Athos
Well-Known Member
Were they stripped under that provision, then? Because, if that made him stateless, then that'd be unlawful.
British IS schoolgirl 'wants to return home'
- Thread starter hipipol
- Start date
Were they stripped under that provision, then? Because, if that made him stateless, then that'd be unlawful.
scifisam
feck! arse! girls! drink!
Why don't you just click on the link?
Athos
Well-Known Member
It doesn't answer the question.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
And the government would never ever do something unlawful
Athos
Well-Known Member
And the government would never ever do something unlawful
Of course they would. But they're not going to be prevented from doing those things by changing the law!
scifisam
feck! arse! girls! drink!
Er, yes it does. It's right there in written words and everything.
Here's another link about Koty which also states that judges have found against the UK before when they've made people stateless by removing their nationality "for the public good," ie the law you're talking about, so this isn't the first time.
Isis 'Beatles' accuse UK of breaking law by removing citizenship
Diplomatic stalemate continues over whether Alexanda Kotey and El Shafee Elsheikh should be tried in US or UK
www.independent.co.uk
That also says that terrorists can be prosecuted in the UK for offences committed abroad. So it's wrong to claim that Begum will get away with it if she's tried here. (I don't think you claimed that, but other people did).
Athos
Well-Known Member
Er, yes it does. It's right there in written words and everything.
Here's another link about Koty which also states that judges have found against the UK before when they've made people stateless by removing their nationality "for the public good," ie the law you're talking about, so this isn't the first time.
Isis 'Beatles' accuse UK of breaking law by removing citizenship
Diplomatic stalemate continues over whether Alexanda Kotey and El Shafee Elsheikh should be tried in US or UK
That also says that terrorists can be prosecuted in the UK for offences committed abroad. So it's wrong to claim that Begum will get away with it if she's tried here. (I don't think you claimed that, but other people did).
What I'm trying to establish is under which legal provision the UK stripped him of his British citizenship. And whether that's been held to be unlawful.
Last edited:
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
So you're going to thieve the syrians right to prosecute crimes on their own land? It's reserved for the empire?Er, yes it does. It's right there in written words and everything.
Here's another link about Koty which also states that judges have found against the UK before when they've made people stateless by removing their nationality "for the public good," ie the law you're talking about, so this isn't the first time.
Isis 'Beatles' accuse UK of breaking law by removing citizenship
Diplomatic stalemate continues over whether Alexanda Kotey and El Shafee Elsheikh should be tried in US or UK
That also says that terrorists can be prosecuted in the UK for offences committed abroad. So it's wrong to claim that Begum will get away with it if she's tried here. (I don't think you claimed that, but other people did).
scifisam
feck! arse! girls! drink!
The article says it was under the "good will" law and that it was held to be in violation of international law.
It's right there in unambiguous words.
bimble
floofy
This was a proper wake up post.
Maybe a stupid question but how come this hasn’t happened already that people like her be tried and punished by Syrian legal system- Who has control of the camps these people are held in?
Athos
Well-Known Member
The article says it was under the "good will" law and that it was held to be in violation of international law.
It's right there in unambiguous words.
No it doesn't.
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
Because the liberals would all be up in arms about them being executed.
bimble
floofy
It is happening ? Syrian Kurds to put Isis fighters from dozens of countries on trial
english.enabbaladi.net
Can't seem to find anything newer than March, where all the articles seem to say that Syrians were fed up after demanding for ages that other countries take these people back and deal with them so were preparing to do it themselves.
Foreign ISIS fighters pending domestic trials in north-eastern Syria - Enab Baladi
The Kurdish-led Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria (NES) seems to be determined to establish a special tribunal based […]
english.enabbaladi.net
Last edited:
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
Or they could come back here and liberals would be up in arms about them not bring executed
SpookyFrank
A cheap source of teeth for aquarium gravel
States there that the preferred option would have been for foreign fighters to be repatriated and dealt with in their home countries. Maybe some Syrians are more concerned about expending the resources needed to feed and shelter thousands of prisoners than demanding blood for blood.
bimble
floofy
Yes all the things i can find seem to say that for a long time they've been asking and waiting for all these other countries, like ours, to take these people, their citizens, away and deal with them where they came from but as nobody is willing to do that they are left with the problem.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
It is happening ? Syrian Kurds to put Isis fighters from dozens of countries on trial
Can't seem to find anything newer than March, where all the articles seem to say that Syrians were fed up after demanding for ages that other countries take these people back and deal with them so were preparing to do it themselves.Foreign ISIS fighters pending domestic trials in north-eastern Syria - Enab Baladi
The Kurdish-led Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria (NES) seems to be determined to establish a special tribunal based […]
So... not ours, not our problem. You wanted to repatriate them? Tough. But... you must respect human rights and the rule of law.
Bahnhof Strasse
Met up with Hannah Courtoy a week next Tuesday
Afaik the Kurds are not including the death penalty in their array of possible punishments.
SpookyFrank
A cheap source of teeth for aquarium gravel
In any case where she is tried and what she is tried for is a separate issue to the removal of her citizenship, which is a tool which has been and will continue to be used against the innocent unless it is opposed.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Yep. And arguing against that isn't some kind of tacit comment on, or defence or excuse for, what she and others did as other posters have implied in whattaboutery posts.
alsoknownas
some bloke
There's a vicious shortsightedness in seeing this as a procedural problem that just affects 'terrorists and nonces'. Society, in so much as it functions at all, works on a series of principles and institutions. If you're lucky enough to be able to perpetually lean on these without too much concern, you might miss the fact that for many they shift and dissolve if not vigorously protected.
Citizenship is contested at every level of our society, and potentially at every stage of a person's life. Just like with other security measures, the crumbling of certainty around 'membership' often trickles down - from legislation purporting to curtail extreme criminality - to a generalised erosion of people's right to participate in society itself.
As a (comparatively mild) example, a couple of years ago, following the 'hostile environment' legislation, which included an extended remit for banks to investigate immigrant bank accounts, myself, and other similarly black and brown customers, were pulled out of a bank queue by an emboldened racist clerk, who felt she was within her rights (she wasn't) to grill us about our immigration status. If this can happen to me as a a result of cascading discriminatory values, you can be sure that people less equipped or positioned to fight back are going to be similarly targeted by the criminal justice system if we allow it the liberty.
You are sadly shortsighted if you think that people like me are simply being 'soft on terrorists' or whatever. Where the actual principles of our collective citizenship are weakened in such a prejudicial and arbitrary way it affects us all eventually, even though it might not be simple to see that at first glance.
Citizenship is contested at every level of our society, and potentially at every stage of a person's life. Just like with other security measures, the crumbling of certainty around 'membership' often trickles down - from legislation purporting to curtail extreme criminality - to a generalised erosion of people's right to participate in society itself.
As a (comparatively mild) example, a couple of years ago, following the 'hostile environment' legislation, which included an extended remit for banks to investigate immigrant bank accounts, myself, and other similarly black and brown customers, were pulled out of a bank queue by an emboldened racist clerk, who felt she was within her rights (she wasn't) to grill us about our immigration status. If this can happen to me as a a result of cascading discriminatory values, you can be sure that people less equipped or positioned to fight back are going to be similarly targeted by the criminal justice system if we allow it the liberty.
You are sadly shortsighted if you think that people like me are simply being 'soft on terrorists' or whatever. Where the actual principles of our collective citizenship are weakened in such a prejudicial and arbitrary way it affects us all eventually, even though it might not be simple to see that at first glance.
Last edited:
scifisam
feck! arse! girls! drink!
Are you fucking kidding?
You denied that the UK had ever stripped people of their citizenship and left them stateless. They have, more than once. You can try to move the goalposts around if you like, but it just makes you look like a total prick.
Athos
Well-Known Member
No, I didn't. I asked you for evidence that they've done so under that provision. There isn't any. Because it's not possible; that provision can't be used that way. If they've made anyone stateless, it's been done outside the scope of the provision in question i.e. unlawfully (whatever they may claim).
scifisam
feck! arse! girls! drink!
That doesn't make any sense at all. The govt have made people stateless. It might not be the way this legislation was intended to be used, but, as sometimes happens, the govt didn't stick to the letter of their own law.
Athos
Well-Known Member
If they broke the law, they didn't do it under the law. You can't say the law is wrong to allow it, when it doesn't!
scifisam
feck! arse! girls! drink!
But it clearly does, because they have used the law to do just what you're claiming they haven't done.
They violated international laws. If a country violates international laws, that doesn't mean the convention-breaking law ceases to exist.
Athos
Well-Known Member
They haven't used the law. They've broken it. It's unlawful in English law - in the very provision in question - to make someone stateless. On the only occasions where they've been found to have made someone stateless purportedly under that provision, the decision has been quashed. And the government acting outside the English law is different from the English law being in breach of the convention.
scifisam
feck! arse! girls! drink!
It hasn't been quashed in the case of Alexander Kotey (I'm not sure whether the other guy potentially has a second nationality or not). Since you were claiming it had never even happened at all, I'm sceptical that you actually know that it has been quashed every other time. The actions were ruled to be in violation of international laws, but that doesn't automatically reinstate the citizenship of the person it's been removed from.
Athos
Well-Known Member
Who has decided that the government acted unlawfully in stripping him of his British nationality?
Similar threads
