Shamima Begum

Rascal said:
Because if nobody ever spoke for the underdog, discriminated against, the morally wronged, we would live in a fucking awful world where nobody had any rights apart from those with the most money and the entitled elite.

You would have no rights, you would be a serf paying tithes to your local Baron and you would be eating rhubarb for every meal, living in rags and working every hour you were awake.

And even now you dismiss the people who fought for you as lefties or other crude shit.

Because if any of you on the right of politics think you would have ever got any rights from the cunts you vote for you are fucking deluded.
Click to expand...
I had an argument with a gammon mate of mine the other day, not about this poor young woman, but about - as he calls them - “fucking unions”.

I tried to explain to him that the reason he is able to take 3 or 4 weeks sickpay every year from his job as a policeman is because of the “fucking unions”. As is his statutory rights to days off each week, holiday pay, safety legislation, employment protection, and a plethora of other rights. He then went on a rant about “being taxed to the nines and his overtime hardly being worth working”. He didn’t see the funny side when I pointed out that his entire salary package was paid for with other peoples taxes and if he wanted to make a stand and resign his job for life and take his chances in the private sector I would be happy to stand shoulder to shoulder with him.

My point is a similar one to yours, namely Gammons, especially ones from working class backgrounds, are often the most reactionary of people and seem to show real fear of any sort of understanding or show of human kindness. I just don’t understand it. It’s frankly very weird and is sadly in evidence on this and many other threads.

Back to Shamima, I am Not afraid of her, I feel desperately sorry for the poor young woman. For me she should be invited back home, to her country of birth, and once she has paid her debt to society , perhaps with some form of community service, she should be housed, fed, kept warm, and provided with an income as, due in no small part to the witch-hunt against her for years now in the press, she will find it very difficult to gain meaningful employment.

Bring the girl home, show the world that British values are worth shouting about, and help her have a good life and decent future.
 
Mëtal Bikër said:
The people are the state and the state works for the people, and the majority opinion is that she should not return to a country that she has rejected, chosen to disavow, chosen to reject, whose ethics, morals and rights she's turned her back on in favour of those of a regime our own state abhored and does not endorse.

So the question I pose to those people defending her is why is protecting the rights of one individual who did not care for the rights of others more important than seeing said individual stand trial at those who were directly affected by her actions, when she chose to no longer be protected by the courts that would have otherwise defended her?

Whilst engaging, supporting and co-operating, willingly, with the acts of the Islamic State, she no longer considered herself a British citizen. And as the Supreme Court just stated "the right to a fair trial does NOT trump all other considerations, such as the safety of the citizens"

Why is Begum's plight to be given more precedence than the safety of law abiding, British citizens? Nobody has come up with a justifiable argument.
Click to expand...

Because as there’s no real ability for her to appeal, there is no way for people to actually know if it is actually being given more precedence or not. The Supreme Court decision is essentially the Secretary of State can individually make that decision to make her stateless, even if it means the right to appeal and a hearing can’t happen.

Personally, if you asked me should she still hold U.K. citizenship, then I couldn’t answer the question until I’d heard the argument. The issue currently is there’s no way to have that argument in the first place.

Thankfully we don’t have a legal system that just goes off whatever the majority opinion is at a particular time without due process. With this one though, the argument currently is around access to that due process, not whether the majority opinion is justified or not.
 
Mëtal Bikër said:
She voluntarily gave up her UK citizenship. She didn't believe herself to be British anymore. She thought the Islamic State was something permanent as many did.

She may have been born here, but neither you, I or even the British Government can force someone to be British if they declare themselves not to be. When the Supreme Court says that her rights do not trump the rights and safety of the citizens of the UK, you know you've backed the wrong horse.

Remember she thought nothing of the rights of others in her pursuit of her "perfect society", and to deny those, whose regime she supported, that were victims of said regimen , the justice they deserve, because of... i'm still waiting for a legitimate reason on that.

She's 'British'? Not anymore. The Supreme Court has ruled in favour of that. By 'law' that should be upheld. Unless you and others know better than the Supreme Court. Trust me, had the SC ruled in favour, i'd have said nothing, but those arguing against the SC's ruling today, I have to ask why.
Click to expand...
She didn't "voluntarily give up her UK citizenship". It was revoked by the Home Office, possibly illegally as she would be stateless.

And your understanding of this decision is completely flawed. The Supreme Court has ruled that she won't be allowed to appeal the removal of her citizenship in person. She'll have to do it from Syria (although it will be her lawyers that do it anyway, in a hearing that will presumably be held remotely anyway). She could well overturn that revocation.

I don't even particularly have a problem with today's SC ruling, more the way she's been treated generally. She brought a lot of that on herself, no question, but the law is the law. There's about 10,000 former fighters come back from Syria to the UK. I don't believe any of those have had their citizenship revoked.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
She didn't "voluntarily give up her UK citizenship". It was revoked by the Home Office, possibly illegally as she would be stateless.

And your understanding of this decision is completely flawed. The Supreme Court has ruled that she won't be allowed to appeal the removal of her citizenship in person. She'll have to do it from Syria (although it will be her lawyers that do it anyway, in a hearing that will presumably be held remotely anyway). She could well overturn that revocation.

I don't even particularly have a problem with today's SC ruling, more the way she's been treated generally. She brought a lot of that on herself, no question, but the law is the law. There's about 10,000 former fighters come back from Syria to the UK. I don't believe any of those have had their citizenship revoked.
Click to expand...

I imagine a lot of them, they didn’t have the dual citizenship loophole that was exploited in this particular case (the existence of which would have probably been the main argument of the appeal)
 
Has there not been a court set up to deal with these people, possibly at the Hague, where the actual victims can get justice? Regardless of what you think about her citizenship, she shouldn't be coming back to the UK because she's committed crimes against the Kurdish people and they should be allowed to give her a trial and whatever punishment they see fit. The problem is obviously that they are not a recognised government, but we have ways of dealing with war criminals in the absence of a legitimate or reliable government.

If there are 10,000 IS fighters back in the UK, then they should all be on trial for participating in genocide, and it should involve the families of the victims of that genocide.
 
She should be tried for her crimes in Syria then assuming she’s found guilty serve time in a Syrian prison. At the end of that the Syrians would have every right to stick her on a plane to the U.K. and we would not be able to send her back so we’d have to deal with her. That’s exactly what we do with foreign criminals who serve time for serious crimes here. They get deported to their country of origin whether that country wants them or not.

As Syria is a failed state that’s all very unlikely to happen but theoretically they could stick her on a plane here any time they want and international law would force us to accept her. It is impossible for us to wash our hands of her however much we may want to and however much the government pretends it can do.
 
west didsblue said:
She should be tried for her crimes in Syria then assuming she’s found guilty serve time in a Syrian prison. At the end of that the Syrians would have every right to stick her on a plane to the U.K. and we would not be able to send her back so we’d have to deal with her. That’s exactly what we do with foreign criminals who serve time for serious crimes here. They get deported to their country of origin whether that country wants them or not.

As Syria is a failed state that’s all very unlikely to happen but theoretically they could stick her on a plane here any time they want and international law would force us to accept her. It is impossible for us to wash our hands of her however much we may want to and however much the government pretends it can do.
Click to expand...

what crimes can she be charged with?
 
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
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.