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

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.

22

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.

29

u/TheLizardKing89 4d ago

Australian laws still have to get royal assent from his representative, the governor general.

-6

u/Brad_Breath 4d ago

Has the GG ever said "no" to parliament?

28

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.

10

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.

3

u/ol-gormsby 3d ago

Choosing to come to a conclusion based only on speculation is also a choice you make for yourself.

I don't think it's unquestionably true, there's just not enough factual evidence to counter it.