British IS schoolgirl 'wants to return home'

[maomao]

There's plenty of reasons to object to the state's actions, here. But I find it bizarre that people think the UK public should have to bear the risk of her return because of an accident of birth (her British nationality), but that it's objectionable that she should bear the risk of another accident of birth (her Bangladeshi citizenship), when that risk wouldn't have arisen but for her choice to join a gang of murdering, rapist slavers!

So you think that a person (not Begum, who I've already said on this thread should be dealt with by local law) who has Bangladeshi parents but has never left the UK is equally Bangladeshi and British? That nationality is just a legal fact?

 

[Athos]

So you think that a person (not Begum, who I've already said on this thread should be dealt with by local law) who has Bangladeshi parents but has never left the UK is equally Bangladeshi and British? That nationality is just a legal fact?

Nationality is a binary legal status. You are a national or your not. So, insofar as someone is a citizen of each of them (according to the law), then, yes, I think they're as British as they are Bangladeshi. (That's me saying what it is, rather than my thoughts on whether the essentially discriminatory concept of nationality should be 'a thing', btw.)

 

[maomao]

Nationality is a binary legal status. You are a national or your not. So, insofar as someone is a citizen of each of them (according to the law), then, yes, I think they're as British as they are Bangladeshi. (That's me saying what it is, rather than my thoughts on whether the essentially discriminatory concept of nationality should be 'a thing', btw.)

I'm asking your opinion as a human. If I wanted a cheap and unreliable legal opinion I still have four days of my JustAnswer trial left. The position you consistently take is your expressed opinion.

 

[Athos]

I'm asking your opinion as a human. If I wanted a cheap and unreliable legal opinion I still have four days of my JustAnswer trial left. The position you consistently take is your expressed opinion.

But you're asking my opinion on a question of law. Which is a matter of fact, not opinion. If what you really mean is "what should the law say about the nationality of those people?", I'd say there should be no law and no nationality.

 

[maomao]

But you're asking my opinion on a question of law. Which is a matter of fact, not opinion. If what you really mean is "what should the law say about the nationality of those people?", I'd say there should be no law and no nationality.

Where have I ever asked your opinion on a matter of law? It's a question of morality. You've cheered on the racist state enacting a racist law even offering the paper thin cover of 'it can't be racist because it happened to a white bloke too'. My position is that it's racist and morally wrong. You don't get to argue against that and then pretend you're above the moral argument because you don't believe in nationalities really or some guff.

 

[Athos]

Where have I ever asked your opinion on a matter of law?

When you said:

So you think that a person (not Begum, who I've already said on this thread should be dealt with by local law) who has Bangladeshi parents but has never left the UK is equally Bangladeshi and British?

Because the question of whether or not someone is British and/or Bangladeshi is a legal one. (Albeit the question of how they should be considered is a moral one. )

You've cheered on the racist state enacting a racist law...

I've not cheered it on; I said from the outset I'd have preferred if she'd not been stripped of her British nationality, and repeatedly said that decision can be criticised/should be challenged on a number of bases. And I've said that (like you) I'd have preferred her to have been tried locally.

You're arguing against a figment of your imagination.

 

[maomao]

When you said:
Because whether or not someone is British or Bangladeshi is a legal one. (Albeit the question of how they should be considered is a moral one. )




I've not cheered it on; I said from the outset I'd have preferred if she'd not been stripped of her British nationality, and repeatedly said that decision can be criticised/should be challenged on a number of bases. And I've said that (like you) I'd have preferred her to have been tried locally.

You're arguing against a figment of your imagination.

You've edited the sense out of my post (and added a random word). I was clearly asking for your opinion on Britishness and Bangladeshiness other than as a legal status. So not asking your legal opinion at all. I don't know why I would. I have no idea who you are or what your CV is.

And you've announced several times on this thread that in your opinion it's not a racist law, implying as usual that your opinion has some sort of legal weight.

 

[freakydave]

There's plenty of reasons to object to the state's actions, here. But I find it bizarre that people think the UK public should have to bear the risk of her return because of an accident of birth (her British nationality), but that it's objectionable that she should bear the risk of another accident of birth (her Bangladeshi citizenship), when that risk wouldn't have arisen but for her choice to join a gang of murdering, rapist slavers!

The last part is clearly the problem. That is a value judgement and should not be relevant. ISIS are unpopular now, but it took The Beatles years to get recognised, nobody knows how things will look in the future, that is why law is meant to be objective

 

[Athos]

You've edited the sense out of my post (and added a random word). I was clearly asking for your opinion on Britishness and Bangladeshiness other than as a legal status. So not asking your legal opinion at all. I don't know why I would. I have no idea who you are or what your CV is.

And you've announced several times on this thread that in your opinion it's not a racist law, implying as usual that your opinion has some sort of legal weight.

I've not edited the sense out of it; it was missing from the original.

And the meaning of your question wasn't clear at all.

I don't think the law is racist*, since, in principle it applies equally regardless of race, and, in practice has been applied to white people in every eligible case of which I'm aware.

*albeit is is discriminatory, as is anything based on nationality.

 

[Athos]

The last part is clearly the problem. That is a value judgement and should not be relevant. ISIS are unpopular now, but it took The Beatles years to get recognised, nobody knows how things will look in the future, that is why law is meant to be objective

The idea that bourgeois law is objective is hopelessly naive.

 

[freakydave]

The idea that bourgeois law is objective is hopelessly naive.

oh come on now. that sounds clever and rebellious but it's actually just a refutation of logic and reason. sort of thing Alaister Crowley would say to justify his Jimmy Saville tendencies

These shitty humanist things are all we have. They are not finished but they are better than nowt

 

[maomao]

I've not edited the sense out of it; it was missing from the original.

And the meaning of your question wasn't clear at all.

I don't think the law is racist, since, in principle it applies equally regardless of race, and, in practice has been applied to white people in every eligible case of which I'm aware.

So a law can only be racist if it exclusively affects black or brown people. You can't think of any examples at all of racist laws that affect some white people?

 

[Athos]

oh come on now. that sounds clever and rebellious but it's actually just a refutation of logic and reason. sort of thing Alaister Crowley would say to justify his Jimmy Saville tendencies

It's really not. The people who make law do so in their own interests.

 

[Athos]

So a law can only be racist if it exclusively affects black or brown people. You can't think of any examples at all of racist laws that affect some white people?

Of course not. But this law doesn't discriminate on racial grounds, either on the face of it or in the way its been applied.

 

[maomao]

Of course not. But this law doesn't discriminate on racial grounds, either on the face of it or in the way its been applied.

So it's been applied to people without dual nationality then?

 

[Athos]

So it's been applied to people without dual nationality then?

No, it can't be. But nationality and race are different.

 

[freakydave]

It's really not. The people who make law do so in their own interests.

The law is not finished or infallible but there is a principle of reason behind it that gives it legitimacy. Of course people do things in their own interests, this is getting very 6th form

 

[freakydave]

Honestly, I've been posting on here for ages and just not enjoying it. Just kill her and let us move on

 

[Athos]

The law is not finished or infallible but there is a principle of reason behind it that gives it legitimacy.

This is meaningless platitude.

 

[strung out]

This is a pretty clear example of indirect racial discrimination isn't it? A law that discriminates on the basis of dual nationality, holders of which are people likely to be non-white than white.

 

[maomao]

This is a pretty clear example of indirect racial discrimination isn't it? A law that discriminates on the basis of dual nationality, holders of which are people likely to be non-white than white.

And the racists know to make exceptions for the Aussies and the Americans. It doesn't threaten them because they already have status in UK society. All they have to do is not be terrorists. But it drums in that people in marginalised communities aren't like us. They don't have the same rights. It marginalise them further even if they're not terrorists.

 

[Athos]

This is a pretty clear example of indirect racial discrimination isn't it? A law that discriminates on the basis of dual nationality, holders of which are people likely to be non-white than white.

Are they?

 

[LDC]

This is a pretty clear example of indirect racial discrimination isn't it? A law that discriminates on the basis of dual nationality, holders of which are people likely to be non-white than white.

Why are they more likely to be non-white than white? Be interested to see that statistics, I'd have thought the other way tbh.

 

[strung out]

Are they?

Yep

 

[Athos]

Yep

Do you have any evidence of that?

 

[strung out]

Do you have any evidence of that?

I'm astounded you could think that white people in this country are more likely to have dual nationality than people of colour.

 

[Athos]

I'm astounded you could think that white people in this country are more likely to have dual nationality than people of colour.

Why? Given how many more white people there are. There must be some stats.

 

[LDC]

I'm astounded you could think that white people in this country are more likely to have dual nationality than people of colour.

I'm astounded you think it's that certain given that 80% of the UK is white.

Ethnicity and religion statistics - Institute of Race Relations

These statistics have been collated from a variety of different sources, which have differing ways of categorising and describing ‘race’ and ethnicity. (For example, some sources differentiate between particular black ‘groups’ whilst others do not. Some sources may just use the term Asian...

www.irr.org.uk

 

[strung out]

Why? Given how many more white people there are. There must be some stats.

I worded my first post poorly. People of colour are proportionally more likely to be dual nationals and thus affected by this law than white people. Of course in absolute numbers might be different. It doesn't make the indirect discrimination any more real

 

[strung out]

I'm astounded you think it's that certain given that 80% of the UK is white.

Ethnicity and religion statistics - Institute of Race Relations

These statistics have been collated from a variety of different sources, which have differing ways of categorising and describing ‘race’ and ethnicity. (For example, some sources differentiate between particular black ‘groups’ whilst others do not. Some sources may just use the term Asian...

www.irr.org.uk

Did you know more white people are killed by police than black people? That's the same hole you and Athos are going down.