• 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

The issue with the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) is that it is a self-serving insular tribunal, which often sits in camera so the greater public has no idea what the legal arguments are. In this case, ipso facto, given the aim of the SIAC is to protect the UK from hostile foreign threats, such as terrorism, we are not able to judge whether the claim Begum setting foot in the UK ever again is a national security threat or whether it is purely one bunch of intelligence officers telling another bunch of highly selected government-appointed.

An appellant is represented to the commission by a special advocate who is a person vetted by the Security Service with controversy surrounding the use of secret evidence which only the judges and special advocates have access to.
Click to expand...
wiki

ISTM if Begum is alleged to have committed criminal acts of terrorism, why is she allowed to go scot free without trial? Surely she should be returned to her home country, the UK, and charged with whatever it is she is claimed to have done, especially as she was groomed at age 15, together with two schoolfriends. What has happened to the constitutional right to defend oneself?


Amnesty International says the commission's judgements rely on a "shockingly low burden of proof" because evidence cannot be tested to the same standards in the criminal courts.
Click to expand...
BBC


OK, so the public do not need to know the content of the intelligence reports. However, because the SIAC panel and the appellants' legal team are themselves very highly security vetted, then we have a system of people within the intelligence services backing other members of the same service. We don't have the usual opposition arguments from the other side to give balance.

When the Home Secretary detains a suspect, he notifies the Attorney General that his decision is partly based on "closed material". This is shorthand for secret intelligence which may include reports of spying operations, phone taps or the testimony of informers deep inside terrorism organisations.

<snip> The Attorney General then appoints one of the security-vetted "special advocates" (SA) to act for the appellant.

The security-vetting is not a simple process. Investigations, conducted by both top civil servants and members of MI5, go deep into the background and family situation of the individual.

The government wants to know that not only can the individual be trusted with the highly sensitive information - but there is no chance they can be blackmailed or coerced by terrorists.

Once appointed, the SA has the right to see all of the secret evidence in the Home Secretary's hands. Under no circumstances can they reveal any of it to the appellant or his legal team.
Click to expand...
BBC

In other words:

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
 
Last edited:
Cosmic Yak said:
No, it isn't. You're really not very good at this.
Click to expand...

Rather than just say "no it isn't", maybe you could explain why it isn't? The whataboutism interpretation is easy to understand, but if you have some more subtle point than "Ireland does this too, and you're not objecting to that", then the conversation would be improved if you expressed it clearly rather than just say "no, it isn't".
 
My argument doesn't get any stronger, if I explicitly condemning Ireland for allegedly doing the same thing.

But Cosmic Yak's argument gets weaker, by crying what about Ireland, rather than addressing my argument or defending his own.
 
Roboramma said:
Rather than just say "no it isn't", maybe you could explain why it isn't? The whataboutism interpretation is easy to understand, but if you have some more subtle point than "Ireland does this too, and you're not objecting to that", then the conversation would be improved if you expressed it clearly rather than just say "no, it isn't".
Click to expand...

Well, as theprestige feels no obligation to explain why my post contains a whataboutism, and mainly confines himself to two-word comments on my posts, I don't really see why I should do any different.
However, as you're asking:
Whataboutism.
The communication intent is often to distract from the content of a topic (red herring). The goal may also be to question the justification for criticism and the legitimacy, integrity, and fairness of the critic, which can take on the character of discrediting the criticism, which may or may not be justified.
Click to expand...
A. "You're doing something bad."
B. "Yes, but you're doing something else that's also bad, so that means you can't criticise me."
This does not apply to my post for two reasons. Firstly, I don't think what the UK government did was bad. I approve of what they did, and I'm not trying to excuse it by pointing to something that my critics have done that is similar.
Secondly, I'm not trying to distract from the question of deprivation of citizenship by bringing in a red herring. I am addressing the exact same action. Gulliver Foyle's point was an attack on the UK, from his perspective of being Irish. He thinks the UK has excluded itself from some imagined group of 'humane' or 'civilised' nations, and is making a direct comparison with the supposed moral high ground of his own country. That Ireland does exactly what the UK does in these circumstances completely undermines his nationalistic argument.
Had theprestige actually read the definition of whataboutism, he might have avoided this error. He might even consider expanding on his lazy and minimal comments, in the same way you want me to do about his.
Or not. Not bothered either way.
 
theprestige said:
My argument doesn't get any stronger, if I explicitly condemning Ireland for allegedly doing the same thing.

But Cosmic Yak's argument gets weaker, by crying what about Ireland, rather than addressing my argument or defending his own.
Click to expand...

Beyond short and lazy comments trying to catch me in logical fallacies (failed attempts, by the way), your argument largely rests on factual errors, unevidenced assertions, and deliberate twisting and mischaracterising of evidence.
Your argument couldn't get any weaker if you tried.
Beyond the counterfactual foundation for your beliefs, this essentially boils down to a difference of moral values. This is not something that can ever be resolved: you think it's wrong and I think it's right, and nothing is going to change that. All that can be resolved is your reliance on made-up rubbish to support your beliefs- that whole 'scepticism' thing that you may remember is what this forum is supposed to be about.
 
Based on your response, it seems you are limiting the force of the argument re: Ireland to a response to Gulliver Foyle, specifically:
He thinks the UK has excluded itself from some imagined group of 'humane' or 'civilised' nations, and is making a direct comparison with the supposed moral high ground of his own country. That Ireland does exactly what the UK does in these circumstances completely undermines his nationalistic argument.
Click to expand...
If that's the extent of the argument that you're trying to make with this point, that the UK is not worse than Ireland, then it seems valid to me, though it doesn't have any bearing on other aspects of the discussion.
 
Roboramma said:
Based on your response, it seems you are limiting the force of the argument re: Ireland to a response to Gulliver Foyle, specifically:
Click to expand...

Yes, I was. My reply to Gulliver Foyle was about what Gulliver Foyle had said. theprestige tried to shoehorn his way into that exchange, as yet another of his interminable and unsuccessful attempts at a gotcha on me.

Roboramma said:
If that's the extent of the argument that you're trying to make with this point, that the UK is not worse than Ireland, then it seems valid to me, though it doesn't have any bearing on other aspects of the discussion.
Click to expand...

Thank you.
That is indeed all I am saying. GF's point was "my country is better than yours, because it doesn't do this thing I don't like", an argument that falls flat on its face when I point out that his country does the exact same thing.
I never said this point had any bearing on other aspects of this situation: I was only responding to GF's post. That his point may not be relevant to the wider discussion is something you should take up with GF, if you wish. theprestige's attempts to link this to my argument as a whole are also not on me: if you are so minded, you can discuss the relevancy, or lack of it, with him.
 
Cosmic Yak said:
Yes, I was. My reply to Gulliver Foyle was about what Gulliver Foyle had said. theprestige tried to shoehorn his way into that exchange, as yet another of his interminable and unsuccessful attempts at a gotcha on me.



Thank you.
That is indeed all I am saying. GF's point was "my country is better than yours, because it doesn't do this thing I don't like", an argument that falls flat on its face when I point out that his country does the exact same thing.
I never said this point had any bearing on other aspects of this situation: I was only responding to GF's post. That his point may not be relevant to the wider discussion is something you should take up with GF, if you wish. theprestige's attempts to link this to my argument as a whole are also not on me: if you are so minded, you can discuss the relevancy, or lack of it, with him.
Click to expand...

All of the above seems fair. Sorry for lack of reply, I forgot to check this thread recently.
 
Okay, I finally had time to read the SIAC judgement. Note I'm not a lawyer so I'm reading this largely from the perspective of someone used to reading heavy IT docs like network protocols and the usage of words may not always line up. I'm pulling out bits I find interesting and some relate to other discussions than Cosmic_yak and my disagreement on the HS's power.
Yes in this judgement the considerations did go much wide than the Supreme Court judgement. tl;dr version - the SC decision was that none of these wider issues mattered as only the HS's "satisfaction" was required.
More detail and why I said IANAL as I may misread this:
412.At para 94 of his judgment in the Court of Appeal ([2020] EWCA Civ 918; [2020] 1
WLR 4267), Flaux LJ stated that one of the topics the Commission would have to
consider “is precisely what were the circumstances in which [Ms Begum] left the UK in
2015”, and should do so in the context of a full and effective appeal. Flaux LJ also stated
that whether Ms Begum left “of her own free will” was also in point. We cannot conduct the sort of “full merits appeal” that the Court of Appeal had in mind but we have sought to examine this issue as carefully and closely as we have been able to. Ultimately, however, the Commission has not been able to conclude on Ms Begum’s principal Grounds (i.e. Grounds 1 and 2) that the Secretary of State’s judgment that the risk to national security outweighs her personal interests is wrong in public law terms.
Click to expand...
What does "conclude" mean here? Reach a conclusion? Note also the previous highlight.

379:
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.
Click to expand...
This in line with references to the CLOSED judgement suggests strongly that the SIAC saw evidence that moved Begum out of the "low risk" category and states clearly that a good number of low but non-zero risk returnees were allowed.
378:
Ms Begum does not fall in the low/zero risk category appropriate to the early returnees. She remained in ISIL-controlled territory until the bitter end, and only left through fears for the safety of her unborn child. This conclusion applies even if one were to accept, which the Secretary of State does not, the gravamen of her case that she had no choice but to remain.
Click to expand...
Yes I'm reading back from the conclusions. I'm now seeing that the Yak was correct in that considerable thought was given to Begum's degree of risk and it was judged to be high enough.
373 - reference to a Khatib case that does not apply as in that case
373.However, in Khatib itself and all the other cases of which the Commission has refreshed
its memory since the hearing it will have been plain and obvious to the court that the
material presented to the decision-maker was not fair and balanced.
Click to expand...
The inference from this and nearby sections is that the SIAC felt the HS's briefing was fair and balanced.

Conclusions thus far. The SIAC seem to have considered everything and supported the HS's decision. The SC criticized the SIAC on several points but their key criticism was that they overstepped their role and should have seen that the decision was the HS's. They do not contest other points for whatever reasons. My conclusion is that insofar as I understand it (IANAL) Begum was given a fair trial by the SIAC etc, all factors considered and her appeal soundly failed even in those areas where the SIAC acknowledged complexity and difficulty. The SC then said "Thank you but at the end of the day it's down to the Home Secretary".
 
Last edited:
Defense lawyer Clive Stafford Smith

In a March 2019 article The Guardian wrote, "The human rights lawyer Clive Stafford Smith said: “It is very sad to hear that Shamima Begum has just watched her third child die in just a few months. While she has made some very stupid decisions, and nobody is saying otherwise, she is still a teenager.

“It is also sad to see Sajid Javid trying to better his chances of becoming prime minister by illegally stripping her of her passport, rather than maturely focusing on the needs of a helpless infant who might have been rescued. Indeed, it is just this kind of ill-considered populism that is further alienating many Muslims when we should be proving that we really do believe in human rights for all.”"

Clive Stafford Smith wrote a book based on his defending prisoners at Guantanamo called Eight O'Clock Ferry to the Windward Side. From this passage I infer that he believes that she should face legal consequences but the penalties should be adjusted for her age. In 2023 he commented on the issues surrounding her passport: "The politician decries how a hated subgroup is “granted” a particular right; plaudits from the populist tabloids follow. But then inexorably the rest of us find that we have lost out too. When, for example, the IRA were the terrorists-du-jour, in 1988 the Thatcher government took away their right to remain silent in Northern Ireland. The Guardian warned at the time that “the right is important because it prevents undue pressure being applied by the police to suspects.” Yet, as sure as night follows day, six years later the Government took the right from the rest of us in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994."
 
Last edited:
Wudang said:
Okay, I finally had time to read the SIAC judgement. Note I'm not a lawyer so I'm reading this largely from the perspective of someone used to reading heavy IT docs like network protocols and the usage of words may not always line up. I'm pulling out bits I find interesting and some relate to other discussions than Cosmic_yak and my disagreement on the HS's power.
Yes in this judgement the considerations did go much wide than the Supreme Court judgement. tl;dr version - the SC decision was that none of these wider issues mattered as only the HS's "satisfaction" was required.
More detail and why I said IANAL as I may misread this:

What does "conclude" mean here? Reach a conclusion? Note also the previous highlight.

379:
This in line with references to the CLOSED judgement suggests strongly that the SIAC saw evidence that moved Begum out of the "low risk" category and states clearly that a good number of low but non-zero risk returnees were allowed.
378:
Yes I'm reading back from the conclusions. I'm now seeing that the Yak was correct in that considerable thought was given to Begum's degree of risk and it was judged to be high enough.
373 - reference to a Khatib case that does not apply as in that case

The inference from this and nearby sections is that the SIAC felt the HS's briefing was fair and balanced.

Conclusions thus far. The SIAC seem to have considered everything and supported the HS's decision. The SC criticized the SIAC on several points but their key criticism was that they overstepped their role and should have seen that the decision was the HS's. They do not contest other points for whatever reasons. My conclusion is that insofar as I understand it (IANAL) Begum was given a fair trial by the SIAC etc, all factors considered and her appeal soundly failed even in those areas where the SIAC acknowledged complexity and difficulty. The SC then said "Thank you but at the end of the day it's down to the Home Secretary".
Click to expand...

Just a small correction, it was an appeal, not a trial. The citizenship was removed without trial on the say so of the Home Secretary, then Sajid Javid. Begum originally petitioned to be allowed to appear at her own hearing hence the issue of whether she had a right to, as a British citizen.

In 2021, the Supreme Court decided that Ms Begum could not return to the UK to appeal against the decision to remove her citizenship.

In 2023, lawyers for Ms Begum challenged the removal of her citizenship at the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC).

They argued the decision was unlawful, as it did not consider whether she had been a child victim of trafficking.

However, SIAC ruled that while there was a credible suspicion that Ms Begum was a victim of trafficking and sexual exploitation, that did not stand in the way of the home secretary stripping her of British citizenship, as she had become a threat.
Click to expand...
BBC
 
Failing to clear a low bar

Clive Stafford Smith (link above) said, "We hear much about Guantánamo and its dysfunctional and secretive court system. Yet I have worked there for 21 years and again it is vastly preferable to SIAC."
 
Vixen said:
Just a small correction, it was an appeal, not a trial. The citizenship was removed without trial on the say so of the Home Secretary, then Sajid Javid. Begum originally petitioned to be allowed to appear at her own hearing hence the issue of whether she had a right to, as a British citizen.

BBC
Click to expand...

As I have repeatedly explained. The law says he only needs to be "satisfied".
 
Chris_Halkides said:
"The politician decries how a hated subgroup is “granted” a particular right; plaudits from the populist tabloids follow. But then inexorably the rest of us find that we have lost out too. When, for example, the IRA were the terrorists-du-jour, in 1988 the Thatcher government took away their right to remain silent in Northern Ireland. The Guardian warned at the time that “the right is important because it prevents undue pressure being applied by the police to suspects.” Yet, as sure as night follows day, six years later the Government took the right from the rest of us in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994."
Click to expand...

Huh. I always cut the UK some slack on that. I assumed it was a longstanding tradition of common law in the Isles, the result of people living shoulder to shoulder on an island for thousands of years, and evolving ways of getting along that might seem alien to a young nation with a whole continent's worth of elbow room.

Now I know it's actually a modern regression to a more authoritarian state, it seems a lot more gratuitously sinister. And the power vested in the Home Secretary, under discussion here, seems of a piece with it.
 
Chris_Halkides said:
In a March 2019 article The Guardian wrote, "The human rights lawyer Clive Stafford Smith said: “It is very sad to hear that Shamima Begum has just watched her third child die in just a few months. While she has made some very stupid decisions, and nobody is saying otherwise, she is still a teenager.

“It is also sad to see Sajid Javid trying to better his chances of becoming prime minister by illegally stripping her of her passport, rather than maturely focusing on the needs of a helpless infant who might have been rescued. Indeed, it is just this kind of ill-considered populism that is further alienating many Muslims when we should be proving that we really do believe in human rights for all.”"

Clive Stafford Smith wrote a book based on his defending prisoners at Guantanamo called Eight O'Clock Ferry to the Windward Side. From this passage I infer that he believes that she should face legal consequences but the penalties should be adjusted for her age. In 2023 he commented on the issues surrounding her passport: "The politician decries how a hated subgroup is “granted” a particular right; plaudits from the populist tabloids follow. But then inexorably the rest of us find that we have lost out too. When, for example, the IRA were the terrorists-du-jour, in 1988 the Thatcher government took away their right to remain silent in Northern Ireland. The Guardian warned at the time that “the right is important because it prevents undue pressure being applied by the police to suspects.” Yet, as sure as night follows day, six years later the Government took the right from the rest of us in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994."
Click to expand...
That's disingenuous - we cannot be compelled to speak. we all still have the right to remain silent - we do not have to utter one single word in a court nor to the police in any interview, whether we are charged or not.
 
Darat said:
That's disingenuous - we cannot be compelled to speak. we all still have the right to remain silent - we do not have to utter one single word in a court nor to the police in any interview, whether we are charged or not.
Click to expand...

That's disingenuous.

As I understand it, UK law allows courts to take silence as evidence. This totally defeats the purpose of the right to silence.
 
theprestige said:
That's disingenuous.

As I understand it, UK law allows courts to take silence as evidence. This totally defeats the purpose of the right to silence.
Click to expand...

No. See below, in fact I'd recommend reading this Right_to_silence_in_England_and_WalesWP to get the full context rather than my interpretation. You can skip the history if you like and start at "Adverse inferences from silence".

The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 provides statutory rules under which adverse inferences may be drawn from silence.

Adverse inferences may be drawn in certain circumstances where before or on being charged, the accused:

fails to mention any fact which he later relies upon and which in the circumstances at the time the accused could reasonably be expected to mention;
fails to give evidence at trial or answer any question;
fails to account on arrest for objects, substances or marks on his person, clothing or footwear, in his possession, or in the place where he is arrested; or
fails to account on arrest for his presence at a place.

Where inferences may be drawn from silence, the court must direct the jury as to the limits to the inferences which may properly be drawn from silence. There may be no conviction based wholly on silence.[
Click to expand...
 
Wudang said:
No. See below, in fact I'd recommend reading this Right_to_silence_in_England_and_WalesWP to get the full context rather than my interpretation. You can skip the history if you like and start at "Adverse inferences from silence".
Click to expand...

That entire list just reinforces my perception of disingenuity. The fact that such a list is presented as evidence that the right to silence isn't functionally abrogated in the UK, seems to me to stack disingenuity on disingenuity.
 
Swaying the jury

Link to the Draycott Browne firm of solicitors: "Choosing to remain silent during questioning can hurt your defence, and should only be done with clear justification...The jury will decide whether it is fair to hold the accused accountable for their failure to answer, give evidence or testify. This will not be enough to prove the defendant’s guilt, but may sway the jury’s judgement towards a conviction."
 
Last edited:
journal article covering this topic

link
In the Journal of Law and Criminology, Gregory O'Reilly wrote, "Major's new law will curtail the right to silence by allowing judges and jurors to draw adverse inferences when a suspect remains silent. It is the latest in a series of similar proposals by English police and politicians,9 and it adopts restrictions on the right to silence which Parliament imposed on Northern Ireland in 1988.10 The new law contains four parts: (1) judges and jurors may draw adverse inferences when suspects do not tell the police during interrogation a fact relied upon by the defense at trial if, under the circumstances, the suspect could have been expected to mention the fact; (2) if the accused does not testify, judges and prosecutors may invite the jury to make any inference which to them appears proper-including the "common sense" inference that there is no explanation for the evidence produced against the accused and that the accused is guilty;" (3) judges and jurors may draw an adverse inference when suspects fail to respond to police questions about any suspicious objects, substances, or marks which are found on their persons or clothing or in the place where they were arrested; and (4) judges and jurors may draw adverse inferences if suspects do not explain to the police why they were present at a place at or about the time of the offense for which they were arrested.12"

The "common sense" inference is particularly troubling. Let me also remind everyone of what a lawyer with over twenty years experience at Guantanamo said with respect to SIAC, which I quoted upthread.
 
Last edited:
SIAC

Clive Stafford Smith wrote, "In SIAC, the “Special Advocate” can do no such thing [see secret evidence and discuss it within limits, with his client], 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."
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
That entire list just reinforces my perception of disingenuity. The fact that such a list is presented as evidence that the right to silence isn't functionally abrogated in the UK, seems to me to stack disingenuity on disingenuity.
Click to expand...

I'm going to need to read up. There are supposed to be safeguards but rereading I am less clear how strong those safeguards are.
 
Chris_Halkides said:
link
In the Journal of Law and Criminology, Gregory O'Reilly wrote, "Major's new law will curtail the right to silence by allowing judges and jurors to draw adverse inferences when a suspect remains silent. It is the latest in a series of similar proposals by English police and politicians,9 and it adopts restrictions on the right to silence which Parliament imposed on Northern Ireland in 1988.10 The new law contains four parts: (1) judges and jurors may draw adverse inferences when suspects do not tell the police during interrogation a fact relied upon by the defense at trial if, under the circumstances, the suspect could have been expected to mention the fact; (2) if the accused does not testify, judges and prosecutors may invite the jury to make any inference which to them appears proper-including the "common sense" inference that there is no explanation for the evidence produced against the accused and that the accused is guilty;" (3) judges and jurors may draw an adverse inference when suspects fail to respond to police questions about any suspicious objects, substances, or marks which are found on their persons or clothing or in the place where they were arrested; and (4) judges and jurors may draw adverse inferences if suspects do not explain to the police why they were present at a place at or about the time of the offense for which they were arrested.12"

The "common sense" inference is particularly troubling. Let me also remind everyone of what a lawyer with over twenty years experience at Guantanamo said with respect to SIAC, which I quoted upthread.
Click to expand...

Yes it is, which is one of the main reasons why I've never supported and always been against the changes. What the comments I have made in this thread are about the claim that we do not have a right to silence, we do, and it is wrong to suggest we don't, and I actually think it is dangerous to civil liberty to use that type of wording. Citizens should know that you do not have to say anything to the police in an investigation at anytime, including being stopped by the police in the street when you were being law abiding. We know that still even with the likes of PACE the police do willfully misinform people of their rights by word and deed, hopefully the fuller adoption of body cams, detention desk cameras they will learn they can't but until we have much much better police for a start then we all need to know our rights, one of which is a right to silence.
 
Last edited:
I'm sure there are plenty of threads for discussion of the UK's stance on the right to silence, and probably some on "why the UK sucks and America is much better". This thread, however, is supposed to be about Shamima Begum. When you guys feel like discussing the actual topic, I'll return to the thread.
 
Illegal

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.
 
politicians doing what they do best

Wudang said:
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.
Click to expand...
Here is the quote* from The Guardian: “It is also sad to see Sajid Javid trying to better his chances of becoming prime minister by illegally stripping her of her passport, rather than maturely focusing on the needs of a helpless infant who might have been rescued." I wish that he had expanded on this point, but he is a human rights lawyer with over twenty years of experience concerning Guantanamo. He cofounded Reprieve. I am surprised that a politician would play to a crowd.
EDT *The person being quoted is Clive Stafford Smith.
 
Last edited:
more on the SAIC

"The Special Immigration Appeals Commission is not for the faint-hearted. It 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. Therefore when the Commission concludes, “The Commission has found this to have been a case of great concern and difficulty” [paragraph 411] those words are to be taken very seriously." link

"There have also been ongoing questions about the extent – if at all – to which the Home Secretary’s original decision to deprive Ms Begum of her UK citizenship complies with national and international law. Indeed, many experts in international law were quick to suggest in 2019 that the measure was illegal." link.
 
Last edited:
Chris_Halkides said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
no longer even an option

theprestige said:
The UK government: "We cannot possibly send Julian Assange to the US without a promise they will not execute him."

Also the UK government: "If Bangladesh wants to execute Shamima Begum, that's none of our business."
Click to expand...
IIUC once she turned 21, she became no longer eligible for citizenship in Bangladesh, whatever the consequences.
 
Yes. This is something a number of people regard as being a problem with the law as it was written. She had de jure but not de facto citizenship of Bangladesh until she reached a certain age. This allowed the UK Home Secretary to say he “was satisfied “ he was not making her stateless. However she was unable or unwilling (I don’t know) to apply for. Bangladeshi citizenship in time so her de jure citizenship lapsed, never happened , whatever. Bangladesh did not make her stateless, she just did not apply in time. Since the UK law is written in terms of the HS’s satisfaction it’s all legal under UK law.
I can’t really comment on international law as I only go by what has been decided in court. Note also that the Supreme Court decision was on grounds for appeal as raised by her lawyers. Whether other grounds may apply I don’t know.
 
Wudang said:
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.
Click to expand...

Partly true.
The decision can be challenged in court, and then it becomes more than just the satisfaction of the HS.
Abu Hamza won his appeal, because stripping him of British citizenship would have left him stateless.
The decision of the HS can be overturned by the courts, if it is shown to be illegal or unfounded.
 
theprestige said:
The UK government: "We cannot possibly send Julian Assange to the US without a promise they will not execute him."

Also the UK government: "If Bangladesh wants to execute Shamima Begum, that's none of our business."
Click to expand...

The British government is not trying to send Begum to Bangladesh.
Furthermore, Bangladesh wants to kill Begum without any kind of trial, and without any kind of evidence, just because they want to. Not one person here seems willing to condemn that decision.
I cannot comment on the murderous instincts of what passes for a justice system in America. I'm sure you think it's better than the British one, and I'm very happy for you. :rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom