Shamima Begum

KPXBLN said:
Because she's British. She was born in Britain and is a British national. That's not to say anything positive or negative about her, it's just a simple fact. She might be guilty of any number of crimes, and morally reprehensible in any number of ways, but that's not the point.
Click to expand...
She also has Bangladeshi nationality so she's not without a nation to return to.

I. International Instruments on Citizenship

International law says relatively little about how states may formulate or implement their domestic citizenship law. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted in 1948, states that everyone is entitled to a nationality and that no one should be “arbitrarily deprived” of her nationality. Several years later, the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, to which the UK is a state party, codified some of these principles by requiring that states grant citizenship to individuals born within their borders who would otherwise be stateless and refrain from acting in ways that would render an individual stateless. As long as the UK acts within the confines of these instruments, international law does not prohibit it stripping Begum of her nationality.

The Supreme Court has looked over these concerns and is the reason it reached the conclusion they have. Shouldn't Begum face trial in Syria for the crimes she committed there? The UK after all wishes the US to extradite Anna Sacoolas for the death of Harry Dunn. Same applies here for Begum. She committed these crimes in ISIS occupied Syria. It is the Syrians she should answer to.
 
Kazzydeyna said:
The plight of this young woman breaks my heart.
As a school child she ran away and got herself mixed up with a very undesirable collection of individuals.
Quite correctly she should now answer for any alleged wrongdoing, but the argument that she should somehow lose her citizenship is dangerous, immoral, and legally extremely dubious.

We should be asking ourselves what it is about our society that running away to Syria looked like a better option than staying at home for a vulnerable child.

If she was a white male , running away to Dublin and getting mixed up with a bunch of Provisionals would there be a cry to strip Him of his citizenship? No, of course there wouldn't.

And what of the precedent being set here? What happens when we arrest a foreign national for some heinous crime or other and wish to deport them home if their home nation refuses them citizenship? Do we keep them?

Dog whistle judicial grandstanding with an eye on the Daily Mail, as per usual in this country.

This desperately vulnerable young woman needs to be brought home, looked after, educated on the error of her ways and allowed to eventually live a normal happy life.

This whole episode is a desperately sad state of affairs.
Click to expand...
And how would you feel if she comes back and commits a terrorist incident killing many people? Serious question that.
 
Gorton_Tubster said:
And how would you feel if she comes back and commits a terrorist incident killing many people? Serious question that.
Click to expand...
The same way I'd feel if anybody else committed a terrorist atrocity. That she should be dealt with by the full force of the law, in compliance with our common law system of justice.

Stripping citizenship from vulnerable children is the thin end of a very frightening wedge.

I should add that this country made her, this country has to look after her.
 
Kazzydeyna said:
The plight of this young woman breaks my heart.
As a school child she ran away and got herself mixed up with a very undesirable collection of individuals.
Quite correctly she should now answer for any alleged wrongdoing, but the argument that she should somehow lose her citizenship is dangerous, immoral, and legally extremely dubious.

We should be asking ourselves what it is about our society that running away to Syria looked like a better option than staying at home for a vulnerable child.

If she was a white male , running away to Dublin and getting mixed up with a bunch of Provisionals would there be a cry to strip Him of his citizenship? No, of course there wouldn't.

And what of the precedent being set here? What happens when we arrest a foreign national for some heinous crime or other and wish to deport them home if their home nation refuses them citizenship? Do we keep them?

Dog whistle judicial grandstanding with an eye on the Daily Mail, as per usual in this country.

This desperately vulnerable young woman needs to be brought home, looked after, educated on the error of her ways and allowed to eventually live a normal happy life.

This whole episode is a desperately sad state of affairs.
Click to expand...
Anna Sacoolas wants your inbox.
 
Real double standards here - we deport criminals to Jamaica at will because they are Jamaican and thus Jamaica's problem.

Shamima Begum born here and a British citizen and we strip her of that citizenship and tell Syria and Bangladesh she is their problem.

As I say double standards that trouble me.
 
Kazzydeyna said:
The same way I'd feel if anybody else committed a terrorist atrocity. That she should be dealt with by the full force of the law, in compliance with our common law system of justice.

Stripping citizenship from vulnerable children is the thin end of a very frightening wedge.

I should add that this country made her, this country has to look after her.
Click to expand...
Stripping citizenship from anybody is dangerous for us all.

These knee jerk reactions lead to authoritarianism.

Start with a trickle and who is to say that next getting a speeding ticket is France is used a reason to strip a person of citizenship, getting caught in the wrong place at the wrong time at a Euro away gets you stripped of citizenship.

The girl should be brought to the UK and dealt with by the law.
 
Kazzydeyna said:
The same way I'd feel if anybody else committed a terrorist atrocity. That she should be dealt with by the full force of the law, in compliance with our common law system of justice.

Stripping citizenship from vulnerable children is the thin end of a very frightening wedge.

I should add that this country made her, this country has to look after her.
Click to expand...
Fair enough. No remorse then for campaigning to bring her back?

That's the thing that scares me. The right thing is bringing her back, morally it's the way forward. But I have a couple of reservations and a major one is the risk of her killing people and of me contributing to that.

It's certainly a conflicting case.
 
bluethrunthru said:
Real double standards here - we deport criminals to Jamaica at will because they are Jamaican and thus Jamaica's problem.

Shamima Begum born here and a British citizen and we strip her of that citizenship and tell Syria and Bangladesh she is their problem.

As I say double standards that trouble me.
Click to expand...

Agree.

If all states just washed their hands of their foreign criminals then we as a nation would suffer far more than most with criminals essentially abandoned on our shores.
 
bluethrunthru said:
Real double standards here - we deport criminals to Jamaica at will because they are Jamaican and thus Jamaica's problem.

Shamima Begum born here and a British citizen and we strip her of that citizenship and tell Syria and Bangladesh she is their problem.

As I say double standards that trouble me.
Click to expand...

It would be good if we adopted the attitude of Jacinda Adern (when she confronted Australia on similar issue) , people with a longstanding connection to the UK, e.g. they grew up here or lived here for a period exceeding x number of years shouldn't be deported.
 
KPXBLN said:
So if you (assuming you're British), committed a crime on holiday in Corfu, you should be stripped of your nationality?
Click to expand...
Begum herself rejected her nationality, she wasn't "stripped of it" by the Government, she voluntarily declared she was no longer a British citizen. https://www.gov.uk/renounce-british-nationality

The UK Government has rejected her appeal to be registered as a British citizen again which was when they revoked it. International Law has already stated that the UK Government, just as any government, is within it's rights to do this, confirmed today by the Supreme Court.
 
Mëtal Bikër said:
She also has Bangladeshi nationality so she's not without a nation to return to.

I. International Instruments on Citizenship

International law says relatively little about how states may formulate or implement their domestic citizenship law. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted in 1948, states that everyone is entitled to a nationality and that no one should be “arbitrarily deprived” of her nationality. Several years later, the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, to which the UK is a state party, codified some of these principles by requiring that states grant citizenship to individuals born within their borders who would otherwise be stateless and refrain from acting in ways that would render an individual stateless. As long as the UK acts within the confines of these instruments, international law does not prohibit it stripping Begum of her nationality.

The Supreme Court has looked over these concerns and is the reason it reached the conclusion they have. Shouldn't Begum face trial in Syria for the crimes she committed there? The UK after all wishes the US to extradite Anna Sacoolas for the death of Harry Dunn. Same applies here for Begum. She committed these crimes in ISIS occupied Syria. It is the Syrians she should answer to.
Click to expand...
Well to your last point I wouldn't object to her being tried for crimes she may have committed in Syria, provided there was a functioning state in Syria that could guarantee her a fair trial, as is the right of anybody under international law. But that wouldn't require that Britain strips her of her British citizenship, for the same reason that the "foreign criminals" we read so much about in British tabloids still have their foreign passports while they're serving out their time in Strangeways.

On the first point she doesn't have Bangladeshi nationality. In ordinary circumstances she might be entitled to Bangladeshi nationality through her parents, but she never applied for that nationality and was never given it. She's never even been to Bangladesh. Either way, the Bangladeshi government have said they will not grant her citizenship, as is their right, so by stripping her of her British citizenship Britain is making her stateless. Saying she's not stateless because she's Bangladeshi is the same as saying that any Briton with one Irish grandparent (and how many of us is that?!) can be stripped of their British citizenship at any time because, no problem, you can just go and be Irish.
 
KPXBLN said:
Because she's British. She was born in Britain and is a British national. That's not to say anything positive or negative about her, it's just a simple fact. She might be guilty of any number of crimes, and morally reprehensible in any number of ways, but that's not the point.
Click to expand...
She could definitely represent Bangladesh at the Olympics.
 
KPXBLN said:
Well to your last point I wouldn't object to her being tried for crimes she may have committed in Syria, provided there was a functioning state in Syria that could guarantee her a fair trial, as is the right of anybody under international law. But that wouldn't require that Britain strips her of her British citizenship, for the same reason that the "foreign criminals" we read so much about in British tabloids still have their foreign passports while they're serving out their time in Strangeways.

On the first point she doesn't have Bangladeshi nationality. In ordinary circumstances she might be entitled to Bangladeshi nationality through her parents, but she never applied for that nationality and was never given it. She's never even been to Bangladesh. Either way, the Bangladeshi government have said they will not grant her citizenship, as is their right, so by stripping her of her British citizenship Britain is making her stateless. Saying she's not stateless because she's Bangladeshi is the same as saying that any Briton with one Irish grandparent (and how many of us is that?!) can be stripped of their British citizenship at any time because, no problem, you can just go and be Irish.
Click to expand...
Again, the UK Government didn't "strip her of it", she renounced it, they revoked it. She wants it back, the UK Govt. said no. The Supreme Court has attested to this. She has dual nationality with Bangladesh. She HAS a nationality (not suprisingly the Bangladeshi Govt. don't want her either but you've said nothing of her being tried there)

You're not suggesting the Supreme Court of the UK is incorrect in the legalities of the UK Govts. actions are you in regards to following International Law?

She should be tried in Syria first before ever reaching a case in the UK. That is after all where her crimes were commited and against.
 
Mëtal Bikër said:
Again, the UK Government didn't "strip her of it", she renounced it, they revoked it. She wants it back, the UK Govt. said no. The Supreme Court has attested to this. She has dual nationality with Bangladesh. She HAS a nationality (not suprisingly the Bangladeshi Govt. don't want her either but you've said nothing of her being tried there)

You're not suggesting the Supreme Court of the UK is incorrect in the legalities of the UK Govts. actions are you in regards to following International Law?

She should be tried in Syria first before ever reaching a case in the UK.
Click to expand...
According to everything I've read, the government removed her citizenship in 2019. Her actions and beliefs - as I've said - are obviously reprehensible, and offensive to the vast vast majority of British people, including everyone on this forum I'm sure. But that doesn't constitute her 'renouncing' her citizenship in any formal legal respect as far I'm aware.

As I said, she doesn't have dual nationality. And as to the UK Supreme Court yeh, I do think they've made the wrong decision. That's why cases get argued and people have the right to appeals, including Begum if she's ever able to instruct lawyers. (Also, when the Court of Appeal ruled last year that 'the only way in which she can have a fair and effective appeal is to be permitted to come into the United Kingdom to pursue her appeal,' presumably you weren't saying "Well the UK Court of Appeal said so, so who am I to question them." The reality is we all have the right to debate the rights and wrongs of these things.)
 
KPXBLN said:
According to everything I've read, the government removed her citizenship in 2019. Her actions and beliefs - as I've said - are obviously reprehensible, and offensive to the vast vast majority of British people, including everyone on this forum I'm sure. But that doesn't constitute her 'renouncing' her citizenship in any formal legal respect as far I'm aware.

As I said, she doesn't have dual nationality. And as to the UK Supreme Court yeh, I do think they've made the wrong decision. That's why cases get argued and people have the right to appeals, including Begum if she's ever able to instruct lawyers. (Also, when the Court of Appeal ruled last year that 'the only way in which she can have a fair and effective appeal is to be permitted to come into the United Kingdom to pursue her appeal,' presumably you weren't saying "Well the UK Court of Appeal said so, so who am I to question them." The reality is we all have the right to debate the rights and wrongs of these things.)
Click to expand...
Still, not illegal. You may disagree, but no laws have been broken. That's the point.
 
Mëtal Bikër said:
Still, not illegal. You may disagree, but no laws have been broken. That's the point.
Click to expand...
I think that it sets a dangerous precedent, as a number of legal experts have argued today, in terms of the Home Secretary's power to remove people's citizenship without a trial or legal process.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top