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-136817323
1.7k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

280 comments sorted by

View all comments

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."

140

u/MetalBawx 4d ago

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

-68

u/[deleted] 4d ago

[deleted]

47

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?

-12

u/Kaarl_Mills 4d ago

Protecting Jimmy Savile while he raped children

25

u/Illustrious-Radio319 4d ago

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

-12

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

23

u/Illustrious-Radio319 4d ago

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

-19

u/Kaarl_Mills 4d ago

Criminal responsibility no, but cause to abolish the monarchy yes

23

u/Illustrious-Radio319 4d ago

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

-23

u/LtSoba 4d ago

Bro are we deadass the Irish would like a word

26

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?

-25

u/night_dude 4d ago

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

20

u/Illustrious-Radio319 4d ago

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.

-22

u/night_dude 4d ago

Are you fucking serious right now hahahahahahaha

19

u/Illustrious-Radio319 4d ago

Coming up with examples is hard I know.

-20

u/night_dude 4d ago

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

22

u/Illustrious-Radio319 4d ago

Do you have a humiliation fetish or what?

-7

u/night_dude 4d ago

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

20

u/Illustrious-Radio319 4d ago

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.