• 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

theprestige said:
Of course morality comes into it when it comes to law.

And only the Bangladesh judiciary has standing to interpret and rule on Bangladeshi law. Not you, not the Beeb, not the home secretary.

And of course "they abided by the law" isn't a good argument for why her citizenship needs to be revoked. Do you have an argument for why, that doesn't amount to "the home secretary said it, I believe it, that settles it"?
Click to expand...

It was the Home Secretary that got the law passed in the first place - main aim to keep out unwanted immigrants without having to go through complex legal procedures to get rid of. The aim wasn't to strip indigenous Brits.

Likewise, it was Begum's lawyers versus the Home Office lawyers at the appeal and it was simply a case of the court finding in favour of the HO. Could just as easily been the other way round. Bear in mind this special tribunal is one that has been set up by the government itself!
 
RolandRat said:
Yes, she is a an unrepentant terrorist who has expressed no regret about her actions, has not made one comment about being forced to do those actions and only wants to come back to the UK because ISIS is now practically irrelevant. I agree with the Home Secretarys decision to revoke her citizenship on the basis she is an ongoing threat to the UK. According to Bangladeshi law, she automatically has Bangladeshi citizenship. If the Bangladeshi Government want to refuse that, that is between them and Begum.

I'll link what I posted earlier in the thread regarding actual Bangladeshi law on citizenship:

"According to this: http://bdlaws.minlaw.gov.bd/act-242/section-7472.html

"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 1[father or mother] is a citizen of Bangladesh at the time of his birth:

Provided that if the 2[father or mother] of such person is a citizen of Bangladesh by descent only, that person shall not be a citizen of Bangladesh by virtue of this section unless-

(a) that person's birth having occurred in a country outside Bangladesh the birth is registered at a Bangladesh Consulate or Mission in that country, or where there is no Bangladesh Consulate or Mission in that country at the prescribed Consulate or Mission or at a Bangladesh Consulate or Mission in the country nearest to that country; or

(b) that person's 3[father or mother] is, at the time of the birth, in the service of any Government in Bangladesh."

And according to this: https://www.360lawservices.com/immig...edent-it-sets/

"In the case of UK citizens of Bangladeshi heritage like Shamima Begum, Bangladeshi national law states that citizenship is given automatically at birth through bloodline (jus sanguinis), giving them dual nationality."

No, morality absolutely should not be a factor in legal decisions. The law is what matters and the courts should apply that law without regard for morality. Justice is blind for a reason.



It is utterly irrelevant if you think the wrong decision has been made. As my opinion is utterly irrelevant if the UK court rules in her favour and allows her to come back into the UK.
Click to expand...

You are not giving the complete picture here. Most countries have the proviso you mention. What you haven't mentioned is that such a child (born abroad) has to make an application to declare citizenship by a certain age, usually 21. Begum has never done this.
 
Vixen said:
You are not giving the complete picture here. Most countries have the proviso you mention. What you haven't mentioned is that such a child (born abroad) has to make an application to declare citizenship by a certain age, usually 21. Begum has never done this.
Click to expand...

We went through this earlier in the thread. She does not need to make an application.
 
RolandRat said:
We went through this earlier in the thread. She does not need to make an application.
Click to expand...

Please provide evidence that she has Bangladesh nationality. You won't be able to because Bangladesh does not recognise her as a citizen. A UK court can't determine the law and status of someone for Bangladesh, that is up to the sovereign nation of Bangladesh.

Think of it this way - would the UK accept that someone is a UK citizen because a Bangladesh court decides they are based on their interpretation of our law? Of course we wouldn't.

Who is or is not a citizen in a nation is up to that sovereign nation.
 
Matthew Best said:
Isn't that what the UK has done?
Click to expand...

No.

What the UK has done is banish someone to a Syrian refugee camp rather than give them a fair trial.

If they really thought that she was a terrorist risk surely they want her locked up in a UK jail rather than running freely round Syria? In fact, don't they have a legal and moral responsibility to prosecute known terrorists rather than just make them someone else's problem?
 
This reminds me a great deal of the common US practice of treating minors differently in the legal system until they do something (usually homicide) that gets them tried as an adult.

When you trash the rules for people you don't like, you're showing the contempt that you always had for them. Don't pay lip service to "civil rights" or anything else when you're obviously ready to ignore them when it suits your personal bias.

How some people expect their rights to be respected when they throw others' in the garbage amazes me.
 
Matthew Best said:
Isn't that what the UK has done?
Click to expand...

That's exactly what the UK has done. But there are a couple issues with this. One is that UK law prohibits removing UK citizenship if it will make the person stateless. Hence the rigamarole of deciding for Bangladesh that Begum isn't stateless after losing her UK citizenship.

Bangladesh disagrees. I think an honest and ethical Home Secretary would not remove her citizenship in such circumstances.

But then, I don't see any reason why her UK citizenship needs to be removed at all.
 
I don't know anything about Ms. Begum or what should happen to her. But doesn't (or shouldn't it) disturb most Brits that an official could so casually take away the citizenship of someone actually born in the UK? What would prevent officials from revoking the citizenship of ordinary criminals, tax cheats or anybody else they deem a threat to the public order? Yeah, there'd be court cases and appeals, if the citizen could afford lawyers. But should it even be possible?
 
Bob001 said:
I don't know anything about Ms. Begum or what should happen to her. But doesn't (or shouldn't it) disturb most Brits that an official could so casually take away the citizenship of someone actually born in the UK? What would prevent officials from revoking the citizenship of ordinary criminals, tax cheats or anybody else they deem a threat to the public order? Yeah, there'd be court cases and appeals, if the citizen could afford lawyers. But should it even be possible?
Click to expand...

Exactly. I can see removing citizenship as a matter of due process (i.e., not a discretionary act by an official), in the case where it has been demonstrated that the person has citizenship in some other country. But it would have to be shown, not inferred. Like the person is holding a passport or other documents of citizenship, or is formally documented as a citizen by the other government. That kind of shown.

I can't see removing citizenship as a national security measure, simply because I can't think of any scenario where mere citizenship could possibly be a threat to national security.
 
Bob001 said:
I don't know anything about Ms. Begum or what should happen to her. But doesn't (or shouldn't it) disturb most Brits that an official could so casually take away the citizenship of someone actually born in the UK? What would prevent officials from revoking the citizenship of ordinary criminals, tax cheats or anybody else they deem a threat to the public order? Yeah, there'd be court cases and appeals, if the citizen could afford lawyers. But should it even be possible?
Click to expand...

There is no justification for revoking someone's citizenship ever. Especially not as a way to avoid giving them a fair trial.
 
theprestige said:
Exactly. I can see removing citizenship as a matter of due process (i.e., not a discretionary act by an official), in the case where it has been demonstrated that the person has citizenship in some other country. But it would have to be shown, not inferred. Like the person is holding a passport or other documents of citizenship, or is formally documented as a citizen by the other government. That kind of shown.

I can't see removing citizenship as a national security measure, simply because I can't think of any scenario where mere citizenship could possibly be a threat to national security.
Click to expand...

Yes, that was a really weak reasoning by the court that Begum would represent a security threat if they let her appear for her appeal against losing citizenship. This was upholding the government's pisspoor submission that it would be a great security threat.

I can't see that this is a valid legal point. More a 'found a loop hole' moment.
 
So Shamima Begum's further appeal begins today. She is claiming she was a victim of trafficking by a Canadian spy at age 15. Can a fifteen-year-old really make such a life-changing and informed decision or is it one of those very silly things an idealistic teenager does?

Shamima Begum's appeal over the removal of her UK citizenship for joining Islamic State begins in a London court today.

She ran away from her London home as a 15-year-old with two other girls in 2015, ending up in Syria and marrying one of the terror group's fighters.
Click to expand...
SKY NEWS
 
I really hope she can win the appeal.

How she isn't seen to be a victim of grooming and trafficking is beyond me. The fact we have rendered her stateless is a public disgrace.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom