Shamima Begum

@BluePhil8 said:
This made my day when I read it last week. Probably the most common sense decision I can remember a British government making. To the few lunatics defending her, I hope you find yourselves on a watch list.
Click to expand...

Vic said:
Who's actually defending her? Some are more sympathetic about mistakes made by a child, and about balancing risk and reform, but it's mostly about defending her right to a fair hearing in the courts. The highest court in the land has ruled she can't have a fair hearing, and also that (effectively) the only way to challenge a security assessment is to vote out the people who make the assessment. A bit like in Russia now (or any number of "democratic" regimes where governments are above the law).
Click to expand...
Nobody is defending her, it’s pathetic to have someone suggesting those not lining up to hang her should be on a “watch list”. What the fuck does that even mean?
 
journolud said:
Nobody is defending her, it’s pathetic to have someone suggesting those not lining up to hang her should be on a “watch list”. What the fuck does that even mean?
Click to expand...
It means your online activity should be monitored if you sympathise with terrorists. Hanging her would have been better than taking her back though, I agree with you on that.
 
@BluePhil8 said:
It means your online activity should be monitored if you sympathise with terrorists. Hanging her would have been better than taking her back though, I agree with you on that.
Click to expand...
Assuming you mean that anyone who disagrees with you is in sympathy with terrorists, that's three judges, several barristers, and the United Nations special rapporteur on Counter-Terrorism who should all be on your watch list.

I think you've just reinforced the fear that this judgement gives too much power to the executive.
 
Last edited:
Vic said:
Assuming you mean that anyone who disagrees with you is in sympathy with terrorists, that's three judges, sevean barristers, and the United Nations special rapporteur on Counter-Terrorism who should all be on your watch list.

I think you've just reinforced the fear that this judgement gives too much power to the executive.
Click to expand...
I don’t know why you’d make that assumption.

This is what I meant; It means your online activity should be monitored if you sympathise with terrorists.
 
@BluePhil8 said:
I don’t know why you’d make that assumption.

This is what I meant; It means your online activity should be monitored if you sympathise with terrorists.
Click to expand...
You’ve failed to name anyone on this thread when asked that is defending Begum, perhaps you could name those who sympathise with terrorists
 
@BluePhil8 said:
I mean, without explicitly saying ‘I’m defending her’, this is some of the most sympathetic diarrhoea I’ve ever read;




Lol.
Click to expand...
Well done for picking a fringe one off opinion and applying that to everyone that is questioning the government's actions in spite of the vast majority, including myself, clearly saying they have no sympathy for her.
 
west didsblue said:
Well done for picking a fringe one off opinion and applying that to everyone that is questioning the government's actions in spite of the vast majority, including myself, clearly saying they have no sympathy for her.
Click to expand...
I don’t think I did, did I?

I said the few people defending her are whack jobs.

west didsblue said:
does anyone think that it's morally right that a rich European country can offload its problems to a third world country against its will?
Click to expand...
For sure it is.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
Your faith in the judgement of the Security Services is touching but you don't take into account that they didn't consider Salman Abedi a threat and they claimed that Iraq had quickly-deployable WMD.

And even if they're right, there's still the legal argument over her citizenship status, which is the key argument here.
Click to expand...
She is already guilty by association so no-one needs to demonstrate whether the security services are right or wrong. It's absolutely certain that they are right otherwise she would not be in Syria and she would not be in this mess. Don't forget she is still married to an ISIS terrorist who wants to live with her once this all blows over...

She has mitigation to her case and that's why her latest appeal was stayed and not quashed. She isn't being denied the right to a fair hearing, it's just that attending such a hearing remains a security risk. Her legal team have not demonstrated that this is not the case and they have never challenged any security assessment with evidence.

Until any of the above changes then she won't be able to enter the UK.
 
Its funny that I dont actually think the nationality/passport thing is much of an issue.
It is within the power of our governement to remove someones nationality (if it is acquired rather than through birth prior to 1/1/81) with her automatically holding BGD nationality through her parents.
So the whole bringing her back for the appeal (IMHO) is a moot point.

For me the whole issue is of morals and duty. Should we just abondon some, or many people who have suffered or are suffering? Should we as a "civilised" and developed/rich(er) country not reach out and help others not matter what they may have done in the past?

But then where do we draw the line? The camps in Turkey/Syria? Iraq? The Rohingyas? The "caravans" travelling up through central America? How many do we or should we help?

The only people who will be doign well out of this situation will be the media and the lawyers of course.
 
inbetween said:
She is already guilty by association so no-one needs to demonstrate whether the security services are right or wrong. It's absolutely certain that they are right otherwise she would not be in Syria and she would not be in this mess. Don't forget she is still married to an ISIS terrorist who wants to live with her once this all blows over...

She has mitigation to her case and that's why her latest appeal was stayed and not quashed. She isn't being denied the right to a fair hearing, it's just that attending such a hearing remains a security risk. Her legal team have not demonstrated that this is not the case and they have never challenged any security assessment with evidence.

Until any of the above changes then she won't be able to enter the UK.
Click to expand...
What's the evidence that they could challenge? The assessment is "She might do this." The only evidence against is "No she wouldn't". The SC said as much. The state says she is a security risk, and because the state says she is a security risk, she can't come to the UK to give evidence that might prove she isn't.

I understand the lack of sympathy, but worry that people can't see that it's an unfortunate precedent. I guess some people actually cheer the hostile environment and policies that led to the Windrush scandal, and some wouldn't want any war refugee here, let alone one with her background (whether "victim" or "perpetrator").
 
LGWIO said:
Its funny that I dont actually think the nationality/passport thing is much of an issue.
It is within the power of our governement to remove someones nationality (if it is acquired rather than through birth prior to 1/1/81) with her automatically holding BGD nationality through her parents.
So the whole bringing her back for the appeal (IMHO) is a moot point.

For me the whole issue is of morals and duty. Should we just abondon some, or many people who have suffered or are suffering? Should we as a "civilised" and developed/rich(er) country not reach out and help others not matter what they may have done in the past?

But then where do we draw the line? The camps in Turkey/Syria? Iraq? The Rohingyas? The "caravans" travelling up through central America? How many do we or should we help?

The only people who will be doign well out of this situation will be the media and the lawyers of course.
Click to expand...
There's a distinction between having a right to nationality and actually getting it.

What if Bangladesh passes a law saying that the nationality law does not apply to "person X" and makes it retrospective? That would mean when the British Government revoked her British nationality, it was illegal because it made her stateless.
 
Vic said:
There's a distinction between having a right to nationality and actually getting it.

What if Bangladesh passes a law saying that the nationality law does not apply to "person X" and makes it retrospective? That would mean when the British Government revoked her British nationality, it was illegal because it made her stateless.
Click to expand...
Not true actually....if you have a right to nationality then it is yours, it isnt determined by the simple act of obtaining a passport.
One of the joys of living in NI is finding out all about those who were born here and therefore are able to be British & Irish, yet for certain purposes even if they have never taken up a British passport, in order to not fall under UK law, they have to formally renounce their B/Cit status. They had it "by right"
In this instance and not wishing to sound flippant....our governement "got in first" in revoking her citizenship, so for the BGD govt to do so now would in fact be them rendering her stateless
 
LGWIO said:
Its funny that I dont actually think the nationality/passport thing is much of an issue.
It is within the power of our governement to remove someones nationality (if it is acquired rather than through birth prior to 1/1/81) with her automatically holding BGD nationality through her parents.
So the whole bringing her back for the appeal (IMHO) is a moot point.

For me the whole issue is of morals and duty. Should we just abondon some, or many people who have suffered or are suffering? Should we as a "civilised" and developed/rich(er) country not reach out and help others not matter what they may have done in the past?

But then where do we draw the line? The camps in Turkey/Syria? Iraq? The Rohingyas? The "caravans" travelling up through central America? How many do we or should we help?

The only people who will be doign well out of this situation will be the media and the lawyers of course.
Click to expand...

It’s been updated, it is now possible for the secretary of state to revoke citizenship of British born nationals, not just those by naturalisation or registration. Also it is more likely that Shamima Begum was a British national by birth not registration as her mother would have fallen within definition of settled in the UK.

2003-present: fewer constraints on deprivation power, increased use​

The Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 substituted an entirely new version of section 40. In this 2002 version, deprivation on the basis of behaviour was set out at section 40(2) and came into force on 1 April 2003:

The Secretary of State may by order deprive a person of a citizenship status if the Secretary of State is satisfied that the person has done anything seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of—
(a) the United Kingdom, or
(b) a British overseas territory.
Click to expand...
This version of section 40 also removed the protection against deprivation for individuals born British. This removed the discrimination between citizens by naturalisation and birth, but by levelling down the protection available rather than levelling up.

Section 40(2) was amended again by the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 to the current version. The public good deprivation power in the new section 40(2) now provides:

The Secretary of State may by order deprive a person of a citizenship status if the Secretary of State is satisfied that deprivation is conducive to the public good.
Click to expand...
This test of “conducive to the public good” represents a noticeably more relaxed standard compared to previous versions. As we have seen, the easier legal test has coincided with a marked increase in the number of deprivations actually carried out.
Click to expand...
www.freemovement.org.uk

How is the government using its increased powers to strip British people of their citizenship? - Free Movement

Yesterday's judgment in Aziz & Ors v Secretary of State for the Home Department EWCA Civ 1884 saw the Court of Appeal uphold the Home Secretary's decision
www.freemovement.org.uk www.freemovement.org.uk
 
LGWIO said:
Its funny that I dont actually think the nationality/passport thing is much of an issue.
It is within the power of our governement to remove someones nationality (if it is acquired rather than through birth prior to 1/1/81) with her automatically holding BGD nationality through her parents.
So the whole bringing her back for the appeal (IMHO) is a moot point.

For me the whole issue is of morals and duty. Should we just abondon some, or many people who have suffered or are suffering? Should we as a "civilised" and developed/rich(er) country not reach out and help others not matter what they may have done in the past?

But then where do we draw the line? The camps in Turkey/Syria? Iraq? The Rohingyas? The "caravans" travelling up through central America? How many do we or should we help?

The only people who will be doign well out of this situation will be the media and the lawyers of course.
Click to expand...
For me, it's not about her rights because I don't really give much of a fuck about her rights, but it's about whether the UK is within its rights to offload its undesirables to a country that has almost no connection to her against that country's will. I think that sets a dangerous precedent that could backfire on us when a more powerful country than us decides to offload its own rapists/murderers/terrorists to us because of some tenuous link through parentage.
 
Oh the joy when you mix the law with a moral conundrum.
The intricacies of nationality law and not knowing the full circumstances of all those involved with the horrors of the world and our own interpretations of what is good, just or "the right thing to do"
 
LGWIO said:
Not true actually....if you have a right to nationality then it is yours, it isnt determined by the simple act of obtaining a passport.
One of the joys of living in NI is finding out all about those who were born here and therefore are able to be British & Irish, yet for certain purposes even if they have never taken up a British passport, in order to not fall under UK law, they have to formally renounce their B/Cit status. They had it "by right"
In this instance and not wishing to sound flippant....our governement "got in first" in revoking her citizenship, so for the BGD govt to do so now would in fact be them rendering her stateless
Click to expand...
It does sound flippant!

They're a sovereign country. The UK passed a law passed a law saying citizenship could be revoked so long as that didn't make a person stateless. Bangladesh could pass a law saying that people with affiliations to ISIS who have never taken up Bangladeshi citizenship are no longer entitled to it. I'm not sure that "our law taking away citizenship takes precedence over another nation's law refusing citizenship to someone who might have been entitled to it" has much legal or moral validity. Especially if the case is a former colonial power telling a former colony what laws they can pass.

"We got in first" might be a bad precedent if other nations got in first with their undesirable citizens who also had British citizenship.

Oh, it all makes work for m'learned friends to do.
 
Vic said:
It does sound flippant!

They're a sovereign country. The UK passed a law passed a law saying citizenship could be revoked so long as that didn't make a person stateless. Bangladesh could pass a law saying that people with affiliations to ISIS who have never taken up Bangladeshi citizenship are no longer entitled to it. I'm not sure that "our law taking away citizenship takes precedence over another nation's law refusing citizenship to someone who might have been entitled to it" has much legal or moral validity. Especially if the case is a former colonial power telling a former colony what laws they can pass.

"We got in first" might be a bad precedent if other nations got in first with their undesirable citizens who also had British citizenship.

Oh, it all makes work for m'learned friends to do.
Click to expand...
As you say BGD "could" pass a law, but they haven't as yet and with both her parents (I am assuming here) being born and bred BGD nationals she is a de facto BGD national whether she holds a BGD passport or not. Had BGD revoked her citizenship before the Home Sec did, then we certainly wouldnt have a leg to stand on...even if it is viewed that morally we dont have them anyway.
I think we are pretty much on the same page, just that the intricacy of typing it all out is a pain....as you say, all work for the QCs
 
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