Shamima Begum

[domalino]

it really isn't, it's a fact that she has Bangali citizenship. Not sure why you'd say otherwise, it's a yes/no answer

Why do you think you’re better informed on who has Bangladeshi citizenship than the government and courts of Bangladesh?

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

We got something right at last.

She’s appealed a decision that she didn’t agree with. Surely by your logic they got that decision ‘right’ too?

Or are you saying you didn’t agree with that decision but that you’ve since been persuaded?

 

[mexico1970]

She’s appealed a decision that she didn’t agree with. Surely by your logic they got that ‘right’ too?

Or are you saying you didn’t agree with that decision but that you’ve since been persuaded?

I am agreeing with the decision not to change the decision to keep her out of this country, the finer points I will leave to the judges to see if laws or procedure have been broken.

 

[meltonblue]

Whether she is stateless or not is up in the air. The BBC, Al-Jazira and the Guardian have all referred to her as stateless this afternoon or “effectively stateless”

A UK tribunal accepted arguments by UK lawyers that she had Bangladeshi citizenship before turning 21, but ultimately the only authority on who is and isn’t a Bangladeshi citizen is the government and courts of Bangladesh and they have been unequivocal that you have the right to Bengali citizenship if your parent is born there, you don’t automatically have the citizenship.


I can only imagine how some people in this country would react to a foreign government dictating our citizenship laws and telling us they were wrong.

Anyway, if major reputable news publications are happy with calling her stateless then I am.

Yep exactly. I get people saying that they’re happy with it because in their opinion she doesn’t deserve to have British citizenship anymore. I don’t think that should be the argument or the point though, it’s about our obligations as a country too.

It’s just fundamentally wrong to me that we aren’t taking account for holding her to justice ourselves when everyone else was repatriating people and putting them through their courts rather than leaving them in Syria (or worse still, trying to palm them off to another country like Bangladesh).

There was a time really not that long ago that would have been unconscionable to conservatives too.

 

[bluealf]

Clearly being made an example of rather than posing a serious threat, but she did make the choice to set herself up as the poster girl for jihad. Limited sympathy from me although I wouldn't like the course of my entire life to be dictated by my attitudes and decisions as a 15 yr old.

or at 25, 35, 45, 55 :)

 

[domalino]

Yep exactly. I get people saying that they’re happy with it because in their opinion she doesn’t deserve to have British citizenship anymore. I don’t think that should be the argument or the point though, it’s about our obligations as a country too.

It’s just fundamentally wrong to me that we aren’t taking account for holding her to justice ourselves when everyone else was repatriating people and putting them through their courts rather than leaving them in Syria (or worse still, trying to palm them off to another country like Bangladesh).

There was a time really not that long ago that would have been unconscionable to conservatives too.

It’s the combination of 3 things that make me uncomfortable with this story and to be frank not think much of the people cheering.

1) We know there’s 500+ ISIS fighters and supporters who were waived back in. Why? Their stories weren’t in the press when they left because they weren’t trafficked children and for some of them, simply because they dont have an immigrant background and other potential citizenships. Justice should be applied equally to all not just to those who are infamous or immigrants.

2) We know of multiple people who were accused of being terrorists, got citizenship revoked, were not allowed to see the evidence against them because it was top secret, then after 5+ years of fighting in courts, got their lives back because there was no evidence, or it was mistaken identity. That should worry everyone.


3) We have revoked her citizenship allegedly because she’s a terrorist and a risk to the public. But she’ll never stand trial for it, never get to present a defence to a jury of her peers and never get convicted. I’m old fashioned, I think innocent until proven guilty in a court of law is a good principle. I don’t really like the idea that a random Home Secretary like Priti Patel, Suella Braverman, 2 names Schapps or in this case Sajid Javid can summarily remove that right.


And then of course there’s the fact she was trafficked and raped as a child. I believe in ages of consent, I believe in the concept of statutory rape, so from my perspective we are not just fecklessly washing our hands and dumping a suspected criminal on Syria and the rest of the world, we are abandoning a person who as a child was failed in the worst possible way by this country’s security and social services.


So yeah, I think the appeals court decision was right, but anyone whooping and cheering about the outcome is not someone I wanna know.

 

[meltonblue]

It’s the combination of 3 things that make me uncomfortable with this story and to be frank not think much of the people cheering.

1) We know there’s 500+ ISIS fighters and supporters who were waived back in. Why? Their stories weren’t in the press when they left because they weren’t trafficked children and for some of them, simply because they dont have an immigrant background and other potential citizenships.

2) We know of multiple people who were accused of being terrorists, got citizenship revoked, were not allowed to see the evidence against them because it was top secret, then after 5+ years of fighting in courts, got their lives back because there was no evidence, or it was mistaken identity. That should worry everyone.


3) We have revoked her citizenship allegedly because she’s a terrorist and a risk to the public. But she’ll never stand trial for it, never get to present a defence to a jury of her peers and never get convicted. I’m old fashioned, I think innocent until proven guilty in a court of law is a good principle. I don’t really like the idea that a random Home Secretary like Priti Patel, Suella Braverman or in this case Sajid Javid can summarily remove that right.

Yes, completely agree with all of that.

 

[meltonblue]

Its been done to death that argument so no need to go around the houses again. You would let the evil little shit in I wouldn't. A difference of opinion no biggie.

I have a feeling she will eventually end up here so hold strong fella. Your wishes may come true soon enough.

It’s not about letting her in to me, it’s more why should we leave someone else to deal with it? Not only was she born here, she was radicalised here and travelled to Syria from here. Given all countries are repatriating people from Syria, where do you think she should end up? Bangladesh?

 

[Mr Kobayashi]

Fooled by red tops? As a none reader of papers You will need to try harder than that. Bigger threats as a reason to let someone in is quite hilarious really if you think about. I woukd revisit that line of thinking. Its pretty darn stupid.

Well you've obviously been led astray, if you think this foolish idiot is public enemy number one or evil personified.

The fact that bigger threats wonder around unstopped is testament to the fact it was a politically motivated decision to stir up populists who delegate their thinking to others. It can't be true that this Begum is a greater threat to national security than the other Begum.

Next you'll be saying that the people you disagree with think she should be given a four bed council house and massive telly.

 

[Johnny Mars Bar]

The only way I’d let this twat back into the country would be in the back of an unmarked MI6 extradition plane where she was being transported to some remote black site never to see the light of day again like the other terrorist cunts.