind of help, she would also then need to clarify whether she still understands her initial oath as valid. To do that, she would need to apologise for her public outburst and denial, and restate that she wishes to pursue her agenda, no matter how radical, within the law, including how she conducts herself with reference to the King.

SCENARIO 2:

Senator Thorpe denies there is a problem and the offer for help.

In this case, the Senate must act on her betrayal of her oath according to the kind of reasoning in Mark Powell’s previous article.

ALTERNATIVES?

If there are other scenarios, I would like to know them. If some are thinking to ‘just ignore her’, that is the same level of cowardice we see from our leaders in the face of current invitations and incitements to violence against Israel and Jews.

Additionally, the outcome of such cowardice with this Senator would be ongoing parliamentary dysfunction, a weakening of a democracy, and an increase in fear. If our parliament cannot hold itself to account on such fundamentals, how can we expect them to support respect in broader society?

Parliament’s role is to protect the good and restrain the evil. If they do not know on what that is based, as represented by people of good faith at all three levels of our governance, then we will have more of this outrageous, flagrantly disrespectful and subversive conduct. If people of bad faith are allowed to pretend they are good, their emotivist outbursts will be fanned into more destructive and regressive flames.

Who might stand against such horror?