Southern &amp; Petibone suing the U.K. for denying entry due to their political views

OP

Original post by ajj2000

So, nationalists are suing a nation for exercising its right to self government... (I know Alt-Right/ Richard Spencer were strongly anti-Brexit but in general this looks pretty inconsistent).

This is a freedom issue. Britain is acting like Nazi Germany or the former Soviet Union both who were infamous for detaining and reprimanding people for their political views. They are being consistent with the alt right views by taking on cultural Marxist corrupted power.

Since when did the alt-right hate Brexit. Trump stood shoulder to shoulder with Farage literally in praising it, Alex Jones hailed it as a victory and so did Mike Cernovitz.

Reply 5

Original post by Airplanebee2

This is a freedom issue. Britain is acting like Nazi Germany or the former Soviet Union both who were infamous for detaining and reprimanding people for their political views. They are being consistent with the alt right views by taking on cultural Marxist corrupted power.

Since when did the alt-right hate Brexit. Trump stood shoulder to shoulder with Farage literally in praising it, Alex Jones hailed it as a victory and so did Mike Cernovitz.

Alt right is a publication run by Richard Spencer. To the best of my knowledge Trump and Farage have nothing to do with it and Alex Jones is critical of it (and them of him with some pretty crazy conspiracy stories).

I'm not aware that either Southern or Pettibone are British or EU citizens (but may be wrong). They are attacking a sovereign country's right to protect its borders and decide who or who may not enter.

Reply 6

Original post by ajj2000

So, nationalists are suing a nation for exercising its right to self government... (I know Alt-Right/ Richard Spencer were strongly anti-Brexit but in general this looks pretty inconsistent).

Huh? Since when? Maybe he was (and in specific terms) but it certainly wasn't a general trend.

Also, nationalists draw a distinction between nations and their ruling apparatus, aka a government.

Reply 7

Original post by ajj2000

Alt right is a publication run by Richard Spencer. To the best of my knowledge Trump and Farage have nothing to do with it and Alex Jones is critical of it (and them of him with some pretty crazy conspiracy stories).

I'm not aware that either Southern or Pettibone are British or EU citizens (but may be wrong). They are attacking a sovereign country's right to protect its borders and decide who or who may not enter.

Whilst pointing out its incompetence in actually protecting anyone. I'm really not sure why you think this is a solid point. It's a rather weak zinger type argument. Not really compelling to anyone with half a clue of what they're arguing.

Reply 8

OP

Original post by ajj2000

Alt right is a publication run by Richard Spencer. To the best of my knowledge Trump and Farage have nothing to do with it and Alex Jones is critical of it (and them of him with some pretty crazy conspiracy stories).

I'm not aware that either Southern or Pettibone are British or EU citizens (but may be wrong). They are attacking a sovereign country's right to protect its borders and decide who or who may not enter.

That’s quite interesting that the left attacked Trump on the grounds that he made a Muslim ban (when though he didn’t - he executed a ban on certain countries that had already been drafted before he was elected). The implication is that a country can’t ban people from entering thought discrimination.

But now if it’s alt right people, discrimination for their political views is OK?

Reply 9

username1148663

If they are taking the government to court over it then I think it’s great, I don’t know one of them but Lauren should have been let into the country no questions asked.

Reply 10

Original post by TCA2b

Whilst pointing out its incompetence in actually protecting anyone. I'm really not sure why you think this is a solid point. It's a rather weak zinger type argument. Not really compelling to anyone with half a clue of what they're arguing.

Seems pretty fundamental to me. If they campaigned on moral grounds - fine. If a promoter of free movement went to court - fine too. Not a good look for people who support nativism to oppose abroad the government choice which they wish for at home

Reply 11

Original post by Airplanebee2

That’s quite interesting that the left attacked Trump on the grounds that he made a Muslim ban (when though he didn’t - he executed a ban on certain countries that had already been drafted before he was elected). The implication is that a country can’t ban people from entering thought discrimination.

But now if it’s alt right people, discrimination for their political views is OK?

It's worth noting that Trump has been called out by many on the right for extending Obama's rather badly targeted ban, because it doesn't actually include some of the most high risk countries in the ME.

Reply 12

Original post by ajj2000

Seems pretty fundamental to me. If they campaigned on moral grounds - fine. If a promoter of free movement went to court - fine too. Not a good look for people who support nativism to oppose abroad the government choice which they wish for at home

Yeah, this seems like rather base concern trolling to me and little else. Given how bad the British government is at border control, I think they can certainly make an example of their situations to show the zeal with which it acts in those cases - and to suggest these women are dangerous is a sign of complete delusion - and the complete apathy/indifference in cases where actual criminals are concerned. They don't think the British government is doing a good job of protecting the country's borders in the first place - so why would misplaced use of its resources in doing so NOT be something for them to criticise and take it to task for?

Reply 13

Original post by Airplanebee2

That’s quite interesting that the left attacked Trump on the grounds that he made a Muslim ban (when though he didn’t - he executed a ban on certain countries that had already been drafted before he was elected). The implication is that a country can’t ban people from entering thought discrimination.

But now if it’s alt right people, discrimination for their political views is OK?

I dont believe that the people in question opposed Trumps restrictions on people from certain countries being able to enter America - I suspect they supported it. As such they are inconsistent in taking legal action against another country for exercising a right to restrict who enters.

If someone who had opposed Trumps policy taken legal action against the UK I wouldn't consider that inconsistent.

Reply 14

Original post by TCA2b

Yeah, this seems like rather base concern trolling to me and little else. Given how bad the British government is at border control, I think they can certainly make an example of their situations to show the zeal with which it acts in those cases - and to suggest these women are dangerous is a sign of complete delusion - and the complete apathy/indifference in cases where actual criminals are concerned. They don't think the British government is doing a good job of protecting the country's borders in the first place - so why would misplaced use of its resources in doing so NOT be something for them to criticise and take it to task for?

Criticise - fine. Suggest that its a bad policy or a bad application of a policy - fine. Going to court means you think the country was not entitled to act in this way - which is contrary to their usual statement elsewhere.

Reply 15

Original post by ajj2000

Criticise - fine. Suggest that its a bad policy or a bad application of a policy - fine. Going to court means you think the country was not entitled to act in this way - which is contrary to their usual statement elsewhere.

Or it simply means that they believe the border authorities in question were acting outside the boundaries of their authority and/or made an incorrect assessment of the situation.

What's so special about suing, though? People file lawsuits all the time. I mean if they criticise the UK government it's not like their views will be any fundamentally different.

If they were partial to the position that government authorities are unerring and should be immune from lawsuits, you'd have a point, but such a view is untenable.

Reply 16

OP

Original post by TCA2b

Yeah, this seems like rather base concern trolling to me and little else. Given how bad the British government is at border control, I think the can certainly make an example of their situations to show the zeal with which it acts in those cases - and to suggest these women are dangerous is a sign of complete delusion - and the complete apathy/indifference in cases where actual criminals are concerned.

It’s a bit like how the British police ignore most theft and robbery crime e.g. home or car robbery, but the minute someone posts something “offensive” on Twitter, they are at the scene quickly in uniform.

Reply 17

Original post by TCA2b

Or it simply means that they believe the border authorities in question were acting outside the boundaries of their authority and/or made an incorrect assessment of the situation.

Which is fine. I'm questioning their choice to take legal action against a sovereign country of which they are not a citizen for protecting its borders. The policy of controlling borders may be wrong, the actions of the authorities may be wrong, the existence of such authorities may be wrong - still not their place to seek legal redress when they wish the same powers to be available elsewhere.

Reply 18

OP