I'll never forget a classmate, from a very middle class, well-off home in leafy Cheshire chanting "Smash the bourgeoisie. Smash the bourgeoisie".Never had you down for a fellow traveller ; )
I make no judgment on whether she should be allowed to return (even if just to plead her legal case), but that is an immoral stance - just to make it someone else's problem. What have the Syrian Kurds done to have to keep her in that camp for life? They defeat ISIS and then have to look after other nations' citizens (and those nations absolve themselves of responsibility by revoking their citizenship). Perhaps the Kurds should just put them on a plane to the UK. It's how we get rid of criminals we don't want - even those born here - that we don't want.Exactly, a Syrian Prison. With no access or rights to British citizenship and the benefits thereof whatsover (having previously willingly rejected and publicly renounced it.)
The longer she stays in Syrian/Kurdish custody the better. Her whole life, as far as i'm concerned.
Remember that we banned Dan Roan after he misrepresented an interview with Vieira? And Sky's disgusting reporting of Sterling's gun tattoo, where they put a word he hadn't said into their story?It was Shamima who gave the interviews herself. Not a journalists interpretation of her words, they were her words. By publications that supported her return to the UK. They must have thought "fucking hell love, give us something positive to work with!"
Good post. The last 4 words should mean somethinqFrom a quick perusal, it seems the Supreme Court has set aside the ruling that Begum should be allowed to appear in person to appeal the removal of her British citizenship.
Quite why British authorities are terrified of her appearing in person remains a mystery. They cite national security (being the basis of the Home Secretary’s original decision), but can’t really see how she is a potential threat. I guess, as the piece infers, it’s more about avoiding any involvement with her and hoping the problem goes away.
Still, I find it odd that everyone melts into a gibbering fury over someone who was recruited into ISIS as a fifteen year old girl.
She voluntarily gave up her UK citizenship. She didn't believe herself to be British anymore. She thought the Islamic State was something permanent as many did.Remember that we banned Dan Roan after he misrepresented an interview with Vieira? And Sky's disgusting reporting of Sterling's gun tattoo, where they put a word he hadn't said into their story?
Im not defending her or her views. But taking away her citizenship, as a person born and brought up here, can't be done if that would render her stateless. This hearing was about her right to appeal in person about that decision, not upholding the loss of citizenship.
I'm not a lawyer but I'd be surprised if, when she does finally appeal the loss of her status, albeit remotely, that the court doesn't find in her favour. Then those pesky 'do-gooder lawyers' will get the blame again, for the heinous act of upholding the law of the land.
Jon Venables was 10. He's not shown any sign of reformation. She also stated:Good post. The last 4 words should mean somethinq
The SC has not ruled in favour of her not being "British". That's still subject to appeal. I look forward to your saying nothing if the appeal is upheld.She voluntarily gave up her UK citizenship. She didn't believe herself to be British anymore. She thought the Islamic State was something permanent as many did.
She may have been born here, but neither you, I or even the British Government can force someone to be British if they declare themselves not to be. When the Supreme Court says that her rights do not trump the rights and safety of the citizens of the UK, you know you've backed the wrong horse.
Remember she thought nothing of the rights of others in her pursuit of her "perfect society", and to deny those, whose regime she supported, that were victims of said regime, the justice they deserve, because of... i'm still waiting for a legitimate reason on that.
She's 'British'? Not anymore. The Supreme Court has ruled in favour of that. By 'law' that should be upheld. Unless you and others know better than the Supreme Court. Trust me, had the SC ruled in favour, i'd have said nothing, but those arguing against the SC's ruling today, I have to ask why.
She voluntarily gave up her UK citizenship. She didn't believe herself to be British anymore. She thought the Islamic State was something permanent as many did.
She may have been born here, but neither you, I or even the British Government can force someone to be British if they declare themselves not to be. When the Supreme Court says that her rights do not trump the rights and safety of the citizens of the UK, you know you've backed the wrong horse.
Remember she thought nothing of the rights of others in her pursuit of her "perfect society", and to deny those, whose regime she supported, that were victims of said regime, the justice they deserve, because of... i'm still waiting for a legitimate reason on that.
She's 'British'? Not anymore. The Supreme Court has ruled in favour of that. By 'law' that should be upheld. Unless you and others know better than the Supreme Court. Trust me, had the SC ruled in favour, i'd have said nothing, but those arguing against the SC's ruling today, I have to ask why.
The people are the state and the state works for the people, and the majority opinion is that she should not return to a country that she has rejected, chosen to disavow, chosen to reject, whose ethics, morals and rights she's turned her back on in favour of those of a regime our own state abhored and does not endorse.Depends how much people believe the rights of the state supersede the rights of the individual really. Bear in mind the supreme courts decision isn’t based on the merits of the case itself, it’s about the Secretary of States ability to make and cast that judgment in the knowledge that there’s no realistic means of appeal.
Most liberals won’t be in agreement with the supreme courts decision, most illiberals will be and a lot of the papers will misinterpret the SC decision into what they want to perceive it to be.
Personally, I have very little sympathy for her individually. I have no sympathy for murderers either though, it doesn’t mean I don’t think they should have a right to a fair trial or we should bring back capital punishment though.
I had an argument with a gammon mate of mine the other day, not about this poor young woman, but about - as he calls them - “fucking unions”.Because if nobody ever spoke for the underdog, discriminated against, the morally wronged, we would live in a fucking awful world where nobody had any rights apart from those with the most money and the entitled elite.
You would have no rights, you would be a serf paying tithes to your local Baron and you would be eating rhubarb for every meal, living in rags and working every hour you were awake.
And even now you dismiss the people who fought for you as lefties or other crude shit.
Because if any of you on the right of politics think you would have ever got any rights from the cunts you vote for you are fucking deluded.
The people are the state and the state works for the people, and the majority opinion is that she should not return to a country that she has rejected, chosen to disavow, chosen to reject, whose ethics, morals and rights she's turned her back on in favour of those of a regime our own state abhored and does not endorse.
So the question I pose to those people defending her is why is protecting the rights of one individual who did not care for the rights of others more important than seeing said individual stand trial at those who were directly affected by her actions, when she chose to no longer be protected by the courts that would have otherwise defended her?
Whilst engaging, supporting and co-operating, willingly, with the acts of the Islamic State, she no longer considered herself a British citizen. And as the Supreme Court just stated "the right to a fair trial does NOT trump all other considerations, such as the safety of the citizens"
Why is Begum's plight to be given more precedence than the safety of law abiding, British citizens? Nobody has come up with a justifiable argument.
She didn't "voluntarily give up her UK citizenship". It was revoked by the Home Office, possibly illegally as she would be stateless.She voluntarily gave up her UK citizenship. She didn't believe herself to be British anymore. She thought the Islamic State was something permanent as many did.
She may have been born here, but neither you, I or even the British Government can force someone to be British if they declare themselves not to be. When the Supreme Court says that her rights do not trump the rights and safety of the citizens of the UK, you know you've backed the wrong horse.
Remember she thought nothing of the rights of others in her pursuit of her "perfect society", and to deny those, whose regime she supported, that were victims of said regimen , the justice they deserve, because of... i'm still waiting for a legitimate reason on that.
She's 'British'? Not anymore. The Supreme Court has ruled in favour of that. By 'law' that should be upheld. Unless you and others know better than the Supreme Court. Trust me, had the SC ruled in favour, i'd have said nothing, but those arguing against the SC's ruling today, I have to ask why.
She didn't "voluntarily give up her UK citizenship". It was revoked by the Home Office, possibly illegally as she would be stateless.
And your understanding of this decision is completely flawed. The Supreme Court has ruled that she won't be allowed to appeal the removal of her citizenship in person. She'll have to do it from Syria (although it will be her lawyers that do it anyway, in a hearing that will presumably be held remotely anyway). She could well overturn that revocation.
I don't even particularly have a problem with today's SC ruling, more the way she's been treated generally. She brought a lot of that on herself, no question, but the law is the law. There's about 10,000 former fighters come back from Syria to the UK. I don't believe any of those have had their citizenship revoked.
She should be tried for her crimes in Syria then assuming she’s found guilty serve time in a Syrian prison. At the end of that the Syrians would have every right to stick her on a plane to the U.K. and we would not be able to send her back so we’d have to deal with her. That’s exactly what we do with foreign criminals who serve time for serious crimes here. They get deported to their country of origin whether that country wants them or not.
As Syria is a failed state that’s all very unlikely to happen but theoretically they could stick her on a plane here any time they want and international law would force us to accept her. It is impossible for us to wash our hands of her however much we may want to and however much the government pretends it can do.
Fashion crimes for a startwhat crimes can she be charged with?
Fashion crimes for a start
I’ve been wearing tracksuit bottoms whilst working from home. I feel I should serve time.and people want to hang her for that - in lockdown God save us all then