Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
yeh i thought you made a claim i see you didn't so i went back and deleted my post.
British IS schoolgirl 'wants to return home'
- Thread starter hipipol
- Start date
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
if you've any evidence for this claim it'd be nice to see you submit it.
there are of course numerous examples of the government being found to have acted unlawfully so i'd be interested in any evidence you can offer that somehow when it comes to the deprivation of citizenship they won't
If only it was safe for her to return to the UK and appeal the decision to revoke her citizenship. With proper advice and representation I'd fancy her chances, myself.
Obviously can't happen for the foreseeable though.
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
She was not made stateless by the UK government. That's a matter of law which has been ruled on. Everyone who's read this thread knows that. You're just repeating the same old nonsense over and over. Doing that doesn't make it correct!
bimble
floofy
maomao
普費斯
Whatever. I'm stateless. Who do I complain to?
Athos
Well-Known Member
Earlier in the thread, I quoted decisions of the court in other cases in which the Home Secretary tried to strip men suspected of links to terrorism of their British citizenship but was prevented from doing so because they weren't dual citizens, because their Bangladeshi citizenship had automatically been revoked when they turned 21.
Last edited:
She's unable to exercise her right to appeal that decision though, in a UK Court. She'd have to get into the UK to be able to do that.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
Get to turkey and seek legal aid. And if you can find them maybe you can hire the a team
Athos
Well-Known Member
She'd have a chance of success, of course, but it'd be slim.
Last edited:
Still a chance though.
Showing how non black and white the law is in relation to her situation.
And that's the key wrong here for me.
That we'll probably never find out now.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
so they have tried acting unlawfully and been prevented from so doing in at least some cases. This doesn't bode well and contradicts your they won't do this because unlawful
Athos
Well-Known Member
I didn't claim that they wouldn't try.
kebabking
Not a Girly Swot, but I like them....
Anyone you like. They just don't have to listen to you...
Athos
Well-Known Member
I suspect she'll soon decide that her appeal can go ahead without her being there, and the issue will get settled.
After all, the whole thing would be argued by lawyers; she'd play no significant role. I suspect the idea that she needed to come back for an effective hearing was just a tactic to get her out.
And, whilst it remains possible that she'll win the wider appeal, I'd be very surprised if that's on the Bangladeshi citizenship point, which actually does seem pretty black-and-white.
Last edited:
Athos
Well-Known Member
They've managed to represent her in all the proceedings to date.
Yes and they've repeatedly said how bloody hard, bordering on impossible, that's been.
eatmorecheese
He's fallen out of the car again
Punxsutawney Phil controls this thread
Her family's lawyer, who has never met her:
Shamima Begum’s lawyer: “The court ruling shows there are grades of citizenship”
Shamima Begum’s lawyer: “The court ruling shows there are grades of citizenship”
Athos
Well-Known Member
Of course they'd say that. But, yeah, I'm not denying it's not ideal. Though I suspect she'll soon decide to press on with the appeal.
From the New Statesman piece :
"He [the family's lawyer] said that once every three months or so Begum is able to speak with her family on the phone for around a minute.
In February 2019, Akunjee travelled to talk to her about the appeal having received permission to see Begum from an SDF commander. But the guards at al-Roj camp “got a bit nervous and basically detained us thinking we were some sort of weird force or something, and they went through our phones. We were detained for about half an hour, and they refused to let us in”. ".
"He [the family's lawyer] said that once every three months or so Begum is able to speak with her family on the phone for around a minute.
In February 2019, Akunjee travelled to talk to her about the appeal having received permission to see Begum from an SDF commander. But the guards at al-Roj camp “got a bit nervous and basically detained us thinking we were some sort of weird force or something, and they went through our phones. We were detained for about half an hour, and they refused to let us in”. ".
And also "What's strange is that the Supreme Court recognises that this is inherently unfair,” Shamima Begum’s family lawyer, Tasnime Akunjee, told me when we spoke recently. He was referring to the recent Supreme Court ruling that Begum, who joined Islamic State as a teenager in 2015, cannot return to the UK to challenge the government’s decision to remove her British citizenship.
The judgment states that Begum’s appeal should be delayed until she can play an “effective part” in the proceedings. It goes on: “That is not a perfect solution, as it is not known how long it may be before that is possible. But there is no perfect solution to a dilemma of the present kind.” With no clear date or criteria for when the appeal can restart, Akunjee said he was “quite surprised” and “somewhat concerned that this judgement… appears to rub out the notion of ‘justice delayed is justice denied'.”
The judgment states that Begum’s appeal should be delayed until she can play an “effective part” in the proceedings. It goes on: “That is not a perfect solution, as it is not known how long it may be before that is possible. But there is no perfect solution to a dilemma of the present kind.” With no clear date or criteria for when the appeal can restart, Akunjee said he was “quite surprised” and “somewhat concerned that this judgement… appears to rub out the notion of ‘justice delayed is justice denied'.”
Athos
Well-Known Member
I've not looked into it, but, because the decision to effectively stay proceedings whilst she's absent is to protect her interests, she could probably waive that, and ask that the appeal continues in her absence (perhaps by appointing something analogous to a Litigation Friend). (Though I reckon there's a good chance she'll try to take the LTE decision to the ECtHR first, albeit I don't fancy her chances.)
To me, continuing without her there looks like her least bad option; at least she'd get a decision, rather than just being left to rot. And, being pragmatic, once its up and running, it's in the hands of the lawyers; there's not much she could usefully add - it'll be technical legal arguments.
And, from the government's point of view, it doesn't involve any risk to the public of allowing her back to pursue the case, which, in practice, would be the same as her winning the case i.e. she'd be back for ever.
Last edited:
Athos
Well-Known Member
She's clearly not de jure stateless.
And it's by no means obvious that she's de facto stateless. She might be able to successfully assert her Bangladeshi citizenship in the Bangladeshi courts; if she did, it would be very hard for Bangladeshi politicians to prevent her from using that nationality.
But, to avoid speculation either way, and for the sake of argument, let's assume you're right - that she is de facto stateless. The question then becomes whether or not it was the Home Secretary's deprivation decision that made her so.
For all its faults, that's not tenable; if anything made her de facto stateless it's the subsequent actions of Bangladeshi politicians (apparently in breach of Bangladeshi law).
maomao
普費斯
It's like you live in a parallel universe where only legal judgements and technicalities matter. She's hardly likely to go to Bangladesh given they've threatened her life leaving her effectively and actually stateless. She doesn't have a valid passport and is unable to get one. If she was in the Olympics she'd be at the back of the parade. The legal technicalities of which country's fault this is are irrelevant, she is stateless as a result of the case in the UK courts. If the home secretary hadn't taken it to court the Bangladeshis wouldn't have been asked their opinion on the matter.
maomao
普費斯
Bangladesh is rated 115 out of 128 countries on the world bank's rule of law index. It's a reasonable assumption that they don't feel obliged to follow their own laws. The Bangladeshi law may be 'enough' for a UK court of law but in reality she has no chance of gaining citizenship there.
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
If she is stateless, she is stateless as a result of Bangladesh ignoring their own laws and making her so.
Athos
Well-Known Member
No, the English courts didn't deprive her of British citizenship (and it was her, not the HS, who took it to the courts).
IF (and it's a big 'if') she is de facto stateless (she's clearly not de jure), that's a result of the unlawful actions of some Bangladeshi politicians.
The extent to which someone can be held morally responsible for someone else's unforeseen and unlawful actions isn't some legal technicality.
Also, you're misunderstanding/conflating the issues of citizenship and passport, which, for all your claims of only dealing in morality, are (at least in part) necessarily legal issues.
Last edited:
Athos
Well-Known Member
Yes, it's quite possible that Bangladesh's failure to follow its own laws will cause one of its citizens to be de facto stateless.
Similar threads
