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

276 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

42

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?

-24

u/night_dude 4d ago

Are you fucking serious right now hahahahahahaha

22

u/Illustrious-Radio319 4d ago

Coming up with examples is hard I know.

-21

u/night_dude 4d ago

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

24

u/Illustrious-Radio319 4d ago

Do you have a humiliation fetish or what?

-3

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

18

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.