Shamima Begum

She should be brought back here and jailed for her participation in supporting a Terrorist group and for her shocking comments about the Arena attack, to put it bluntly, she’s a **** of the highest order.
 
KnaresboroughBlue said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yes, but the difference is now you don't have to be a dual citizen.

You just have to hypothetically have another citizenship open to you. So if you're Jewish, or have an Irish grandparent or Bangladeshi dad you can hypothetically apply for Israeli or Irish or Bangladeshi citizenship and therefore you can now have your British citizenship revoked even if it leaves you stateless.

That's completely new.
 
domalino said:
Yes, but the difference is now you don't have to be a dual citizen.

You just have to hypothetically have another citizenship open to you. So if you're Jewish, or have an Irish grandparent you can hypothetically apply for Israeli or Irish citizenship and therefore you can now have your British citizenship revoked.

That's completely new.
Click to expand...
Fair enough. I was referring to dual citizens. Perhaps I should have made that clearer.
 
domalino said:
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.
Click to expand...

Thanks - the detail of the last bit I hadn't seen, but was meaning 'legally acceptable' to mean "can't overturn", just didn't know why.

That seems quite at odds with the media portrayal of the decision. As someone on QT panel said, if a Home Sec now wants to remove citizenship from anyone, they have precedent by citing security reasons.
 
Being technically stateless she can apply for asylum in another treaty state. Good luck with that.
 
Is there any subject you’re not an expert on ?

From someone who actually appreciates your posts.
 
Chris in London said:
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.
Click to expand...
But, and I’m open to being wrong as I often am, I thought the law was dependent on someone having dual nationality, thus not actually making them stateless?
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
It’s pitiful how readily some people are willing to meekly surrender their rights over an insignificant woman who ran off to Syria when she was fifteen.

It displays significant mental weakness.
Click to expand...

A gammon tendency?

Like getting irate at getting given the finger or sworn at in public, and getting behind a campaign for anyone committing such "offence" in future to have their hand or tongue cut off.
 
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...
The bigger picture which many seem happy to ignore. ”I don’t mind what they do, as long as they’re doing it to someone else” isn’t a great way to live life, at least not for me.
 
The Light Was Yellow Sir said:
But, and I’m open to being wrong as I often am, I thought the law was dependent on someone having dual nationality, thus not actually making them stateless?
Click to expand...

That was what most people thought before her case went to the Supreme Court.

But the Supreme Court said (I paraphrase) that having the ability to seek Bangladeshi citizenship was enough for the power to be invoked lawfully. As has been argued above, it means anyone Jewish or with an Irish grandparent would be capable of being deprived of their UK citizenship.

Surprising as that may seem, the Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter of what the law is in the UK.

Shamima Begum was therefore not rendered stateless by teh UK's actions, because at the time she was 19 and could have applied for Bangladeshi citizenship. She chose not to and now she's too late (Bangladeshi law says you have to apply before 21).
 
Shirley said:
Is there any subject you’re not an expert on ?

From someone who actually appreciates your posts.
Click to expand...

I'm not an expert on much, including this, and I don't mean to present myself as one. Also I think people just don't notice when I keep my beak out of stuff I've not got much of an opinion on. In this case, this story has been brewing for 4 years and the underlying issues around this Tory government's march towards stripping away rights concern me enough to have spent quite a lot of time reading about it.
 
Chris in London said:
Shamima Begum was therefore not rendered stateless by teh UK's actions, because at the time she was 19 and could have applied for Bangladeshi citizenship. She chose not to and now she's too late (Bangladeshi law says you have to apply before 21).
Click to expand...

She was rendered stateless though. It's like arguing someone hasn't been made homeless when you evict them because they have a relative they've never met who could theoretically put them up.

Except the relatvie has publicly disavowed any connection, is 5,000 miles away & the person has no way of getting there anyway.
 
domalino said:
She was rendered stateless though. It's like arguing someone hasn't been made homeless when you ecivt them because they have a relative they've never met who could theoretically put them up.

Except the relatvie has publicly disavowed any connection, is 5,000 miles away & the person has no way of getting there anyway.
Click to expand...

At the time it was made the deprivation decision did not make her stateless. She was rendered stateless by her own actions. I confess I don't know whether under Bangladeshi law they would have had to accept her as a citizen if she had applied before she became 21.
 
Chris in London said:
At the time it was made the deprivation decision did not make her stateless. She was rendered stateless by her own actions. I confess I don't know whether under Bangladeshi law they would have had to accept her as a citizen if she had applied before she became 21.
Click to expand...

listen to what you're saying.

You're arguing that removing the only citizenship a person has does not make them stateless.
 
Last edited:
domalino said:
listen to what you're saying.

You're arguing that removing the only citizenship a person has does not make them stateless because they can hypothetically get citizenship elsewhere.

That's not how the 1964 UN convention on statelessness works. Which we are a signatory to.
Click to expand...

You listen to what you are saying. You are arguing that the Supreme Court was wrong in law. Do you have any idea how arrogant that sounds?

I am not arguing anything. I am explaining the reason why it was lawful to remove her UK citizenship. The 1981 Act says you can't remove someone's UK citizenship if that would make them stateless. Because she had the ability at the time to apply for Bangladeshi citizenship, that was sufficient for the purposes of the 1981 Act.

That is not my opinion about what the law should be, that is what the Supreme Court said the law was.

Do you understand that you are not arguing with me, you are telling me that some of the most experienced judges in the country got the law wrong?
 
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