Western Sahara • Hacker News Board

Re: Western Sahara

#101

Post by inglor_cz » Thu, Aug 06, 2026, 9:25 PM UTC

timinou wrote: post #53

artnanika wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Calling Morocco a "constitutional monarchy" when it is a hereditary dictatorship with no binding constitution (meaning no greater authority to punish the king for violating the "constitution") discredits all the other points you've made. Also, there's a difference between undemocratic and antidemocratic. Morocco is antidemocratic, while Polisario is undemocratic. Polisario could be a democracy if it allows its leader…

Here's a link to Morocco's constitution in English: https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Morocco_2011 We kinda voted for it, so it's quite binding on the king. We also have elections in a couple of months. The king has clear areas where he's limited, for example that he has to appoint the chief of government from the party that came in first. In practice though, democracy doesn't seem to work at enacting ve…

The Soviet Union had a pretty impressive constitution too. The usual problem was respecting it.

You need an independent constitutional court with actual teeth for any constitution to work.

Re: Western Sahara

#102

Post by timinou » Fri, Aug 07, 2026, 9:33 AM UTC

twister2920 wrote: post #100

timinou wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you can find the empathy to do so, please reread my post realising that the people under a government are not the government itself. Morocco ≠ Moroccans. The reality is we're all subjugated. Moroccans, Sahrawis, or Americans. And we're all minorities in Morocco: Sahrawis, Riffis, Chlouh, Doukkali, Chamá-lo, Fassi, Meknessi, Soussi, and I can keep going. The issues people are saying about the Moroccan government's…

nice motte and bailey defense

thanks! but i think it's more of a double "two wrongs make a right": 1. i'm saying the SADR is more authoritarian and repressive than the Moroccan government. 2. i'm saying we (the peoples of Morocco, because we are many, of different kinds and subcultures) are all subjugated anyway, so I'd rather we unite.

Re: Western Sahara

#103

Post by nephihaha » Sat, Aug 08, 2026, 10:07 AM UTC

owebmaster wrote: post #91

skrebbel wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I (in good faith) don’t understand what you don’t understand. Western Sahara is basically a colony so if you’re opposed to colonialism it isn’t super weird to be opposed to making a movie in that colony, paying taxes etc to the colonizers and so on, no?

Why is western Sahara a colony and not California, Puerto Rico, North Ireland, French Guyana, the Falklands?

Many people do consider those colonies. However, the Falklands/Malvinas had no native population (plot twist: the French were there first). Northern Ireland's position raises questions about Scotland, Wales and the Isle of Man.

I think Hawai'i is a better example than California. Hawai'i was a constitutional monarchy, with fully developed law courts etc. California was the fringe of Mexico and the Spanish Empire, and not so well organised. I have heard Puerto Rico described as a colony many times before. But again, I would say there is a better example: American Samoa.

As for the French, like the USA, they are pretty much in denial about colonies. There were people in France who considered Algeria an integral part of France right up until the end.