British IS schoolgirl 'wants to return home'

[Athos]

Because all conversation about the right and wrong of the matter is corralled into a very narrow discussion of whether the state acted legally or not which. It's very boring.

No it's not. And it's a bit silly for you to criticise me for focusing on the law when I'm responding to correct others' factual mistakes about the legal position.

 

[maomao]

The court found that she did have Bangladeshi citizenship (automatically, by virtue of her parentage, as per Bangladeshi law).

Really? Why haven't you mentioned this before?

It's as bad as philosophical and his border in the Irish sea.

 

[Pickman's model]

i don't know what it is you're trying to say but if its that i'm probably a big misogynist okay.

you equated what she's said to have done with people who took up arms for daesh. i don't but i am not surprised you do.

 

[Spymaster]

De facto meeting any reasonable person's definition of 'actually having a usable dual nationality' which Shamina Begin doesn't.

She doesn't now. She did.

 

[Athos]

i would be frankly astonished if there's not a man in the same position as regards nationality as her. 900 or so men went to fight for daesh and many of them must have had south asian heritage.

Many men have been stripped of dual citizenship.

 

[maomao]

No it's not.

It's exactly what you've just done.

 

[Athos]

Not particularly. If I'm discussing whether the UK state is racist or not I'm not particularly bothered about whether it's followed its own laws or not.

Which I'm sure nobody in their right mind would dispute!

 

[BillRiver]

Why Depriving Shamima Begum of her UK Citizenship Breaches International Law

By Francesca Gallelli who "is an MPhil/PhD student and hourly-paid lecturer at Middlesex University, London and a visiting researcher at the Centre de Droit Européen, Brussels. Her doctoral project focuses on freedom of religion or belief and the limits of the right to conscience-based legal exceptions under international human rights law".

 

[Athos]

And yet Bangladesh disagreed.

As I pointed out already and am happy to keep repeating.

Things really aren't as black & white as you seem to believe/wish they were.

Bangladeshi politicians disagreed! But Bangladeshi law is pretty clear on this point, as has been set out at great length earlier on the thread. Notably, it was the only one of the SIAC's decisions she didn't bother to challenge.

 

[Spymaster]

Why Depriving Shamima Begum of her UK Citizenship Breaches International Law

By Francesca Gallelli who "is an MPhil/PhD student and hourly-paid lecturer at Middlesex University, London and a visiting researcher at the Centre de Droit Européen, Brussels. Her doctoral project focuses on freedom of religion or belief and the limits of the right to conscience-based legal exceptions under international human rights law".

It's groundhog day

 

[BillRiver]

Shamima Begum, citizenship revocation and the question of due process - ICCT

"Begum had her UK citizenship – the only one she holds – revoked"

By Julie Coleman (a Senior Research Fellow and Programme Lead (P/CVE) at the International Centre for Counter-Terrorism – The Hague (ICCT). ) and Dr. Joana Cook (a Senior Project Manager at ICCT, and Editor-in-Chief of the ICCT journal. She is also an Assistant Professor of Terrorism and Political Violence in the Faculty of Governance and Global Affairs, Leiden University.).

 

[Pickman's model]

Many men have been stripped of dual citizenship.

so it says in the link i posted but it doesn't say for what so unless you can actually demonstrate something the home office won't you'll be speculating and we all know you don't do that. and anyway even if many men had had citizenship stripped that doesn't mean every last one of the eligible people has had it stripped from them - so once again (given you have above been rather expansive in your claims) put up your evidence or pipe down on the matter.

 

[maomao]

Shamima Begum, citizenship revocation and the question of due process - ICCT

You're making the mistake of quoting actual legal academics rather than some bloke who might have been some kind of lawyer ten years ago on the internet.

 

[Athos]

Why Depriving Shamima Begum of her UK Citizenship Breaches International Law

By Francesca Gallelli who "is an MPhil/PhD student and hourly-paid lecturer at Middlesex University, London and a visiting researcher at the Centre de Droit Européen, Brussels. Her doctoral project focuses on freedom of religion or belief and the limits of the right to conscience-based legal exceptions under international human rights law".

The reasons this analysis is incorrect are set out in the relevant judgements (many of which I've linked to earlier in the thread).

ETA: It's actually laughably poor. The legal analysis of whether not she has Bangladeshi citizenship consists of a link to a BBC report in which she says she doesn't!

 

[Athos]

Shamima Begum, citizenship revocation and the question of due process - ICCT

"Begum had her UK citizenship – the only one she holds – revoked"

By Julie Coleman (a Senior Research Fellow and Programme Lead (P/CVE) at the International Centre for Counter-Terrorism – The Hague (ICCT). ) and

Ditto.

 

[Spymaster]

You're making the mistake of quoting actual legal academics rather than some bloke who might have been some kind of lawyer ten years ago on the internet.

There are just as many equally qualified legal opinions to the contrary, as posted on this thread. Bangladeshi law is straightforward on the subject. The fact that a couple of their goons say differently doesn't change the law.

 

[BillRiver]

The reasons this analysis is incorrect is set out in the relevant judgements (many of which I've linked to earlier in the thread).

It's not incorrect. It does differ from some judgements.

Life (and law) is more complex than you are willing to admit here (or able to grasp? I don't know yet).

 

[Athos]

You're making the mistake of quoting actual legal academics rather than some bloke who might have been some kind of lawyer ten years ago on the internet.

Lol. You don't have to take my word for it, read the courts' judgements and set out where they've erred in law on the issue of her Bangladeshi citizenship. I'm afraid it's just wishful thinking on your part.

 

[Athos]

so it says in the link i posted but it doesn't say for what so unless you can actually demonstrate something the home office won't you'll be speculating and we all know you don't do that. and anyway even if many men had had citizenship stripped that doesn't mean every last one of the eligible people has had it stripped from them - so once again (given you have above been rather expansive in your claims) put up your evidence or pipe down on the matter.

It was you who made the claim of different treatment; I'm not claiming the opposite - in saying I'm not convinced by your claim. So how about you provide some evidence for your claim?

 

[Pickman's model]

.

 

[bimble]

you equated what she's said to have done with people who took up arms for daesh. i don't but i am not surprised you do.

I see. But no, i don’t know what she’s done and haven’t attempted to draw any equivalence between her and people who took up arms.
was simply saying you’re wrong when you suggested that her deprivation of citizenship is because sexism, that’s all.

 

[maomao]

Lol. You don't have to take my word for it, read the courts' judgements and set out where they've erred in law on the issue of her Bangladeshi citizenship. I'm afraid it's just wishful thinking on your part.

I have enough work of my own to be doing thanks. And I'm pretty sure law is open to interpretation, you admitted as much yourself with the de jure de facto stuff.

And given that it's international law they've potentially broken by making her stateless (which she is) they're not even the presiding authority on the matter (unlikely though it is to make it to a higher court).

 

[Athos]

It's not incorrect. It does differ from some judgements.

Life (and law) is more complex than you are willing to admit here (or able to grasp? I don't know yet).

I practiced as a solicitor for some years (taking cases to what was then the House of Lords), so I think I have a reasonable idea about the complexity of the law.

Of course you'll get people that dispute almost any legal point (for a variety of reasons). But the arguments made by these individuals aren't persuasive when compared to the detailed analysis in the judgements.

Also, you'll note that the finding that she wasn't made stateless was the only part of the SIAC judgement she didn't bother to challenge.

 

[Athos]

so you don't understand what you claimed to understand just a few minutes ago.

I understand it. Do you have any evidence for your claim?

 

[Athos]

I have enough work of my own to be doing thanks. And I'm pretty sure law is open to interpretation, you admitted as much yourself with the de jure de facto stuff.

And given that it's international law they've potentially broken by making her stateless (which she is) they're not even the presiding authority on the matter (unlikely though it is to make it to a higher court).

This post demonstrates your lack of understanding of how the law works.

You've just decided they've broken the law, because that's what you want. But you can't explain how or why in anything but the most vague terms.

 

[Pickman's model]

I understand it. Do you have any echoed for your claim?

i have as many echoes as you might desire.

 

[Athos]

i have as many echoes as you might desire.

Typo. Corrected.

 

[Spymaster]

And given that it's international law they've potentially broken by making her stateless (which she is) they're not even the presiding authority on the matter (unlikely though it is to make it to a higher court).

This is just wrong.

 

[maomao]

This is just wrong.

So if I get made stateless and have unlimited funds for representation who do I take my case to? The not making people stateless thing is the result of a 1961 treaty, who rules on whether that's been broken or not?

 

[Pickman's model]

I see. But no, i don’t know what she’s done and haven’t attempted to draw any equivalence between her and people who took up arms.
was simply saying you’re wrong when you suggested that her deprivation of citizenship is because sexism, that’s all.

no, i said the reason she is being treated as she is is because sexism. and the way she is being treated isn't simply reducible to the deprivation of citizenship, it includes the way she has been described and the way that despite not having taken up arms (unless you have some evidence to the contrary) she has beenbel demonised to the extent that at least one poster on this thread has expressed fear of her. the way other, indubitably british, women trafficked and raped are being treated in being basically dumped in camps, to my mind it's the same thing.