Shamima Begum

Kazzydeyna said:
This thread is a microcosm of the very worst in our society.
Where a child rape and people trafficking victim, a CHILD rape and people-trafficking rape victim, can so easily be described as a “little bitch” without a murmur is sadly symptomatic of the vile, hate-filled, disgusting shit-hole this country has become.

That poor, vulnerable, young child. She could be anybody’s daughter. That poor poor girl. It breaks my heart the way we have treated her, all so middle aged, angry, white men can feel macho and tough.

Disgusting.
Click to expand...
This country isn’t a vile, hate-filled, disgusting shit-hole. And what has age, skin colour and gender got to do with the opinion on it?
 
west didsblue said:
Let’s say Syria was a functioning state and they had tried and convicted her and she had just completed her sentence. Let’s say they still considered her to be a danger to that country so at the end of her sentence they deport her like we often do with foreign criminals. Under international law every country in the world would be entitled to refuse her entry except one. And that one isn’t Bangladesh.

Wanting our country to honour international treaties and adhere to international law isn’t some fringe lefty view.
Click to expand...
The sentence in Syria would likely be death wouldn’t it?
 
The rule of law should always preside in cases like this. She is a British citizen and, therefore, should return to the UK and be tried, if there is sufficient evidence to be had.

Many people have beliefs that others will consider offensive. Offensive beliefs are not a crime. Supporting acts of terror is not a crime, however unpalatable that may be.

Take gender and race from the equation and what would we be convicting her for?
 
Crooked_rain said:
I personally don’t want people who share her beliefs on terrorism in this country, so I’m not arsed if she never gets back in.
Click to expand...

People who share her beliefs on terrorism, if they are British, are our problem. We need to own that problem and deal with it. We have laws against supporting terrorist organisations. We should use them.

That applies in my view as much to Shamima Begum, one of our citizens (at the time of her offences) who committed offences against our laws on our soil.

You may not be arsed if someone who broke our laws doesn't get punished. But whether it's a dickhead 15 year old girl who fucks off to Syria, or a nasty bank robber who fucks off to Spain, if they committed crimes here, I want them prosecuted, convicted and imprisoned whoever they are.

Because the rule of law matters.
 
domalino said:
If only some neutral, qualified parties, like judges, could hear all the evidence in a secret hearing and then make their ruling in an open court…

Everything is in the SIAC write up. The judges rejected the governments rationale for her being a security threat because it was inconsistent with their own rules and policies.
Click to expand...

Am I right that the judges said it was a political move not a security-based, but legally acceptable?
Or have I missed something?
 
Bluemanc100 said:
Weren't the crimes committed in Syria? If she'd committed crimes in the US wouldn't they try her there?

I agree with a previous poster, if she did commit crimes in Syria, let them try her... Then, when found guilty, she'll be nobody's concern
Click to expand...

She committed crimes here first. She conspired with two other girls to travel to Syria to join a terrorist organisation.

That is an illegal conspiracy and that is a crime here. Whatever she did in Syria, she broke our laws on our soil. She needs to be prosecuted for that.
 
MillionMilesAway said:
Am I right that the judges said it was a political move not a security-based, but legally acceptable?
Or have I missed something?
Click to expand...

They said they think she was trafficked (and therefore according to the government's own rules no fully responsible), they rejected the idea she's a national security threat, they said it was entirely a political decision but they don't have the power to overturn it because of previous Supreme Court decisions limiting their power to overrule the Home Secretary.
 
Rascal said:
You know I respect you Macca, but I think you are missing my point.

This removal of citizenship is bigger than Begum and the removal is a lurch to authoritarianism. If you are happy for any dissenting voice to have their citizenship removed then that is fine, but what happens when it is you?


How free are we if we cannot express dissent in what ever form that takes?

Did Begum blow anybody up? did she barbarically murder any one?

Or was it simply dissent against Western ideals?

These are questions I want answered in our courts, under British law, for a British citizen, if we do not have that recourse to justice we are no better than ISIS.
Click to expand...
I do wonder what ‘laws’ she’s actually broken? I
The Home Secretary having this arbitrary power, whoever they are but particularly when you see who holds that office now, has no place in a democracy.
He has, effectively, broken the law with this, in that it can only be done to dual nationals and Bangladesh are adamant she’s not got dual nationality and is, therefore, ours.
When the judge this week says there’s ‘credible evidence’ that she was trafficked as a child, I do wonder what point we are trying to prove here?
 
The Light Was Yellow Sir said:
I do wonder what ‘laws’ she’s actually broken? I
The Home Secretary having this arbitrary power, whoever they are but particularly when you see who holds that office now, has no place in a democracy.
He has, effectively, broken the law with this, in that it can only be done to dual nationals and Bangladesh are adamant she’s not got dual nationality and is, therefore, ours.
When the judge this week says there’s ‘credible evidence’ that she was trafficked as a child, I do wonder what point we are trying to prove here?
Click to expand...

Anyone who has an Irish grandparent, anyone who is jewish, any second generation immigrant and any dual citizen can now have their British citizenship summarily revoked, and you can't win an appeal on the merits of the case (ie it doesn't matter if you prove their reasoning to remove it was wrong), as long as they follow the right procedure - which since 2022 doesn't even involve notifying you.

And that power now is in the hands of Suella Braverman. Who is currently trying to rip up the Human Rights Act. So that'll get rid of our right to not be tortured, right to a fair trial with a jury, right to freedom of expression, right to assemble, right to marry and not be discriminated against....
 
The Light Was Yellow Sir said:
I do wonder what ‘laws’ she’s actually broken? I
The Home Secretary having this arbitrary power, whoever they are but particularly when you see who holds that office now, has no place in a democracy.
He has, effectively, broken the law with this, in that it can only be done to dual nationals and Bangladesh are adamant she’s not got dual nationality and is, therefore, ours.
When the judge this week says there’s ‘credible evidence’ that she was trafficked as a child, I do wonder what point we are trying to prove here?
Click to expand...

In terms of what UK laws she has broken, membership of ISIS is itself a criminal offence. She conspired with two other girls to travel to Syria to join ISIS. That conspiracy is of itself a criminal offence - that is, the agreement that they would do that is itself an unlawful act whether she carried it through afterwards or not.

The power exercised by the home secretary was one expressly conferred by parliament in 1981. It has been on the statute books for over 40 years. It is not an arbitrary power but one that has to be exercised in accordance with the law. The question was whether it was exercised in this case in accordance with the law. The exercise of the power in this case does not mean that the power in itself is not something the Home Secretary should have as part of the overall range of measures available to keep this country safe. The problem with electing populist politicians is that they make populist decisions for short term political advantage, rather that for the good of the country. The answer is not to strip them of powers which, when exercised properly, keep us all safe, it is to not elect populist politicians.

Shamima Begum does not have dual nationality. The Supreme Court ruled that because she could potentially apply for Bangladeshi nationality at the time she was stripped of her British citizenship, that meant the deprivation of UK citizenship was not unlawful. Her ability to apply for Bangladeshi citizenship has now lapsed because she is older than 21. Having been born and brought up here she is now stateless. That arises as a combination of (a) a power that was lawfully exercised at the time the home secretary exercised it, and (b) her own inaction since.

The reason it is important whether there was credible evidence that she had been trafficked is because if the answer is Yes (as it was) that leads on to a separate question, which is whether the Home Secretary should have taken that into account when deciding whether to revoke her citizenship. Even though he didn't, the court decided that this did not make his ruling unlawful. So in effect, the court decided that the Home Secretary was entitled to take the view that even if she was trafficked, she still should have her citizenship revoked.
 
domalino said:
Anyone who has an Irish grandparent, anyone who is jewish, any second generation immigrant and any dual citizen can now have their British citizenship summarily revoked, and you can't win an appeal on the merits of the case (ie it doesn't matter if you prove their reasoning to remove it was wrong), as long as they follow the right procedure - which since 2022 doesn't even involve notifying you.

And that power now is in the hands of Suella Braverman. Who is currently trying to rip up the Human Rights Act. So that'll get rid of our right to not be tortured, right to a fair trial with a jury, right to freedom of expression, right to assemble, right to marry and not be discriminated against....
Click to expand...
Plus anyone living in NI.

Must be approaching half the population when you add it all up.

And when Suella Braverman is the person who can summarily invoke this it shows how fucked up it all is.

Bizarre that people are still defending this, even though I suspect most don’t realise the implications. It’s sad that many aren’t even interested.
 
It is was a cowardly act carried out before he changed job. The equivalent of shitting in his desk drawer.

Amazing how there's a direct correlation between being of Gammon mind and viewing her as The Wicked Witch of The Middle East.
 
domalino said:
Anyone who has an Irish grandparent, anyone who is jewish, any second generation immigrant and any dual citizen can now have their British citizenship summarily revoked, and you can't win an appeal on the merits of the case (ie it doesn't matter if you prove their reasoning to remove it was wrong), as long as they follow the right procedure - which since 2022 doesn't even involve notifying you.
Click to expand...
Highly unlikely that they would revoke the citizenship of someone purely on that basis though. For an individual to have their citizenship revoked, there would have to be good reason.
 
KnaresboroughBlue said:
Highly unlikely that they would revoke the citizenship of someone purely on that basis though. For an individual to have their citizenship revoked, there would have to be good reason.
Click to expand...
It has been established that the Home Secretary can make this decision without being answerable to anyone. It doesn’t matter how likely it is. The fact that it’s possible should concern everyone.
 
KnaresboroughBlue said:
Highly unlikely that they would revoke the citizenship of someone purely on that basis though. For an individual to have their citizenship revoked, there would have to be good reason.
Click to expand...

I don't know whether to laugh or cry at this level of trust in Tory Home Secretaries.

There's already been several high profile cases of them doing it with no good reason and eventually having it overturned, but only after a British citizen has spent 4-5 years banned from home and all their life savings fighting their own government in court.

Most of those were before the Supreme Court ruling that narrowed the SIAC's powers. Now, even if you prove to the SIAC that you shouldn't have had citizenship revoked, they can't overturn it.
 
west didsblue said:
It has been established that the Home Secretary can make this decision without being answerable to anyone. It doesn’t matter how likely it is. The fact that it’s possible should concern everyone.
Click to expand...
It's always been possible in the case of dual citizens. My wife is a dual citizen and when she became a British citizen, it was stated in the paperwork that it could be revoked on certain grounds.
 
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