Australian senators have voted to censure an Indigenous colleague who yelled at King Charles III during a reception in Parliament House last month.

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.

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldEnglish
      216·
      2 months ago

      Noone’s forcing Charles on Australia.

      The aboriginals who ran the continent for tens of thousands of years before white people took over might disagree with you on that.

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldEnglish
          105·
          2 months ago

          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.

            • Zaktor@sopuli.xyzEnglish
              72·
              2 months ago

              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.

                • Zaktor@sopuli.xyzEnglish
                  32·
                  2 months ago

                  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.

        • stoly@lemmy.worldEnglish
          61·
          2 months ago

          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.

          • Not a replicant@lemmy.worldEnglish
            4·
            2 months ago

            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.

            1. The King (or Queen) of Australia has powers defined in our constitution. They can’t issue commands at will.
            2. The King appoints the Governor-General (GG) on the advice of the PM
            3. The King delegates their powers to the GG
            4. The GG acts on the advice of the PM, to approve legislation (royal assent), and to dissolve parliament when the time comes. Also, awarding honors and some other non-political stuff. Head of state duties like greeting and hosting other heads of state.
            5. The GG does not seek permission or even advice from the King. Delegation of powers doesn’t mean the GG may exercise those powers, it means they must exercise those powers. That’s an important difference.
            6. There are reserve powers, “break glass only in emergency” powers. One of those is to sack the government. It’s happened once in living memory, in 1975, when the elected government couldn’t pass funding bills and the government was about to run out of money (sound familiar?). That’s one of the few triggers where the reserve powers can be used. They can’t be used for just anything. Sacking the government also means a full election, upper and lower house.
            7. The GG doesn’t report to the crown (King or Queen) in the sense you mean. There’s no “list of things I did today” and the King then sends back an “approved” stamp.
    • Cethin@lemmy.zipEnglish
      7·
      2 months ago

      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.

        • Cethin@lemmy.zipEnglish
          4·
          2 months ago

          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.