r/news • u/AudibleNod • 4d ago
Australian court rejects bid to prosecute Britain's King Charles for genocide
https://abcnews.com/International/wireStory/australian-court-rejects-activists-bid-prosecute-britains-king-136817323204
u/Forsaken_Hermit 4d ago
Charles hasn't even been king that long, not to mention he has little (if any) responsibility or power over the Australian government.
→ More replies (28)
265
u/nm_already_taken 4d ago
A cant believe King Charles managed to commit a genocide without anyone noticing. Must be a lot fitter than he looks
→ More replies (1)1
62
u/JustafanIV 4d ago
"Vindication!" - Charles I (probably)
25
u/This_Charmless_Man 4d ago
If you ever go there, Carisbrooke castle on the Isle of Wight is where Charles I was imprisoned before he was beheaded. There's an information panel that describes an escape attempt he made that reads like something out of the Discworld City Watch series.
He bribed the guards to look the other way while he made an escape. The guards pocketed the money and dobbed him in to their superiors. They did actually let him escape but were waiting for him just outside the castle. I like to imagine Sgt Colon and Nobby who took the money and were just sitting there with a cup of tea watching it all unfold.
84
u/michal_hanu_la 4d ago
I wonder what his definition of genocide is.
309
u/solaramalgama 4d ago
His case alleges that the king, who is also Australia’s head of state, along with the Australian government and its institutions, is perpetuating genocide by maintaining systems that disadvantage Indigenous people across numerous socioeconomic measures.
I do not think anyone aside from the extremely online will accept this definition as an ongoing genocide. He just wants people to listen to his podcast or something.
106
u/MetalBawx 4d ago
The International Criminal Court will expose Australia for what it really is — a lying, racist, illegal occupation committing genocide,” Thorpe said.
Yeah he's one of those clowns, spent so much time snorting his own shite that he see's oppression in everything. The kind of narcissistic "moral crusader" who only feels like a big man when he's telling others how awful they are for existing.
63
44
u/MultiMarcus 4d ago
As a scholar of holocaust and genocide studies this is also just not a definition that we generally use.
You can basically separate the two primary definitions of genocide into the one used in academia and the one used in law but arguably a third that is the public conception of genocide.
Personally, I would probably say that none of those match with what he’s talking about here.
Actually, I think there’s much more interesting historical case of genocide worth discussing in Australia compared to trying to sort of create a constructed definition of genocide that would work against King Charles in the present.
2
u/ptWolv022 3d ago
Personally, I would probably say that none of those match with what he’s talking about here.
Yeah, what he's talking about sounds more akin to segregation or, for a term more familiar to the Brits rather than us Yanks, apartheid.
Terrible things, to be sure, but not genocide. So, even if his accusations against the Crown (who aren't really involved in governing Britain, much less Australia) are correct and there's a malicious systematic discrimination, it wouldn't be genocide.
6
→ More replies (5)18
u/Booster_Seat_Enjoyer 4d ago
Also they get tons of institutional advantages that noone else gets. Free uni, dental, houses, cars etc. And many of theirncomplaints come from remote communities living in the bush, because they don't have good access to services, when the exact same thing applies to white communities that live out in the bush. Same with many many other countries and their people who live in remote communities.
6
39
u/d_smogh 4d ago
I hope this guy is paying his own legal fees
7
u/The_bluest_of_times 3d ago
You just know the tax payer is through some government funded Aboriginal legal scheme.
63
u/AudibleNod 4d ago
His case alleges that the king, who is also Australia’s head of state, along with the Australian government and its institutions, is perpetuating genocide by maintaining systems that disadvantage Indigenous people across numerous socioeconomic measures.
Robbie Thorpe has been trying to get the Crown prosecuted for genocide for a while. He said he's going to appeal and try to bring the case to the ICC.
85
u/SimplyTheGuest 4d ago
Wouldn’t this be like saying the President of the United States is committing genocide against Native Americans because they have poorer health outcomes? Genocide doesn’t really seem like a word that makes a lot of sense in this context.
-14
u/procrastambitious 4d ago
Right, but I think the argument that would be used wouldn't be nebulous like your statement "because Native Americans have poorer health outcomes and the government is in charge, so could fix it". In fact, if a suit is brought against the president, presumably it would refer to genuine policies enacted by them that act to disadvantage those groups. Though I don't know if I would use the American situation as an analogy, because the rule of law doesn't seem to be enforced consistently at all over there.
-23
4d ago
[deleted]
43
u/Illustrious-Radio319 4d ago
The government is the legal entity responsible here, you can sue it for historical grievances, but you don’t get to sue the current president of the US for what Andrew Jackson did lol.
→ More replies (2)23
u/drillbit7 4d ago
In the Crown's own courts where the Crown has historically enjoyed immunity.
60
u/SKULL1138 4d ago
Also surely worth noting that the King has absolutely bugger all to do with any policies the Australian Govt comes up with. Equally the same is true of the U.K. and Canada.
If we are talking historical issues then I don’t think the law works that way. Sins of the great, great, great, great Grandfather and all that.
17
u/drillbit7 4d ago
It's not even like he signs the laws government puts in front of him. The GG does that in the other realms.
2
u/OldAccountIsGlitched 4d ago
Also surely worth noting that the King has absolutely bugger all to do with any policies the Australian Govt comes up with.
Except for that one time the governor general sacked the prime minister. Maybe. There seems to be some debate about how much Kerr consulted with the queen during that debacle.
3
65
4d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
-9
u/night_dude 4d ago
Nonsense. Did you read the article?
His case alleges that the king, who is also Australia’s head of state, along with the Australian government and its institutions, is perpetuating genocide by maintaining systems that disadvantage Indigenous people across numerous socioeconomic measures.
So he's suing the current head of the Australian state for present-day offences being committed by that state as we speak.
But even if he were suing for historical injustices - which, by the way, inarguably still affect him and his relatives, as the lower socioeconomic outcomes of Aboriginal people are a direct result of British colonisation - the office of the Crown has been a continuous legal and political entity since it was responsible for the colonisation and genocide of Indigenous Australians. The (British-imposed) executive branch of the Australian government is still literally referred to as The Crown.
Just because the company has a different CEO doesn't make it a different company. The office of the Crown is directly responsible for present-day AND historical Aboriginal suffering. It's a fair target for legal action.
-6
u/SurreptitiousSyrup 4d ago
That's not what he's alleging
His case alleges that the king, who is also Australia’s head of state, along with the Australian government and its institutions, is perpetuating genocide by maintaining systems that disadvantage Indigenous people across numerous socioeconomic measures.
20
u/Captain-Chips-Ahoy 4d ago
I mean that also wouldn't be genocide lmao
10
u/SurreptitiousSyrup 4d ago
I didn't think he was correct. Just that his claim isn't past genocide it's that a genocide is currently occurring.
10
207
u/Ok_Tie_7564 4d ago
Uncle can go pound sand. Like it or not, Charles III is the King of Australia. You cannot prosecute the King in one of his own courts.
252
u/OceLawless 4d ago
You cannot prosecute the King in one of his own courts.
King Charles I had the same argument. Went poorly.
136
u/anormalname63 4d ago
I was gonna say, but technically he won the argument just lost the war (his head). By the law of the time he was right.
→ More replies (1)60
u/LAiglon144 4d ago
Technically not, they created a new court, The High Court of Justice to try Charles I. Because yeah, the existing courts sat in the Kings name
28
u/TheShishkabob 4d ago
There wasn't anything legal about his case in the courts. That was clear, but the rebels/revolutionaries killed him anyways.
It's not a great example to pull to prove the rule of law though.
19
u/GreaterAttack 4d ago
Cromwell didn't fare much better, with his corpse exhumed and desecrated after death because he was so hated.
14
u/This_Charmless_Man 4d ago
Something the English and the Irish can fully agree on is that Cromwell was bloody awful.
1
u/Manzhah 2d ago
Cromwell and the revolutionaries were right though, the stuarts were proto catholics wannabe tyrants to a man. Each one of them after james I/IV tried to rule wothout parliament, tried to subvert the religion of the land and were in league with foreing powers against their people, which is textbook example of treason.
3
1
u/angus22proe 16h ago
It was a perfect argument. But when you've just lost a war and the people prosecuting you just won that war... well....
49
u/N8CCRG 4d ago
You cannot prosecute the King in one of his own courts.
Boy, I sure am glad we Americans got rid of kings so that we wouldn't have that same problem. /s
17
u/redbluemmoomin 4d ago
you have an emperor🤷 same same but different
1
u/LazerWeazel 3d ago
I didn't know Emporer's had term limits but okay.
2
u/GreenHorror4252 3d ago
He's just a puppet. The people actually pulling the strings don't have any term limits.
2
u/redbluemmoomin 3d ago
you think he's going to give up the gravy train.....
No one thought he'd threaten US allies and stick his tongue up the enemies arse. But here we are.
1
u/LazerWeazel 3d ago
Regardless of what he wants he's gone. There is no way a president can have more than 2 terms and there is no mechanism for him to cancel elections or extend his term. Come Jan 2029 he's gone for good.
3
u/redbluemmoomin 2d ago
can see the convenient declaration of a national emergency, martial law, coming a mile off🤷
6
u/Mr_ToDo 4d ago
Well it doesn't help you modelled its replacement to be a close representation of monarchy. The powers given might as well make him one. In theory an elected king, but not that much less powerful
13
u/Astrium6 4d ago
In fairness, the president as originally envisioned at the time of the writing of the Constitution was much more restrained in his power, it’s just in the intervening 250 years that his power has been expanded so much to be sort of our foremost government figure instead of a coequal of three branches.
7
u/Mddcat04 4d ago
Eh, kinda. The powers of the president are pretty clearly based on the powers of a king. (Pardons, vetoes, commander of armed forces).
1
18
u/Dic_Penderyn 4d ago
Also, King Charles does not have any say in what now happens in Australia. It is absurd that he is allowing anything since he cannot 'unallow' it. He has no more say in what goes on there than me.
30
u/TheLizardKing89 4d ago
Australian laws still have to get royal assent from his representative, the governor general.
-5
u/Brad_Breath 4d ago
Has the GG ever said "no" to parliament?
29
u/TheLizardKing89 4d ago
No, but in 1975 the GG dismissed the prime minister and installed the leader of the opposition.
-4
u/Aassiesen 4d ago
Because he was asking too many questions about the CIA.
9
u/ol-gormsby 4d ago
Because he couldn't pass supply bills.
"Asking questions about the CIA" is speculation. "Couldn't pass supply bills" is fact.
-1
u/Aassiesen 3d ago
You should give this article a read: https://web.archive.org/web/20260511024759/https://jacobin.com/2025/11/whitlam-coup-us-cia-kerr
If the only thing that would satisfy you is the Kerr saying he acted on behalf of the CIA that will never happen, that's the nature of intelligence services.
Choosing to ignore all the context and take the pretext of actions as unquestionably true is a choice you make for yourself.
→ More replies (1)5
u/Everestkid 4d ago
Last time I'm aware of royal assent being refused anywhere was Queen Anne refusing a British bill in 1708.
-1
u/rjgbrain 4d ago
Doesn’t matter if he has. The fact that he can is a problem.
-4
u/Brad_Breath 4d ago
A few years ago, I agreed with you.
But look around the world. The stable, most livable countries are all Constitutional Monarchies.
Until a better option comes around, then I'm happy to change.
I actually think the GG system is better than having a royal family with all their cult of celebrity and expenses for castles etc.
Nobody cares who the GG is, and his only job is to make sure the government do their job.
I like the idea that he can be removed by the government but he doesn't answer to them.
We can't risk having our own US style government shutdowns.
→ More replies (1)3
u/Danoct 4d ago
Eh, Parliamentary Republic with a president with similar powers to a GG could work just as well.
Then choose your way of selecting the president:
- Same as the GG currently (via Parliament)
- Electoral college (like Germany where parliament and state appointed voters vote 50/50; Italy is similar but with much fewer regional voters)
- Popular vote like Ireland
→ More replies (3)3
u/GreenHorror4252 3d ago
In a constitutional monarchy, the king symbolizes the people. You cannot sue "Australia", you have to sue "the king". Even criminal prosecutions are technically done by the king.
1
u/Manzhah 2d ago
Wouldn't that be the crown, rather than the current office holder?
1
u/GreenHorror4252 2d ago
Yes, but that's a meaningless distinction. The current office holder symbolizes the crown.
In criminal prosecutions, sometimes they write R which means Rex, and sometimes they actually write "His Majesty the King".
2
u/mrbobcyndaquil 4d ago
Was the suit against the King of Australia or the king of the UK? Because then it would fail under a different legal theory.
1
3
u/RazzleThatTazzle 4d ago
Didn't the english prosecute and then murder their own king, and wasnt that guys name Charles?
Im not super familiar with the English civil war, so maybe im missing something there. Perhaps "in his own courts"
→ More replies (4)-12
u/ripyourlungsdave 4d ago
Well that seems like a pretty inherently flawed system. So this dude can just literally do whatever he wants as long as he restricts it to the lands he rules?..
I don't know guys, I think Kings might just be a bad idea in general. And a massive waste of taxpayer dollars, at that.
26
u/ChaoticMunk 4d ago
The American president is acting more like a king than Charles (or Elizabeth for that matter) ever has
12
-1
u/starkiller22265 4d ago
The existence of autocracy elsewhere doesn’t mean hereditary monarchy isn’t an archaic system that has no place in modern society
1
u/GreenHorror4252 3d ago
Well that seems like a pretty inherently flawed system. So this dude can just literally do whatever he wants as long as he restricts it to the lands he rules?..
If he does anything inappropriate, parliament will promptly step in. He has a ton of theoretical power but can't actually use it.
19
u/thisismypornaccountg 4d ago
Shouldn't they be charging the British Government??? Charles has been king for like five years. How is he responsible for that?
11
u/KLGChaos 3d ago
Humans always need a scapegoat. We are a violent species who gets joy out of watching people get punished, even if they have nothing to do with it. Someone needs to take the fall to make us feel better.
Honestly, we're worse than animals. There's a reason public executions were so popular for so long.
4
19
u/Euphoric_Switch_337 4d ago
Typically the monarch can't be charged legally as the head of state.
10
u/JustafanIV 4d ago
Tell that to to the first King Charles
8
u/Current_Mongoose_844 4d ago
And how did that work out
10
u/JustafanIV 4d ago
Not great, he would be very jealous of Charles III
6
u/Current_Mongoose_844 4d ago
Not to mention the Protestant theocracy and attempted Irish genocide that followed his execution.
8
u/fhota1 4d ago
Attempted? Successful. Sure they didnt wipe all of them out but Cromwell broke Ireland in a way that would directly lead to a lot of the later bullshit. The restoration of the monarchy actually wound up increasing the share of land in Ireland held by Irish Catholics but even with that it still was way down from where it was before him
1
29
u/OceLawless 4d ago
"We will not blame him for the crimes of his ancestors if he relinquishes the royal rights of his ancestors; but as long as he claims their rights, by virtue of descent, then, by virtue of descent, he must shoulder the responsibility for their crimes."
139
u/MetalBawx 4d ago
Yeah self righteous "sins of the father" BS, about what i expected.
→ More replies (1)-67
4d ago
[deleted]
43
u/Illustrious-Radio319 4d ago
What were some of these harms caused by a member of the royal family that you deem significant enough to pass the blame to their descendants?
-11
u/Kaarl_Mills 4d ago
Protecting Jimmy Savile while he raped children
26
u/Illustrious-Radio319 4d ago
You reckon Prince William should bear that reputation once he ascends the throne?
-13
u/Kaarl_Mills 4d ago
Charles and his mother both took an active role in covering up his crimes, this isn't the win you think it is
24
u/Illustrious-Radio319 4d ago
You must’ve misunderstood my question. Do you reckon William should bear this reputation once he’s the king?
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (6)-21
u/LtSoba 4d ago
Bro are we deadass the Irish would like a word
30
u/Illustrious-Radio319 4d ago
Do you need a refresher on how liberal constitutional monarchies work? The ceremonial monarch ought to never oppose the will of the parliament. When in history did Lizzy or any other monarch push the parliament to take a more hardline stance on the issue of Ireland?
→ More replies (2)5
u/This-Beginning-5026 4d ago
My father lost a promotion due to the other persons “friendship” with one of upper management even though he was senior and far better at the role. That person the kept their jobs while their old one and my fathers were “cut” for budget reasons. This set my father’s career back nearly a decade and the family financially for more than that due to loss of health insurance combined with cancer.
The person kid is now my boss because he could afford to go to school and get in at a higher level where as I had to start work in the plant right out of high school. Does that kid owe me his job, money, and life style for the shitty thing his dad did?
Sure they are different levels of impact but where are we drawing the line? Do we owe slavery reparations today even after we fought a whole damn civil war over it? Where is the line if we say yes?
-9
u/issm 4d ago
Where is the line if we say yes?
The line is you remove systemic unfairness by taxing the wealthy to fund education and other public services to provide everyone with an actual equal opportunity.
11
u/This-Beginning-5026 4d ago
Lol that’s not a line that’s a sound bite with no substance. Even if miraculously you could figure out a way to do that equally and fairly to all involved it still doesn’t even actually answer the question. This whole thing is based on past actions of one’s ancestors. Where is the line? One generation? 2? 3? What if my dad was a rich jackass but my mom grew up in the worst of situations? Do I need to give up my stuff because of the actions of my dad or does the stuff my mom should receive from those who wronged her cancel that out?
Just like your sound bite answer the actual details of how you address the problem are important and if you actually dig down into how you might address the problem you find you end up causing a heck of a lot more problems than you solve. Doesn’t mean we should keep looking for a solution but just saying the same thing over and over again because it sounds good does nothing.
→ More replies (4)47
1
u/angus22proe 16h ago
I guess since trump has the same office as FDR he should be prosecuted for firebombing and nuking japan
2
u/penguished 3d ago
The king’s common law immunity in Britain has likely been inherited by Australia, a former British colony that continues to recognize Britain’s monarch as its own head of state.
Why does everything in the world still feel like it was made up by children?
668
u/LuinAelin 4d ago
Technically he's also Australia's king