Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

British IS schoolgirl 'wants to return home'

Pickman's model said:
There are good reasons for the Americans to fear Canada Reasons to Fear Canada
Click to expand...

That link is fucking funny. :D

Excessive politeness only makes sense as cover for something truly sinister. But what?

Decriminalization of marijuana and acceptance of gay marriage without corresponding collapse of social institutions indicate Canada may, in fact, be indestructible.
Click to expand...
 
littlebabyjesus said:
You choose to interpret their law as meaning that even those it has no idea exist are citizens. That is at best questionable and something to be tested in a Bangladeshi court.
Click to expand...

Is it "questionable"? Bangladeshi law seems quite straightforward on that point, and the idea that those born to Bangladeshi parents are automatically Bangladeshi citizens seems to have been accepted a number of times by English courts.

In any event, it doesn't need to be tested in Bangladesh for the English courts to make a finding of fact about Bangladeshi law; that's not how English courts deal with questions of foreign law.
 
But to be honest, it doesn't have to be a meritorious argument for her to get what she wants i.e. back to the UK. She knows that if she can get back under the pretext of there being a valid appeal which can't be fairly conducted in her absence, she's safe - she could never be sent back, or to Bangladesh, or elsewhere. She'd probably be locked up for a while whilst there were wranglings, but, eventually, she'll be released. And HMG know that, too, and so I'm sure will be looking to appeal.
 
Spymaster said:
They've already said they are, and applied for the last decision to be stayed pending their appeal. So she'll stay where she is, at least for the time being.
Click to expand...

It doesn't have permission to appeal, yet, and may not get it. It'll have to demonstrate a significant failing in the Appeal Court's reasoning, and, although I haven't read the judgement yet, it's hard to see what's wrong in law with the proposation that the right to a fair trial trumps other concerns.
 
Athos said:
Is it "questionable"? Bangladeshi law seems quite straightforward on that point, and the idea that those born to Bangladeshi parents are automatically Bangladeshi citizens seems to have been accepted a number of times by English courts.

In any event, it doesn't need to be tested in Bangladesh for the English courts to make a finding of fact about Bangladeshi law; that's not how English courts deal with questions of foreign law.
Click to expand...
Two separate things here. 1. Automatic right to citizenship, or 2. Automatically is a citizen. Can the latter be enforced by a UK court?

Where we are talking about somebody the Bangladeshi authorities have no knowledge of, we are in the rarefied territory of a hypothetical citizenship that nobody knows exists, least of all the person in question - and can that mean they are a citizen, even without the knowledge of either them or the state they're supposesdly a citizen of? That could be tested in a UK court, and there could be various angles to take for it - it's very obviously discriminatory, for starters, and it is de facto racist. If this case were ever to make it to the Supreme Court, I would be utterly astounded if that court reached any conclusion other than that this is a discriminatory position and that a person with no knowledge of their hypothetical citizenship of a place they've never been to cannot be forced to accept that citizenship against their will. Probably will never end up there, but I'll take a £50 to the server fund bet with anyone here that this would be struck down by the Supreme Court, which would deem the UK to have acted in such a way as to make a person stateless and thus acted against its own rules.
 
littlebabyjesus said:
... a person with no knowledge of their hypothetical citizenship of a place they've never been to cannot be forced to accept that citizenship against their will.
Click to expand...

This is where you're going wrong. She isn't being forced to accept Bangladeshi citizenship. Bangladeshi law automatically confers that citizenship upon her until she is 21 (after which she has to apply to retain it). So the issue is, did the revocation of her British citizenship render her stateless, to which the answer must be no, as found by the SIAC hearing.
 
Spymaster said:
This is where you're going wrong. She isn't being forced to accept Bangladeshi citizenship. Bangladeshi law automatically confers that citizenship upon her until she is 21 (after which she has to apply to retain it). So the issue is did the revocation of her British citizenship render her stateless, to which the answer must be no, as found by the SIAC hearing.
Click to expand...
Oh yes she is. Her lack knowledge of that state of affairs and lack of consent to it is key. That's clearly discriminatory towards British citizens who happen to have relations in countries with this kind of provision. And as I said, it is de facto racist as it puts thousands of British citizens in a position where they are considered dual nationals and treated differently because of that fact due purely to their ethnicity.

I'm amazed you don't see this, tbh. There are different angles to attack this from in court, and 'it's racist' is a pretty strong one. Other parts of the law are then pulled in. You also shouldn't disregard the power of 'natural justice'. This is clearly unjust, and that does matter in higher courts - they'll find a way to rule against it if they can if they feel that is the best way to serve natural justice. Anyway, take my £50 bet.
 
Last edited:
littlebabyjesus said:
Oh yes she is. Her lack knowledge of that state of affairs and lack of consent to it is key. That's clearly discriminatory towards British citizens who happen to have relations in countries with this kind of provision. And as I said, it is de facto racist as it puts thousands of British citizens in a position where they are considered dual nationals and treated differently because of that fact due purely to their ethnicity.

I'm amazed you don't see this, tbh. There are different angles to attack this from in court, and 'it's racist' is a pretty strong one. Other parts of the law are then pulled in. Anyway, take my £50 bet.
Click to expand...

So you've now changed your position from 'she isn't a Bangladeshi citizen' to 'she's a Bangladeshi citizen but because she didn't know about it, it shouldn't count'.

Is that correct?
 
Athos said:
But to be honest, it doesn't have to be a meritorious argument for her to get what she wants i.e. back to the UK. She knows that if she can get back under the pretext of there being a valid appeal which can't be fairly conducted in her absence, she's safe - she could never be sent back, or to Bangladesh, or elsewhere. She'd probably be locked up for a while whilst there were wranglings, but, eventually, she'll be released. And HMG know that, too, and so I'm sure will be looking to appeal.
Click to expand...

If she's lucky she can do her jail time during the other legal wranglings. They are looking to appeal btw.
 
Spymaster said:
So you've now changed your position from 'she isn't a Bangladeshi citizen' to 'she's a Bangladeshi citizen but because she didn't know about it, it shouldn't count'.

Is that correct?
Click to expand...
I haven't changed my position at all. She says she isn't a Bangladeshi citizen, and so does the Bangladeshi government. The UK government is declaring her to be a Bangladeshi citizen against her will and against her knowledge and without a single record of that 'fact' anywhere either in the UK or in Bangladesh, and also against the will and knowledge of the Bangladeshi government. It's also the case that this ruling is discriminatory and de facto racist, which changes the legal status of thousands of British people at one fell swoop. In a court, you go with the argument that you can win with - there may be more than one to choose from. The men previously in court over this went with the 'we're over 21, so it doesn't count' argument and won. But that doesn't mean that they'd have lost if they had happened to be under 21. That case wasn't presented - didn't need to be.
 
Smokeandsteam said:
Christ. Rape jokes and now whataboutery using child rape victims. The sewers are being lifted today.
Click to expand...
equationgirl said:
Can the rape stuff please be stopped on this thread? Thanks.
Click to expand...

It is not rape jokes, it is satire, and fairly to the point:

“Shamima Begum has been groomed to join a terrorist organisation, marry a man at the age of 15 and then gave birth to several children, all of which have died."
 
“If a white girl had been through all that before the age of 20 then I’m pretty sure we’d be looking at universal sympathy.

“But she’s a Bangladeshi-British girl with a headscarf on. So ‘sod her’ seems to be the consensus, which is wrong.”
 
littlebabyjesus said:
She says she isn't a Bangladeshi citizen, and so does the Bangladeshi government.
Click to expand...
What she says is neither here nor there. What the Bangladeshi government says, one would think should hold weight but their position is directly opposed to what their own law says. This isn't really in dispute any more (except by the Bangladeshi government and you it seems).
The UK government is declaring her to be a Bangladeshi citizen against her will and against her knowledge ...
Click to expand...
No. They are not. The UK government are saying 'under Bangladeshi law she is automatically a citizen of that country. Therefore revoking her British citizenship does not de jure, make her stateless'.
It's also the case that this ruling is discriminatory and de facto racist.
Click to expand...
Which ruling? The SIAC one said that pulling her citizenship didn't make her stateless, which is a statement of fact.
 
littlebabyjesus said:
Two separate things here. 1. Automatic right to citizenship, or 2. Automatically is a citizen. Can the latter be enforced by a UK court?

Where we are talking about somebody the Bangladeshi authorities have no knowledge of, we are in the rarefied territory of a hypothetical citizenship that nobody knows exists, least of all the person in question - and can that mean they are a citizen, even without the knowledge of either them or the state they're supposesdly a citizen of? That could be tested in a UK court, and there could be various angles to take for it - it's very obviously discriminatory, for starters, and it is de facto racist. If this case were ever to make it to the Supreme Court, I would be utterly astounded if that court reached any conclusion other than that this is a discriminatory position and that a person with no knowledge of their hypothetical citizenship of a place they've never been to cannot be forced to accept that citizenship against their will. Probably will never end up there, but I'll take a £50 to the server fund bet with anyone here that this would be struck down by the Supreme Court, which would deem the UK to have acted in such a way as to make a person stateless and thus acted against its own rules.
Click to expand...

The English courts have decided that, under Bangladeshi law people born of Bangladeshi parents are automatically Bangladeshi nationals until the age of 21. English courts decide questions of foreign law as questions of fact; for the purposes of deciding whether or not she is a Bangladeshi citizen insafar as that's relevant to the application of English law, no decision by a Bangladeshi court is required, and comments by Bangladeshi politicians are irrelevant.

It's not hypothetical citizenship; it's legal citizenship, as is all citizenship by birth. A child born in secret in the UK doesn't know they're a UK citizen, and neither does the state, but they are.

And all citizenship is racist insofar as it descriminates against peole based on their nationality!

I'm willing to bet £50 to the server fund that, if English courts ultimately decide that the Home Secretary acted unlawfully, it won't be on the basis that her being a Bangladeshi citizen (under the application of Bangladeshi law) is discriminatory. (It'll be on the basis of deviation from the practice of extra-territorial application of articles 2 and 3 ECHR, or that she's not threat.)

Honestly, that's the weakest part of her case; as you'll see from the judgement in the Court of Appeal (https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/WP-Begum-Judgment-NCN.pdf), she sought judicial review of the decision not to grant her Leave to Enter (to pursue her case), and two of the three preliminary findings of the SIAC - it's finding that she wasn't made stateless is the only thing she didn't seek to judicially review.
 
Last edited:
Athos said:
The English courts have decided that, under Bangladeshi law people born of Bangladeshi parents are automatically Bangladeshi nationals until the age of 21. English courts decide questions of foreign law as questions of fact; for the purposes of deciding whether or not she is a Bangladeshi citizen insafar as that's relevant to the application of English law, no decision by a Bangladeshi court is required, and comments by Bangladeshi politicians are irrelevant.

It's not hypothetical citizenship; it's legal citizenship, as is all citizenship by birth. A child born in secret in the UK doesn't know they're a UK citizen, and neither does the state, but they are.

And all citizenship is racist insofar as it descriminates against peole based on their nationality!

I'm willing to bet £50 to the server fund that, if English courts ultimately decide that the Home Secretary acted unlawfully, it won't be on the basis that her being a Bangladeshi citizen (under the application of Bangladeshi law) is discriminatory. (It'll be on the basis of deviation from the practice of extra-territorial application of articles 2 and 3 ECHR.)

Honestly, that's the weakest part of her case; as you'll see from the judgement in the Court of Appeal (https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/WP-Begum-Judgment-NCN.pdf), she sought judicial review of the decision not to grant her Leave to Enter (to pursue her case), and two of the three preliminary findings of the SIAC - it's finding that she wasn't made stateless is the only thing she didn't seek to judicially review.
Click to expand...
We'll have to disagree about it being weak. It's clearly discriminatory and racist. If they don't take that line in court, then the bet will be off, as that particular aspect of it won't have been tested.
 
littlebabyjesus said:
We'll have to disagree about it being weak. It's clearly discriminatory and racist. If they don't take that line in court, then the bet will be off, as that particular aspect of it won't have been tested.
Click to expand...
They won't. The government is bulletproof on it. As Athos says to win this appeal they will have to successfully argue something else.
 
Last edited:
Bahnhof Strasse said:
It is not rape jokes, it is satire, and fairly to the point:

“Shamima Begum has been groomed to join a terrorist organisation, marry a man at the age of 15 and then gave birth to several children, all of which have died."
Click to expand...

Its bollocks is what it is. Firstly, using the the victims of rape gangs for ‘satire’ is vile. Another example of how worthless their lives are, that they can be summoned up as satire to make a shit political point.

Secondly, the aim: a blatant attempt to draw some sort of moral equivalence. To absolve Begum of any kind of personal responsibility and to suggest everything is just completely determined by external conditions is just garbage. The attempt to portray those who question that piss poor logic as racist thickos isn’t worthy of debate
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Humberto
British Empire and Slave Trade Reparations
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
156
Views
6K
krtek a houby
krtek a houby
Humberto
Home Building Labour guff
Replies
1
Views
288
Humberto
Humberto
PTK
British Army Death Squad Soldiers to be Prosecuted
Replies
4
Views
655
PTK
PTK
B
Sunak wants to phase out legal smoking
16 17 18 19 20
Replies
584
Views
20K
moochedit
moochedit
D
Kemi Badenoch’s time is up!
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
156
Views
5K
brogdale
brogdale
Back
Top Bottom