Shamima Begum

KPXBLN said:
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.
Click to expand...
It's a dangerous precedent to suggest to those who wish to join a sadistic, cultist state, that to reject your nationality and therefore the protection of it's courts and justice system, in favour of living under the regime of a group that raped and sold young girls, murdered homosexuals without trial, only to then shit yourself when the tables are turned, to suddenly want that same protection again, only to be legally denied upon request, from a Home Secretary who follows international law proceedings before acting, to ensure such an action to revoke their citizenship is legal in the eyes of international human rights laws... is a BAD thing?
 
KPXBLN said:
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.
Click to expand...
Some even bigger legal experts (Supreme Court Judges no less) have said the opposite tbf.
 
Mëtal Bikër said:
It's a dangerous precedent to suggest to those who wish to join a sadistic, cultist state, that to reject your nationality and therefore the protection of it's courts and justice system, in favour of living under the regime of a group that raped and sold young girls, murdered homosexuals without trial, only to then shit yourself when the tables are turned, to suddenly want that same protection again, only to be legally denied upon request, from a Home Secretary who follows international law proceedings before acting, to ensure such an action to revoke their citizenship is legal in the eyes of international human rights laws... is a BAD thing?
Click to expand...
Yes, as I've consistently said, it's not about Begum or what she did, but the idea that people can be stripped of their nationality and therefore rendered stateless. Begum, or anyone else who commits crimes, can - and should! - be charged and tried for them and if convicted imprisoned.

SWP's back said:
Some even bigger legal experts (Supreme Court Judges no less) have said the opposite tbf.
Click to expand...
To quibble slightly, they probably wouldn't dispute that the precedent is set - just whether or not it's dangerous.
 
Not sure why she went down the legal road tbh. It would've been more straightforward to hitch a lift across the 1000 mile porous Turkish border and into Europe hiding among legit refugees - it's what all the other terrorists and ex IS fighters do.
 
KPXBLN said:
Yes, as I've consistently said, it's not about Begum or what she did, but the idea that people can be stripped of their nationality and therefore rendered stateless. Begum, or anyone else who commits crimes, can - and should! - be charged and tried for them and if convicted imprisoned.


To quibble slightly, they probably wouldn't dispute that the precedent is set - just whether or not it's dangerous.
Click to expand...
Hers is an extreme circumstance; she joined a group that had waged 'war' against the citizens of this country and she willingly renounced her OWN citizenship.

Its not like the UK Government suddenly has powers to do this willy-nilly to any British citizen.
 
Mëtal Bikër said:
Its not like the UK Government suddenly has powers to do this willy-nilly to any British citizen.
Click to expand...
Legally they do though, now. The court accepted the principal that the Home Secretary can make that decision. In what circumstances they would use it in future is an open question: but it's not like the court ruling is "you can do this but only for ISIS" or whatever.
 
KPXBLN said:
Legally they do though, now. The court accepted the principal that the Home Secretary can make that decision. In what circumstances they would use it in future is an open question: but it's not like the court ruling is "you can do this but only for ISIS" or whatever.
Click to expand...
The court accepted that in this instance they did, because of Begum foolishly renouncing her own citizenship and destorying her UK passport. If the UK Home Secretary decided to do this on a whim with any British citizen, that quite clearly contravened international human rights laws, they could theoretically still do it, but in the case of Begum, the UK would receive international CONDEMNATION for the action. Not so in this case, because no human rights laws have been broken.
 
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...

This is the key point - she had British citizenship until it was removed and made her stateless, breaking international law.
She has no right to Dutch citizenship. Bangladesh had already said she wouldn't get Bangladeshi citizenship.

There shouldn't be any grey area on what the legal point is about.
 
Mëtal Bikër said:
The court accepted that in this instance they did, because of Begum foolishly renouncing her own citizenship and destorying her UK passport. If the UK Home Secretary decided to do this on a whim with any British citizen, that quite clearly contravened international human rights laws, they could theoretically still do it, but in the case of Begum, the UK would receive international CONDEMNATION for the action. Not so in this case, because no human rights laws have been broken.
Click to expand...
Well opinion is divided on that point. Devyani Prabhat, professor of law at the University of Bristol: “From a human rights perspective, this is a very disappointing decision as it seems to offer complete and whole discretion to the home secretary and has an unsatisfying view on fair trial rights and how people can be kept ‘in limbo.’"
But I accept we aren't going to change each other's minds at this point.
 
KPXBLN said:
Well opinion is divided on that point. Devyani Prabhat, professor of law at the University of Bristol: “From a human rights perspective, this is a very disappointing decision as it seems to offer complete and whole discretion to the home secretary and has an unsatisfying view on fair trial rights and how people can be kept ‘in limbo.’"
But I accept we aren't going to change each other's minds at this point.
Click to expand...
"from a human rights perpective" here having the meaning of fee-fees being hurt.

No human rights laws have been broken. How many times. HAD the UK government broken international HRL's in order to get Begum's British citizenship revoked, then yes i'd be infuriated with the actions of the previous and current Home Secretaries.

They haven't, so I don't empathise with Begum's situation (that she wholly caused herself by her own actions and intentions)
 
KPXBLN said:
Well opinion is divided on that point. Devyani Prabhat, professor of law at the University of Bristol: “From a human rights perspective, this is a very disappointing decision as it seems to offer complete and whole discretion to the home secretary and has an unsatisfying view on fair trial rights and how people can be kept ‘in limbo.’"
But I accept we aren't going to change each other's minds at this point.
Click to expand...
It is certainly against international law to make someone stateless, and as I'm guessing we don't recognise the Islamic state as legit, then we can't really argue she has IS citizenship. I fear the young lady has fallen foul of the little known 'chat shit, get banged' provision in UK law, and the home sec has made the slightly cynical calculation that keeping Begum out is less politically damaging domestically than letting her in. I also suspect that sadly (for Begum) she is being made something of an example to stand as a cautionary tale to other would be UK IS recruits.
 
Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese said:
It is certainly against international law to make someone stateless, and as I'm guessing we don't recognise the Islamic state as legit, then we can't really argue she has IS citizenship. I fear the young lady has fallen foul of the little known 'chat shit, get banged' provision in UK law, and the home sec has made the slightly cynical calculation that keeping Begum out is less politically damaging domestically than letting her in. I also suspect that sadly (for Begum) she is being made something of an example to stand as a cautionary tale to other would be UK IS recruits.
Click to expand...
The irony is that there are hundreds of British citizens who went to fight for IS who have been allowed back in Britain to face terrorism charges and/or monitoring by MI5. It's not clear to me why an exception is being made for her, other than her high media profile. It's 'chat shit, get banged,' as you say.
 
MarsLlama said:


Then there's the side that think she's not to blame for her actions...
Click to expand...

There is clearly an argument for repatriation and rehabilitation, particularly if we wish to maintain the moral high ground and show we are 'better' than the brutal IS regime. There is however an equally strong argument to fuck her off to rot forever in a camp/Syrian ghetto as a deterrent to others. These young girls are duped on social media into making that journey, and having one crying about how shit the caliphate is and bleating to cone home all the time provides a powerful counternarrative.
 
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