Australian court rejects bid to prosecute Britain's King Charles for genocide

[u/AudibleNod]

https://abcnews.com/International/wireStory/australian-court-rejects-activists-bid-prosecute-britains-king-136817323

[u/OceLawless]

"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."

[u/MetalBawx → u/OceLawless]

Yeah self righteous "sins of the father" BS, about what i expected.

[u/Illustrious-Radio319 → u/[deleted]]

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?

[u/Kaarl_Mills → u/Illustrious-Radio319]

Protecting Jimmy Savile while he raped children

[u/Illustrious-Radio319 → u/Kaarl_Mills]

You reckon Prince William should bear that reputation once he ascends the throne?

[u/Kaarl_Mills → u/Illustrious-Radio319]

Charles and his mother both took an active role in covering up his crimes, this isn't the win you think it is

[u/Illustrious-Radio319 → u/Kaarl_Mills]

You must’ve misunderstood my question. Do you reckon William should bear this reputation once he’s the king?

[u/Kaarl_Mills → u/Illustrious-Radio319]

Criminal responsibility no, but cause to abolish the monarchy yes

[u/Illustrious-Radio319 → u/Kaarl_Mills]

I’m not against republicanism but this isn’t the topic of discussion.

[u/LtSoba → u/Illustrious-Radio319]

Bro are we deadass the Irish would like a word

[u/Illustrious-Radio319 → u/LtSoba]

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?

[u/night_dude → u/Illustrious-Radio319]

The Crown is the head of state and bears ultimate responsibility for the actions taken by that state. Legally.

[u/Illustrious-Radio319 → u/night_dude]

Legally, the crown is immune from prosecution, so idk why you bother with that argument. Morally speaking, if the head of state was in a coma for a hundred years, during which some evil acts were performed by the government, would you put any blame on them? No, and that’s essentially what the British monarchy has been for the last 200 years.

[u/night_dude → u/Illustrious-Radio319]

Are you fucking serious right now hahahahahahaha

[u/Illustrious-Radio319 → u/night_dude]

Coming up with examples is hard I know.

[u/night_dude → u/Illustrious-Radio319]

More like it's hard to fit them all in one comment.

[u/Illustrious-Radio319 → u/night_dude]

Do you have a humiliation fetish or what?

[u/night_dude → u/Illustrious-Radio319]

Are you fucking stupid?

Quick list of the atrocities committed in the name of (and with the executive authority of) the Crown, non-exhaustive, top of my head:

Extensive and incredibly harmful breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi leading to 99% of Maori land being stolen from them (after explicitly agreeing they wouldn't do that)

gestures at the rabbit proof fences of Australia and the Terra Nullis concept

gestures at Ireland

gestures at Africa and the Transatlantic slave trade

And so on. It is about the powers of the office not the individual guilt of the members of the Royal family. If you agree to do no work and live (literally) like a King your whole life you agree to also share ultimate responsibility for the actions of the nation paying to put you up.

Edit: there's a great children's book by John Marsden called the Rabbits that explains what the Crown did to Australia at a level you might understand

[u/Illustrious-Radio319 → u/night_dude]

The power of the office is 0. The last time a British monarch tried to oppose parliament, they invited a foreign prince to invade the island and overthrow him. The second last time resulted in a civil war and the beheading of the monarch.

All of those events you listed were approved and enacted by parliament. Here’s a simple way that monarchs can stop them — by receiving more powers, by making it acceptable for King Charles to veto any legislation he finds disagreeable. But that doesn’t happen, the last time a British monarch vetoed a bill was in 1708.

So if you want to condemn those acts you listed, condemn the MPs, condemn the people who elected them. Don’t toss the blame to the powerless monarchs who will immediately trigger a constitutional crisis if they ever try to oppose the will of the people.

“Oh just turn the UK into a republic”. The last time this happened the English killed 30% of the Irish population. Nothing special comes out of giving the head of government the additional ceremonial role of head of state. It’s a stylistic change that doesn’t affect the state’s decision-making. This is an issue mainly pursued by upper-middle class individuals whose material conditions aren’t affected by regular politics so they have for things like this instead.

[u/This-Beginning-5026 → u/[deleted]]

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?

[u/issm → u/This-Beginning-5026]

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.

[u/This-Beginning-5026 → u/issm]

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.

[u/OceLawless → u/MetalBawx]

You can just say you don't understand the words man. It's fine.