British IS schoolgirl 'wants to return home'

[Spymaster]

Except it didn't. She's still a legal citizen of Bangladesh, even if Bangladesh's actions (which were unlawful let's remember) subsequently have made her de facto stateless. For all that it's actions may have been shabby, opportunist, politically motivated, and devisive, the idea that HMG made her stateless is baseless.

I’m really not sure how many more times this needs pointing out.

 

[mihaly]

I don't like it either.

What would you have had them do, as the law stands (bearing in mind that, if she was allowed back, she'd be free and very difficult to monitor in a very short time)?

Would it make any difference if they're was, say, telephone interception intelligence in which she was heard explaining that it's her intention to come back, do a couple of years in prison, then martyr herself (which wouldn't be admissible in any criminal trial against her)?

For future cases, what should the law say?

Personally, with regard to her, not knowing the intelligence upon which the assessment of risk was based, I can't say whether what the government has done is the lesser of two evils (though, of course, I don't just take the government at its word).

Going forward, we'd have to make a choice between the possibility that some people are amenable to losing their citizenship; or there being other measures e.g. greater surveillance powers, longer sentences, more draconian restrictions on freedom, to control the risk that these individuals pose; or accepting some (potentially many) wholly innocent casualties.

Each has some significant pros and cons. But, if we did end up with the first or second, I'd be keen to limit HS discretion, to ensure really effective oversight, and for there to be the maximum transparency possible in matters of this kind.

Whatever you think about the case itself, the Supreme Court decison rules heavily against effective oversight or maximum transparency by setting out how it is only going to deal with narrow technical points and how the Court of Appeal should have done the same.

 

[Athos]

Whatever you think about the case itself, the Supreme Court decison rules heavily against effective oversight or maximum transparency by setting out how it is only going to deal with narrow technical points and how the Court of Appeal should have done the same.

Yes, it does. And, whilst I think that was correct as the law stands, I'd like the law to change.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Except it didn't. She's still a legal citizen of Bangladesh, even if Bangladesh's actions (which were unlawful let's remember) subsequently have made her de facto stateless. For all that it's actions may have been shabby, opportunist, politically motivated, and devisive, the idea that HMG made her stateless is baseless.

And every time you say this, I will call it sophistry, because that is what it is. An attempt to hide behind a perceived technicality in one part of one country's laws that ignores parts of the law in this country that prohibit exactly this kind of discrimination.

You paint this as if it were black and white. It's not.

Do you think the UK govt or courts would accept this as legal and proper if the roles were reversed and it were Bangladesh attempting to pull a legal fast one on the UK?

 

[Pickman's model]

And every time you say this, I will call it sophistry, because that is what it is. An attempt to hide behind a perceived technicality in one part of one country's laws that ignores parts of the law in this country that prohibit exactly this kind of discrimination.

You paint this as if it were black and white. It's not.

Do you think the UK govt or courts would accept this as legal and proper if the roles were reversed and it were Bangladesh attempting to pull a legal fast one on the UK?

it's like t.j. hooker said, there're a million shades of grey

 

[Pickman's model]

I’m really not sure how many more times this needs pointing out.

until littlebabyjesus can be brought to accept it, so several more years yet

 

[Spymaster]

[QUOTE="littlebabyjesus, post: 16991892, member: 32628]

Do you think the UK govt or courts would accept this as legal and proper if the roles were reversed and it were Bangladesh attempting to pull a legal fast one on the UK?
[/QUOTE]
It not a question of accepting it or 'pulling a fast one'. It's a matter of law and in that respect it absolutely is black and white no matter how much a couple of Bangadeshi politicians pretend otherwise.

 

[Athos]

And every time you say this, I will call it sophistry, because that is what it is. An attempt to hide behind a perceived technicality in one part of one country's laws that ignores parts of the law in this country that prohibit exactly this kind of discrimination.

You paint this as if it were black and white. It's not.

Do you think the UK govt or courts would accept this as legal and proper if the roles were reversed and it were Bangladesh attempting to pull a legal fast one on the UK?

It's not a 'technicality', it's just what Bangladeshi law says, I'm afraid.

And nothing about the decision breaches domestic law, as the courts have decided. I presume you're referring to your idea that this amounts to indirect discrimination, but (even if you could make a prima facie case) you seem to have overlooked s.19(2)(d) Equality Act 2010, which says it's not of its a proportionate means of pursuing a legitimate aim.

And, yes, there are a number of very analogous examples of HMG being constrained from doing what it wants by the UK courts on the basis of foreign law. Most pertinently, those individuals over 21 from whom HMG has not been able to strip British citizenship because their Bangladeshi citizenship has lapsed under Bangladeshi law!

As much as some try to obfuscate (largely based on misunderstanding the law), the legal position (or at least that aspect of it*) really is 'black and white'.

*If she wins her appeal (which, quite possibly, she should - I can't say if the HS applied the test correctly), it won't be on the basis that HMG made her stateless i.e. she wasn't a citizen of Bangladesh.

You may well think the law should be different (though I note you didn't address my post - repeated below - where I asked what you thought it should be); you may well think HMG has acted grubbily and/or opportunistically and/or self-intetestedly (I'd agree); you may well think that the outcome is far from ideal (I'd agree in many respects); but, to keep asserting that HMG has acted unlawfully (by making her stateless) is silly. If she's stateless, it's de facto, and the result of Bangladesh's subsequent unlawul action.

I don't like it either.

What would you have had them do, as the law stands (bearing in mind that, if she was allowed back, she'd be free and very difficult to monitor in a very short time)?

Would it make any difference if they're was, say, telephone interception intelligence in which she was heard explaining that it's her intention to come back, do a couple of years in prison, then martyr herself (which wouldn't be admissible in any criminal trial against her)?

For future cases, what should the law say?

Personally, with regard to her, not knowing the intelligence upon which the assessment of risk was based, I can't say whether what the government has done is the lesser of two evils (though, of course, I don't just take the government at its word).

Going forward, we'd have to make a choice between the possibility that some people are amenable to losing their citizenship; or there being other measures e.g. greater surveillance powers, longer sentences, more draconian restrictions on freedom, to control the risk that these individuals pose; or accepting some (potentially many) wholly innocent casualties.

Each has some significant pros and cons. But, if we did end up with the first or second, I'd be keen to limit HS discretion, to ensure really effective oversight, and for there to be the maximum transparency possible in matters of this kind.

 

[krtek a houby]

Also: “don’t hate her” — why not? She seems pretty hostile. In my day, we used to have to prove our worth to other people before we fit in.

Ok, spanner

 

[scifisam]

The fact that she was a minor when she left should have been taken into consideration when revoking her citizenship, like it is with other punishments. There wouldn't be nearly as much debate if this were an adult we were talking about.

Though if she were over 21 she wouldn't have been entitled to Bangladeshi citizenship at all, so her age was actually used against her.

Her baby, the one that died after she appealed to come back, was also a minor, and a British citizen.

 

[Spanner]

Sounds like you should appreciate what it's like to get drawn into a cult then.

Unless of course you're just talking bollocks.

Good point, well made!

 

[Spanner]

Who did you have to prove your worth to?
What were you trying to fit in to?

No-one in particular, and nothing in particular.

I was generalising about societal norms, e.g. don’t shit on your own doorstep on your way out and complain about the smell when you get back.

 

[krtek a houby]

No-one in particular, and nothing in particular.

I was generalising about societal norms, e.g. don’t shit on your own doorstep on your way out and complain about the smell when you get back.

Ah, you're doing parody.

So hard to tell these days.

 

[Spanner]

Ah, you're doing parody.

So hard to tell these days.

Not at all.

If I was doing parody, I’d say: “These days, you’ll get arrested and thrown in jail if you say you’re English”

 

[Athos]

The fact that she was a minor when she left should have been taken into consideration when revoking her citizenship, like it is with other punishments.

Her age may well have been taken into consideration (but been outweighed by other factors). We don't know the detail of why the HS decided what he did.

 

[Smokeandsteam]

Not at all.

If I was doing parody, I’d say: “These days, you’ll get arrested and thrown in jail if you say you’re English”

You can tell things are shifting when old Stewart Lee routines seem to have lost all meaning in the current conditions....

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Her age may well have been taken into consideration (but been outweighed by other factors). We don't know the detail of why the HS decided what he did.

Oh Javid no doubt weighed everything up and took this decision having consulted the wisest of counsels.

Good grief.

'She's under 21 so we can ditch her.' That's the only way her age was weighed.

 

[kebabking]

Oh Javid no doubt weighed everything up and took this decision having consulted the wisest of counsels.

Good grief.

'She's under 21 so we can ditch her.' That's the only way her age was weighed.

How do you account for her UK citizenship not being revoked the day she turned 18?

 

[Pickman's model]

How do you account for her UK citizenship not being revoked the day she turned 18?

The government and all their horses and women and men were busy that day and it slipped down their to do list

 

[Pickman's model]

In my day, we used to have to prove our worth to other people before we fit in.

how's that going for you here, proving your worth?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

How do you account for her UK citizenship not being revoked the day she turned 18?

I don't.

But this attitude of deference to power displayed by Athos and others is exactly how we lose our liberties. In this case it is deference to a disgusting reactionary rw Tory power.

 

[Athos]

I don't.

But this attitude of deference to power displayed by Athos and others is exactly how we lose our liberties. In this case it is deference to a disgusting reactionary rw Tory power.

Lol, that's desperate.

I've said quite clearly that I don't trust government, and that it's quite possible that the decision was influenced by political self-intetest. Which is why I'd like to see a lot more scrutiny, oversight, and transparency. But you've fallen into the trap of thinking that my enemy's enemy is my friend.

And, for all your bluster, it remains the case that you've no idea what the intelligence says about the risk she poses, and how that was weighed against all the other factors.

You just keep spouting misdirected smears, unevidenced claims, liberal sentiment, and (at best) half-understood bits of law. It's embarrassing.

Especially as you've still offered nothing of substance about what should have happened, what the consequences of that might be, and how you'd mitigate them.

 

[Dystopiary]

I agree with this, that she was essentially trafficked:


Also, she can't really turn around and say "Yeah, it's been terrible. I hate IS" in her circumstances. She'd probably be shot in the head at best.

As for stripping of citizenship being only relevant to people who've done really terrible things, I'm just not sure but I wouldn't be too complacent.
- https://www.cage.ngo/citizenship-deprivations-what-you-need-to-know

"In 2002, 2006 and 2014 [the UK goverment] significantly broadened ministerial powers to revoke citizenship. As a result, it has been suggested that ‘UK governments now have at their disposal laws to strip citizenship that are arguably broader than those possessed by any other Western democratic State’. Despite this, in October 2015, the British government announced a proposal to further expand the grounds for citizenship deprivation."
- https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/international-and-comparative-law-quarterly/article/twentyfirst-century-banishment-citizenship-stripping-in-common-law-nations/F9B6D2F963EC73BD522A5EEE22493816

 

[Shechemite]

O’Brien describes the citizenship-stripping of Begum as a punishment, which it isn’t, either literally or in its function.

 

[Spanner]

how's that going for you here, proving your worth?

The important word is — of course — “here”.

I don’t need to prove my worth “here”.

“Here” is important to you because: I just clicked on your name. You’ve posted 193,000+ times on this forum.

That’s quite the investment!

I’d congratulate you, but in the back of my mind I’m worrying: “This guy has spent months..years...writing stuff on someone else’s platform. What if the owner of this website simply sells up and retires? Or maybe dies unexpectedly of a Massive Stroke. Or, or or, etc. That would be Pickman’s life’s work, legacy, microphone and raisin d’etre gone. Pfff.”

You might be a big cheese “here”, mate, but your opinions or bullying words have no affect on me.

 

[krtek a houby]

I’d congratulate you, but in the back of my mind I’m worrying: “This guy has spent months..years...writing stuff on someone else’s platform. What if the owner of this website simply sells up and retires? Or maybe dies unexpectedly of a Massive Stroke. Or, or or, etc. That would be Pickman’s life’s work, legacy, microphone and raisin d’etre gone. Pfff.”

Sounds like sour grapes

 

[Pickman's model]

The important word is — of course — “here”.

I don’t need to prove my worth “here”.

“Here” is important to you because: I just clicked on your name. You’ve posted 193,000+ times on this forum.

That’s quite the investment!

I’d congratulate you, but in the back of my mind I’m worrying: “This guy has spent months..years...writing stuff on someone else’s platform. What if the owner of this website simply sells up and retires? Or maybe dies unexpectedly of a Massive Stroke. Or, or or, etc. That would be Pickman’s life’s work, legacy, microphone and raisin d’etre gone. Pfff.”

You might be a big cheese “here”, mate, but your opinions or bullying words have no affect on me.

I'm not a big cheese anywhere. How is my question in any way bullying?

I reckon it's more a case of you have no worth to show hiding behind your bold assertion you don't need to prove your worth.

 

[Spymaster]

As for stripping of citizenship being only relevant to people who've done really terrible things, I'm just not sure but I wouldn't be too complacent.
- Citizenship Deprivations: What you need to know - CAGE

"In 2002, 2006 and 2014 [the UK goverment] significantly broadened ministerial powers to revoke citizenship. As a result, it has been suggested that ‘UK governments now have at their disposal laws to strip citizenship that are arguably broader than those possessed by any other Western democratic State’. Despite this, in October 2015, the British government announced a proposal to further expand the grounds for citizenship deprivation."
- https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/international-and-comparative-law-quarterly/article/twentyfirst-century-banishment-citizenship-stripping-in-common-law-nations/F9B6D2F963EC73BD522A5EEE22493816

The CAGE article is largely an opinion piece by an interest group and there's plenty to take issue with in there, not least their characterisation of citizenship-stripping as racist because it 'targets people of different ethnicity'. It doesn't. It's people of dual nationality. Looks like that's been written by a U75 poster.

James O'Brien is a conceited knob.

The Cambridge piece looks like it might be worth reading later.

 

[brogdale]

I'm not a big cheese anywhere. How is my question in any way bullying?

"...mate..."

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

I agree with this, that she was essentially trafficked:


Also, she can't really turn around and say "Yeah, it's been terrible. I hate IS" in her circumstances. She'd probably be shot in the head at best.

As for stripping of citizenship being only relevant to people who've done really terrible things, I'm just not sure but I wouldn't be too complacent.
- Citizenship Deprivations: What you need to know - CAGE

"In 2002, 2006 and 2014 [the UK goverment] significantly broadened ministerial powers to revoke citizenship. As a result, it has been suggested that ‘UK governments now have at their disposal laws to strip citizenship that are arguably broader than those possessed by any other Western democratic State’. Despite this, in October 2015, the British government announced a proposal to further expand the grounds for citizenship deprivation."
- https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/international-and-comparative-law-quarterly/article/twentyfirst-century-banishment-citizenship-stripping-in-common-law-nations/F9B6D2F963EC73BD522A5EEE22493816

If you're ever unsure of the correct position to take on an issue it always helps to consult James O'Brien, check out what that massive intellect is thinking on the issue, then take the opposite stance.



Since 2002, 2006 or 2014 has the government stripped anyone of their UK citizenship for anything other than terrorism related shit?