Yes, one may well legitimately enough find due fault with the particular method employed...and moreover the actual immediate consequence thereof...but surely it can be reasonably enough argued and asserted: if the actual goal itself is well and proper, then critics ought to concede as much, and openly admit that the only real beef they have (in either instance cited) is with the process adopted.
True, the ends desired does not - and never will - justify the means used to get there. But let's at least have an honest discussion, folks, and not only admit, but freely concede (in the form of this rhetorical question): Doesn't a - any - nation have the sovereign right, even the responsibility, to assert its sovereignty over its own affairs, territory and border/s? No, really...
And I write that as someone not even remotely sympathetic with the concept of a border wall, much less with the rather heavy-handed tactics latterly employed to defend/guard/secure it...and certainly not with the deaths of innocent wee children who've effectively served as collateral damage in President Trump's determination to - understandably enough - fulfil a major and well-understood campaign plank, however 'controversial' (to state the blimmin' obvious)...
But again, effectively conflating the two (entirely different) scenarios/situations - even as the world witnesses the awfully tragic and completely avoidable deaths of little kiddies (and conceivably - down the line - senior citizens and/or frail and/or semi-incapacitated folk - be they women or men, for that matter) crossing over into America - does not by itself, ipso facto suddenly obviate or negate the sovereign right of the United States to have, and its concurrent need to enforce, normal, perfectly legitimate national border security protection/s...for its own citizens...for whatever reason...
So please let's not single out and inconsistently make an oh-so-convenient scapegoat of America here.
As far as Great Britain/the United Kingdom is concerned, it's quite incredible the distinct parallels in this particular regard, and no, not in a very nice way by a very long shot. For just as the ghastly, cold-blooded murder in broad daylight of British Labour M.P. Jo Cox - a staunch and highly vocal, very active Remain campaigner - just prior to Referendum 2016 *could hardly be said/argued to thereby deny the absolute validity - in any way, shape or form - of the **express wish of the British populace wanting out of the European Union, neither can such tragedies make a nonsense of (the concept of border security) or nullify the need for a border between the U S and its southern neighbour.
Incidentally, though one seldom if ever hears about it these days, the feeling in the U K was trending hugely/majorly (55%:45%) for a Brexit just prior to M.P. Cox's brutal killing. But hey, why mention an inconvenient fact that just so happens not to suit the argument, not to fit the well-worn narrative that's being pushed by all and sundry?
**And any attempt to contest the Brexit decision of U K voters on the grounds of an insufficient mandate for a change of such constitutional significance holds as little water. For one thing, that's not been the law (for referenda there for ever and a day), secondly, if it were now superimposed in a retrospective gaze - as it were - it'd ***surely have to apply in selfsame way to previous referenda where Britons voted to join the Common Market and European Union; but thirdly, and seemingly incontrovertibly (to me, anyhow): how dare any of us (foreign-dwellers) deign to lecture or tutor the Brits in how they ought to run their democracy...for we all saw how that ended up in Iraq (among others), and no, folks, she ain't pretty...as even arch-Europhile Tony Blair himself - a chief proponent of just such a revisionist (and/or 2nd referendum) measure - would surely have to concede by now...
***You simply can't have it both ways, folks - what's good enough for the gander is surely sufficient for the goose.
True, the ends desired does not - and never will - justify the means used to get there. But let's at least have an honest discussion, folks, and not only admit, but freely concede (in the form of this rhetorical question): Doesn't a - any - nation have the sovereign right, even the responsibility, to assert its sovereignty over its own affairs, territory and border/s? No, really...
And I write that as someone not even remotely sympathetic with the concept of a border wall, much less with the rather heavy-handed tactics latterly employed to defend/guard/secure it...and certainly not with the deaths of innocent wee children who've effectively served as collateral damage in President Trump's determination to - understandably enough - fulfil a major and well-understood campaign plank, however 'controversial' (to state the blimmin' obvious)...
But again, effectively conflating the two (entirely different) scenarios/situations - even as the world witnesses the awfully tragic and completely avoidable deaths of little kiddies (and conceivably - down the line - senior citizens and/or frail and/or semi-incapacitated folk - be they women or men, for that matter) crossing over into America - does not by itself, ipso facto suddenly obviate or negate the sovereign right of the United States to have, and its concurrent need to enforce, normal, perfectly legitimate national border security protection/s...for its own citizens...for whatever reason...
So please let's not single out and inconsistently make an oh-so-convenient scapegoat of America here.
As far as Great Britain/the United Kingdom is concerned, it's quite incredible the distinct parallels in this particular regard, and no, not in a very nice way by a very long shot. For just as the ghastly, cold-blooded murder in broad daylight of British Labour M.P. Jo Cox - a staunch and highly vocal, very active Remain campaigner - just prior to Referendum 2016 *could hardly be said/argued to thereby deny the absolute validity - in any way, shape or form - of the **express wish of the British populace wanting out of the European Union, neither can such tragedies make a nonsense of (the concept of border security) or nullify the need for a border between the U S and its southern neighbour.
Incidentally, though one seldom if ever hears about it these days, the feeling in the U K was trending hugely/majorly (55%:45%) for a Brexit just prior to M.P. Cox's brutal killing. But hey, why mention an inconvenient fact that just so happens not to suit the argument, not to fit the well-worn narrative that's being pushed by all and sundry?
**And any attempt to contest the Brexit decision of U K voters on the grounds of an insufficient mandate for a change of such constitutional significance holds as little water. For one thing, that's not been the law (for referenda there for ever and a day), secondly, if it were now superimposed in a retrospective gaze - as it were - it'd ***surely have to apply in selfsame way to previous referenda where Britons voted to join the Common Market and European Union; but thirdly, and seemingly incontrovertibly (to me, anyhow): how dare any of us (foreign-dwellers) deign to lecture or tutor the Brits in how they ought to run their democracy...for we all saw how that ended up in Iraq (among others), and no, folks, she ain't pretty...as even arch-Europhile Tony Blair himself - a chief proponent of just such a revisionist (and/or 2nd referendum) measure - would surely have to concede by now...
***You simply can't have it both ways, folks - what's good enough for the gander is surely sufficient for the goose.
No comments:
Post a Comment