• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories
  • You may need to edit your signatures.

    When we moved to Xenfora some of the signature options didn't come over. In the old software signatures were limited by a character limit, on Xenfora there are more options and there is a character number and number of lines limit. I've set maximum number of lines to 4 and unlimited characters.

ISIS teenager wants to come home

Clive Stafford Smith wrote, "Shamima had her passport simply taken away from her. In her first case, the Supreme Court said that the government was not rendering her stateless since she could claim Bangladeshi citizenship. This was risible, given that she has never been there: she was born in the UK, and the Bangladeshi government assured us that she “would be hanged if she entered the country.”" Elsewhere he referred to stripping her of her passport as illegal.

I remember a lot of discussion about this earlier in the thread. She has been rendered stateless in practice, regardless of what theoretical rights she has to Bangladeshi citizenship. It seems clear that international law prohibiting making someone stateless is meant to ensure that they can actually claim citizenship of a state and reside there, otherwise it is rather pointless.

Whack-a-mole time again.
Begum's right to Bangladeshi citizenship is automatic. Not theoretical, and nothing to do with where she was born. Plus the Bangladeshi government's refusal of that right is illegal, and their threat to kill her both illegal and immoral- and STILL no-one here has the balls to say so. Why is everyone so invested in protecting the Bangladeshi government? And why do we have to keep going over the same ground, over and over and over and over and over again? Just read the thread, people, please- this is becoming tedious.
 
Begum's right to Bangladeshi citizenship is automatic. Not theoretical, and nothing to do with where she was born. Plus the Bangladeshi government's refusal of that right is illegal,

This is a bit I am still unclear on. The Bangladesh Citizenship Act defines a minor as someone under 21. So as a minor they are treated as citizens/are citizens(?). If they reach 21 without applying for citizenship the right to citizenship lapses. Not is refused, lapses. If the (right to) citizenship can lapse then it can't be full citizenship, can it? There's a grey area here but the articles I can find often rely on an understanding of "de jure" and "de facto" which I am unclear on1. I think at this point I need to wait for a court case to settle it.

In case it helps others navigate: Cosmic Yak linked to both the SIAC and SC decisions
http://bdlaws.minlaw.gov.bd/act-details-242.html see section 5
5. Subject to the provisions of section 3 a person born after the commencement of this Act, shall be a citizen of Bangladesh by descent if his 2[father or mother] is a citizen of Bangladesh at the time of his birth:
There are exclusion but they don't apply.

1: Yes I know what they mean in theory, but in this case, not what they mean in practice.
 
This is a bit I am still unclear on. The Bangladesh Citizenship Act defines a minor as someone under 21. So as a minor they are treated as citizens/are citizens(?). If they reach 21 without applying for citizenship the right to citizenship lapses. Not is refused, lapses. If the (right to) citizenship can lapse then it can't be full citizenship, can it? There's a grey area here but the articles I can find often rely on an understanding of "de jure" and "de facto" which I am unclear on1. I think at this point I need to wait for a court case to settle it.

In case it helps others navigate: Cosmic Yak linked to both the SIAC and SC decisions
http://bdlaws.minlaw.gov.bd/act-details-242.html see section 5
There are exclusion but they don't apply.

1: Yes I know what they mean in theory, but in this case, not what they mean in practice.

I think the point is that, at the time of the court rulings, Begum was under 21, and so did not need to apply for Bangladeshi citizenship.
The UK court decisions made mention of 'de jure' and 'de facto' statelessness- and I have commented on this upthread: the upshot is that Begum was 'de jure' not made stateless by the HS's decision to strip her British citizenship from her. However, that did make her 'de facto' stateless because the Bangladeshi government flatly refused to grant her her legal rights, and so there was (IIRC) 'no realistic possibility' In the court's words) of Begum going to Bangladesh.
What (I think) can lapse is the right to automatic citizenship. After the age of 21, she has to apply for it. In both cases, though, it is full citizenship- at least, I have seen nothing to indicate otherwise.
As I see it, the British government and courts were legally correct: it is the Bangladeshis who are acting illegally. The latter have refused her citizenship, which is- or was- her legal right, and not run this through their courts: it's just a fiat statement from their government, contrary to their laws and not upheld by a court ruling.
 
Children at risk

In the article "Children at risk of statelessness in the fight against terrorism," Lavinia Spiess and Louise Pyne-Jones wrote, "Two young boys, who were kidnapped by their father and taken to Syria in 2014, found themselves helpless after their father had presumably died in hostilities, and their stepmother was detained in a different camp.136 Only four years later they were reunited with their Trinidadian mother following combined efforts from The Guardian, human rights lawyer Clive Stafford Smith and Roger Waters.137 Until their repatriation, they had been de facto stateless, despite legally holding citizenships. Many other children face a similar fate and end up effectively stateless in Syrian camps, as states deny them repatriation or any other kind of assistance."

The particulars discussed above are different from Ms. Begum's case, yet some aspects are similar. Had her children survived, their situation might have been analogous to the children mentioned above. I am bringing this passage up to illustrate one of many reasons why Mr. Smith's views carry a great deal more weight than that of anonymous commenters of unknown expertise, on issues such as the secretive procedures used by SIAC (comments #1613 and 1625) or the legality of stripping Ms. Begum of her passport.

I defer to others on whether what Bangladesh did is legal or not. Imposing the death penalty without a fair trial would be immoral. Done and dusted.
 
Last edited:
He misreads the law. As I have repeatedly shown all that is required by UK law is that the Home Secretary is "satisfied" she will not be stateless.

Yes the UK courts have clearly stated that UK law can trump international law, treaty obligations, morality or even justice. The only thing it can't do is constrain a future government from being even more evil.
 
This is a bit I am still unclear on. The Bangladesh Citizenship Act defines a minor as someone under 21. So as a minor they are treated as citizens/are citizens(?). If they reach 21 without applying for citizenship the right to citizenship lapses. Not is refused, lapses. If the (right to) citizenship can lapse then it can't be full citizenship, can it? There's a grey area here but the articles I can find often rely on an understanding of "de jure" and "de facto" which I am unclear on1. I think at this point I need to wait for a court case to settle it.

In case it helps others navigate: Cosmic Yak linked to both the SIAC and SC decisions
http://bdlaws.minlaw.gov.bd/act-details-242.html see section 5
There are exclusion but they don't apply.

1: Yes I know what they mean in theory, but in this case, not what they mean in practice.

Holding the right to citizenship of a country does not mean you are a citizen. It simply means that if you apply for citizenship it will be granted, absent other disqualifying conditions.

For example I've plenty of American cousins who availed of their right to Irish citizenship. To be able to do so they had to firs establish their Irish ancestral bona fides, theng register on the registry of foreign births and then finally apply for citizenship and go through a fairly rigorous vetting process befor being granted citizenship. It's not easy to take up citizenship unless it's of the country of your birth and childhood home.
 
In the article "Children at risk of statelessness in the fight against terrorism," Lavinia Spiess and Louise Pyne-Jones wrote, "Two young boys, who were kidnapped by their father and taken to Syria in 2014, found themselves helpless after their father had presumably died in hostilities, and their stepmother was detained in a different camp.136 Only four years later they were reunited with their Trinidadian mother following combined efforts from The Guardian, human rights lawyer Clive Stafford Smith and Roger Waters.137 Until their repatriation, they had been de facto stateless, despite legally holding citizenships. Many other children face a similar fate and end up effectively stateless in Syrian camps, as states deny them repatriation or any other kind of assistance."

The particulars discussed above are different from Ms. Begum's case, yet some aspects are similar. Had her children survived, their situation might have been analogous to the children mentioned above. I am bringing this passage up to illustrate one of many reasons why Mr. Smith's views carry a great deal more weight than that of anonymous commenters of unknown expertise, on issues such as the secretive procedures used by SIAC (comments #1613 and 1625) or the legality of stripping Ms. Begum of her passport.
I defer to others on whether what Bangladesh did is legal or not. Imposing the death penalty without a fair trial would be immoral. Done and dusted.

Re. highlighted 1: The SIAC is a public court. The only time it is not is if there is secret evidence to be considered- i.e. reports from the intelligence services.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/appeal-to-the-special-immigration-appeals-commission
https://webarchive.archive.unhcr.or...refworld.org/publisher,UK_SIAC,,DZA,,,10.html
Re. highlighted 2: what specific law do you consider to have been broken by this action?
 
Holding the right to citizenship of a country does not mean you are a citizen. It simply means that if you apply for citizenship it will be granted, absent other disqualifying conditions.

And so Begum was not rendered stateless. For the umpteenth time. :rolleyes:

For example I've plenty of American cousins who availed of their right to Irish citizenship. To be able to do so they had to firs establish their Irish ancestral bona fides, theng register on the registry of foreign births and then finally apply for citizenship and go through a fairly rigorous vetting process befor being granted citizenship. It's not easy to take up citizenship unless it's of the country of your birth and childhood home.

Completely irrelevant. This is about Bangladesh, not Ireland.
 
limited scope and dubious procedures regarding evidence and testimony

Cosmic Yak,

Alex Papasotiriou wrote, "SIAC’s judgment is, indisputably, difficult to stomach. It has bleak consequences for a person who, in SIAC’s own conclusion, is credibly suspected to have been trafficked and whom the State failed to protect. The judgment paints a further bleak picture: it demonstrates the courts’ incredibly narrow – almost insignificant, as SIAC effectively admits at parts of the judgment – ambit in reviewing the exercise of executive powers that involve considerations of national security."

Alison Harvey wrote, "It [the SIAC] sees secret evidence not seen by the person whose case it is considering or her lawyers. The special advocate who presents her case in those secret proceedings advances arguments she and her lawyers will never hear, and without her instructions or those of her lawyers on that evidence." Clive Stafford Smith pointed out: "In Guantánamo I get to see the secret evidence, and then talk to my client about it (with certain limitations), whereupon my client can testify to his heart’s content. In SIAC, the “Special Advocate” can do no such thing, and is cut off from the client. All the more so for Shamima, who is stuck in what we have long called “Guantánamo on the Euphrates”: she has never met any of her lawyers, and was not allowed to provide any evidence herself."

To sum up, the scope of the SIAC is very limited, and within a SIAC hearing the hands of the special advocate and the defendant are tied. Do you think that these procedures are fair? On the question of the legality of taking her passport, I defer to the lawyers who brought this argument up.
EDT
"The [United Nations] experts also expressed serious concern that, as Begum is not a citizen of any other country and is not currently entitled to any other citizenship, this judgment renders her effectively stateless, in violation of international law." link
 
Last edited:
Holding the right to citizenship of a country does not mean you are a citizen. It simply means that if you apply for citizenship it will be granted, absent other disqualifying conditions.

For example I've plenty of American cousins who availed of their right to Irish citizenship. To be able to do so they had to firs establish their Irish ancestral bona fides, theng register on the registry of foreign births and then finally apply for citizenship and go through a fairly rigorous vetting process befor being granted citizenship. It's not easy to take up citizenship unless it's of the country of your birth and childhood home.

I think there's a difference. I checked the Irish rules after Brexit as my wife is Irish and I'm not a ******* moron so voted Remain and want an EU passport. As I recall Ireland says you have the right to apply, Bangladesh says you are a citizen. I am not a lawyer.
 
Whack-a-mole time again.
Begum's right to Bangladeshi citizenship is automatic. Not theoretical, and nothing to do with where she was born. Plus the Bangladeshi government's refusal of that right is illegal, and their threat to kill her both illegal and immoral- and STILL no-one here has the balls to say so. Why is everyone so invested in protecting the Bangladeshi government? And why do we have to keep going over the same ground, over and over and over and over and over again? Just read the thread, people, please- this is becoming tedious.

We go over the same ground because people don't agree with you.
Yes, you can have automatic citizenship from birth, but it doesn't mean anything in practice until it is formally recognised and you hold documents giving the right to live in that country. I had UK citizenship by descent although I wasn't born in the UK, but I couldn't actually enter the country until I successfully applied for a passport.

I think the decision to revoke UK citizenship is morally wrong regardless of whether or not Bangladesh was willing to grant it, because there is no ethical justification for passing this problem to Bangladesh. The fact that there is no check to ensure a right to actually reside in another country simply makes it worse, since it is obvious that the intent of the international law is to ensure that everyone has a state they can actually reside safely in. And if the decision is legal, that shows that the law is wrong and the law allowing this should be repealed.
 
Last edited:
Thread title is misleading and needs updating. Although she was 19 when the thread started she is now long past being a teenager. And at 19 she was legally an adult under British law so the discussion has always been about an adult wishing to enter Britain and was never about a minor as implied by the title.
 
A minor problem

Thread title is misleading and needs updating. Although she was 19 when the thread started she is now long past being a teenager. And at 19 she was legally an adult under British law so the discussion has always been about an adult wishing to enter Britain and was never about a minor as implied by the title.
Fair enough, but she was fifteen when she left. In addition, she has not been convicted of any criminal act in open court, unless I am mistaken. My present position is that she should be given back her citizenship upon return, then tried and (if convicted) sentenced according to whatever guidelines exist.
 
Cosmic Yak,

Alex Papasotiriou wrote, "SIAC’s judgment is, indisputably, difficult to stomach. It has bleak consequences for a person who, in SIAC’s own conclusion, is credibly suspected to have been trafficked and whom the State failed to protect. The judgment paints a further bleak picture: it demonstrates the courts’ incredibly narrow – almost insignificant, as SIAC effectively admits at parts of the judgment – ambit in reviewing the exercise of executive powers that involve considerations of national security."

Alison Harvey wrote, "It [the SIAC] sees secret evidence not seen by the person whose case it is considering or her lawyers. The special advocate who presents her case in those secret proceedings advances arguments she and her lawyers will never hear, and without her instructions or those of her lawyers on that evidence." Clive Stafford Smith pointed out: "In Guantánamo I get to see the secret evidence, and then talk to my client about it (with certain limitations), whereupon my client can testify to his heart’s content. In SIAC, the “Special Advocate” can do no such thing, and is cut off from the client. All the more so for Shamima, who is stuck in what we have long called “Guantánamo on the Euphrates”: she has never met any of her lawyers, and was not allowed to provide any evidence herself."

To sum up, the scope of the SIAC is very limited, and within a SIAC hearing the hands of the special advocate and the defendant are tied. Do you think that these procedures are fair? On the question of the legality of taking her passport, I defer to the lawyers who brought this argument up.
EDT
"The [United Nations] experts also expressed serious concern that, as Begum is not a citizen of any other country and is not currently entitled to any other citizenship, this judgment renders her effectively stateless, in violation of international law." link

That post was in reponse to these two points:
Re. highlighted 1: The SIAC is a public court. The only time it is not is if there is secret evidence to be considered- i.e. reports from the intelligence services.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/appeal-to-the-special-immigration-appeals-commission
https://webarchive.archive.unhcr.or...refworld.org/publisher,UK_SIAC,,DZA,,,10.html
Re. highlighted 2: what specific law do you consider to have been broken by this action?

Point 1: Do you accept that the SIAC is a public court, apart from when classified information needs to be examined? Your post does not really address this.
Point 2: This was not answered at all, What specific law do you consider to have been broken by this action? I know you quoted some "experts", but the simple fact remains that no laws were broken. Indeed, the ECHR upheld the legality of depriving citizenship. And, for the umpty-zillionth time, THE UK GOVERNMENT DID NOT RENDER BEGUM STATELESS. BANGLADESH DID.
Jeez, how many times? :rolleyes:
 
She never had Bangladesh citizenship, she had British citizenship. She had from the reading of Bangladesh law the potential of Bangladesh citizenship up to the age of 21, potential and actual are not the same thing.
 
She never had Bangladesh citizenship, she had British citizenship. She had from the reading of Bangladesh law the potential of Bangladesh citizenship up to the age of 21, potential and actual are not the same thing.

Nope- at least, not what it says here:
3. At the commencement of this Act every person shall be deemed to be a citizen of Bangladesh-
(a) who or any of whose parents or grandparents was born in the territory now included in Bangladesh and who after the fourteenth day of August, 1947, has not been permanently resident in any country outside Bangladesh.

Note the actual wording. Not "has potential citizenship": it says quite clearly "shall be deemed to be a citizen".
If you disagree, perhaps you could highlight the word "potential" in that, or any other, part of the law.
 
Nope- at least, not what it says here:


Note the actual wording. Not "has potential citizenship": it says quite clearly "shall be deemed to be a citizen".
If you disagree, perhaps you could highlight the word "potential" in that, or any other, part of the law.

Yep - that is indeed your reading of their laws, one that is disputed by the Bangladesh government. And when it comes to national legislation it is the government it belongs to that determines what it means, we cannot tell the Bangladesh government how they have to interpret their laws, no more than they can tell us how we have to interpret our laws.

Mulberry bushes come to mind.


ETA: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/feb/20/rights-of-shamima-begums-son-not-affected-says-javid

...snip....


“The government of Bangladesh is deeply concerned that [Begum] has been erroneously identified as a holder of dual citizenship,” Shahriar Alam, the state minister of foreign affairs, said in a statement issued to the Guardian, adding that his government had learned of Britain’s intention to cancel her citizenship rights from media reports.

Bangladesh asserts that Ms Shamima Begum is not a Bangladeshi citizen. She is a British citizen by birth and never applied for dual nationality with Bangladesh … There is no question of her being allowed to enter into Bangladesh.”

...snip...
 
Last edited:
Nope- at least, not what it says here:


Note the actual wording. Not "has potential citizenship": it says quite clearly "shall be deemed to be a citizen".
If you disagree, perhaps you could highlight the word "potential" in that, or any other, part of the law.

I think it's section 5 you want
5. Subject to the provisions of section 3 a person born after the commencement of this Act, shall be a citizen of Bangladesh by descent if his 2[father or mother] is a citizen of Bangladesh at the time of his birth:

This is what a number of legal commentators from liberal and conservative ends have complained about. De jure vs de facto. The exact meaning of that has probably been decided in a few Bangladeshi court cases I'd guess. I would guess the original law was primarily about establishing citizenship around the time of Bangladeshi's split from Pakistan and subsequent legislation or precedent may have made a literal reading obsolete.
 
While checking the text of Section 5 I noticed

11. (l) The Government may, upon, application to it in this behalf made in the prescribed manner by a parent or guardian of a minor child of a citizen of Bangladesh, register the child as a citizen of Bangladesh.
12. Any person registered as a citizen of Bangladesh shall be such a citizen from the date of his registration.

I may be wrong but if a "a minor child of a citizen of Bangladesh" has to apply to be registered (and see other sections about "registered") then that implies to me citizenship is potential rather than real. By 12 they are a citizen from date of registration, not date of birth.
http://bdlaws.minlaw.gov.bd/act-details-242.html

I hate legal arguments. The whole vocabulary shifts.
 
Last edited:
Yep - that is indeed your reading of their laws, one that is disputed by the Bangladesh government. And when it comes to national legislation it is the government it belongs to that determines what it means, we cannot tell the Bangladesh government how they have to interpret their laws, no more than they can tell us how we have to interpret our laws.

Mulberry bushes come to mind.

Yet you continue to insist that your own interpretation is the correct one, despite the fact that you cannot point to the wording in the Bangladeshi law that says 'potential'. :rolleyes:
Also, it is the courts that should interpret this and, as you well know, there has been no court case in Bangladesh to establish the actual legal situation.


You are of the opinion that something becomes legal just because a government minister says it is legal. I do not share this belief. My own stance is that questions of legality are settled by the judiciary, not by the whims of politicians.
 
While checking the text of Section 5 I noticed



I may be wrong but if a "a minor child of a citizen of Bangladesh" has to apply to be registered (and see other sections about "registered") then that implies to me citizenship is potential rather than real. By 12 they are a citizen from date of registration, not date of birth.
http://bdlaws.minlaw.gov.bd/act-details-242.html

I hate legal arguments. The whole vocabulary shifts.

And in the end it doesn't matter, Bangladesh made it clear before we removed her British citizenship that she did not have Bangladesh citizenship.

Only Bangladesh can decide as to whether someone is a Bangladesh citizen or not, just like it is only Britain that can decide whether someone is a British citizen or not.
 
While checking the text of Section 5 I noticed



I may be wrong but if a "a minor child of a citizen of Bangladesh" has to apply to be registered (and see other sections about "registered") then that implies to me citizenship is potential rather than real. By 12 they are a citizen from date of registration, not date of birth.
http://bdlaws.minlaw.gov.bd/act-details-242.html

I hate legal arguments. The whole vocabulary shifts.

My own understanding is that she is deemed a Bangladeshi citizen because of her parents.
Registering, getting a Bangladeshi passport etc. are merely the outward manifestations of that citizenship. She has the citizenship by right of descent from her parents: getting the paperwork just formalises that fact.
 
And in the end it doesn't matter, Bangladesh made it clear before we removed her British citizenship that she did not have Bangladesh citizenship.

No, they didn't. It even says so in the article you just linked to.

Only Bangladesh can decide as to whether someone is a Bangladesh citizen or not, just like it is only Britain that can decide whether someone is a British citizen or not.

Only if that is following Bangladeshi law. You seem quite happy for that government to ride roughshod over their own laws. You seem unconcerned that at no point has a Bangladeshi court established that she can be legally denied her right to citizenship. Why is this? I am genuinely curious to understand why you are excusing this behaviour.
 
...snip...


Only if that is following Bangladeshi law.

And it is up to the Bangladesh government to say what is lawful or not, again just like it is for the UK government. (I am using government as shorthand to include the likes of courts, legislators, houses etc.)



You seem quite happy for that government to ride roughshod over their own laws. You seem unconcerned that at no point has a Bangladeshi court established that she can be legally denied her right to citizenship. Why is this? I am genuinely curious to understand why you are excusing this behaviour.

My interest is in my country and my country doing what I think is right. Why you think I should spend time castigating Bangladesh is beyond me. But to help you - I believe that the Bangladesh government is riddled with corruption, it has a terrible record on human rights, it has barbaric laws and punishments (some even inherited from us!), is very discriminatory against minorities of all kinds. Now I said that can we get back to what my government, and my country is doing?
 
My own understanding is that she is deemed a Bangladeshi citizen because of her parents.
Registering, getting a Bangladeshi passport etc. are merely the outward manifestations of that citizenship. She has the citizenship by right of descent from her parents: getting the paperwork just formalises that fact.

I thought that also for a while but then I couldn't reconcile that with 11 & 12. My reading now is that a minor (under 21) has the right to the usual protections etc of being a Bangladeshi citizen but is not a citizen until application and registration. I can't see any other way to read it now but again not a lawyer.
There's a very old cartoon which I finally tracked down about legal definitions.
Railway Porter (to old lady travelling with a menagerie of pets). "'Station Master say, Mum, as cats is 'dogs,' and rabbits is 'dogs,' and so's parrots; but this ere 'tortis' is an insect, so there ain't no charge for it!"

https://magazine.punch.co.uk/image/I0000CRlATCk4EiM
 
And again, it really doesn't matter, since the Bangladeshi government made it clear before the Home Secretary's decision that they would not recognize Begum's claim to citizenship.

Regardless of what the Home Secretary thought Bangladeshi law required, regardless of what he thought the Bangladeshi government should do, he knew what the Bangladeshi government would do, and made an informed decision to render a UK citizen de facto stateless

The more I learn about this case, the more it boggles me that the UK court thought this was a legal act. Both due to the statelessness, and due to the looming death penalty.
 
Performance of the special advocate

That post was in reponse to these two points:


Point 1: Do you accept that the SIAC is a public court, apart from when classified information needs to be examined? Your post does not really address this.
Point 2: This was not answered at all, What specific law do you consider to have been broken by this action? I know you quoted some "experts", but the simple fact remains that no laws were broken. Indeed, the ECHR upheld the legality of depriving citizenship. And, for the umpty-zillionth time, THE UK GOVERNMENT DID NOT RENDER BEGUM STATELESS. BANGLADESH DID.
Jeez, how many times? :rolleyes:
Regarding point 1, the link that you provided stated in part, "The commission will try to keep the hearing open to the public whenever possible. However, you, your lawyer and the public may have to leave the room if there is any secret evidence. If that happens, someone known as a ‘special advocate’ will be appointed to represent you when this evidence is presented."
The links that I provided indicated that the special advocate in this instance could not communicate with Shamima Begum or her lawyers. For all anyone knows, the Special Advocate just sat there like a bump on a log. Not only is the hearing of secret evidence not a public hearing, it is not a fair hearing, a point which you have so far failed to address.

Regarding point 2, I am reporting on what people who know more about the relevant law have said. I am not offering an independent opinion.
 
And it is up to the Bangladesh government to say what is lawful or not, again just like it is for the UK government. (I am using government as shorthand to include the likes of courts, legislators, houses etc.)

And so, by this logic, the decision by the British government is legal, because they said it was legal. Glad we agree on this.
I will, however, be watching your posts in the UK Politics thread with renewed interest, to see if you actually apply this rubric to the British government too.
If a government minister makes a fiat declaration that something is legal, I assume you will chime in with your support and agreement.

My interest is in my country and my country doing what I think is right. Why you think I should spend time castigating Bangladesh is beyond me. But to help you - I believe that the Bangladesh government is riddled with corruption, it has a terrible record on human rights, it has barbaric laws and punishments (some even inherited from us!), is very discriminatory against minorities of all kinds. Now I said that can we get back to what my government, and my country is doing?

Well, for a start, I don't like double standards. Attacking one government for doing something, whilst giving another government a free pass for doing exactly the same thing, strikes me as wrong.
I notice that you still can't bring yourself to criticise the Bangladeshi government for depriving Begum of citizenship of that country, nor can to criticise their arbitrary sentence of death on her.
Now, as for 'doing what you think is right', well, without trying to sound too partonising, it's not that simple. There are two kinds of 'right' involved here: what's legally right, and what's morally right.
The legal question inevitably involves discussing Bangladesh, because the entire question of the legality of the British government's action hinges on the status of Begum's right to Bangladeshi citizenship. If she had it, the UK decision was legal; if she didn't, then it wasn't, because you can't make someone stateless under international law. Much as you wish to separate the two, presumably so you can continue to pretend that it's the British government that's the baddie here (even to the extent of blaming us for some of Bangladesh's laws), you cannot. The lengths that you are going to, to excuse the wrongdoing of Bangladesh's government, to the extent of denying the need for due process or democratic oversight, are quite chilling. I do not see a way to debate the legality of the UK government's decision without involving Bangladesh.

The other kind of 'right' is 'morally right'- and on this we will never agree. I think it's morally right, and you don't. It's a simple as that. There is no middle ground here, no possible compromise- and so no point in discussing it further.
I do believe that a discussion over the way the British law is phrased and enacted is worthwhile, but, as far as I'm concerned, the debate about morality is closed.
 
And in the end it doesn't matter, Bangladesh made it clear before we removed her British citizenship that she did not have Bangladesh citizenship.

And again, it really doesn't matter, since the Bangladeshi government made it clear before the Home Secretary's decision that they would not recognize Begum's claim to citizenship.

Once again, this is simply not true. Repeating a lie will never make it true, no matter how fervently you wish it to.
 
I thought that also for a while but then I couldn't reconcile that with 11 & 12. My reading now is that a minor (under 21) has the right to the usual protections etc of being a Bangladeshi citizen but is not a citizen until application and registration. I can't see any other way to read it now but again not a lawyer.

Have you read Section 16?
The Government shall not make an order depriving a person of citizenship under this section unless it is satisfied that it is in the public interest that that person should not continue to be a citizen of Bangladesh.

(6) Before making an order under this section the Government shall give the person against whom it is proposed to make the order notice in writing informing him of the grounds on which it is proposed to make the order and calling upon him to show cause why it should not be made.

(7) If it is proposed to make the order on any of the grounds specified in sub-sections (2) and (3) of this section and the person against whom it is proposed to make the order applies in the prescribed manner for an inquiry, the Government shall, and in any other case may, refer the case to a committee of inquiry consisting of a chairman, being a person possessing judicial experience, appointed by the Government and of such other members appointed by the Government as it thinks proper.

As far as I am aware, the Bangladeshi government has not done any of this. They can't simply say "she's no citizen of ours": there is a process to be followed, which they do not seem to have done.
Furthermore, simply stating that her citizenship has been removed is a breach of international law, which says you cannot 'arbitrarily' render someone stateless. Despite the lies upthread, it was Bangladesh that did this, and they did this without any kind of due process whatsoever.
As for this possible ambiguity about her citizenship status if she hasn't actually applied for it, two points:
Firstly, I had a search for legal opinions, and found this one, which clearly accepts that she was a Bangladeshi citizen, despite not having put in an application:
From the language of the respective country’s domestic laws, it seems that Begum is a Bangladeshi citizen, and consequently the UK would be within the parameters of domestic and international law in depriving her of her UK citizenship.
They also make mention of the "plain language" of the Act: these legal minds do not seem to have any trouble at all in interpreting the wording.
https://internationallaw.blog/2019/...-practical-analysis-of-shamima-begums-status/
My second point was a thought that occurred last night, which was this: If there was any wriggle-room in this wording, then surely Begum's lawyers would have seized on it? If they could have shown that Begum did not have Bangladeshi citizenship, then the entire case would have collapsed, as she would have been rendered stateless. Remember that Abu Hamza won his appeal on these very grounds. As you are more familiar with the court documents than I, I was wondering if you recall whether Begum's lawyers actually tried this as a defence?
I would also be interested to see if anyone can find a legal opinion that supports the Bangladesh government's reading of their law. I have looked, but can't find any. This leads me to believe that SIAC's understanding- and my own- is correct.
 
Regarding point 1, the link that you provided stated in part, "The commission will try to keep the hearing open to the public whenever possible. However, you, your lawyer and the public may have to leave the room if there is any secret evidence. If that happens, someone known as a ‘special advocate’ will be appointed to represent you when this evidence is presented."

Yes, I am aware of this.

The links that I provided indicated that the special advocate in this instance could not communicate with Shamima Begum or her lawyers. For all anyone knows, the Special Advocate just sat there like a bump on a log.

Do you know this for a fact, or are you just speculating?

Not only is the hearing of secret evidence not a public hearing, it is not a fair hearing, a point which you have so far failed to address.


I did not address that earlier, as your post was not a relevant response to mine. In fact, you still have not answered either of those points.

That notwithstanding, I will do you the courtesy that you decline to offer me, and answer this latest point of yours.
I think it ludicrous that you want classified intelligence to be revealed in a public court. Moreover, it is also ridiculous to force the intelligence services to reveal what they know about a person deemed a threat to national security- to that very person. Do you think that this might just tip off a suspected terrorist that the security services were on to them? Just maybe?
Then there's the charge that this somehow isn't fair. What we have now is a way for the court to consider secret reports as evidence, without revealing them to the general public. I personally see nothing whatever that is unfair about that. I would ask you why you think it is, but- as you say below- you have no independent opinions yourself, preferring instead to let the Guardian do your thinking and talking for you.

Regarding point 2, I am reporting on what people who know more about the relevant law have said. I am not offering an independent opinion.

I dispute that these people you quote do actually know what they're talking about. The accusations of trafficking, for example. Even I, as a non-lawyer, totally unqualified in this field, was able to read the court judgement regarding the threshold of 'credible suspicion' of trafficking, and why the court rejected this claim. I think these talking heads are cherrypicking, so as to preach to the converted.
 
I am taking your words out of my mouth

Cosmic Yak,

One, I did not say or imply that classified evidence should be heard in open court. From what I quoted, a reasonable inference is that I think that this case should follow the example of Guantanamo, as outlined by a lawyer whom I quoted upthread. This lawyer has over twenty years of experience defending detainees at Guantanamo; therefore, he is as good a source of information as one could imagine. Two, I was not using The Guardian itself as the source of my opinions; The Guardian had the good sense to quote people with relevant experience, a practice that I recommend. I also provided comments from various British lawyers. It is tiresome to have to disavow things I did not claim in the first place.

You wrote, "Do you know this for a fact, or are you just speculating?" The antecedent of "this" is ambiguous. If it means that Ms. Begum cannot communicate with the special advocate, then I gave two citations to indicate the truth of this assertion. Please feel free to challenge this assertion with citations of your own. If it means do I know how well the special advocate performed his role, then my answer is that I do not (nor can any independent person). I did not say that he or she performed poorly; what I documented is that there is no way for Ms. Begum to indicate her position to him or her, nor a way for the evidence to be described to her. That is what makes this process less fair than Guantanamo, where such conversations can happen, within limits (see upthread).
 
Last edited:
I do believe that a discussion over the way the British law is phrased and enacted is worthwhile, but, as far as I'm concerned, the debate about morality is closed.

I can't force you to discuss it further, but I am rather curious about whether you would have the same opinion if the positions were reversed. Suppose she had been born in Bangladesh, had no connection to the UK but qualified for UK citizenship by descent, and had travelled from Bangladesh to join ISIS. Bangladesh then revoked her citizenship on the grounds that she qualified for UK citizenship, although she never lived here and the UK is not in a good position to give her a fair trial, not knowing the circumstances under which she was radicalized.

Presumably you would support Bangladesh's legal right to do this, and also insist that the UK must issue her with a passport and allow her entry. But on what grounds is the decision by Bangladesh a morally correct one? It's simply a race to be the first to revoke citizenship, and it benefits the country where somebody actually resided because the other country is not in a good position to know that somebody qualifies for citizenship until they apply. The moral decision IMO is that the country where somebody was radicalized or otherwise groomed takes responsibility for the issue.

Aside from that, the law should be such that this type of situation cannot occur.
 
I can't force you to discuss it further, but I am rather curious about whether you would have the same opinion if the positions were reversed. Suppose she had been born in Bangladesh, had no connection to the UK but qualified for UK citizenship by descent, and had travelled from Bangladesh to join ISIS. Bangladesh then revoked her citizenship on the grounds that she qualified for UK citizenship, although she never lived here and the UK is not in a good position to give her a fair trial, not knowing the circumstances under which she was radicalized.

Presumably you would support Bangladesh's legal right to do this, and also insist that the UK must issue her with a passport and allow her entry. But on what grounds is the decision by Bangladesh a morally correct one? It's simply a race to be the first to revoke citizenship, and it benefits the country where somebody actually resided because the other country is not in a good position to know that somebody qualifies for citizenship until they apply. The moral decision IMO is that the country where somebody was radicalized or otherwise groomed takes responsibility for the issue.

Aside from that, the law should be such that this type of situation cannot occur.

I'm going to start by saying that, in a nutshell, you appear to be calling me a hypocrite. Now, I don't know whether that was your intention, but that's certainly how it reads, and that's actually quite offensive. That may not be what you meant, though.
In either case, the short answer, then, is 'no, I'm not a hypocrite.'
To go into more detail, if I think that something is moral for me to do, then it is also moral for you to do it. If it is morally right for my country to do something I support, then the flipside of that is that it is also OK for another country to do the same thing. That's how morality works: it should apply universally, or one is displaying double standards.
I believe that every country has the right to protect itself. In the case of terrorists with dual nationality, both countries are entitled to take whatever legal steps they can to ensure, as far as possible, the safety and security of their citizens. One of the countries has to take responsibility for that criminal. I would rather it was the other one, but, if it's us, then fair enough, we'll deal with them. If the option exists to have the other country do it, then I see no reason not to take that choice- and, yes, it is a race to see who gets there first. If the individual involved is a dual national, then there's no other choice: that's a consequence of dual nationality. One or other of those countries will end up having to try, jail, or, in Bangladesh's case, shoot at the airport, that person.
Turning to your other points, I do have a few quibbles.
Firstly, you lay the responsibility for radicalisation squarely on the shoulders of the country they are residing in. That is, IMHO, slightly simplistic. Talking specifically of Begum, the videos she watched that radicalised her did not originate in the UK. What makes them the UK's responsibility, then? It is also entirely plausible that her Bangladeshi Muslim heritage made her more susceptible to ISIS' message. I'm not saying it did, just that it is a possible factor. I don't think it's cut-and-dried that Britain is solely responsible. (As a side note, the efforts by the police etc. to monitor and prevent radicalisation were pitiful. Much more could have been done to preempt the flight of the three girls to Syria.)
I also don't accept your claim that a dual-nationality Bangladeshi terrorist could not get a fair trial in Britain. I don't see that the circumstances of radicalisation cannot be fully and fairly examined- especially as that radicalisation came from online content accessible anywhere in the world. Nor is that the only part of the story that would need to come before a court. What she did in Syria, and her clear lack of remorse subsequent to her capture, are also relevant. Both these factors could be included in a trial in either country, as they are about what happened in Syria, not what happened in either the UK or Bangladesh.
Finally, I don't think a government can be forced to issue a passport. There is a human right to be allowed to enter a country of which you are a citizen, but my understanding is that issuance of passports is discretionary, and that people can be prevented from travelling.
 
I also don't accept your claim that a dual-nationality Bangladeshi terrorist could not get a fair trial in Britain.

That claim is inconsistent with the number of people who have been allowed to return. If you look at item 379 of the SIAC judgement
SIAC said:
it is also relevant that of the earlier returnees who have been assessed, only a significant proportion, and by no means all, have been assessed as being of no risk.
See my post on this here https://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=14295864&postcount=1610

and the text of the SIAC judgement here: https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Shamima-Begum-OPEN-Judgment.pdf
 
Nope- at least, not what it says here:


Note the actual wording. Not "has potential citizenship": it says quite clearly "shall be deemed to be a citizen".
If you disagree, perhaps you could highlight the word "potential" in that, or any other, part of the law.

And yet the Bangladeshi government made it clear that they did not so deem, before the Home Secretary made his decision.
 
Back
Top Bottom