Shamima Begum

[KPXBLN]

If they have committed a crime in a foreign nation, yes.

So if you (assuming you're British), committed a crime on holiday in Corfu, you should be stripped of your nationality?

 

[Metal Biker]

So if you (assuming you're British), committed a crime on holiday in Corfu, you should be stripped of your nationality?

Begum herself rejected her nationality, she wasn't "stripped of it" by the Government, she voluntarily declared she was no longer a British citizen. https://www.gov.uk/renounce-british-nationality

The UK Government has rejected her appeal to be registered as a British citizen again which was when they revoked it. International Law has already stated that the UK Government, just as any government, is within it's rights to do this, confirmed today by the Supreme Court.

 

[KPXBLN]

She also has Bangladeshi nationality so she's not without a nation to return to.

I. International Instruments on Citizenship

International law says relatively little about how states may formulate or implement their domestic citizenship law. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted in 1948, states that everyone is entitled to a nationality and that no one should be “arbitrarily deprived” of her nationality. Several years later, the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, to which the UK is a state party, codified some of these principles by requiring that states grant citizenship to individuals born within their borders who would otherwise be stateless and refrain from acting in ways that would render an individual stateless. As long as the UK acts within the confines of these instruments, international law does not prohibit it stripping Begum of her nationality.

The Supreme Court has looked over these concerns and is the reason it reached the conclusion they have. Shouldn't Begum face trial in Syria for the crimes she committed there? The UK after all wishes the US to extradite Anna Sacoolas for the death of Harry Dunn. Same applies here for Begum. She committed these crimes in ISIS occupied Syria. It is the Syrians she should answer to.

Well to your last point I wouldn't object to her being tried for crimes she may have committed in Syria, provided there was a functioning state in Syria that could guarantee her a fair trial, as is the right of anybody under international law. But that wouldn't require that Britain strips her of her British citizenship, for the same reason that the "foreign criminals" we read so much about in British tabloids still have their foreign passports while they're serving out their time in Strangeways.

On the first point she doesn't have Bangladeshi nationality. In ordinary circumstances she might be entitled to Bangladeshi nationality through her parents, but she never applied for that nationality and was never given it. She's never even been to Bangladesh. Either way, the Bangladeshi government have said they will not grant her citizenship, as is their right, so by stripping her of her British citizenship Britain is making her stateless. Saying she's not stateless because she's Bangladeshi is the same as saying that any Briton with one Irish grandparent (and how many of us is that?!) can be stripped of their British citizenship at any time because, no problem, you can just go and be Irish.

 

[SWP's back]

Because she's British. She was born in Britain and is a British national. That's not to say anything positive or negative about her, it's just a simple fact. She might be guilty of any number of crimes, and morally reprehensible in any number of ways, but that's not the point.

She could definitely represent Bangladesh at the Olympics.

 

[KPXBLN]

She could definitely represent Bangladesh at the Olympics.

Which might be a heartwarming tale of redemption - but not really germane to the legal discussion at hand.

 

[Metal Biker]

Well to your last point I wouldn't object to her being tried for crimes she may have committed in Syria, provided there was a functioning state in Syria that could guarantee her a fair trial, as is the right of anybody under international law. But that wouldn't require that Britain strips her of her British citizenship, for the same reason that the "foreign criminals" we read so much about in British tabloids still have their foreign passports while they're serving out their time in Strangeways.

On the first point she doesn't have Bangladeshi nationality. In ordinary circumstances she might be entitled to Bangladeshi nationality through her parents, but she never applied for that nationality and was never given it. She's never even been to Bangladesh. Either way, the Bangladeshi government have said they will not grant her citizenship, as is their right, so by stripping her of her British citizenship Britain is making her stateless. Saying she's not stateless because she's Bangladeshi is the same as saying that any Briton with one Irish grandparent (and how many of us is that?!) can be stripped of their British citizenship at any time because, no problem, you can just go and be Irish.

Again, the UK Government didn't "strip her of it", she renounced it, they revoked it. She wants it back, the UK Govt. said no. The Supreme Court has attested to this. She has dual nationality with Bangladesh. She HAS a nationality (not suprisingly the Bangladeshi Govt. don't want her either but you've said nothing of her being tried there)

You're not suggesting the Supreme Court of the UK is incorrect in the legalities of the UK Govts. actions are you in regards to following International Law?

She should be tried in Syria first before ever reaching a case in the UK. That is after all where her crimes were commited and against.

 

[bluethrunthru]

So if you (assuming you're British), committed a crime on holiday in Corfu, you should be stripped of your nationality?

some people will do anything to get Slabhead dropped from the England team ha ha ha

 

[KPXBLN]

Again, the UK Government didn't "strip her of it", she renounced it, they revoked it. She wants it back, the UK Govt. said no. The Supreme Court has attested to this. She has dual nationality with Bangladesh. She HAS a nationality (not suprisingly the Bangladeshi Govt. don't want her either but you've said nothing of her being tried there)

You're not suggesting the Supreme Court of the UK is incorrect in the legalities of the UK Govts. actions are you in regards to following International Law?

She should be tried in Syria first before ever reaching a case in the UK.

According to everything I've read, the government removed her citizenship in 2019. Her actions and beliefs - as I've said - are obviously reprehensible, and offensive to the vast vast majority of British people, including everyone on this forum I'm sure. But that doesn't constitute her 'renouncing' her citizenship in any formal legal respect as far I'm aware.

As I said, she doesn't have dual nationality. And as to the UK Supreme Court yeh, I do think they've made the wrong decision. That's why cases get argued and people have the right to appeals, including Begum if she's ever able to instruct lawyers. (Also, when the Court of Appeal ruled last year that 'the only way in which she can have a fair and effective appeal is to be permitted to come into the United Kingdom to pursue her appeal,' presumably you weren't saying "Well the UK Court of Appeal said so, so who am I to question them." The reality is we all have the right to debate the rights and wrongs of these things.)

 

[Metal Biker]

According to everything I've read, the government removed her citizenship in 2019. Her actions and beliefs - as I've said - are obviously reprehensible, and offensive to the vast vast majority of British people, including everyone on this forum I'm sure. But that doesn't constitute her 'renouncing' her citizenship in any formal legal respect as far I'm aware.

As I said, she doesn't have dual nationality. And as to the UK Supreme Court yeh, I do think they've made the wrong decision. That's why cases get argued and people have the right to appeals, including Begum if she's ever able to instruct lawyers. (Also, when the Court of Appeal ruled last year that 'the only way in which she can have a fair and effective appeal is to be permitted to come into the United Kingdom to pursue her appeal,' presumably you weren't saying "Well the UK Court of Appeal said so, so who am I to question them." The reality is we all have the right to debate the rights and wrongs of these things.)

Still, not illegal. You may disagree, but no laws have been broken. That's the point.

 

[KPXBLN]

Still, not illegal. You may disagree, but no laws have been broken. That's the point.

I think that it sets a dangerous precedent, as a number of legal experts have argued today, in terms of the Home Secretary's power to remove people's citizenship without a trial or legal process.