Athos
Well-Known Member
Probably your best bet.
British IS schoolgirl 'wants to return home'
- Thread starter hipipol
- Start date
bimble
floofy
The only bit that is actually interesting (i reckon) is the withdrawal of citizenship, is the trial actually about defining the situations in which that is fine and when its not?
eta
Looks like the idea is that if she is "a security threat" then it was fine to take away her citizenship so they are arguing about whether or not she in particular is .
But i want to know how they define threat, what exactly are the criteria for getting yr citizenship revoked who gets to define whether you are a threat or not.
eta
Looks like the idea is that if she is "a security threat" then it was fine to take away her citizenship so they are arguing about whether or not she in particular is .
But i want to know how they define threat, what exactly are the criteria for getting yr citizenship revoked who gets to define whether you are a threat or not.
Athos
Well-Known Member
Before speculating how a hypothetical comparator victim of trafficking might be treated, it'd be interesting to hear a shred of evidence that she was in fact trafficked (and what people mean by that term).
Athos
Well-Known Member
The current SIAC hearing is only about that. It's an appeal against the then HS's deprivation decision. But, because that decision is essentially a matter of discretion, it's unlikely to be prescriptive e.g. say in x factual circumstances you can or can't do y, so much as set out the sorts of things the HS should take into account.
Last edited:
kebabking
Not a Girly Swot, but I like them....
I'm not sure that either trafficking or forced marriage come into it - trafficking requires some element of either coercion or false advertising, and neither of them seem to be in place, and forced marriage means she didn't get a choice - but the offer, when she was signing up for IS and stealing her sisters passport in order to get on the plane, was 'come to the Caliphate, we'll give you a husband and some slaves, and you can make lots of babies' - if she didn't want to get married to some allocated, but random bloke, she wouldn't have got on the plane...
For me the only issue she has in mitigation is that of grooming - the degree, or indeed existence of it, neither I, nor anyone else on this board, really knows. The recruitment process, almost by definition, contains some elements of grooming, but that doesn't mean she didn't seek them out, or that she needed any persuasion, or that she was groomed into doing things she didn't want to do.
maomao
普費斯
Nope. Foreign travel + underage meets the legal definition.
At this point then she is apparently absolved of agency.
bimble
floofy
But it's all about her, she is on trial (innocent victim or terrorist in waiting) not their definition of a threat & how the deprivation of citizenship decision gets made?
Athos
Well-Known Member
Do you have a reference for that?
Athos
Well-Known Member
No, she's not on trial; she's bringing the case - an appeal against the HS's decision.
bimble
floofy
Yep but the focus is her, what she was thinking when she was 15, whether she is a victim or a baddie, etc, and not on them the people who revoked her citizenship and their process, so its not likely to result in a useful case law / more explicit general rule about when citizenship can be revoked and when it can't?
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
I thought part of the aim your post was to contrast the very different outcomes
bimble
floofy
It's the fact that this particular punishment / sanction is only available to use on people who happen to have, or have potential access in law due to an accident of birth, to another citizenship, that is the thing. There just should not be punishments that can only be used on this one subsection of british citizens imo, how exactly do you justify that.
We were discussing the leniency and understanding of posters afforded to fascists of differing race/sex I thought.
maomao
普費斯
I haven't said or implied that. But if we were talking about 15 year olds trafficked to Amsterdam to work in brothels would we be so concerned about their agency?
Athos
Well-Known Member
The focus (largely speculation) on these boards might be her; but the focus of the current proceedings will be on the HS's decision making. And that will be primarily procedural e.g. did he consider the right factors, rather than whether the court would have decided differently on this facts (unless the decision in light of those facts was so unreasonable that no reasonable HS could have made it). The purpose isn't to set out how a HS should decide on any given set of facts; Parliament has deliberately given a wide discretion on that point.
philosophical
Well-Known Member
I reckon if she ever ended up on trial in a court somewhere, for her it wouldn’t be the usual trope of innocent until proven guilty so much as guilty until proven innocent.
Athos
Well-Known Member
Yes, it's problematic. Those who defend it do so on the basis of pragmatic steps for public security/national security.
Last edited:
bimble
floofy
Yep. I think that is abysmal and it should be wiped off the big books of laws, the whole idea of revoking citizenship. But I see that it isn't what's on trial so will bugger off.
You think her experience of marrying a Jihadi, having several children with them, and being unrepentant about it until a return to the Nation she was at war with seemed preferable to a desert refugee camp is comparable with forced prostitution?
Athos
Well-Known Member
If that way of mitigating the risks posed by dangerous dual nationals is removed it will mean either exposing the public to more risk, and/or other (likely draconian) powers to mitigate risk. Those are also less than ideal.
maomao
普費斯
I think being trafficked abroad aged 15 to be married off to an adult is comparable, yes. But I know a lot of fifteen year olds and safeguarding is part of my job.
bimble
floofy
What about, treat all risks posed by your homegrown terrorists and general criminals the same, regardless of whether by accident of birth you think they might be shunted off elsewhere.
More expensive but obviously the ethically correct path. If the courts think she needs locking up until she's old and dead then fine, but removal of citizenship is a pathetic ruse and just a money saving exercise ultimately, which these trials probably wipe even that off from the plus side.
Athos
Well-Known Member
What's your definition of 'trafficked'? And what's the evidence that it happened to her?
Last edited:
Fair point. Although she's yet to complain about this aspect. Unlike other victims of forced marriage.
Athos
Well-Known Member
That's one approach. But it'd mean a reduction in the power to deal with some of them. Which necessarily means a risk to the public. Whether or not that risk is one we should run in the name of ensuring parity between dual and sole citizens suspected of being extremely dangerous is worthy of discussion. But we should be clear what it means.
bimble
floofy
It's a shameful stance imo, if she's a massive danger then lock her up until she's dead.
If we can't do that then we have a different problem with our legal or law enforcement system.
But it's not Bangladesh's problem it's very obviously ours.
Last edited:
maomao
普費斯
Complaints of child abuse very rarely come from the victim in the first instance.
This is just ABC picking stuff to suit your argument. If she hasn't complained then that must obviously mean she is unable to. As opposed to having no complaint.
maomao
普費斯
So fucking a fifteen year old is no longer child abuse?
Similar threads
