Hacker News Reader

Comment by runsWphotons | Hacker News Reader

Do 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.

View on HN

They didn't prevent "disruptions" they prevented peaceful protests (non-disruptive).

I've seen messages online heralding how great it is that everyone loves the king, their evidence being the BBC had no news of any dissent, and there was no evidence of dissent on the ground.

The reality is police arrested people for planning peaceful protests, and the BBC provided their usual biased reporting.

This is not good.

Definition 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

Your definition is exactly what that poster stated it was. No it isn’t in line with that definition.

Where 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.

How is an unelected king not a dictator?

Because he has no power to dictate anything?

UK is not a constitutional monarchy. The king could have me executed. The only reason they don't is the lack of need vs the expected public backlash.

That's just the nature of power and not unique to the UK. Joe Biden could declare you an enemy combatant and drone strike you.

Sure, but he's an elected official, not a random hereditary dude.

Joe Biden could do this and get away with it. Arguably Obama did, as stated above---there might be better examples. If Charles tried, no one would probably listen, and even if he did, once word got out it would probably actually be the end of the monarchy. Charles is not a dictator, autocrat or anything else. And in fact the US president, though elected, is much further along the spectrum towards autocrat than the British monarch. Many actual autocrats are in fact elected, so this distinction isn't really important anyway.

Obama _did_.

¨Anwar Nasser Abdulla al-Awlaki ... was an American imam who was killed in 2011 in Yemen by a US government drone strike ordered by President Barack Obama. Al-Awlaki became the first US citizen to be targeted and killed by a drone strike from the U.S. government.¨

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki

He was a terrorist but he still had rights. And then there was the murder of his non-combatant son who was "collateral damage" from a drone strike on a restaurant:

¨Abdulrahman Anwar al-Awlaki ... was a 16-year-old United States citizen who was killed while eating dinner at an outdoor restaurant in Yemen by a drone airstrike ordered by U.S. President Barack Obama on October 14, 2011.

...

¨Another U.S. administration official speaking on condition of anonymity described Abdulrahman al-Awlaki as a bystander who was "in the wrong place at the wrong time," stating that "the U.S. government did not know that Mr. Awlaki's son was there" before the airstrike was ordered.[8] When pressed by a reporter to defend the targeted killing policy that resulted in Abdulrahman al-Awlaki's death, former White House press secretary Robert Gibbs deflected blame to the victim's father: "I would suggest that you should have a far more responsible father if they are truly concerned about the well-being of their children. I don't think becoming an al-Qaeda jihadist terrorist is the best way to go about doing your business."¨

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Abdulrahman_al-Aw...

> The king [Charles III] could have me executed.

Really? If Charles suddenly issued an order, "seize @trasz4, take him/her to the Tower of London, and chop off his head," do you seriously think anyone in the UK would obey him? More likely Parliament would start the process of declaring him to be Mad King Charles and appointing William as Prince Regent in his place.

Help me understand what exactly he's dictating.

Banning the types of peaceful protests allowed based on the content of their message is deeply fascist.

The British government is seriously leaning into censorship, surveillance, and nationalism which is a very dangerous combination. They have even vilified an out group namely immigrants and cracked down on decent. Add in propaganda with strong ties between the government and large private companies really does make me nervous, though I am not expecting things to devolve very quickly the historic left/right divide isn’t particularly important here.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com