The points being...
1) Brit has clearly stated the difference, but that difference is not by choice but by regulation. You cannot move here and become part of the citizenship because it is not allowed. So you can't say that the choice exists in both places.
2) Political systems are being manipulated to define what is right or wrong instead of answering the real question at hand. So what you end up with is a huge double standard>
Example: Religious freedom should be a human being's right - regardlous of where you live. That is the real question.
However it has been manipulated to - religious freedom should be a right in open sectarian countries but it should not be a right in closed religious countries.
This leads to people from the closed religious countries emigrating to the open countries and demanding their rights while still denying that fundamental human right back in their home countries.
Look at how many discussions here are focused around what a country can (should) or cannot (should not) do based on how they have defined themselves rather than what is a fundamental human right.
If you believe religious freedom is a fundamental human right then a country simply saying that doesn't count here does not change that right. And please feel free to substitute other rights that many feel are fundamental human rights - freedom of speech, freedom of press, freedom to assemble and associate etc.
People who do not accept that these are fundamental human rights will always be at odds with those who do, and simply saying "It doesn't count in my country" will not make that go away.
_______________________________________________________
The points being...
1) Brit has clearly stated the difference, but that difference is not by choice but by regulation. You cannot move here and become part of the citizenship because it is not allowed. So you can't say that the choice exists in both places.
2) Political systems are being manipulated to define what is right or wrong instead of answering the real question at hand. So what you end up with is a huge double standard>
Example: Religious freedom should be a human being's right - regardlous of where you live. That is the real question.
However it has been manipulated to - religious freedom should be a right in open sectarian countries but it should not be a right in closed religious countries.
This leads to people from the closed religious countries emigrating to the open countries and demanding their rights while still denying that fundamental human right back in their home countries.
Look at how many discussions here are focused around what a country can (should) or cannot (should not) do based on how they have defined themselves rather than what is a fundamental human right.
If you believe religious freedom is a fundamental human right then a country simply saying that doesn't count here does not change that right. And please feel free to substitute other rights that many feel are fundamental human rights - freedom of speech, freedom of press, freedom to assemble and associate etc.
People who do not accept that these are fundamental human rights will always be at odds with those who do, and simply saying "It doesn't count in my country" will not make that go away.
_______________________________________________________
"A Wise Man knows what he does not know!"