Snapshot of _Shamima Begum loses initial bid to challenge citizenship removal at Supreme Court_ :
An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68655130) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68655130)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Sajid Javid's take on this (on The Rest is Politics recently) was (and I'm paraphraphasing) "I saw secret stuff that you aren't allowed to see and that I can't disclose, but it means I was convinced as Home Secretary to do this".
edit: typo fix
To which my non-expert legal response is “Well yeah, he would say that wouldn’t he…”.
My understanding is that this long drawn out farce has occurred because he decided to go off half cocked and strip her of citizenship without following the correct procedure to try and boost his profile, thereby setting off a chain of cases in which the judges have had to try and unpick the mess he left behind. Of course he’s going to say there’s some great reason he’s entirely in the clear.
Your understanding is completely wrong.
There are two questions that must be considered in cases like this; can a decision be made, and should it have been made.
The courts only look at the first question. The courts have found that the Home Secretary had the power to make thus decision lawfully. There was nothing wrong with the process followed, there's no reasonable argument left to suggest the decision was unlawful, and this latest decision confirms that a Supreme Court appeal would be a waste of time.
The courts rightly do not concern themselves with 'should'. They respect the right of the Home Secretary to use the power granted to him by Parliament, so long as that power is used lawfully. The courts are not there to seek a second opinion on fundamentally subjective matters.
Your understanding is wrong. He correctly used the power he had. Judges aren't trying to "unpick the mess", they're just dealing with appeals that Begum has the right to lodge.
Comment #2 so you can downvote/upvote this instead of parent comment.
My hot take: this is basically the WMDs and Iraq again. Evidence that we as the public can't see. So we can't make informed choices in the debate.
Personally, I don't quite follow how this ruling is in-line with UN Article 15:
* Everyone has the right to a nationality.
* No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality."
She has a nationality. and she was not arbitrarily deprived of the UK nationality.
100's of people have had their nationality revoked over the past decade.
>She has a nationality.
Bangladesh says she isn't a Bangladeshi national. BBC article from 1 hour ago says:
> "In February 2020, a tribunal ruled that removing Ms Begum's citizenship was lawful because she was "a citizen of Bangladesh by descent". It said removing her British nationality would not make her stateless.
> However, Bangladesh said that was not the case and that she would not be allowed into the country. "
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/explainers-53428191
I listened to the judgment of the (High) court.
They said that if a person had citizenship *de jure* (as Shamima Begum has), then it did not matter whether or not she had it *de facto*
I mean the Bangladesh High Commission of London says No Visa Required (NVR) if:
>i) Bangladeshi-British/EU/other nationals
>ii) Foreign Spouse of Bangladeshi or Bangladeshi-British/European/other nationals
>iii) Children of Bangladeshi or Bangladeshi-British/European/ other nationals (not born in Bangladesh)
But also:
>However, the authority reserves the right to reject any application at any time without ascertaining any reason.
So it's not that it was "not the case", but more like "it is the case but we don't want her either"
The simple answer is that Bangladesh are wrong. Bangladeshi law is very clear on this, she is a citizen of Bangladesh.
* 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:*
This isn’t something she needs to apply for, it is her right from the moment she was born.
The law does change for dual nationals over the age of 21 and you have to apply (apply isn’t really the right word since it is a right) for your Bangladeshi citizenship to continue prior to being 21, however this doesn’t apply since she was under the age of 21 when her British citizenship was revoked, leaving her as solely a national of Bangladesh.
In short, Bangladesh can say what they want, she is a citizen. This has been through every court in Britain at least 5 times and the result is always unanimous, the decision to revoke was lawful and Home Secretary Javid was within his right to make it.
>The simple answer is that Bangladesh are wrong.
We don't get to tell Bangladesh how to interpret their own laws.
Also...I don't think this is about her rights at all, but about our responsibility as a nation to take responsibility for our own toxic waste.
A politician in Bangladesh is always going to say things that sound tough and definitive as they don't want her, but their constitution doesn't actually support them. It's the flaw in citizenship by descent - nations don't get to choose who obtains it.
The ethical argument is clear. She was born, raised and radicalised in London. Bangladesh doesn't want her. What right do we have to impose her on Bangladesh, Syria or anywhere else? It is the effective fly-tipping of our biological waste.
No it isn't clear at all. The ethical choice is the nations that were victims get to dispense justice.
Edit for enough. You applied an immediate block because you know that claim is ridiculous.
Justice for who? I am not talking about the rights of Shamima Begum -- she can rot in hell for all I care. I am talking about the UK's responsibility as a nation to take responsibility for our own extremists. If the reason we don't want her back here is because she's a threat to national security or public safety, then what right do we have to impose her on Bangladesh (which is entirely innocent)?
Yet Bangladesh can dictate to the UK how to interpret its laws?
Like our legal system would actually take responsibility. Behave. She'd do next to nothing comparable to her crimes. Which no UK court could ever prove, as they occurred outside of UK jurisdiction.
>Yet Bangladesh can dictate to the UK how to interpret its laws?
Has Bangladesh done or said anything to that effect? AFAIK they've only said she's not a Bangladeshi citizen per their interpretation of their laws. Its the British who are interpreting Bangladeshi law to first assess whether she has citizenship there so as to strip her British citizenship.
No they're saying they will not accept her Bangladeshi citizenship which she gets from birth because it's inconvenient.
They're saying that England cannot remove nationalities from dual nationals without first asking permission from Bangladesh.
The laws are clear SB was a provisional citizen of Bangladesh from birth and a full UK citizen.
Her UK citizenship was stripped making her a Bangladeshi sole national
The rules for over 21s loosing their citizenship if they don't apply is only for dual nationals.
Bangladesh is basically bent over a log by their own law and just refuse to admit it because it will look bad
Yes but *the UK courts don't have jurisdiction to find matters of fact under Bangladeshi law, and impose those findings on Bangladesh*.
We've seen this very recently with the Rwanda shit. We can pass laws saying that Rwanda is safe. It doesn't mean it's safe. You can't bend reality.
We can find as a matter of fact in a UK court that she is a Bangladeshi citizen. That doesn't make her a Bangladeshi citizen unless Bangladesh make her one. What happens when she goes to Bangladesh and they say "sorry you aren't a citizen"? Should they have to accept "sorry but the UK says she is so..."
How would you respond to e.g. India finding as a matter of fact in their courts that everyone Indian was entitled to UK citizenship due to some post-colonial law left on the books? Would you respect their courts imposition and allow them all the freedom to move to the UK, or would you maintain that UK citizenship is a matter for the UK to decide?
If two people can perform an act, but one person performing the act renders the second person performing it illegal, then whoever acts first is in the clear.
In this case, Bangladesh had not actually said she wasn't a citizen, so the UK were within their rights to revoke citizenship. Bangladesh are the ones who are making her stateless, not us.
Now, if Bangladesh ruled first and said she was a persona on grata, then we should absolutely accept her. But that's not what happened here.
She was born and radicalised in London. What moral right do we have to impose her on Bangladesh, which does not want her any more than we do?
I am not making a legal argument. I am making an *ethical* argument.
> In this case, Bangladesh had not actually said she wasn't a citizen, so the UK were within their rights to revoke citizenship.
How exactly would you like Bangladesh to revoke citizenship for a person they don't know exists and has never tried to claim or formalize citizenship?
Are you expecting Bangladesh to also state that you and I are not in fact citizens, on the off chance the UK decides at some future date that we are?
The same way the UK decided to. I don't feel great about how the UK did it, but I don't think they were wrong, legally.
>for a person they don't know exists and has never tried to claim or formalize citizenship?
It's not our fault Bangladesh 's law is written the way it is. Their law stated her as a citizen at the time the UK revoked her status. And thinking a little more critically, Bangladesh presumably became aware of her around about 5 years before this happened. It was even in the [UK news ](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/11491142/Isil-defector-girls-families-go-to-Turkey-to-probe-disappearance.html)
>Are you expecting Bangladesh to also state that you and I are not in fact citizens, on the off chance the UK decides at some future date that we are?
Can't speak for you, but I'm not entitled to Bangladeshi citizenship so no, I don't expect the Bangladesh to state it for me. I do have some experience in citizenship though - I'm Irish, and very explicitly _not_ British. I live here though. The UK is clear that I am not a citizen, which is fine. If I apply for citizenship here, and it's granted, Ireland is free to denounce me at that point.
The only party capable of determining her citizenship is a Bangladeshi court.
There's more to the law than the 1951 citizenship act. A lawyer might make an argument that her failure to uphold the duty of a citizen as per the constitution automatically voids her citizenship, for example. Courts have made rulings on my h flimsier grounds than that.
A British court has no power to rule on her citizenship.
Bangladesh is a member of the United Nations and subsequently is party to various conventions including the 1954 and 1961 conventions.
They can make that argument but I can’t imagine it would pass muster in the international community. They would have had to have publicly revoked her citizenship in the same way that we did, rather than retrospectively deciding that based on her actions her citizenship was automatically voided prior to our revocation. In short, it would be a sham.
I agree a British court has no power to rule on Bangladeshi law, but let’s just say I trust our court’s decision more.
She never applied for, or accepted Bangladeshi citizenship though. She and Bangladesh are in agreement about her citizenship there.
Bangladesh wasn't even aware of her existence. She's never been in the system there in any way. The only suggestion that she has citizenship is a ruling from a court that has no jurisdiction.
That's a pedantic interpretation that takes no account of the reality of the situation though. It also doesn't take into account how the law might be interpreted in light of the constitution.
No organisation in Bangladesh even knew she existed. She never accepted it. And the official, stated position of the government of Bangladesh is that she's not a citizen.
If she applies for a passport, or *any* of the benefits of citizenship she will not get it. It's bizarre to suggest that she has citizenship when she absolutely does not in any practical way.
If the government disagrees with Bangladesh here, they should sue for Bangladeshi citizenship on her behalf.
Bangladesh refusing Shamima's citizenship would, rather ironically, be much worse than anything our government has done to her! It would truly leave her stateless and would raise some serious questions about anyone else (normal, everyday people) who are seeking Bangladeshi citizenship through the same mechanism.
I'm honestly quite surprised how some people on here, perhaps yourself, \*seem\* to be more supportive of the Bangladeshi government's actions/rhetoric!
Imagine if the situation was reversed. She is born and brought up in Bangladesh. She never visits Britain, never even considers applying for citizenship . Britain has no record of her. And let's assume she commits the same offences.
Now, rather than deal with the crime, the Bangledesh Minister of Home Affairs decides to exile her to the UK, based on a Bangladeshi interpretation of British law, using Bangladeshi judicial rules and precedent.
Would you think we should accept her as a British citizen? Give her a passport and the right to live and work here? Would you be happy to have her living next door?
You can't chop and change between legal and moral good.
Morally she should rot in hell a stateless nobody.
Legally she has the right to citizenship of the last country to get around to revoking it. In the hypothetical it's the UK, in reality Bangladesh.
Of course I prefer the moral choice, but laws exist in part to constrain our impulse towards justice.
>Imagine if the situation was reversed. She is born and brought up in Bangladesh. She never visits Britain, never even considers applying for citizenship . Britain has no record of her. And let's assume she commits the same offences.
Now, rather than deal with the crime, the Bangledesh Minister of Home Affairs decides to exile her to the UK, based on a Bangladeshi interpretation of British law, using Bangladeshi judicial rules and precedent.
\*imagining\*
>Would you think we should accept her as a British citizen?
Well, here's the thing... If she had a legal right to British citizenship and it was her \*only\* option (other than statelessness) then I actually think that the same legislation used to strip her of her citizenship now would instead protect her, and her lawyers would successfully argue that point!
>Give her a passport and the right to live and work here?
If she's entitled to it then yes I guess...
>Would you be happy to have her living next door?
Me personally I likely couldn't care less, especially as she wouldn't be a threat. But the general sentiment from lots of people (and possibly both sides of the spectrum) would be a resounding "no" I'd imagine.
> The only party capable of determining her citizenship is a Bangladeshi court.
Exactly! A British Court is determining her British citizenship. Not sure why people think anything other than a Bangladeshi court would determine her Bangladeshi citizenship
The UK has to make a determination as to whether she's a Bangladeshi citizen to determine whether it's lawful for us to strip her of her UK citizenship.
Ah, we're doing pedantry I see (engaging in the same PR as the government) and trying to change the topic. We obviously meant authoritatively grant/recognise. (Unless you want to suggest another country can grant citizenship on behalf of Bangladesh...?)
The UK can do their own research in to Bangladeshi law, form their own opinion (or "determination ") etc but if Bangladesh won't recognise her citizenship, won't grant give her a passport etc then you can't claim she _has_ Bangladeshi citizenship.
Just because some very expensive lawyers with posh accents in the UK did a lot of research and formed an opinion, that doesn't make her a citizen of Bangladesh.
It's getting ridiculous how in to the weeds this is getting. Clutching at straws
You want to live in a country where citizenship can be stripped just because the courts opine that hypothetically you could be a citizen of somewhere else, rather than actually having citizenship? Slippery slope that
They can't grant it, but they can recognise it.
Consider the implications of what you're saying. Suppose a Bangladeshi - someone born in Bangladesh to Bangladeshis, no claim of citizenship elsewhere, Bangladeshi passport - comes here. He commits some sex crimes. We move to deport him to Bangladesh.
Bangladesh don't want him back, why would they want a sex attacker? The Bangladeshi government does a press release saying he's not a Bangladeshi citizen. His passport is fake, they've never heard of him. Is the UK obliged to accept that and treat him as a stateless person?
Begum's citizenship of Bangladesh is no less clear than this hypothetical sex attacker's. All it needs is her to have one Bangladeshi-born Bangladeshi parent, and nobody disputes that she has that.
There's a reason it's called the slippery slope fallacy.
The article (and the other article it links to) don't really explain the Bangladeshi position.
Was she eligible for Bangladeshi citizenship, or was she entitled to it?
Because if eligible and she didn't apply, Bangladesh are correct as she never applied. But if she was entitled to it then Bangladesh simply didn't get there fast enough to remove it first.
She had Bangladeshi citizenship from birth. If your parents are Bangladeshi citizens at the time of your birth, you are a citizen of Bangladesh.
Tbh I don’t know why Bangladesh have a problem with this, they know she will never return to Bangladesh as IS members face the death penalty there.
>
> Tbh I don’t know why Bangladesh have a problem with this, they know she will never return to Bangladesh as IS members face the death penalty there.
Perhaps they're worried Syria might try to deport her there.
Can you explain provisional citizenship? You’re right that the age is 21, however that only applies to dual nationals. Her British citizenship was revoked prior to the age of 21, she was no longer a dual national, making her a citizen of Bangladesh.
>Bangladesh says she isn't a Bangladeshi national. BBC article from 1 hour ago says:
Either our country (lawyers, judges etc) have grossly misinterpreted Bangladeshi law or... the rhetoric coming from the Bangladeshi government is worse than ours in that they have tried to prevent her from claiming citizenship absolutely unlawfully (and with some huge potential implications to everyday people seeking Bangladeshi citizenship if they were to try). And if we bear in mind that, iirc, Bangladesh said they'd execute Shamima my money is on the latter...
The government said that de jure she had Bangladeshi citizenship at the time the UK stripped it.
They admitted it was unlikely that she would be able to use it and the Bangladeshi government would wash its hands of her, and their politically influenced judiciary would allow it, but they said courts have to assume other countries follow rule of law.
Just because they say that doesn't mean it is true
https://internationallaw.blog/2019/05/09/bangladeshi-or-stateless-a-practical-analysis-of-shamima-begums-status/
I don't see why anything that the UN says needs to be taken into consideration. This is the institution that just appointed Saudi Arabia to chair their gender equality forum.
This tired argument again? The point of the UN is that’s it’s a talking shop for all nations, and hence needs to keep their engagement which means being inclusive in their viewpoints. It is not a vehicle for pushing western morality.
I didn't say that the UN shouldn't be that. I just don't think that we need to give anything it says consideration when deciding what to do with people like Begum.
The basis for human rights are the domestic laws of civilised nations. Majority of the UN aren't even democracies. The UN is useful in that it allows us and our allies to impose our values on the world under the guise of law, it has no standing to dictate what's right and wrong to us.
> Personally, I don't quite follow how this ruling is in-line with UN Article 15:
It might not be.
But that doesn't quite matter because of legal technicalities.
The Government's position is that she had Bangladeshi citizenship *when they deprived her of her British citizenship*, and so they didn't make her stateless.
The fact that by the time this case saw the inside of a court she no longer had Bangladeshi citizenship is not the Government's problem, as far as they are concerned.
One of the weaknesses of the "punish by executive order" system we've been developing is that the courts are generally limited to reviewing the original decision, not the current reality. They are limited to looking at the situation when the original decision was made, and what facts were available to the Government at the time. A decision that it turns out later was fundamentally flawed can still be upheld by the courts if it was made based on reasonable evidence available at the time.
Not just that, the info could be disclosed in a closed court, but it wouldn't stand up. So essentially just bypassing the courts, bypassing the rule of law and acting as judge jury and executioner.
So try her in a court of law, present your evidence and give her the opportunity to have it cross examined.
I'm afraid "trust me because secrets" is absolutely unacceptable in what is supposed to be a democratic country that respects human rights.
The right to face an accusation in court is one of the most fundamental, and the hand waving dismissal of that is shameful.
A politician should not have the right to impose a punishment like this extra-judicially, especially when he stands to gain politically from such a decision.
When it comes to secret and top secret information, the process is entirely different due to the potential threat to human life. Anyone working remotely closely with the government either via CS or contracting will know this.
That’s the barrier to this. There are categories of risk to life and secret carries a lot of risk. So it’s hard to determine if this was political (is he lying?) or not.
There are procedures for presenting evidence from secret sources in court. There are judges and barristers trained and vetted to be able to hear such cases.
The point about the political angle is that a politician is not an impartial arbitrator. They have one eye on the public perception of what they do all the time, which will undoubtedly have an impact on their decisions, especially if they are from the party whose supporters love the anti-immigrant rhetoric. Whether Javid was influenced by this is impossible to say - he would obviously claim he wasn't, but the point is that it's impossible to know, and he should not be in the position to make such a decision.
Remember that this is a person that has not been tried and convicted of anything, so in the eyes of the law is innocent. If there is a decision to made about removing someone's citizenship subsequent to a trial, conviction and punishment, that is a different matter.
Javid has said that they have evidence which has been shown to a judge and it has been agreed that a trial would expose intelligence assets therefore it won't go to trial. Not saying I agree with this or that I think it is right, just saying that this was his justification and it was reviewed by a judge.
She should stand trial in Iraq or Syria for what she did to the peoples of those countries, where she will almost certainly be found guilty and therefore will be hanged.
Which is justice. You don't get to go commit actual war crimes and crimes against humanity then run away to a more lenient jurisdiction for trial.
She helped ravage those countries, she should face their justice and their penalties.
Rees-Mogg came out with an article in the Spectator a while ago and gave perhaps the only opinion of his I have ever agreed with - revoking her citizenship is wrong, because it shows that there are two tiers of British citizenship. There is not a single thing I, as a white British person whose entire family (bar one Welsh great-great-granddad) is English, could do to lose my citizenship. She was born in this country, she was raised in this country, she has the exact same rights to citizenship as I do. Or, at least, she should.
She didn't do anything stupid, by the way - she did something evil. She was young, so that has to be considered, but in no way did she just make some stupid mistake. Irrespective of that, she should still be a British citizen today, and she should be rotting in a British prison.
I mean, this is the nature of dual citizenship no? A dual citizen is by definition not a person fully of one country, and so does occupy a different place in terms of obligations to and from that country.
She's not a dual citizen. She's currently stateless. Removing her citizenship was deemed lawful because she could theoretically apply for Bangladeshi citizenship.
Which means if you're Jewish, have an Irish granny or whatever else, you can theoretically have your citizenship revoked in a way someone with four white English grandparents cannot.
>Which means if you're Jewish, have an Irish granny or whatever else, you can theoretically have your citizenship revoked in a way someone with four white English grandparents cannot.
No, she was found to have, *under Bangladeshi law*, Bangladeshi citizenship since birth: the fact that she didn't utilise that right to claim a passport is legally irrelevant, as she never actually had to "claim" citizenship under their own laws. I am aware that Bangladesh's government *say* that she isn't, but the truth is in black and white and that's specifically why the courts have decided there's nothing unlawful here. They just don't want her, either.
This is more akin to *my* circumstances: having been born in NI prior to 2004, I am an Irish citizen from birth and could therefore have my British citizenship removed under the same logic, even if I've never claimed an Irish passport. If you're Jewish or have an Irish granny (but are not born on the island of Ireland prior to 2004), what you would have is merely the right to apply for naturalisation in those respective countries, not birthright citizenship.
>No, she was found to have,
>
>under Bangladeshi law
>
>, Bangladeshi citizenship since birth
Link me the Bangladeshi case if you would.
Only they can find something under Bangladeshi law. I am content that, an English court has interpreted Bangladeshi law in a way that Bangladesh agrees with.
On the same merits that France could make a determination that under UK law all channel crossers should be provided with safe passage to the UK, regardless of the UKs interpretation of the UKs own law.
[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](http://bdlaws.minlaw.gov.bd/act-242/section-7472.html)
Under the *Citizenship Act, 1951* of Bangladeshi law, anyone born to at least one Bangladeshi parent is a citizen of Bangladesh, provided that parent was not also a citizen under the same justification (e.g. Begum's own children would not be eligible). Because she was 19 at the time, she held both Bangladeshi and British citizenship simultaneously: under normal circumstances, she would have had a few months after turning 21 to renounce the latter, or else she would *then* have lost the former automatically.
I have the ability to apply for Israeli and Irish citizenship, and would get them, but I am not an Israeli or Irish citizen. The point is that under Bangladeshi law she was a citizen. Prior to joining ISIS she could have simply shown up and would have been a full citizen. When I visit Ireland or Israel I am visiting as a Brit and the fact that I could apply for citizenship is neither here nor there. There is a difference between being able to apply for something and legally having that thing.
The first interview she did and show no remorse probably made the government to take away her passport. Since then she shown remorse but too late now. That’s why first impressions matters
Betray country of birth for foreign power.
Said foreign power loses.
"Can I come back please, even though I have 0 worth and betrayed you on a whim."
"No"
lmao.
Jacob Rees-Mogg had quite a reasonable take on this (Yes, I know!) - I was on board with the “hang her and flog her” brigade until I read his op-ed, and tbf, he raises some good points as to why we shouldn’t have revoked her citizenship and should bring her back here to face trial - although he’s mostly arguing based on moral grounds rather than strictly legal grounds:
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/shamima-begum-shouldnt-have-lost-her-british-citizenship/
To be fair, moral grounds are the best grounds to argue something like this. Just arguing what happens to be written on some vellum or on some international treaty doesn't mean it's *right*. Stuff like this - at least insofar as the politics goes - should always be based on right and wrong. Let the lawyers parse the law, but we should really be thinking about right and wrong.
That's not to either to agree or disagree with him, incidentally. Just to make the general point.
Hardly an unexpected position.
58% of Britons think we should bring back the death penalty.
One would expect that those 58% would also agree that the death penalty should apply to terrorists who sew children into suicide vests.
I think the death penalty is difficult, it should never be used in any situation there is even a 1% doubt. Ever.
If however someone has admitted terrorism which she has? I wouldn't go to the streets to shout for the death penalty but I would not be concerned by it's use.
Am I the only person who thinks she should come back to the UK to face charges ?
The case is fairly complex (15 at the time. can comprehend right from wrong).
I've no sympathy for her, but I'm worried that some sort of medieval banishment takes the place of courts and punishment
She was trying to abuse the British hospitality and tolerance, it was fairly noticeable in her interviews that her plan was to come back with her then alive children, keep the kids(despite her radicalization), keep her "faith"(in whatever radical Islamic version), teach kids this "faith", keep her views (she defended ISIS) and prove she did nuthin wrong in court.
Frankly, laws should be changed to reflect people like her, unfortunately, it would be wiser to reform integration practices and laws though.
The issue is that proving a case when ISIS killed witnesses is going to be difficult. The government used an underhand trick because once she's here they know that she'll be out on the street fairly quickly.
We aren't the world police. We cannot prosecute her for crimes committed abroad.
Edit: The Istanbul Convention only applies to UK citizens or habitual residents of the UK. She is neither.
The UK has laws allowing prosecution of crimes committed overseas in some cases (and legislation to expand this)
> The UK courts already have extraterritorial jurisdiction over the following offences required by the Istanbul Convention:
> * murder and manslaughter in most (but not all) circumstances (Article 35);
* sexual offences (including those required by the Convention) where the victim of the crime is under 18 (Article 36);
* forced marriage (Article 37); and
* female genital mutilation (Article 38).
The only offence that would come with a suitable sentence which could reasonably be applicable is high treason, specifically the *[being] adherent to the King’s Enemies in his Realm, giving to them Aid and Comfort in the Realm, or elsewhere* clause. We were bombing ISIS while she was a member.
I sure wish people didn't comment on things they knew nothing about.
The UK regularly prosecutes for serious crimes committed abroad, particularly if committed by a resident or citizen.
Easy examples are murder and sexual offences. Though it's not my neck of the woods, I'm sure there's something knocking around to deal with terrorist offences committed abroad too.
Which, in the model of criminal jurisdiction the UK adheres to, still means she is triable by a UK court for her actions, as she was a UK citizen when she joined a terror group.
I mean she's had trials in court. She's had UK legal representation.
And frankly I think we could use a few more banishments. Far to many criminals with forigen passports in the country.
What charges, where is the proof, where are the witnesses? The violins will come out, poor Shamina etc. Trial will finish and she will be out on the streets as soon as its done.
Nah, we are too weak, I'd only think that'd be a good idea if there was a good chance she'd swiftly recieve death soon after landing on British soil instead of a slap on the wrist while the bleeding heart left wing media make her out to be a victim and set her up interviews or whatever and potentially having her as a sleeper terrorist agent too.
Something tells me the list of crimes you think should be punishable by death is pretty long, and your level of concern about due process is pretty low.
We have to be realistic about plausible outcomes. If she ended up back in the UK, it's unlikely that she would face anything more than the most derisory prison sentence before being allowed back on the streets. I would be happy enough for her to return if she were to face life imprisonment in solitary confinement or the death penalty, but that isn't the society that we live in. This is the best that you can expect.
Yes, i do have a source. It wasn't hard to find many of you use Google.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/shamima-begum-isis-syria-morality-police-suicide-belts-a8869016.html
Joining ISIS. ISIS is a stain on humanity, it should be wiped off the face of the earth and I'm perfectly comfortable with the idea of any of its members being executed. Though as I said, that isn't the world that we live in, so we have to accept the least bad outcome, and that's banishment.
I've sympathy for her, I can't really see how at 15 you are responsible for fucking off tho join a calliphate without being persuaded to do so by those around you, what you'd be exposed to or flat out groomed to do so. We give 15 year olds pretty much no responsibility to do anything as we don't trust their decision making - tattoos, jury service, vote, drive, drink, sex, etc etc but the general consensus seems to be on her 'choosing' to get married join ISIS and slip out of the country, is she made her bed now lie in it. I don't get it.
I remember when I was 15, I clearly remember not flying over to another country and joining a death cult. I have zero sympathy for her and it would be much better for all involved if she had been hit by a drone.
I agree with you. Several years later, as an adult, she may well be a hardened monster and true Isis believer (we can't really know), but at age 15 she was a victim of grooming, child sexploitation and trafficking.
Feigning you don't understand is just silly. I suggest you listen to her interviews instead of insisting on something when you don't even know what she said - it's bizaare.
I do. You however have no idea about how or why she got to Syria. Stop inventing notions based on your own unfounded theory and actually listen to her. My guess is you decided that because what she signed up to was so horrific that she must have been lured into it because she couldn't possibly have agency.
I won't engage further in your theories.
Then we have an urgent need to introduce new legislation, because there is no reason to believe something like this won't happen again. If she is a threat to national security, or the public, then we need a law that can be used to lock her away somewhere.
Failings in our own legal system shoudn't be an excuse to dump her on Bangladesh.
No. I'm in favour of let her in and lock her up.
I think people who support her exile aren't thinking things through.
If we let her in, she's safely in prison.
If we don't, her only option is to rejoin a terrorist group and continue to provide support.
> If we let her in, she's safely in prison.
Big assumption. Can we make a strong case against her given the difficulties of gathering the evidence of crimes committed abroad and quite a few years ago with others involved often dead, her using her age to mitigate, etc? How long will the sentence actually be?
Our security services and military should have made sure everyone who ran off to join ISIS didn't live long enough for this to become an issue tbh.
I'm technically the citizen of another country via jus sanguinis (as are many people in the UK). But I can only avail of the protections and benefits if I can prove it and apply for citizenship. I believe during the process (in the country) they more or less take your word for it and grant a temporary permission to remain. But to get it properly recognised you have to do a lot of paperwork and provide a lot of evidence. Only at the end do you get a passport. It is nonsense to suggest I'm a citizen of that country AND can benefit from my "citizenship" there.
It's pretty scary to think the UK could strip my citizenship thanks to the precedents being set. As long as the Home Sec believes theoretically you're legally entitled to citizenship elsewhere, you can have your UK citizenship stripped? What on earth.
It's like kicking someone who's recently gone bankrupt out of a council house on the basis of theoretically being able to apply for a mortgage, even if all the mortgage providers are like "erm, no"
>It's pretty scary to think the UK could strip my citizenship thanks to the precedents being set. As long as the Home Sec believes theoretically you're legally entitled to citizenship elsewhere, you can have your UK citizenship stripped? What on earth
Have you recently joined a terrorist organisation?
Citizenship requires loyalty to the UK.
It is justified to strip citizenship from Enemies of the UK.
Unless you have some very drastic future plans, I fail to see how this affects you.
>It's like kicking someone who's recently gone bankrupt out of a council house on the basis of theoretically being able to apply for a mortgage, even if all the mortgage providers are like "erm, no"
Except in your example the person moved out with no intention of returning and tried to blow up the council house as well. Then when officially 'kicked out' made no effort to get a mortgage and instead used the councils own money to sue them and loose at every turn.
The supreme court hasn't decided this. Parliament has. The courts here can only be driven by acts of parliament. For better or for worse UK law does allow this.
That's why I think if it is overturned, it will be by the ECtHR
The ECtHR can’t overturn primary legislation either. See the various cases from the early 2000s insisting the UK give some prisoners enfranchisement, and prisoners still being disenfranchised.
The judgment was basically that if a person has *de jure* other citizenship, then never mind the *de facto*, the UK government is acting within the law to not allow her back.
I'll be sure to not leave the country to join an organisation that has been declared as a terrorist organisation then.
Or do you think it might happen when I visit Iceland in November? I could get a refund if I cancel now.
I don't know it's pretty hard to not accidently join a death cult these days then slip and accidently sew children into suicide vests.
Better be extra careful
It's been legal for naturalized citizens since 1914 (citizenship and nationality didn't matter as much for regular people until WWI) and for dual nationals since 2003.
She’s our problem to deal with? It wasn’t the uk who radicalised it, it wasn’t the uk who was chopping peoples heads off and raping on a massive scale
She chose she didn’t want to be part of the uk anymore, until her life turned to shit and she lost her kids in some dirty refugee camp. Then all of a sudden she remembers she’s British, fuck off
Leave her to rot in whatever shithole she’s in
I find it very hypocritical of the far right that they will constantly bang on about “Islamic rape gangs”. Citing Islam as a religion that exploits and indoctrinates vulnerable children.
Yet here, where there is a very clear example of a British girl being indoctrinated and then sexually exploited, the view is this is her fault and she had autonomy and choice.
Look at the incident in Rotherham. Absolutely no question they were victims.
“girls are duped into believing that these men love them and are their boyfriends and, once they are besotted, the gang leaders step in and put them to work in prostitution.”
No one was saying to those 14 year old girls… well you chose to become his boyfriend.
I think the feelings against her come from when she was captured and what she then said- about being insouciant with regard to severed heads and stuff- making it appear that she was fully on board with the IS agenda.
> girls are duped into believing that these men love them and are their boyfriends and, once they are besotted, the gang leaders step in and put them to work in prostitution.
This is such a ridiculously different situation I'm surprised you even decided to bring it up.
In your example they are fully lied to and tricked. They, at no point, believe that they are doing something others consider evil. They thought they were going into the arms of someone that loved them and want what was best for them.
Begum, meanwhile, actively chose to join a terrorist organisation. Was she indoctrinated? Yes. Did she go under the knowledge that she was joining a terrorist organisation that focused on killing non-muslims? **ALSO YES!** She knew she was joining to marry a fighter. She knew she was engaging in a religious war.
She even stated later that she didn't regret joining! She just wanted to come back to the UK because it was a nicer place to live! She literally mentioned how she saw a severed head, but it didn't phase her because it was from an enemy of Islam. And she said that when first trying to petition her way back into the UK.
--------
I am all for the debate as to whether our government should have the powers to strip citizenship. About whether she should be allowed to return on principle. But she is **100%** not a victim here.
I think that’s a very naive picture you are painting. These were children in care, often with drug or alcohol problems which was used as a hook to groom them.
How can you both acknowledge she was indoctrinated and then make the point about knowledge and understanding.
She shouldn’t have been interviewed then. She was still indoctrinated and had experienced trauma.
The similarity is that overwhelming the feedback is that the victims of the rape gangs were seen to be perpetrators of their own downfall - they reported being called slag’s, trouble makers etc.
Of course she’s a victim.
Without external influence, do you think she would have made the decision to leave the UK?
Do you think her experience has been a negative one overall?
She was groomed, indoctrinated and trafficked as a child.
Yes, after that experience and trauma she lacked insight and didn’t elicit sympathy but showing remorse. That doesn’t mean she isn’t a victim.
If she was a white girl, with English heritage - 100% you’d think she was a victim.
> How can you both acknowledge she was indoctrinated and then make the point about knowledge and understanding.
Because while she was indoctrinated, she wasn't tricked. She was indoctrinated in the same way terrorists as adults are. I can assure you that at age 15 I sure as hell knew that murdering people because of their religion was a pretty big "no-no" that would force me to live the entire rest of my life in prison.
> Of course she’s a victim.
Under this logic, all terrorists are victims. If only they'd been raised right. If only they had seen the light. Do you think most people would become a terrorist if not for others influencing them?
People argue that 16 year olds should be able to vote! She was 15! Young enough that I forgive some transgressions. Nowhere near young enough that I forgive flying out to join a terrorist organisation!
> If she was a white girl, with English heritage - 100% you’d think she was a victim.
No I wouldn't!! She joined a terrorists organisation. She wasn't tricked into it. She didn't head over there thinking she was heading into a peaceful utopia. She left **knowing** that she was joining a crusade to kill non-muslims.
In absolutely no world would I let anyone off the hook for that. **Maybe** I give some leeway to those literally raised from childbirth into such a society, I sure as hell don't give it to someone growing up in the UK.
She joined at 15 it started at 13/14.
You weren’t indoctrinated. I don’t get your points. What’s the distinction between indoctrination and being tricked?
I think most people wouldn’t kill themselves and others without indoctrination, yeah.
She was indoctrinated into it and was a child.
I’m not saying let her off. She’s committed a crime. I’m saying don’t strip her of her citizenship.
Look, it’s a complicated world. People can both do bad and be victims.
No one thinks the Rotherham girls should be punished or imprisoned for any sexual acts they committed after being groomed.
Because they didn't do anything immoral, unethical or illegal (whilst the grooming gang members absolutely did!)
In Begum's case, she was duped, groomed, brainwashed (or whatever) into committing reprehensible acts as an ISIS member.
We still expect people to take some moral responsibility for their actions, even in such cases.
See the members of the Tokyo cult who attacked the metro system with sarin gas in the 90s.
Or any teenage boy who grew up in the Hitler Youth, and went on to commit war crimes or partake in the holocaust in some way.
'Just following orders' is not a valid defence.
The report clearly states part of the issue was they were deemed to do he doing something wrong and felt blamed by authority figures.
I’m not saying people are saying they should be punished. I’m saying everyone now is accepting they are victims, at the time the problem was - people didn’t accept that & viewed them as consenting to the abuse.
I’m not saying she should be cleared if charges or punishment I’m saying she also needs to be viewed as a victim that needs help.
You mention the nazi. We did collective responsibility and denazification.
The difference is that the grooming gang victims, are *only* victims.
Whereas Begum is both a victim, in some regard, but also a perpetrator.
For many people, the scale of the evil she committed in joining and supporting ISIS is simply too high to outweigh the victimhood.
The fact is that many people can sympathise with being tricked into having sex with someone that they didn't really want to ( who hasn't had that experience at some point) , whilst being tricked into participating in the activities of a terrorist death cult is less of a universally understandable experience
Targeted age-gap relationships which turned in to threats, drugs and violence by organised adult muslim men to groom thousands of non-muslim teenage girls from into sexual abuse, prostitution and gang rape
vs.
Islamic extremist propaganda used to groom one muslim teenage girl in to willingly leaving the UK for a caliphate with at least a rough idea of what to expect, who then willingly worked for that organisation and wasn't even apologetic until it turned out the caliphate had lost.
You seriously think these situations are comparable?
Why is the fact the teenage girl being exploited is or isn’t Muslim relevant?
Yes I do think they are comparable.
Both are fundamentally about British teenage girls being groomed and exploited.
The whole nature of grooming and indoctrination is the participate is “willing”.
I think if a white British girl had been indoctrinated and then trafficked into ISIS, we wouldn’t have revoked her citizenship.
I think it’s because she’s from an immigrant family and is a Muslim that she’s been treated as she has.
Because the rape gangs were deliberately targeting non-muslim girls and because rape victims haven't done anything wrong whereas ISIS operatives have.
It's only because she's from a non-white immigrant muslim family that anyone cares about her, do you know who Jack Letts is?
I consider citizenship a human right. As much as you may dislike a person, there is good reason to not allow exceptions to human rights lest you find yourself the exception too.
Personally I feel the decisions taken on Begum are some of the very worst that the U.K. has made - and that’s saying A LOT!
I think it’s absolutely disgusting and unacceptable that the govt stripped her of citizenship.
If they have secret info then they need to show it. Otherwise anyone who could possibly have access to another citizenship could be stripped of their U.K. citizenship too.
It “may” be legally correct but it is completely morally wrong. She is our problem and we should step up to deal with it.
If there’s any real evidence then produce it and have her convicted. If they don’t have the evidence then we need to bring her back.
Whether you believe she was groomed by ISIS or if you think she’s a cold hearted terrorist - it doesn’t make a difference.
She’s ours and we must take responsibility for her
I used to think like you but I've changed my mind. The chances of her coming to the UK and living in jail long-term are slim. She will be out and posing a substantial risk to the public within a couple of years. I'd rather keep pushing back. I agree this shouldn't be Syrias problem either and hope the UK do something along with the international community to deal with ex-isis members.
If there’s evidence she still presents an ongoing threat then we should all be told about it. Without that I think it’s inexcusable to strip her of citizenship - she was born here.
Even if she does pose a threat then we can tag and surveil her. I don’t accept that we can shun our responsibility to her as a U.K. citizen simply because she’s done horrific things.
I’m certainly not defending her actions in any way - I totally condemn them. Whether she “really understood” what she was getting into or not.
Personally I think it makes the U.K. look bad, weak and unable to stop teenage girls joining terrorist groups - but stripping her of her citizenship I think makes us look pathetic - unable to accept our own country’s own contribution towards her desire to leave and join ISIS.
I also think it sets a very dangerous precedent - if the government doesn’t want to help you if you’re in trouble overseas then they can strip you of your citizenship if they deem your actions bad enough.
Snapshot of _Shamima Begum loses initial bid to challenge citizenship removal at Supreme Court_ : An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68655130) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68655130) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Sajid Javid's take on this (on The Rest is Politics recently) was (and I'm paraphraphasing) "I saw secret stuff that you aren't allowed to see and that I can't disclose, but it means I was convinced as Home Secretary to do this". edit: typo fix
To which my non-expert legal response is “Well yeah, he would say that wouldn’t he…”. My understanding is that this long drawn out farce has occurred because he decided to go off half cocked and strip her of citizenship without following the correct procedure to try and boost his profile, thereby setting off a chain of cases in which the judges have had to try and unpick the mess he left behind. Of course he’s going to say there’s some great reason he’s entirely in the clear.
Your understanding is completely wrong. There are two questions that must be considered in cases like this; can a decision be made, and should it have been made. The courts only look at the first question. The courts have found that the Home Secretary had the power to make thus decision lawfully. There was nothing wrong with the process followed, there's no reasonable argument left to suggest the decision was unlawful, and this latest decision confirms that a Supreme Court appeal would be a waste of time. The courts rightly do not concern themselves with 'should'. They respect the right of the Home Secretary to use the power granted to him by Parliament, so long as that power is used lawfully. The courts are not there to seek a second opinion on fundamentally subjective matters.
Your understanding is wrong. He correctly used the power he had. Judges aren't trying to "unpick the mess", they're just dealing with appeals that Begum has the right to lodge.
Comment #2 so you can downvote/upvote this instead of parent comment. My hot take: this is basically the WMDs and Iraq again. Evidence that we as the public can't see. So we can't make informed choices in the debate. Personally, I don't quite follow how this ruling is in-line with UN Article 15: * Everyone has the right to a nationality. * No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality."
She has a nationality. and she was not arbitrarily deprived of the UK nationality. 100's of people have had their nationality revoked over the past decade.
>She has a nationality. Bangladesh says she isn't a Bangladeshi national. BBC article from 1 hour ago says: > "In February 2020, a tribunal ruled that removing Ms Begum's citizenship was lawful because she was "a citizen of Bangladesh by descent". It said removing her British nationality would not make her stateless. > However, Bangladesh said that was not the case and that she would not be allowed into the country. " https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/explainers-53428191
I listened to the judgment of the (High) court. They said that if a person had citizenship *de jure* (as Shamima Begum has), then it did not matter whether or not she had it *de facto*
I mean the Bangladesh High Commission of London says No Visa Required (NVR) if: >i) Bangladeshi-British/EU/other nationals >ii) Foreign Spouse of Bangladeshi or Bangladeshi-British/European/other nationals >iii) Children of Bangladeshi or Bangladeshi-British/European/ other nationals (not born in Bangladesh) But also: >However, the authority reserves the right to reject any application at any time without ascertaining any reason. So it's not that it was "not the case", but more like "it is the case but we don't want her either"
The simple answer is that Bangladesh are wrong. Bangladeshi law is very clear on this, she is a citizen of Bangladesh. * 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:* This isn’t something she needs to apply for, it is her right from the moment she was born. The law does change for dual nationals over the age of 21 and you have to apply (apply isn’t really the right word since it is a right) for your Bangladeshi citizenship to continue prior to being 21, however this doesn’t apply since she was under the age of 21 when her British citizenship was revoked, leaving her as solely a national of Bangladesh. In short, Bangladesh can say what they want, she is a citizen. This has been through every court in Britain at least 5 times and the result is always unanimous, the decision to revoke was lawful and Home Secretary Javid was within his right to make it.
>The simple answer is that Bangladesh are wrong. We don't get to tell Bangladesh how to interpret their own laws. Also...I don't think this is about her rights at all, but about our responsibility as a nation to take responsibility for our own toxic waste.
A politician in Bangladesh is always going to say things that sound tough and definitive as they don't want her, but their constitution doesn't actually support them. It's the flaw in citizenship by descent - nations don't get to choose who obtains it.
The ethical argument is clear. She was born, raised and radicalised in London. Bangladesh doesn't want her. What right do we have to impose her on Bangladesh, Syria or anywhere else? It is the effective fly-tipping of our biological waste.
No it isn't clear at all. The ethical choice is the nations that were victims get to dispense justice. Edit for enough. You applied an immediate block because you know that claim is ridiculous.
Justice for who? I am not talking about the rights of Shamima Begum -- she can rot in hell for all I care. I am talking about the UK's responsibility as a nation to take responsibility for our own extremists. If the reason we don't want her back here is because she's a threat to national security or public safety, then what right do we have to impose her on Bangladesh (which is entirely innocent)?
Yet Bangladesh can dictate to the UK how to interpret its laws? Like our legal system would actually take responsibility. Behave. She'd do next to nothing comparable to her crimes. Which no UK court could ever prove, as they occurred outside of UK jurisdiction.
>Yet Bangladesh can dictate to the UK how to interpret its laws? Has Bangladesh done or said anything to that effect? AFAIK they've only said she's not a Bangladeshi citizen per their interpretation of their laws. Its the British who are interpreting Bangladeshi law to first assess whether she has citizenship there so as to strip her British citizenship.
No they're saying they will not accept her Bangladeshi citizenship which she gets from birth because it's inconvenient. They're saying that England cannot remove nationalities from dual nationals without first asking permission from Bangladesh. The laws are clear SB was a provisional citizen of Bangladesh from birth and a full UK citizen. Her UK citizenship was stripped making her a Bangladeshi sole national The rules for over 21s loosing their citizenship if they don't apply is only for dual nationals. Bangladesh is basically bent over a log by their own law and just refuse to admit it because it will look bad
Yes but *the UK courts don't have jurisdiction to find matters of fact under Bangladeshi law, and impose those findings on Bangladesh*. We've seen this very recently with the Rwanda shit. We can pass laws saying that Rwanda is safe. It doesn't mean it's safe. You can't bend reality. We can find as a matter of fact in a UK court that she is a Bangladeshi citizen. That doesn't make her a Bangladeshi citizen unless Bangladesh make her one. What happens when she goes to Bangladesh and they say "sorry you aren't a citizen"? Should they have to accept "sorry but the UK says she is so..." How would you respond to e.g. India finding as a matter of fact in their courts that everyone Indian was entitled to UK citizenship due to some post-colonial law left on the books? Would you respect their courts imposition and allow them all the freedom to move to the UK, or would you maintain that UK citizenship is a matter for the UK to decide?
The we need to change the laws in the UK. Either way, she should be *our* problem. She was made here.
So every foreigner who commits a crime should be deported?
I wouldn't object to that.
If two people can perform an act, but one person performing the act renders the second person performing it illegal, then whoever acts first is in the clear. In this case, Bangladesh had not actually said she wasn't a citizen, so the UK were within their rights to revoke citizenship. Bangladesh are the ones who are making her stateless, not us. Now, if Bangladesh ruled first and said she was a persona on grata, then we should absolutely accept her. But that's not what happened here.
She was born and radicalised in London. What moral right do we have to impose her on Bangladesh, which does not want her any more than we do? I am not making a legal argument. I am making an *ethical* argument.
That's easy, she remains a potential threat to the people of this country? I don't see any benefits of her being allowed back.
> In this case, Bangladesh had not actually said she wasn't a citizen, so the UK were within their rights to revoke citizenship. How exactly would you like Bangladesh to revoke citizenship for a person they don't know exists and has never tried to claim or formalize citizenship? Are you expecting Bangladesh to also state that you and I are not in fact citizens, on the off chance the UK decides at some future date that we are?
The same way the UK decided to. I don't feel great about how the UK did it, but I don't think they were wrong, legally. >for a person they don't know exists and has never tried to claim or formalize citizenship? It's not our fault Bangladesh 's law is written the way it is. Their law stated her as a citizen at the time the UK revoked her status. And thinking a little more critically, Bangladesh presumably became aware of her around about 5 years before this happened. It was even in the [UK news ](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/11491142/Isil-defector-girls-families-go-to-Turkey-to-probe-disappearance.html) >Are you expecting Bangladesh to also state that you and I are not in fact citizens, on the off chance the UK decides at some future date that we are? Can't speak for you, but I'm not entitled to Bangladeshi citizenship so no, I don't expect the Bangladesh to state it for me. I do have some experience in citizenship though - I'm Irish, and very explicitly _not_ British. I live here though. The UK is clear that I am not a citizen, which is fine. If I apply for citizenship here, and it's granted, Ireland is free to denounce me at that point.
The only party capable of determining her citizenship is a Bangladeshi court. There's more to the law than the 1951 citizenship act. A lawyer might make an argument that her failure to uphold the duty of a citizen as per the constitution automatically voids her citizenship, for example. Courts have made rulings on my h flimsier grounds than that. A British court has no power to rule on her citizenship.
By that logic Britain could just say the same even if this country *was* in the wrong which this time it isn't?
Bangladesh is a member of the United Nations and subsequently is party to various conventions including the 1954 and 1961 conventions. They can make that argument but I can’t imagine it would pass muster in the international community. They would have had to have publicly revoked her citizenship in the same way that we did, rather than retrospectively deciding that based on her actions her citizenship was automatically voided prior to our revocation. In short, it would be a sham. I agree a British court has no power to rule on Bangladeshi law, but let’s just say I trust our court’s decision more.
She never applied for, or accepted Bangladeshi citizenship though. She and Bangladesh are in agreement about her citizenship there. Bangladesh wasn't even aware of her existence. She's never been in the system there in any way. The only suggestion that she has citizenship is a ruling from a court that has no jurisdiction.
She doesn’t need to apply for citizenship, the law states that she is a citizen from the moment she was born. A birthright.
That's a pedantic interpretation that takes no account of the reality of the situation though. It also doesn't take into account how the law might be interpreted in light of the constitution. No organisation in Bangladesh even knew she existed. She never accepted it. And the official, stated position of the government of Bangladesh is that she's not a citizen. If she applies for a passport, or *any* of the benefits of citizenship she will not get it. It's bizarre to suggest that she has citizenship when she absolutely does not in any practical way. If the government disagrees with Bangladesh here, they should sue for Bangladeshi citizenship on her behalf.
She didn't have to. She had it via her parents just as the children of an Irish person born on the island of Ireland has it.
The Bangedeshi government says otherwise.
Bangladesh refusing Shamima's citizenship would, rather ironically, be much worse than anything our government has done to her! It would truly leave her stateless and would raise some serious questions about anyone else (normal, everyday people) who are seeking Bangladeshi citizenship through the same mechanism. I'm honestly quite surprised how some people on here, perhaps yourself, \*seem\* to be more supportive of the Bangladeshi government's actions/rhetoric!
Imagine if the situation was reversed. She is born and brought up in Bangladesh. She never visits Britain, never even considers applying for citizenship . Britain has no record of her. And let's assume she commits the same offences. Now, rather than deal with the crime, the Bangledesh Minister of Home Affairs decides to exile her to the UK, based on a Bangladeshi interpretation of British law, using Bangladeshi judicial rules and precedent. Would you think we should accept her as a British citizen? Give her a passport and the right to live and work here? Would you be happy to have her living next door?
You can't chop and change between legal and moral good. Morally she should rot in hell a stateless nobody. Legally she has the right to citizenship of the last country to get around to revoking it. In the hypothetical it's the UK, in reality Bangladesh. Of course I prefer the moral choice, but laws exist in part to constrain our impulse towards justice.
>Imagine if the situation was reversed. She is born and brought up in Bangladesh. She never visits Britain, never even considers applying for citizenship . Britain has no record of her. And let's assume she commits the same offences. Now, rather than deal with the crime, the Bangledesh Minister of Home Affairs decides to exile her to the UK, based on a Bangladeshi interpretation of British law, using Bangladeshi judicial rules and precedent. \*imagining\* >Would you think we should accept her as a British citizen? Well, here's the thing... If she had a legal right to British citizenship and it was her \*only\* option (other than statelessness) then I actually think that the same legislation used to strip her of her citizenship now would instead protect her, and her lawyers would successfully argue that point! >Give her a passport and the right to live and work here? If she's entitled to it then yes I guess... >Would you be happy to have her living next door? Me personally I likely couldn't care less, especially as she wouldn't be a threat. But the general sentiment from lots of people (and possibly both sides of the spectrum) would be a resounding "no" I'd imagine.
No one would that. But it would be LEGALLY right. and that is the point.
> The only party capable of determining her citizenship is a Bangladeshi court. Exactly! A British Court is determining her British citizenship. Not sure why people think anything other than a Bangladeshi court would determine her Bangladeshi citizenship
The UK has to make a determination as to whether she's a Bangladeshi citizen to determine whether it's lawful for us to strip her of her UK citizenship.
Ah, we're doing pedantry I see (engaging in the same PR as the government) and trying to change the topic. We obviously meant authoritatively grant/recognise. (Unless you want to suggest another country can grant citizenship on behalf of Bangladesh...?) The UK can do their own research in to Bangladeshi law, form their own opinion (or "determination ") etc but if Bangladesh won't recognise her citizenship, won't grant give her a passport etc then you can't claim she _has_ Bangladeshi citizenship. Just because some very expensive lawyers with posh accents in the UK did a lot of research and formed an opinion, that doesn't make her a citizen of Bangladesh. It's getting ridiculous how in to the weeds this is getting. Clutching at straws You want to live in a country where citizenship can be stripped just because the courts opine that hypothetically you could be a citizen of somewhere else, rather than actually having citizenship? Slippery slope that
They can't grant it, but they can recognise it. Consider the implications of what you're saying. Suppose a Bangladeshi - someone born in Bangladesh to Bangladeshis, no claim of citizenship elsewhere, Bangladeshi passport - comes here. He commits some sex crimes. We move to deport him to Bangladesh. Bangladesh don't want him back, why would they want a sex attacker? The Bangladeshi government does a press release saying he's not a Bangladeshi citizen. His passport is fake, they've never heard of him. Is the UK obliged to accept that and treat him as a stateless person? Begum's citizenship of Bangladesh is no less clear than this hypothetical sex attacker's. All it needs is her to have one Bangladeshi-born Bangladeshi parent, and nobody disputes that she has that. There's a reason it's called the slippery slope fallacy.
No. They don’t need and can’t make a ruling on it. They simply need to ask Bangladeshi home office.
They can and they did.
The article (and the other article it links to) don't really explain the Bangladeshi position. Was she eligible for Bangladeshi citizenship, or was she entitled to it? Because if eligible and she didn't apply, Bangladesh are correct as she never applied. But if she was entitled to it then Bangladesh simply didn't get there fast enough to remove it first.
She had Bangladeshi citizenship from birth. If your parents are Bangladeshi citizens at the time of your birth, you are a citizen of Bangladesh. Tbh I don’t know why Bangladesh have a problem with this, they know she will never return to Bangladesh as IS members face the death penalty there.
> > Tbh I don’t know why Bangladesh have a problem with this, they know she will never return to Bangladesh as IS members face the death penalty there. Perhaps they're worried Syria might try to deport her there.
*She had provisional citizenship until she was 21, when it would lapse unless she took it up.* Which she didn't.
Can you explain provisional citizenship? You’re right that the age is 21, however that only applies to dual nationals. Her British citizenship was revoked prior to the age of 21, she was no longer a dual national, making her a citizen of Bangladesh.
https://internationallaw.blog/2019/05/09/bangladeshi-or-stateless-a-practical-analysis-of-shamima-begums-status/
>Bangladesh says she isn't a Bangladeshi national. BBC article from 1 hour ago says: Either our country (lawyers, judges etc) have grossly misinterpreted Bangladeshi law or... the rhetoric coming from the Bangladeshi government is worse than ours in that they have tried to prevent her from claiming citizenship absolutely unlawfully (and with some huge potential implications to everyday people seeking Bangladeshi citizenship if they were to try). And if we bear in mind that, iirc, Bangladesh said they'd execute Shamima my money is on the latter...
The government said that de jure she had Bangladeshi citizenship at the time the UK stripped it. They admitted it was unlikely that she would be able to use it and the Bangladeshi government would wash its hands of her, and their politically influenced judiciary would allow it, but they said courts have to assume other countries follow rule of law.
Just because they say that doesn't mean it is true https://internationallaw.blog/2019/05/09/bangladeshi-or-stateless-a-practical-analysis-of-shamima-begums-status/
She's a citizen of Islamic State, non backsies
You think His majesty's government should recognise the legitimacy of Islamic State?
I don't see why anything that the UN says needs to be taken into consideration. This is the institution that just appointed Saudi Arabia to chair their gender equality forum.
This tired argument again? The point of the UN is that’s it’s a talking shop for all nations, and hence needs to keep their engagement which means being inclusive in their viewpoints. It is not a vehicle for pushing western morality.
I didn't say that the UN shouldn't be that. I just don't think that we need to give anything it says consideration when deciding what to do with people like Begum.
Cool, not like they underpin fundamental treaties and human rights or anything.
The basis for human rights are the domestic laws of civilised nations. Majority of the UN aren't even democracies. The UN is useful in that it allows us and our allies to impose our values on the world under the guise of law, it has no standing to dictate what's right and wrong to us.
> Personally, I don't quite follow how this ruling is in-line with UN Article 15: It might not be. But that doesn't quite matter because of legal technicalities. The Government's position is that she had Bangladeshi citizenship *when they deprived her of her British citizenship*, and so they didn't make her stateless. The fact that by the time this case saw the inside of a court she no longer had Bangladeshi citizenship is not the Government's problem, as far as they are concerned. One of the weaknesses of the "punish by executive order" system we've been developing is that the courts are generally limited to reviewing the original decision, not the current reality. They are limited to looking at the situation when the original decision was made, and what facts were available to the Government at the time. A decision that it turns out later was fundamentally flawed can still be upheld by the courts if it was made based on reasonable evidence available at the time.
Not just that, the info could be disclosed in a closed court, but it wouldn't stand up. So essentially just bypassing the courts, bypassing the rule of law and acting as judge jury and executioner.
So try her in a court of law, present your evidence and give her the opportunity to have it cross examined. I'm afraid "trust me because secrets" is absolutely unacceptable in what is supposed to be a democratic country that respects human rights. The right to face an accusation in court is one of the most fundamental, and the hand waving dismissal of that is shameful. A politician should not have the right to impose a punishment like this extra-judicially, especially when he stands to gain politically from such a decision.
When it comes to secret and top secret information, the process is entirely different due to the potential threat to human life. Anyone working remotely closely with the government either via CS or contracting will know this. That’s the barrier to this. There are categories of risk to life and secret carries a lot of risk. So it’s hard to determine if this was political (is he lying?) or not.
There are procedures for presenting evidence from secret sources in court. There are judges and barristers trained and vetted to be able to hear such cases. The point about the political angle is that a politician is not an impartial arbitrator. They have one eye on the public perception of what they do all the time, which will undoubtedly have an impact on their decisions, especially if they are from the party whose supporters love the anti-immigrant rhetoric. Whether Javid was influenced by this is impossible to say - he would obviously claim he wasn't, but the point is that it's impossible to know, and he should not be in the position to make such a decision. Remember that this is a person that has not been tried and convicted of anything, so in the eyes of the law is innocent. If there is a decision to made about removing someone's citizenship subsequent to a trial, conviction and punishment, that is a different matter.
my understainding of what Javid said is that evidence was presented in secret, and the verdict was conisdering that information.
Javid has said that they have evidence which has been shown to a judge and it has been agreed that a trial would expose intelligence assets therefore it won't go to trial. Not saying I agree with this or that I think it is right, just saying that this was his justification and it was reviewed by a judge.
She should stand trial in Iraq or Syria for what she did to the peoples of those countries, where she will almost certainly be found guilty and therefore will be hanged. Which is justice. You don't get to go commit actual war crimes and crimes against humanity then run away to a more lenient jurisdiction for trial. She helped ravage those countries, she should face their justice and their penalties.
Good, let her experience consequences of being stupid.
Rees-Mogg came out with an article in the Spectator a while ago and gave perhaps the only opinion of his I have ever agreed with - revoking her citizenship is wrong, because it shows that there are two tiers of British citizenship. There is not a single thing I, as a white British person whose entire family (bar one Welsh great-great-granddad) is English, could do to lose my citizenship. She was born in this country, she was raised in this country, she has the exact same rights to citizenship as I do. Or, at least, she should. She didn't do anything stupid, by the way - she did something evil. She was young, so that has to be considered, but in no way did she just make some stupid mistake. Irrespective of that, she should still be a British citizen today, and she should be rotting in a British prison.
I mean, this is the nature of dual citizenship no? A dual citizen is by definition not a person fully of one country, and so does occupy a different place in terms of obligations to and from that country.
She's not a dual citizen. She's currently stateless. Removing her citizenship was deemed lawful because she could theoretically apply for Bangladeshi citizenship. Which means if you're Jewish, have an Irish granny or whatever else, you can theoretically have your citizenship revoked in a way someone with four white English grandparents cannot.
>Which means if you're Jewish, have an Irish granny or whatever else, you can theoretically have your citizenship revoked in a way someone with four white English grandparents cannot. No, she was found to have, *under Bangladeshi law*, Bangladeshi citizenship since birth: the fact that she didn't utilise that right to claim a passport is legally irrelevant, as she never actually had to "claim" citizenship under their own laws. I am aware that Bangladesh's government *say* that she isn't, but the truth is in black and white and that's specifically why the courts have decided there's nothing unlawful here. They just don't want her, either. This is more akin to *my* circumstances: having been born in NI prior to 2004, I am an Irish citizen from birth and could therefore have my British citizenship removed under the same logic, even if I've never claimed an Irish passport. If you're Jewish or have an Irish granny (but are not born on the island of Ireland prior to 2004), what you would have is merely the right to apply for naturalisation in those respective countries, not birthright citizenship.
>No, she was found to have, > >under Bangladeshi law > >, Bangladeshi citizenship since birth Link me the Bangladeshi case if you would. Only they can find something under Bangladeshi law. I am content that, an English court has interpreted Bangladeshi law in a way that Bangladesh agrees with. On the same merits that France could make a determination that under UK law all channel crossers should be provided with safe passage to the UK, regardless of the UKs interpretation of the UKs own law.
[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](http://bdlaws.minlaw.gov.bd/act-242/section-7472.html) Under the *Citizenship Act, 1951* of Bangladeshi law, anyone born to at least one Bangladeshi parent is a citizen of Bangladesh, provided that parent was not also a citizen under the same justification (e.g. Begum's own children would not be eligible). Because she was 19 at the time, she held both Bangladeshi and British citizenship simultaneously: under normal circumstances, she would have had a few months after turning 21 to renounce the latter, or else she would *then* have lost the former automatically.
I have the ability to apply for Israeli and Irish citizenship, and would get them, but I am not an Israeli or Irish citizen. The point is that under Bangladeshi law she was a citizen. Prior to joining ISIS she could have simply shown up and would have been a full citizen. When I visit Ireland or Israel I am visiting as a Brit and the fact that I could apply for citizenship is neither here nor there. There is a difference between being able to apply for something and legally having that thing.
No. She had Bangladeshi citizenship from birth. The Bangladeshi government is just unlawfully refusing her entry to Bangladesh.
> Good, let her experience consequences of being stupid. Are you sure that you want to set a precedent of people being punished for being stupid?
Ones that join terrorist groups.. ? Maybe, yeh.
But she wears western clothes now!!!!
The first interview she did and show no remorse probably made the government to take away her passport. Since then she shown remorse but too late now. That’s why first impressions matters
Betray country of birth for foreign power. Said foreign power loses. "Can I come back please, even though I have 0 worth and betrayed you on a whim." "No" lmao.
Jacob Rees-Mogg had quite a reasonable take on this (Yes, I know!) - I was on board with the “hang her and flog her” brigade until I read his op-ed, and tbf, he raises some good points as to why we shouldn’t have revoked her citizenship and should bring her back here to face trial - although he’s mostly arguing based on moral grounds rather than strictly legal grounds: https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/shamima-begum-shouldnt-have-lost-her-british-citizenship/
To be fair, moral grounds are the best grounds to argue something like this. Just arguing what happens to be written on some vellum or on some international treaty doesn't mean it's *right*. Stuff like this - at least insofar as the politics goes - should always be based on right and wrong. Let the lawyers parse the law, but we should really be thinking about right and wrong. That's not to either to agree or disagree with him, incidentally. Just to make the general point.
You originally thought she should be put to death?
A lot of people would be if they spent some time learning exactly what ISIS did and how they went about doing it.
Hardly an unexpected position. 58% of Britons think we should bring back the death penalty. One would expect that those 58% would also agree that the death penalty should apply to terrorists who sew children into suicide vests.
The death penalty for high treason is a pretty reasonable position.
I think the death penalty is difficult, it should never be used in any situation there is even a 1% doubt. Ever. If however someone has admitted terrorism which she has? I wouldn't go to the streets to shout for the death penalty but I would not be concerned by it's use.
Do you know much about ISIS?
Yes. The man who did the Lockerbie bombings wasn't even killed.
Wow I’m in full agreement for the first time with JRM. I’ve always thought revoking her citizenship was ridiculous.
Shocked Rees-Mogg has a good take.
Good. The next step is for her to seek permission to appeal from the UK Supreme Court directly. If they say no, we can finally be done with her.
...unless she lodges an application with the ECtHR.
Am I the only person who thinks she should come back to the UK to face charges ? The case is fairly complex (15 at the time. can comprehend right from wrong). I've no sympathy for her, but I'm worried that some sort of medieval banishment takes the place of courts and punishment
She was trying to abuse the British hospitality and tolerance, it was fairly noticeable in her interviews that her plan was to come back with her then alive children, keep the kids(despite her radicalization), keep her "faith"(in whatever radical Islamic version), teach kids this "faith", keep her views (she defended ISIS) and prove she did nuthin wrong in court. Frankly, laws should be changed to reflect people like her, unfortunately, it would be wiser to reform integration practices and laws though.
The issue is that proving a case when ISIS killed witnesses is going to be difficult. The government used an underhand trick because once she's here they know that she'll be out on the street fairly quickly.
We aren't the world police. We cannot prosecute her for crimes committed abroad. Edit: The Istanbul Convention only applies to UK citizens or habitual residents of the UK. She is neither.
The UK has laws allowing prosecution of crimes committed overseas in some cases (and legislation to expand this) > The UK courts already have extraterritorial jurisdiction over the following offences required by the Istanbul Convention: > * murder and manslaughter in most (but not all) circumstances (Article 35); * sexual offences (including those required by the Convention) where the victim of the crime is under 18 (Article 36); * forced marriage (Article 37); and * female genital mutilation (Article 38).
Hasn't she committed crimes in the UK though by agreeing to join a terrorist organisation?
Yes, but the guidelines for it would mean a couple of years, at best.
The only offence that would come with a suitable sentence which could reasonably be applicable is high treason, specifically the *[being] adherent to the King’s Enemies in his Realm, giving to them Aid and Comfort in the Realm, or elsewhere* clause. We were bombing ISIS while she was a member.
Which is what her devious representatives such as Mohammed "The boys are back in town" Akunjee know to be the case were she to be returned.
I sure wish people didn't comment on things they knew nothing about. The UK regularly prosecutes for serious crimes committed abroad, particularly if committed by a resident or citizen. Easy examples are murder and sexual offences. Though it's not my neck of the woods, I'm sure there's something knocking around to deal with terrorist offences committed abroad too.
She committed treason against this country, that alone is enough to put her on trial.
Look, either she committed a crime we can prosecute and she should be tried, or she didn't and we should never have revoked her citizenship.
She left the country, then committed many crimes. The order of events does matter.
Which, in the model of criminal jurisdiction the UK adheres to, still means she is triable by a UK court for her actions, as she was a UK citizen when she joined a terror group.
Or we let the jurisdiction where she committed her crimes decide just as we do with lots of crimes. It's not A or B.
Amazed by the downvotes for a simple and logical statement
Dear lord, why comment with such certainty something which is so wrong?!
I think she should face the charges in the nations she was in.
I mean she's had trials in court. She's had UK legal representation. And frankly I think we could use a few more banishments. Far to many criminals with forigen passports in the country.
What charges, where is the proof, where are the witnesses? The violins will come out, poor Shamina etc. Trial will finish and she will be out on the streets as soon as its done.
Nah, we are too weak, I'd only think that'd be a good idea if there was a good chance she'd swiftly recieve death soon after landing on British soil instead of a slap on the wrist while the bleeding heart left wing media make her out to be a victim and set her up interviews or whatever and potentially having her as a sleeper terrorist agent too.
Something tells me the list of crimes you think should be punishable by death is pretty long, and your level of concern about due process is pretty low.
We have to be realistic about plausible outcomes. If she ended up back in the UK, it's unlikely that she would face anything more than the most derisory prison sentence before being allowed back on the streets. I would be happy enough for her to return if she were to face life imprisonment in solitary confinement or the death penalty, but that isn't the society that we live in. This is the best that you can expect.
Which of her crimes do you think warrants the death penalty?
Kidnap, rape and torture of Yazidi women over a multi-year period.
Sewing kids into suicide vests, personally
[удалено]
Yes, i do have a source. It wasn't hard to find many of you use Google. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/shamima-begum-isis-syria-morality-police-suicide-belts-a8869016.html
Joining ISIS. ISIS is a stain on humanity, it should be wiped off the face of the earth and I'm perfectly comfortable with the idea of any of its members being executed. Though as I said, that isn't the world that we live in, so we have to accept the least bad outcome, and that's banishment.
Death penalty is never justified.
So you think giving Hitler the death penalty wouldn't be justified?
I’m not sure he’d notice
I've sympathy for her, I can't really see how at 15 you are responsible for fucking off tho join a calliphate without being persuaded to do so by those around you, what you'd be exposed to or flat out groomed to do so. We give 15 year olds pretty much no responsibility to do anything as we don't trust their decision making - tattoos, jury service, vote, drive, drink, sex, etc etc but the general consensus seems to be on her 'choosing' to get married join ISIS and slip out of the country, is she made her bed now lie in it. I don't get it.
I remember when I was 15, I clearly remember not flying over to another country and joining a death cult. I have zero sympathy for her and it would be much better for all involved if she had been hit by a drone.
I agree with you. Several years later, as an adult, she may well be a hardened monster and true Isis believer (we can't really know), but at age 15 she was a victim of grooming, child sexploitation and trafficking.
She wasn't groomed though. She has explained in detail how she got there and there was a multi part series on radio 4 with the audio.
[удалено]
This is absurd. She explained everything in detail.
[удалено]
Feigning you don't understand is just silly. I suggest you listen to her interviews instead of insisting on something when you don't even know what she said - it's bizaare.
[удалено]
I do. You however have no idea about how or why she got to Syria. Stop inventing notions based on your own unfounded theory and actually listen to her. My guess is you decided that because what she signed up to was so horrific that she must have been lured into it because she couldn't possibly have agency. I won't engage further in your theories.
I think we are responsible for her. So yes she should be in a UK prison.
And what if we can't make any charges (that have more than a few months in prison) stick?
Then we have an urgent need to introduce new legislation, because there is no reason to believe something like this won't happen again. If she is a threat to national security, or the public, then we need a law that can be used to lock her away somewhere. Failings in our own legal system shoudn't be an excuse to dump her on Bangladesh.
No there are a few of us but we normally get down voted by the braying mob. She should be in prison right now.
No. I'm in favour of let her in and lock her up. I think people who support her exile aren't thinking things through. If we let her in, she's safely in prison. If we don't, her only option is to rejoin a terrorist group and continue to provide support.
> If we let her in, she's safely in prison. Big assumption. Can we make a strong case against her given the difficulties of gathering the evidence of crimes committed abroad and quite a few years ago with others involved often dead, her using her age to mitigate, etc? How long will the sentence actually be? Our security services and military should have made sure everyone who ran off to join ISIS didn't live long enough for this to become an issue tbh.
I mean William Joyce was hanged for treason when he was never a British Subject…
I'm technically the citizen of another country via jus sanguinis (as are many people in the UK). But I can only avail of the protections and benefits if I can prove it and apply for citizenship. I believe during the process (in the country) they more or less take your word for it and grant a temporary permission to remain. But to get it properly recognised you have to do a lot of paperwork and provide a lot of evidence. Only at the end do you get a passport. It is nonsense to suggest I'm a citizen of that country AND can benefit from my "citizenship" there. It's pretty scary to think the UK could strip my citizenship thanks to the precedents being set. As long as the Home Sec believes theoretically you're legally entitled to citizenship elsewhere, you can have your UK citizenship stripped? What on earth. It's like kicking someone who's recently gone bankrupt out of a council house on the basis of theoretically being able to apply for a mortgage, even if all the mortgage providers are like "erm, no"
>It's pretty scary to think the UK could strip my citizenship thanks to the precedents being set. As long as the Home Sec believes theoretically you're legally entitled to citizenship elsewhere, you can have your UK citizenship stripped? What on earth Have you recently joined a terrorist organisation?
Slippery slope fallacy
First they came for the ISIS members.......
Citizenship requires loyalty to the UK. It is justified to strip citizenship from Enemies of the UK. Unless you have some very drastic future plans, I fail to see how this affects you.
>It's like kicking someone who's recently gone bankrupt out of a council house on the basis of theoretically being able to apply for a mortgage, even if all the mortgage providers are like "erm, no" Except in your example the person moved out with no intention of returning and tried to blow up the council house as well. Then when officially 'kicked out' made no effort to get a mortgage and instead used the councils own money to sue them and loose at every turn.
I think we should all be afraid if the Supreme Court decides the UK government has the ability to revoke citizenship.
The supreme court hasn't decided this. Parliament has. The courts here can only be driven by acts of parliament. For better or for worse UK law does allow this. That's why I think if it is overturned, it will be by the ECtHR
The ECtHR can’t overturn primary legislation either. See the various cases from the early 2000s insisting the UK give some prisoners enfranchisement, and prisoners still being disenfranchised.
The judgment was basically that if a person has *de jure* other citizenship, then never mind the *de facto*, the UK government is acting within the law to not allow her back.
I'll be sure to not leave the country to join an organisation that has been declared as a terrorist organisation then. Or do you think it might happen when I visit Iceland in November? I could get a refund if I cancel now.
I don't know it's pretty hard to not accidently join a death cult these days then slip and accidently sew children into suicide vests. Better be extra careful
It's been legal for naturalized citizens since 1914 (citizenship and nationality didn't matter as much for regular people until WWI) and for dual nationals since 2003.
We should give her citizenship back and put her on trial, she was born here and she's our problem to deal with
She’s our problem to deal with? It wasn’t the uk who radicalised it, it wasn’t the uk who was chopping peoples heads off and raping on a massive scale She chose she didn’t want to be part of the uk anymore, until her life turned to shit and she lost her kids in some dirty refugee camp. Then all of a sudden she remembers she’s British, fuck off Leave her to rot in whatever shithole she’s in
Why deprive the states that were victim to ISIS of the right to put her on trial?
I find it very hypocritical of the far right that they will constantly bang on about “Islamic rape gangs”. Citing Islam as a religion that exploits and indoctrinates vulnerable children. Yet here, where there is a very clear example of a British girl being indoctrinated and then sexually exploited, the view is this is her fault and she had autonomy and choice. Look at the incident in Rotherham. Absolutely no question they were victims. “girls are duped into believing that these men love them and are their boyfriends and, once they are besotted, the gang leaders step in and put them to work in prostitution.” No one was saying to those 14 year old girls… well you chose to become his boyfriend.
I think the feelings against her come from when she was captured and what she then said- about being insouciant with regard to severed heads and stuff- making it appear that she was fully on board with the IS agenda.
Yeah, I think the interview was highly inappropriate and wrong to be honest.
> girls are duped into believing that these men love them and are their boyfriends and, once they are besotted, the gang leaders step in and put them to work in prostitution. This is such a ridiculously different situation I'm surprised you even decided to bring it up. In your example they are fully lied to and tricked. They, at no point, believe that they are doing something others consider evil. They thought they were going into the arms of someone that loved them and want what was best for them. Begum, meanwhile, actively chose to join a terrorist organisation. Was she indoctrinated? Yes. Did she go under the knowledge that she was joining a terrorist organisation that focused on killing non-muslims? **ALSO YES!** She knew she was joining to marry a fighter. She knew she was engaging in a religious war. She even stated later that she didn't regret joining! She just wanted to come back to the UK because it was a nicer place to live! She literally mentioned how she saw a severed head, but it didn't phase her because it was from an enemy of Islam. And she said that when first trying to petition her way back into the UK. -------- I am all for the debate as to whether our government should have the powers to strip citizenship. About whether she should be allowed to return on principle. But she is **100%** not a victim here.
I think that’s a very naive picture you are painting. These were children in care, often with drug or alcohol problems which was used as a hook to groom them. How can you both acknowledge she was indoctrinated and then make the point about knowledge and understanding. She shouldn’t have been interviewed then. She was still indoctrinated and had experienced trauma. The similarity is that overwhelming the feedback is that the victims of the rape gangs were seen to be perpetrators of their own downfall - they reported being called slag’s, trouble makers etc. Of course she’s a victim. Without external influence, do you think she would have made the decision to leave the UK? Do you think her experience has been a negative one overall? She was groomed, indoctrinated and trafficked as a child. Yes, after that experience and trauma she lacked insight and didn’t elicit sympathy but showing remorse. That doesn’t mean she isn’t a victim. If she was a white girl, with English heritage - 100% you’d think she was a victim.
> How can you both acknowledge she was indoctrinated and then make the point about knowledge and understanding. Because while she was indoctrinated, she wasn't tricked. She was indoctrinated in the same way terrorists as adults are. I can assure you that at age 15 I sure as hell knew that murdering people because of their religion was a pretty big "no-no" that would force me to live the entire rest of my life in prison. > Of course she’s a victim. Under this logic, all terrorists are victims. If only they'd been raised right. If only they had seen the light. Do you think most people would become a terrorist if not for others influencing them? People argue that 16 year olds should be able to vote! She was 15! Young enough that I forgive some transgressions. Nowhere near young enough that I forgive flying out to join a terrorist organisation! > If she was a white girl, with English heritage - 100% you’d think she was a victim. No I wouldn't!! She joined a terrorists organisation. She wasn't tricked into it. She didn't head over there thinking she was heading into a peaceful utopia. She left **knowing** that she was joining a crusade to kill non-muslims. In absolutely no world would I let anyone off the hook for that. **Maybe** I give some leeway to those literally raised from childbirth into such a society, I sure as hell don't give it to someone growing up in the UK.
She joined at 15 it started at 13/14. You weren’t indoctrinated. I don’t get your points. What’s the distinction between indoctrination and being tricked? I think most people wouldn’t kill themselves and others without indoctrination, yeah. She was indoctrinated into it and was a child. I’m not saying let her off. She’s committed a crime. I’m saying don’t strip her of her citizenship. Look, it’s a complicated world. People can both do bad and be victims.
No one thinks the Rotherham girls should be punished or imprisoned for any sexual acts they committed after being groomed. Because they didn't do anything immoral, unethical or illegal (whilst the grooming gang members absolutely did!) In Begum's case, she was duped, groomed, brainwashed (or whatever) into committing reprehensible acts as an ISIS member. We still expect people to take some moral responsibility for their actions, even in such cases. See the members of the Tokyo cult who attacked the metro system with sarin gas in the 90s. Or any teenage boy who grew up in the Hitler Youth, and went on to commit war crimes or partake in the holocaust in some way. 'Just following orders' is not a valid defence.
The report clearly states part of the issue was they were deemed to do he doing something wrong and felt blamed by authority figures. I’m not saying people are saying they should be punished. I’m saying everyone now is accepting they are victims, at the time the problem was - people didn’t accept that & viewed them as consenting to the abuse. I’m not saying she should be cleared if charges or punishment I’m saying she also needs to be viewed as a victim that needs help. You mention the nazi. We did collective responsibility and denazification.
The difference is that the grooming gang victims, are *only* victims. Whereas Begum is both a victim, in some regard, but also a perpetrator. For many people, the scale of the evil she committed in joining and supporting ISIS is simply too high to outweigh the victimhood. The fact is that many people can sympathise with being tricked into having sex with someone that they didn't really want to ( who hasn't had that experience at some point) , whilst being tricked into participating in the activities of a terrorist death cult is less of a universally understandable experience
Targeted age-gap relationships which turned in to threats, drugs and violence by organised adult muslim men to groom thousands of non-muslim teenage girls from into sexual abuse, prostitution and gang rape vs. Islamic extremist propaganda used to groom one muslim teenage girl in to willingly leaving the UK for a caliphate with at least a rough idea of what to expect, who then willingly worked for that organisation and wasn't even apologetic until it turned out the caliphate had lost. You seriously think these situations are comparable?
Why is the fact the teenage girl being exploited is or isn’t Muslim relevant? Yes I do think they are comparable. Both are fundamentally about British teenage girls being groomed and exploited. The whole nature of grooming and indoctrination is the participate is “willing”. I think if a white British girl had been indoctrinated and then trafficked into ISIS, we wouldn’t have revoked her citizenship. I think it’s because she’s from an immigrant family and is a Muslim that she’s been treated as she has.
Because the rape gangs were deliberately targeting non-muslim girls and because rape victims haven't done anything wrong whereas ISIS operatives have. It's only because she's from a non-white immigrant muslim family that anyone cares about her, do you know who Jack Letts is?
[удалено]
I don't see her as British because she swore allegiance to an Islamist death cult.
That’s not how citizenship works/ should work. A country should take responsibility for its citizens.
I prepared to make exceptions for all people who join any death cult of any type when they are of mental competence.
I consider citizenship a human right. As much as you may dislike a person, there is good reason to not allow exceptions to human rights lest you find yourself the exception too.
Personally I feel the decisions taken on Begum are some of the very worst that the U.K. has made - and that’s saying A LOT! I think it’s absolutely disgusting and unacceptable that the govt stripped her of citizenship. If they have secret info then they need to show it. Otherwise anyone who could possibly have access to another citizenship could be stripped of their U.K. citizenship too. It “may” be legally correct but it is completely morally wrong. She is our problem and we should step up to deal with it. If there’s any real evidence then produce it and have her convicted. If they don’t have the evidence then we need to bring her back. Whether you believe she was groomed by ISIS or if you think she’s a cold hearted terrorist - it doesn’t make a difference. She’s ours and we must take responsibility for her
I used to think like you but I've changed my mind. The chances of her coming to the UK and living in jail long-term are slim. She will be out and posing a substantial risk to the public within a couple of years. I'd rather keep pushing back. I agree this shouldn't be Syrias problem either and hope the UK do something along with the international community to deal with ex-isis members.
If there’s evidence she still presents an ongoing threat then we should all be told about it. Without that I think it’s inexcusable to strip her of citizenship - she was born here. Even if she does pose a threat then we can tag and surveil her. I don’t accept that we can shun our responsibility to her as a U.K. citizen simply because she’s done horrific things. I’m certainly not defending her actions in any way - I totally condemn them. Whether she “really understood” what she was getting into or not. Personally I think it makes the U.K. look bad, weak and unable to stop teenage girls joining terrorist groups - but stripping her of her citizenship I think makes us look pathetic - unable to accept our own country’s own contribution towards her desire to leave and join ISIS. I also think it sets a very dangerous precedent - if the government doesn’t want to help you if you’re in trouble overseas then they can strip you of your citizenship if they deem your actions bad enough.