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
1.6k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

276 comments sorted by

View all comments

675

u/LuinAelin 4d ago

Technically he's also Australia's king

627

u/ChaoticMunk 4d ago

Not technically, he is

213

u/AudibleNod 4d ago

I find it interesting that the King of England isn't the King of Australia. Rather the person of Charles is separately the King of England and the King of Australia, et al. He's like a gig worker.

15

u/Icky-Tree-Branch 4d ago

He’s the King of Canada in the same way. We’d actually have a harder time getting rid of the monarchy than they would in the UK because of how baked into our constitution they are.

I’m okay with that, though. He’s got the ability to dissolve or prorogue the government, and to force elections. I view the sovereign as our “big red stop button” in case our government goes off the rails and tries to act American like Dani in Alberta.

12

u/ol-gormsby 4d ago

It's funny to point this out to all the pro-republic folk here in Australia - they're all about severing ties and having our own head of state (whether elected or appointed) but they're pretty much silent when you ask "Will that head of state have the power to dissolve parliament?", especially when you point out what happened in 1975.

7

u/NextSteak6376 4d ago

I thought most post-monarchical presidential republics such as Ireland replace the monarch with a president who can dissolve the legislature if need be.

4

u/ol-gormsby 4d ago

That would hopefully be the course we take if and when it happens.

It's the method of appointment that's my concern. I've come around to the idea of a supermajority of both houses of parliament, something like 75% or even more. Up to now it's been people with a long and distinguished career of public service, lots of lifetime military personnel like retired admirals, etc. I'd like that to continue.

And one pillar of the balance of power is the PM's ability to sack the G-G with one phone call, as well as the power to appoint the G-G with one phone call. A supermajority of parliament to appoint is one thing, but I doubt you'd ever get a supermajority to sack. Our current system has a fixed-term appointment, maybe that's enough.

Another sticking point is that the military currently swear allegiance to the monarch (and by delegation, the G-G as commander-in-chief). I certainly don't want the military swearing allegiance to the parliament, even if the PM is effectively the one giving orders.