A single mispronounced word has hurled Australian Senator Lidia Thorpe into the center of a political firestorm. During her swearing-in oath, Thorpe appeared to deliberately replace “heirs” with “hairs” when pledging allegiance to the Queen. The incident quickly ignited a debate over the senator’s constitutional eligibility to serve.
‘I Misspoke’: Thorpe Clarifies Controversial Oath
Amid the growing backlash, Thorpe has now backtracked on suggestions that the mispronunciation was intentional. “I spoke what I read on the card,” the senator insisted in a recent interview. “My English grammar isn’t as good as others’, and I spoke what I read. So I misspoke.”
Thorpe slammed opposition figures who have questioned her legitimacy as a senator over the incident. “For them to question my legitimacy in this job is an insult,” she declared. “And they can’t get rid of me.”
Conflicting Statements Fuel Controversy
However, Thorpe’s latest comments appear to contradict her earlier statements on the matter. When asked if her protest against King Charles III amounted to renouncing her oath, the senator replied:
“I swore allegiance to the Queen’s hairs. If you listen close enough, it wasn’t her ‘heirs’, it was her ‘hairs’ that I was giving my allegiance to. And now that, you know, they’re no longer here, I don’t know where that stands.”
This apparent inconsistency has only fueled the flames of the controversy. Critics argue that Thorpe’s conflicting explanations cast doubt on her true intentions and suitability to serve.
Constitutional Questions Arise
The opposition has seized upon Thorpe’s remarks to raise constitutional questions about her eligibility. According to sources familiar with the matter, section 42 of the constitution requires senators to properly subscribe to the oath of office.
“Lidia Thorpe yesterday clearly made the statement and the claims that in making the affirmation, she actually didn’t do so in accordance with the constitutional requirements,” noted one opposition leader. This has created “a doubt over her eligibility and validity to have taken up her seat in the Senate.”
Expert: Signed Affirmation Trumps Mispronunciation
However, constitutional experts suggest that Thorpe’s signed affirmation document may override any verbal slips. “She has actually made that oath in writing, and even to the extent that she might have mispronounced the word heirs by pronouncing the ‘h’, this pronunciation is not itself legally invalidating,” explained one expert.
Furthermore, Thorpe referred to the Queen’s successors in her oath, which would include King Charles. This, along with her written affirmation, suggests she has legally sworn allegiance as required.
Thorpe Vows to Press On
Despite the ongoing controversy, Thorpe remains defiant. “No one can kick me out of there,” she declared. “I’m there to fulfil my job. I’m there to represent the black sovereign movement which is questioning the sovereignty of the crown.”
The senator has vowed to spend the next three years pushing for a treaty and “getting that unfinished business done.” However, with constitutional clouds gathering and critics circling, Thorpe may face an uphill battle to advance her agenda.
As the ‘hairs’ vs ‘heirs’ controversy continues to swirl, one thing is clear: Lidia Thorpe’s every word will be closely scrutinized. In the high-stakes world of Australian politics, even the smallest slip of the tongue can have far-reaching consequences.
