• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

ISIS teenager wants to come home

Steve said:
Not sure what you are trying to say. This rambling sentence makes no sense.

The laws exist as they do. Bangladeshi law recognizes her as a citizen. Actions of Western European countries have no effect on that.
Click to expand...


The decision by the UK government to revoke her citizenship was a choice. It was done knowing that it would either make her de facto stateless, or would inflict the problem on an impoverished country that has no personal responsibility for the situation. Bangladesh cannot legally revoke her citizenship now even if they have provisions to do so, because the UK got in first.

You implied that it is actually Bangladesh that chose this situation by having laws that allow citizenship by descent (which is normal practice in most countries, including the UK). To avoid it they should somehow have predicted the situation in advance and radically changed their citizenship laws, affecting countless innocent people.
 
Elaedith said:
The decision by the UK government to revoke her citizenship was a choice. It was done knowing that it would either make her de facto stateless, or would inflict the problem on an impoverished country that has no personal responsibility for the situation. Bangladesh cannot legally revoke her citizenship now even if they have provisions to do so, because the UK got in first.

You implied that it is actually Bangladesh that chose this situation by having laws that allow citizenship by descent (which is normal practice in most countries, including the UK). To avoid it they should somehow have predicted the situation in advance and radically changed their citizenship laws, affecting countless innocent people.
Click to expand...

A number of choices were made that led to the current condition.

The relative wealth of each country is a red herring.

Countries cannot take “personal” responsibility.

I did not “imply” anything. I stated it outright.

I have not said anything about Bangladesh needing to change their laws. Do you think they need to?
 
Steve said:
A number of choices were made that led to the current condition.

The relative wealth of each country is a red herring.
Click to expand...

I disagree. The fact that Bangladesh does not have the resources that the UK has to deal with this situation is not the main point, but it is a point that makes the decision more morally repugnant, on top of the fact that Bangladesh has no responsibility for the situation.

Countries cannot take “personal” responsibility.

I did not “imply” anything. I stated it outright.

I have not said anything about Bangladesh needing to change their laws. Do you think they need to?
Click to expand...

The choice is embedded in the citizenship laws of Bangladesh. The laws were chosen by the Bangladeshi government. They could choose to have different laws that would exclude people in her position from citizenship. They have not done so.
Click to expand...


The laws referred to are those conferring citizenship by descent. The UK has similar laws. I do not think that either Bangladesh or the UK should have to change these laws. I don't think that either Bangladesh or the UK should use these laws as an excuse to foist their home-grown terrorist suspects onto another country by revoking citizenship. I don't think governments should be able to revoke citizenship at all; certainly not for people who were born and raised in the country and have never been convicted of any offence.
 
And now the government will drag its feet about getting her back here, like some spoiled child.
 
Tolls said:
Which is precisely the petulant child attitude I am expecting from them.

"Shan't!! And you can't make me!"
Click to expand...

Again, it's not up to them. It's up to her, or somebody else who wants her back, to get her back. What this ruling means is that the government should not stop her returning.

Why do you think there is any onus on the government to actively bring her back?
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
It shows how unprincipled and unconstitutional the current and previous government has become.
Click to expand...

What does? The fact that they won't fetch someone back from Syria? Try getting them to bring you home from Greece if you miss your flight.

She can come back; nobody is under any obligation to bring her.
 
theprestige said:
It's up to the government to follow due process and execute its lawful duties in a timely manner. Without indulging in prejudice, or picking winners and losers based extralegal considerations.
Click to expand...

The government has no lawful duty to bring back British citizens from abroad, and this decision had no bearing on that.
 
PursuedByABear said:
Again, it's not up to them. It's up to her, or somebody else who wants her back, to get her back. What this ruling means is that the government should not stop her returning.

Why do you think there is any onus on the government to actively bring her back?
Click to expand...

Because until she's had her time in court she is, frankly, still a citizen.
And I would think very little of a government that refused to bring a citizen back because they didn't want to.
 
Tolls said:
Because until she's had her time in court she is, frankly, still a citizen.
And I would think very little of a government that refused to bring a citizen back because they didn't want to.
Click to expand...

They wouldn't bring me back if I was stuck in Greece. Why do you think they would?
If she wants to come back all she needs is the price of a plane ticket. It's not up to the government to provide that.
 
PursuedByABear said:
They wouldn't bring me back if I was stuck in Greece. Why do you think they would?
If she wants to come back all she needs is the price of a plane ticket. It's not up to the government to provide that.
Click to expand...

Prior to the latest ruling she couldn't come back.
 
Darat said:
What are your views on helping someone back who had at the age of 15 been groomed into the illegal sex trade?
Click to expand...

Let's just ignore her, on the record, statements about not regretting her decision to join ISIL. Or that she had been unfazed by seeing the head of a beheaded man as he was "an enemy of Islam". I'd take that into consideration when forming my views before going right to, "she's a victim".

I'd also consider the fact that she said she was "inspired" (her words) to join ISIL by videos of fighters beheading hostages and also of "the good life" under the group.

I have no compunction about letting the little scrote wither and die well away from theses shores. **** her.

But then again, you didn't ask me.
 
Darat said:
What are your views on helping someone back who had at the age of 15 been groomed into the illegal sex trade?
Click to expand...

Does she need help? Has she asked for help? What makes you think her parents can't afford the air fare? Or Liberty, who are paying orders of magnitude more to fund the court case? Never in this case has the idea of her needing government help to return been a factor. It has been about the removal of her citizenship.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom