Summary
Australian senators censured Senator Lidia Thorpe for her outburst against King Charles III during his visit, calling him a colonizer and demanding land and reparations. Thorpe defended her actions, stating she would repeat them if Charles returned.
I think she’s as fully aware as black and indigenous Americans are that she’ll never actually get what she’s owed, so she might as well tell the king that’s been forced on her people to fuck off.
The news coverage on this was the point. Bringing awareness to her people’s situation.
Although its still too damn high, only 50% of British people believe the monarchy thats been forced on us is important.
They are losing the popularity contest here too.
Noone’s forcing Charles on Australia. Aussies are generally in favour of becoming a republic, thing is they can’t agree on what kind of head of state they want so for the time being it’s gonna continue to be the British Monarch.
There’s lots to be said about the failure of Australia to properly address indigenous concerns, literally nothing Charles can do about that but be a symbol to throw ire at to get some press coverage. He can’t even tell “his government” to deal with the issue, the thing he tells “his government” to do is whatever the government tells him to. They’re writing their own marching orders.
The aboriginals who ran the continent for tens of thousands of years before white people took over might disagree with you on that.
Last I checked Australia is independent, and last I checked I also said that Australia has to account for a lot of failures when it comes to addressing indigenous concerns.
Nothing of which has anything to do with Charles who has literally zero power over the situation. I’m pretty much as republican as people can possibly be but let’s not blame on powerless monarchs what’s actually the fault of elected representatives. Gets into the way of holding them accountable.
They are not independent. They are under the rule of the crown. 4-5 years ago the governor of Australia, who reports to the crown, dissolved parliament.
The G-G dissolves parliament every time the Prime Minister (PM) advises them to do so. I think you don’t grok the situation here, constitutionally speaking.
He dissolved parliament based on what rules written by whom, on whose orders?
Hint hint: Based on the Australian constitution, written by Australians, on the order (well, “advice”, same thing in this case) of the Australian Prime Minister.
No one said he had any power.
That doesn’t mean he’s deserving of the title of king over the people who’s land was taken from them. I’m not sure why you are insisting he is.
I’m not saying he deserves anything I’m saying he has no choice but to be the king, best he could do is abdicate but that only would put his son in the same position. It’s up to Australia to abolish the monarchy, not House Windsor.
He could simply not go play king in Australia. If you don’t want to be king of a country your ancestors forcibly colonized, you can just not. None of this is an obligation.
No blame on Westminster, at all? Like, we’re ignoring that the UK was a (flawed, but still) democracy for most of Australia’s colonial period?
And how would him abdicating help the situation in Australia?
He’s taken up a duty, and he’s fulfilling it. That includes being a symbol, and as such getting attacked for the past and present wrongs of Britain, Australia, etc. Still doesn’t make him responsible, though, in precisely the same way that Bugs Bunny is not responsible for the acts of the board of Warner Brothers.
That other villains exist in the story of the British empire doesn’t matter to whether he has to play king in Australia. It’s not a duty and he’s not a put upon civil servant. If he actually agreed that his position was illegitimate he could simply say so and stop performing it, with no meaningful loss to the world. But he’s a rich douche who’s happy to ride on his inherited privilege and claim to bestow his special personage to people across the world. People calling him illegitimate is the right and proper response to him pretending he has some special place in Australian society.
And yet he’s still not their king.
He is an extraordinarily wealthy man who has a platform that many will listen to. He can do a lot on his own to change things. Yeah, he doesn’t control the government, but do you think anyone has ever accomplished anything who doesn’t? Obviously havi g the government do what you wish on a whim is not the only method to get things done. Many have accomplished more good than him with less.
And he did quite some of that indeed before his coronation. Couldn’t shut up, some would say. Among other things, he’s never been opposed to Australian republicanism. Now he’s bound to protocol, and the protocol says that the King is not to voice any even remotely political opinion whatsoever. He can comment on how nice the food was, that’s about it.
Regarding wealth he’s something like the 2000th wealthiest person on earth. Theoretically, can’t find him on the billionaire list though he reportedly just about makes it. Lots of people have inherited more money and done way worse with it. I don’t think it should be possible to inherit that kind of fortune but that applies in general, not just to monarchs.
Your comment about wealth seems to be dismissive. Sure, many people have more and do worse. That’s not an argument saying he can’t do more. That’s only an argument that he could do less also. He can obviously do more. Saying one thing is worse than another thing doesn’t excuse either. Both can and should improve.
I don’t know about the laws surrounding him as monarch. Maybe you’re right that he can’t say anything. I don’t believe this is totally true because the monarchs platform people frequently. Maybe they aren’t supposed to, but they obviously can do more than just keep quite. He could invite this woman to a state dinner, for example, and give her more of a platform. There are many options available. He is not powerless to do anything.