British IS schoolgirl 'wants to return home'

[Magnus McGinty]

Not always, no. In fact it's a very well-known phenomenon that people under coercive control will pretend, even to themselves, that this is not what's happening. Again, Andrew Tate is illustrative:

Fair enough, I won’t argue against that.

 

[Petcha]

it'd be good if you were playing some sort of advocate. if she 'came clean' then you'd doubtless be first in line saying 'too little too late'.

No, not at all. I think she should be allowed back in the country as she was a child when this started. She's no longer a child. And if you watch the film it's pretty fucking clear she's lying through her teeth about a lot of stuff that went on. But the fact is, she was groomed as a child. So that alone should discount what she got up to afterwards, to a degree.

She's in a terrible position. If she grasses these fuckers up I'm sure she'd be looking over her shoulder every day in that camp. She should be allowed back, and confess here, where she's safe.

 

[Tones]

It says on BBC the commission did accept that she had been trafficked and that the government failed to stop that but said the decision to strip her citizenship was still legal.

 

[Magnus McGinty]

It says on BBC the commission did accept that she had been trafficked and that the government failed to stop that but said the decision to strip her citizenship was still legal.

They’re saying it’s based on her being a threat to National security. Difficult to counter as the state may be in possession of info that we don’t have access to or they might just say that to cover the decision made for political purposes.

 

[girasol]

She's in a terrible position. If she grasses these fuckers up I'm sure she'd be looking over her shoulder every day in that camp. She should be allowed back, and confess here, where she's safe.

Yes, there's very much a sense that she has to watch what she says, given where she's living - I got that too. She's very guarded, and for a good reason.

 

[Tones]

They’re saying it’s based on her being a threat to National security. Difficult to counter as the state may be in possession of info that we don’t have access to or they might just say that to cover the decision made for political purposes.

We can trust Mr Javid to have done the right thing.

 

[Magnus McGinty]

We can trust Mr Javid to have done the right thing.

I would neither trust the govt to do the right thing or supporters of murderous fascist regimes to tell the truth.

 

[Tones]

I would neither trust the govt to do the right thing or supporters of murderous fascist regimes to tell the truth.

I was joking!

 

[Magnus McGinty]

I was joking!

I knew it was sarcastic. I just added to your point.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

The ruling that the removal of her citizenship was legal is an appalling decision. They should be ashamed of themselves.

 

[Riklet]

Sometimes it takes years to realise that something like this was coercive.

You still have agency when youre 15.

If your friend or even a grown adult convince you to murder a toddler or rape someone or torture animals or whatever are you totally morally unaccountable just because you are underage? Or just because that person has done wrong first and convinced you to join them. Most people who comit sexual abuse were abused themselves. But they still have moral agency. They are still to blame. They still have to take responsibility for their own actions.

 

[Spymaster]

The ruling that the removal of her citizenship was legal is an appalling decision.

You realise, repeating this ad nauseum doesn't make it correct.

The committee looked at the law. It was not illegal. You may not like the law but that's what it is and there was no unlawful act.

How many more courts do you need to tell you this?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

You realise, repeating this ad nauseum doesn't make it correct.

The committee looked at the law. It was not illegal. You may not like the law but that's what it is and there was no unlawful act.

How many more courts do you need to tell you this?

I don't need a court to tell me something is wrong and shameful, thanks. The decision is shameful. The framing of it as legal is shameful.

And let's not pretend that courts are some neutral arbiter of truth. They are not.

 

[Pickman's model]

You realise, repeating this ad nauseum doesn't make it correct.

The committee looked at the law. It was not illegal. You may not like the law but that's what it is and there was no unlawful act.

How many more courts do you need to tell you this?

yeh it's the law but is it justice? i say no

 

[Spymaster]

I don't need a court to tell me something is wrong and shameful, thanks. The decision is shameful. The framing of it as legal is shameful.

It WAS legal.

That was the scope of their concern. Not whether some people think the law is shameful.

 

[Magnus McGinty]

yeh it's the law but is it justice? i say no

No accusation of pedantry for Spymaster then?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

It WAS legal.

That was the scope of their concern. Not whether some people think the law is shameful.

It was deemed to be legal by a court, which was shameful. Those judges should be ashamed of themselves.

You speak as if there were some legal truth out there waiting to be discovered by a panel of experts. There isn't. Legal arguments are made to suit purposes. Words are interpreted in particular ways to suit particular agendas. You're hopelessly naive if you think otherwise.

 

[Dystopiary]

Under British law 15-year olds are not capable of giving informed consent to have sex, so getting her to board a plane to go and marry a man overseas is child grooming and rape. More generally whether something is trafficking or not gets a little greyer dependent on an assessment of capability. A famous case of non-violent/coercive trafficking currently in the news of course is Andrew Tate, but broadly there are millions of people in cults who have often been manipulated in really quite terrible ways, including adults, many of whom have to be subsequently rescued for their own safety.

In this case, the law appears to suggest that she should have had an "oh shit" moment when she turned 16 and whatever happened after that is completely divorced from any prior context.

100% agree with this.

Plus it sets a disturbing precedent. If they can do it to her they will do it to people we do not find ~morally repugnant.~

 

[Magnus McGinty]

They’re definitely hanging her out to dry as a totem to warn others off doing similar.

 

[Spymaster]

It was deemed to be legal by a court, which was shameful. Those judges should be ashamed of themselves.

Legal arguments are made to suit purposes. Words are interpreted in particular ways to suit particular agendas. You're hopelessly naive if you think otherwise.

What a load of bollocks.

We've been over this countless times so no point in doing it again. You are hopelessly naive to think that this portion of the law was going to change. Nothing's happened to change it since we last discussed it. You don't seem to understand what law is at all.

You speak as if there were some legal truth out there waiting to be discovered by a panel of experts.

That's what you're doing! And in the process you're conflating your personal opinions with what the law should be. It's nonsense.

I was hoping that now you've been proven wrong for a 3rd time (or is it 4th?) you'd start to get it.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

No portion of the law needs to change. Just the interpretation of it. So can you act against somebody on the basis of a theoretical citizenship that that person doesn't even know exists and that is denied by the country concerned? There are also issues to do with equality and discrimination here. There is loads of scope within the law to reach a different conclusion should they wish to do so. They don't. And that's where you're naive.

 

[Rob Ray]

NB// A decision can be shameful regardless of its legal position. A judge recently barred a Just Stop Oil protester from saying why they were protesting. Legally they can do that. Morally (and in terms of the social impact of its broader implication) that same act is shameful and the judge should be ashamed of doing it. The two are not incompatible positions.

 

[belboid]

I don't need a court to tell me something is wrong and shameful, thanks. The decision is shameful. The framing of it as legal is shameful.

And let's not pretend that courts are some neutral arbiter of truth. They are not.

Slavery was legal, so that must have been okay too.

 

[Pickman's model]

No accusation of pedantry for Spymaster then?

With you pedantry is a temporary aberration

 

[Spymaster]

No portion of the law needs to change. Just the interpretation of it. So can you act against somebody on the basis of a theoretical citizenship that that person doesn't even know exists and that is denied by the country concerned? There are also issues to do with equality and discrimination here. There is loads of scope within the law to reach a different conclusion should they wish to do so. They don't. And that's where you're naive.

I'm not doing this with you all over again. You're wrong about the law in almost everything you say.

 

[Tones]

Slavery was legal, so that must have been okay too.

And even more recently than that it was not a crime for a man to rape his wife.

 

[Pickman's model]

What a load of bollocks.

We've been over this countless times so no point in doing it again. You are hopelessly naive to think that this portion of the law was going to change. Nothing's happened to change it since we last discussed it. You don't seem to understand what law is at all.



That's what you're doing! And in the process you're conflating your personal opinions with what the law should be. It's nonsense.

I was hoping that now you've been proven wrong for a 3rd time (or is it 4th?) you'd start to get it.

It could be the 34th, he'd still be wittering on as he is now

 

[Spymaster]

NB// A decision can be shameful regardless of its legal position.

That's not what LBJ is arguing though.

He is arguing that the stripping of Begum's citizenship should have been ruled illegal.

 

[Rob Ray]

100% agree with this.

Plus it sets a disturbing precedent. If they can do it to her they will do it to people we do not find ~morally repugnant.~

The various conventions were outlined for a reason – using citizenship as a method of State coercion and punishment against dissidents and outsider groups has a very inglorious history.

 

[Pickman's model]

I'm not doing this with you all over again. You're wrong about the law in almost everything you say.

He's right everywhere except in what he says