8 ms·
These laws in general may qualify but specifically is it really fascist not to tolerate protest of the coronation in a monarchy? It isn't fascist just to have r
by runsWphotons 3y ago
These laws in general may qualify but specifically is it really fascist not to tolerate protest of the coronation in a monarchy? It isn't fascist just to have rules.
- Retric 3y agoYes, objecting to protests like this is fascist. Read up on how fascist regimes centralize power, arresting people who object was and is a major aspect of it. By outlawing decent you eventually normalize support for your regime such that even people who despise what’s going on are eventually unwilling to say so. They may have gotten external damnation for it, but China’s cracking down on protests worked: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1989_Tiananmen_Square_protests_and_massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1989_Tiananmen_Square_protests... What seems counterintuitive is the CCP still makes it very clear you’re not allowed to talk about it because they want people to live in fear. Thus, they very much want people to know and not talk about it.
- vixen99 3y agoHow about what comes about as a result of this- https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1766760/just-stop-oil-protest-training https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1766760/just-stop-oil-prot...
- runsWphotons 3y agoSomething interesting here is whether your right to protest extends to being paid to protest. If it can be shown an NGO is paying you to engage in a disruptive protest, are you really exercising some kind of human right? IDK, that seems new. It doesn't strike me as being in the spirit of the protected right.
- tuukkah 3y agoFree choice of employment is article 23.1 in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: > Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_work https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_work
- runsWphotons 3y agoNot really relevant. A plumber may have the human right to work (granting such a thing makes any sense for arguments sake), but if someone pays him to cut off the water supply to a neighbourhood, he can hardly defend himself by invoking that right. Someone who is paid to agitate---I dont know if they can then invoke the human right to protest. Is that really in the spirit of law?
- runsWphotons 3y agoDo you actually think preventing disruptions to the coronation is an indication the British government is becoming Fascist? Fascism has other attributes. Is there a dictatorial power emerging in Britain? Is there an increase in militarism? Is there even a right wing government (no)? Is the government expressing ideas of a natural social hierarchy (no...some of the opposition may be). Whatever is going on, fascism is not the right word.
- spinningslate 3y agoDefinition of fascism from Merriam-Webster[0]: > 1. a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition > 2. a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control The current Uk government has introduced laws to limit protest as described in this topic; it's also looking to limit the right to strike (ref. current health service pay disputes). Both are consistent with the definition above. [0] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fascism https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fascism
- edgyquant 3y agoYour definition is exactly what that poster stated it was. No it isn’t in line with that definition.
- runsWphotons 3y agoWhere is the dictator or "autocrat"? It doesn't meet either definition at all. I am not here to defend these laws in general, but I don't think ensuring no disruptions to the coronation has much to do with them (they used them against maybe 6 people and didnt even charge all of them?). And I don't think it is indicative of anything like fascism. It might be indicative of something else bad that is happening in the UK political body.
- trasz4 3y ago
- 1827163 3y agoPossibly the early stages of fascism? Something to do with neoliberalism? To me it's more of a shift to authoritarianism or totalitarianism. Totalitarianism equates dissent with violence [1]. And here in the UK we have the "Prevent programme" where people who dissent against the prevailing political opinions can be labelled "extremists" even though they have not done anything illegal [2]. Which is very, very concerning. The laws relating to this were passed in 2015. I fear that those who complain about the restrictions on freedom of speech and erosion of civil liberties in general, here in the UK, could be considered "extremists" by this government and subjected to Prevent related surveillance by intelligence agencies such as GCHQ. 1. https://fee.org/articles/14-signs-of-totalitarianism/ https://fee.org/articles/14-signs-of-totalitarianism/ 2. https://www.rightsandsecurity.org/assets/downloads/Prevent-ing_dissent_How_the_UK%E2%80%99s_counter-terrorism_strategy_is_eroding_democracy.pdf https://www.rightsandsecurity.org/assets/downloads/Prevent-i...
- rayiner 3y agoCentralizing power and arresting people who cause a disruption isn’t especially characteristic of fascism. China is a communist country, not fascist. You’re deeply confused.
- Retric 3y agoFascism is a reference to a specific political ideology. Fascist can refer to either that specific system or the ways in which that system operated. https://www.dictionary.com/browse/fascist https://www.dictionary.com/browse/fascist “a person who is dictatorial or has extreme right-wing views.” Not the OR is intended as either applies rather than an AND where someone must also have extreme right wing view.
- rayiner 3y ago[flagged]
- Retric 3y agoThis is in reference to specific kinds of activities not the overall political system. People will call unusually restrictive librarians fascist. It’s just how languages evolve over time. Fascism: “2: a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control” https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fascism https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fascism It also mentions the the first definition which you’re thinking of is usually capitalized.
- NoMoreNicksLeft 3y agoIt's very strange to me how one day 15 or 20 years ago, everything bad in the world was suddenly fascist. Before that time, there was at least this pervasive assumption that something could be bad or undesirable while not wearing jackboots. And then a switch flipped. In every government which abuses its people, arresting dissidents was the first resort of the dictators and autocrats.
- Retric 3y agoIt’s much older than that, and an outgrowth of both propaganda and the degree to which those governments really did pioneer various methods of social control. This may have simply been timing. The widespread adoption of radio and movies suddenly made it a lot easier to influence society. Beyond that they really just took things much further, it’s hard to find direct parallels to the scale and influence on society of say the Hitler Youth in the 1800’s or before. History is full of dictators and political purges, but before this they focused on those with actual power.
- dotnet00 3y agoThat's a characteristic of authoritarianism in general and not specifically fascism.
- Retric 3y agoEarlier forms of authoritarianism like absolute monarchy didn’t necessarily include those elements. Fascist political movements/governments however pioneered them. Thus they techniques are labeled fascist even if they where quickly adopted by communist countries etc. PS: Fascism: “2: a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control” https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fascism https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fascism
- dotnet00 3y agoI'm not seeing how fascism can be said to have pioneered them, concepts of lese majeste - which, for a monarchy is essentially equivalent to the crime of dissenting against the government - have existed for centuries all over the world.
- Retric 3y agoScale makes a huge difference here. Early governments used more compromises like: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decimation_(punishment) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decimation_(punishment) rather than just killing thousands of people. As to timing, it’s the same technological developments which resulted in large companies becoming common and being linked to government for the first time with new options for governmental control. Radio, telegraph, calculators/computers, and trains allowed for much larger a more homogeneous organizations. The Hitler Youth for example didn’t have similar parallels in the 1800’s and before. At the same time individuals became less useful to the state. Large prison populations are really expensive in terms of guards and lost productivity. Similarly execution means removing potentially productive people. Historically, only a small number of people within a society would get made examples of until industrialization increased productivity to the point where states could suddenly afford to have secret police capturing large percentages of the population.
- ClumsyPilot 3y agoIs this written in Jest? A real monarchy with absolute power is a facist state by today's standards. Like you literally didn't have any rights and could be killed on the whim of a noble. Even Magna Carta didn't grabt any rights to peasants and riffraff. The times before it were even more tyranical
- MagicMoonlight 3y agoFascism is the name of an actual political ideology, it doesn’t just mean “things I don’t like”
- hnbad 3y agoOP clearly meant "fascist" as a shorthand for "extremely authoritarian and non-democratic", which is a common colloquial usage. But yes, fascism typically includes an appeal to a (imagined) past glory, a close collaboration between corporations and the state, a designated enemy who is both weak enough to be an easy target and strong enough to pose an existential threat and an empowerment of the military and police force. This list doesn't cover most monarchies by any stretch of the imagination even though there are obvious overlaps. EDIT: I also think it's simplistic to call fascism an ideology as even the historical examples share as many differences as similarities when analyzed as ideologies. I think it's more accurate to call it a strategy or mechanism, or maybe a meta-ideology. There is no "fascist economic model" for example. It's goal is to bring about a social hierarchy through the use of excessive force and typically waves of ever-expanding mass killings of undesirables. It needs an other to eliminate to maintain itself, making it inherently self-destructive. I think the most accurate description I've seen of fascism is as an "immune system of capitalism" or "capitalism in crisis": it primarily kills the weak, those unable to work, those unwilling to work and those posing a direct or indirect threat to the social order required to maintain the owner-worker hierarchy (e.g. trade unions, socialists, even progressives) and when it eventually collapses, is overthrown or fades away, it reinstates a liberal market economy (i.e. capitalism) while having mostly maintained the power of those that were previously wealthy or were even able to expand their wealth through collaboration.
- shawabawa3 3y agoOne of the main characteristics of fascism is forcible supression of opposition so I think a government that doesn't tolerate peaceful protest is in some sense fascist
- runsWphotons 3y agoDoing one thing that fascist government's sometimes do does not make you a fascist government. The UK might be tending toward fascism, but not allowing disruptive protests of the coronation is not really an indicator one way or the other. The king is certainly not a dictator, having little power at all.
- pbhjpbhj 3y agoSo like: sure the attacker stabbed someone, beat them with a baseball bat, punched and kicked them, but the attacker didn't use a gun so it wasn't violent. The king has no power, that's why he's able to easily bend the national broadcaster and the police force to his will with ease ... that's why we have to get his consent to pass any laws ... that's why the armed services pledge allegiance to him (as monarch) and not to the UK ... that's why we pay him 100s of £millions from taxes ... that's why we organise a hugely costly parade for him in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis ... these are all signs he has no power /s
- rayiner 3y agoThis is basic vocabulary. “Violence” is a word that encompasses a range of actions. “Fascism” is a word that refers to a specific political ideology combining various elements.
- trasz4 3y agoIn UK the king has absolute power, its just that they don't exercise it because in a civilised country they would need to be guillotined afterwards.
- ChuckNorris89 3y ago
- AnimalMuppet 3y agoDoes the UK have rules against protesting the coronation of the monarchy? Are they following them? Or are they bending/breaking the rules to shut down the protests, to avoid making the new monarch look bad? Breaking the rules to prohibit protest in one specific case may not be fascist, but it isn't the rule of law...
- bearmode 3y agoThey literally introduced new laws to curb protests a few weeks ago. That law is what they used to arrest peaceful protestors.
- runsWphotons 3y agoThere are probably very old rules about disrupting the coronation, yes. I expect it has been illegal for hundreds of years.
- runsWphotons 3y agoThere is also not a really deep right to protest in British law. The right to protest comes from their signing the European convention on human rights (they have some law called Human Rights Act). It is not enshrined fundamentally as in the United States afaik.
- neaden 3y agoAt the coronation of William the Conqueror the soldiers were really nervous, no one was sure how people would react to William's coronation for a variety of reasons. There was a large crowd outside the church. At a certain point in the ceremony was the acclamation where the people are asked if they accept the king. This was asked in French, then English. Somehow the Norman soldiers got confused at this point and thought this was a start of a riot and began to attack the crowd and set some houses on fire. Some of the more enterprising Norman soldiers took the opportunity to loot nearby houses. The ceremony fairly abruptly ended at that point with no one inside being sure what was going on. So I guess the MET can point to that as an example of historical precedent and how they handled themselves with relative restraint.
- RobotToaster 3y agoIf you want to split hairs it's feudal not fascist, although that's just as bad, if not worse.
- onetimeusename 3y agoNo, it's not fascist. What the anti-monarchists failed to mention is that the protestors were not arrested because they were protesting, they were arrested under suspicion of attempting to lock-on[1] but were later released without charges because of a lack of evidence. There is a debate to be had about what a peaceful protest is but frequently people use the right to disrupt other people's lives such as blocking roads. I don't think there should be a human right that can deny other people the right to use public roads and paths. That would deny others the right to protest peacefully also. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lock-on_(protest_tactic) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lock-on_(protest_tactic)