Today I Learned
What did you learn today? Share it with us!
We learn something new every day. This is a community dedicated to informing each other and helping to spread knowledge.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules (interactive)
Rule 1- All posts must begin with TIL. Linking to a source of info is optional, but highly recommended as it helps to spark discussion.
** Posts must be about an actual fact that you have learned, but it doesn't matter if you learned it today. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.**
Rule 2- Your post subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your post subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Posts and comments which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding non-TIL posts.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-TIL posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
Rule 7- You can't harass or disturb other members.
If you vocally harass or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
For further explanation, clarification and feedback about this rule, you may follow this link.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.
Unless included in our Whitelist for Bots, your bot will not be allowed to participate in this community. To have your bot whitelisted, please contact the moderators for a short review.
Partnered Communities
You can view our partnered communities list by following this link. To partner with our community and be included, you are free to message the moderators or comment on a pinned post.
Community Moderation
For inquiry on becoming a moderator of this community, you may comment on the pinned post of the time, or simply shoot a message to the current moderators.
view the rest of the comments
I wouldn't consider it a coup. Coup typically means an unlawful takeover of a government, in the case of Whitlam, it was and still is in the power of the governer general (who is directed by the king or queen) to appoint or dismiss a prime minister.
This is what happens in Australia when there's our equivalent of a govt shutdown. A shutdown implies the leaders have failed at their jobs, so the governer general just dismisses the PM via the king and appoints one who can do his job properly and get things working again.
Confounding this was the fact that both the PM and the GG have the ability to appoint and dismiss each other, in a roundabout way. The PM advises the king or queen to appoint a GG and the king is obligated to follow that advice. The GG advises the king to approve the ascendency of the elected PM, but can advise the king to dismiss them as well. Ultimately it's the king or queen who calls the shots, but by modern etiquette, the monarch is just a conduit for that advice.
When both try to dismiss each other, it really comes down to who gets their letter into the king's hand first. In this case, it was Kerr.
I don't doubt that the CIA interfered and manipulated circumstances, but I don't think the term "Coup" fits.
The queen and the CIA conspired to overthrow a democratically elected leader in a foreign nation, and replace him with someone that would fall in line with their policies.
That is the basic foundation of every CIA coup that has ever occured.
The Queen’s Coup
Is it a foreign nation if it's under the monarchy of the UK? Foreign to the CIA yes but not the Queen.
It's an independent country though.
If people in Canada, Grenada, Jamaica, etc. found out Prince Charles was working with the CIA to interfere with local politics in order to establish more conservative leadership, would they view this as foreign interference? I guess it might depend on the individual, but I have a hard time believing it would be seen as simply an act of tough love from their overbearing mum and her dickhead boyfriend.
I'm talking about technically not individual opinions. That is, it's not a foreign coup.
Agreed. And even if it wasn't an independent country, the monarch should not EVER be getting involved in ousting an elected political leader. Including here in the UK, if it came to it (as it could have when Johnson tried to prorogue parliament - that was outrageous, but if the queen had stepped in that would have been much worse IMO)