Did the UK historically deal with fascists extremely?

Post Reply New Topic

I refer to this regulation, lasting until the very end of the war but not after, so clearly it was enacted with the war in mind. Even habeas corpus was suspended, and that doesn't normally happen.

So, putting aside the fact wars make everyone frantic, how else could it have been handled? It's not like they were tortured, as opposed to what fascist dictators like Assad do especially in a war.

There is also 'Haw-Haw' who seemed at best misguided, barely effective even in his chosen profession of propaganda, but capital punishment? The last to do so for treason, which seems to have been abolished in the states, but it's not like they don't get their share of people encouraging other nations to attack... and it's not like Joyce was in Hitler's cabinet, who were also sentenced in Nuremberg... there is just no differentiation between words and actions. Note that this was a Tory right-wing government imposing upon the far-right, which makes it an interesting historical juxtaposition and wonder about parallels in other countries and times. So, how do extreme political situations deal with extreme ideology?

Planning to have me put in a camp Mootoo? I think you need to be more specific when using the word fascist, as Orwell pointed out decades ago, that word has been so badly abused that it should be banished from the dictionary. The closest definition in the modern vernacular would be "someone whose opinions are to the Right of me". The same for extreme/extremist, the word is all but a meaningless slur.

Mussolini's idea of fascism was to put the corperation the centre of the state. In other words to have a collusioary relationship. He said the corperation is King.

So in a way, we have achieved his wildest dreams already.

Fascism prior to war was actually quite popular. Even suffrag(ettes/ists) subscribed to it. Eugenics was also popular.

Last edited by 0_equals_true on 24 Sep 2016, 3:35 am, edited 1 time in total.

In fairness to mootoo, it is one of his better posts. If you read the OP you will see this is an open question about rights of citizens of those even if you don't agree with them. It is also a question about a state at war.

+1

As will any question like this we have to ask are we judging based on today's standards or are we judging based on the standards of the day?

Sedition legislation was only abolished in 2009 in the UK, however in practice hasn't been used much since the 60s. However this doesn't apply to alien who can still can be convicted under the Aliens Restriction (Amendment) Act 1919.

Anti-subversive surveillance was only abolished officially 1988 Security Service Act. Yet we all know of the Met's deep cover operations into environmental and other activist groups well into the 00s. They weren't even targeting those suspected of crimes, they implanted themselves within these communities to build credibility. They stole the identities of dead children, had relationships an children, committed crimes and were processed under their fake identity.

I think those that directly aided the Nazi regime through material support, military action or espionage, did commit treason.

Treason is a rather old fashioned crime, which int he past was more loosely applied. Whist is still exist people are normal tried under different crimes.

Other than that, unless their speech restricted the right of others or incited violence by today standards it should be allowed.

Even state sponsored propaganda such as through a media agency of another state, you can't really stop this.

Aliens Restriction Act was even passed hurriedly a hundred years ago, The Law Commission recommended its total repeal fifty years later but somehow procrastination is a priority, and this still happens often when they utilize secondary legislation. I'm not sure what democracy is...

The UK has no right to deal with fascists extremely since they sided with Indonesia during the East Timor genocide.