British IS schoolgirl 'wants to return home'

[littlebabyjesus]

That's not what LBJ is arguing though.

He is arguing that the stripping of Begums citizenship should have been ruled illegal.

The initial post was simply stating that it was shameful.

But yes, I also certainly argue that the stripping of her citizenship should have been ruled illegal. The courts have found a way to interpret the law that makes it legal. And that is very certainly shameful. And a dangerous and damaging precedent.

 

[Rob Ray]

That's not what LBJ is arguing though.

He is arguing that the stripping of Begums citizenship should have been ruled illegal.

It should have been. IMV that would have been the socially responsible course. That's an independent concept from what is as defined by the grouping assigned to interpret the legal texts.

 

[Dystopiary]

That's not what LBJ is arguing though.

He is arguing that the stripping of Begums citizenship should have been ruled illegal.

You missed an apostrophe.

 

[Spymaster]

But yes, I also certainly argue that the stripping of her citizenship should have been ruled illegal. The courts have found a way to interpret the law that makes it legal. And that is very certainly shameful.

Just more utter nonsense.

The relevant laws (both Bangladeshi and UK) were straightforward, as was pointed out to you years ago.

Under Bangladeshi law she was a Bangladeshi citizen. Therefore the removal of her British citizenship didn't make her stateless. Therefore it wasn't illegal.

 

[Spymaster]

You missed an apostrophe.

Thanks. These things are important.

Fixed

 

[Dystopiary]

Thanks. These things are important.

Fixed

Excellent!

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Just more utter nonsense.

The relevant laws (both Bangladeshi and UK) were straightforward, as was pointed out to you years ago.

Under Bangladeshi law she was a Bangladeshi citizen. Therefore the removal of her British citizenship didn't make her stateless. Therefore it wasn't illegal.

And yet here she is, stateless. There is also the fact that Bangladesh has stated that she would face the death penalty were she ever to set foot in the country. Britain doesn't send people to countries where they face the death penalty.

‘Stateless’ Shamima Begum would face death in Bangladesh, court hears

If you don't see how this is shameful, then I can't help you.

 

[Magnus McGinty]

With you pedantry is a temporary aberration

I thought you’d pulled the shutters down on me a page or so ago?

 

[Pickman's model]

I thought you’d pulled the shutters down on me a page or so ago?

By no means, solely on the point we'd discussed to death

 

[Spymaster]

If you don't see how this is shameful, then I can't help you.

I'm not arguing that it's not shameful (although I don't think it is).

I'm arguing that it's NOT ILLEGAL which is where you're going wrong and have been for 3 years!

And yet here she is, stateless. There is also the fact that Bangladesh has stated that she would face the death penalty were she ever to set foot in the country. Britain doesn't send people to countries where they face the death penalty.

Groundhog day was about 3 weeks ago.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I'm not arguing that it's not shameful (although I don't think it is).

I'm arguing that it's NOT ILLEGAL which is where you're going wrong and have been for 3 years!

A court has decided that it's not illegal. They could also have decided that it is illegal and given a legal argument to say as much, thus setting a much better precedent going forwards. They chose not to do that.

You talk about the law as if there were some platonic ideal of it out there and judges were simply consulting with it to discover the truth. And you say I'm the one who doesn't understand the law.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Groundhog day was about 3 weeks ago.

You're the one dredging these arguments up. You don't have any answers, I see.

 

[Spymaster]

A court has decided that it's not illegal. They could also have decided that it is illegal and given a legal argument to say as much, thus setting a much better precedent going forwards. They chose not to do that.

"Three courts have chosen not to interpret the law the way that I want them to, so they're shameful".

Christ

 

[Spymaster]

You're the one dredging these arguments up. You don't have any answers, I see.

You're the one who's has his arse kicked on this 3 times now! I've always had answers. So have others and they've been explained to you ad infinitum.

 

[Karl Masks]

Wrong decision IMO. If she has a case to answer, put her before a court. This is state washing its hands of a person it views as inconvenience. Dehumanising abuse of power IMO. Utter cowardice, and another move that emboldens fascists

 

[Rob Ray]

"Three courts have chosen not to interpret the law the way that I want them to, so they're shameful".

Christ

This is said all the time by people across the political spectrum who think a given deicsion has gone the wrong way, I'm not sure why you're having such particular trouble with it in this case. Judges are not automatons, they make and are influenced by political decisions.

Roe v Wade Overturned: How to Help Abortion Rights - MSI Reproductive Choices

When and why was Roe v Wade overturned? What does the overturning of Roe v Wade mean for abortion rights? Learn more and help protect choice.

www.msichoices.org

 

[Pickman's model]

You're the one who's has his arse kicked on this 3 times now! I've always had answers. So have others and they've been explained to you ad infinitum.

It can be explained to him, it can't be understood for him

 

[Spymaster]

This is said all the time by people across the political spectrum who think a given deicsion has gone the wrong way ...

That doesn't make it correct in this (very clear) case.

LBJ keeps wanting us to believe that the UKG has made Begum stateless, when the fundamental fact is that in law, if she's been made stateless, it's the Bangladeshi government that made her so.

The courts have considered the LAW. Not LBJ's feelings.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

The Bangladeshi govt, which has never issued her with any document of any kind, which didn't even know she existed, has made her stateless.

Do you not see the sophistry in this position?

 

[Spymaster]

The Bangladeshi govt, which has never issued her with any document of any kind, which didn't even know she existed, has made her stateless.

Lots of countries bestow citizenship in the same way without documentation. Ireland, for example.

The UK courts were not concerned with the actions of the Bangladeshi government. They were concerned with the actions of the British government and the British Government did not make her stateless.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

So the Bangladeshi govt has made her stateless and in doing so is acting in a manner that contravenes international law. And the British courts were correct to uphold the decision. That's your position?

Just to be clear. This is the thing you're agreeing with here?

 

[Spymaster]

So the Bangladeshi govt has made her stateless and in doing so is acting in a manner that contravenes international law. And the British courts were correct to uphold the decision.

This is why you're getting this so wrong.

The British courts have not upheld the Bangladeshi government's position. That's not within their remit.

They have simply said, once again, that the British government has not acted illegally.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

This is why you're getting this so wrong.

The British courts have not upheld the Bangladeshi government's position. That's not within their remit.

They have simply said, once again, that the British government has not acted illegally.

Ok badly worded. They were right to uphold the decision to remove British citizenship, and this means that it is the Bangladeshi govt that has made Begum stateless. She is stateless. Someone has made her so. I'm just confirming that it is the Bangladeshi govt that you think is in the wrong here, assuming you do think it is wrong to make someone stateless.

 

[Rob Ray]

The courts have considered the LAW. Not LBJ's feelings.

The courts took a potential loophole in the law – ie. that another sovereign nation had not adequately defined its own rules to stop them from taking an action - and decided this was sufficient to impose a political punishment that would otherwise break an international law which is quite clear in its intent. I don't think it's necessarily a feelings-based response to say that's pretty shady.

 

[Spymaster]

Ok badly worded. They were right to uphold the decision to remove British citizenship, and this means that it is the Bangladeshi govt that has made Begum stateless. She is stateless. Someone has made her so. I'm just confirming that it is the Bangladeshi govt that you think is in the wrong here, assuming you do think it is wrong to make someone stateless.

Again, they haven't upheld the decision to remove her citizenship. They've just ruled that doing so was not illegal.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Again, they haven't upheld the decision to remove her citizenship. They've just ruled that doing so was not illegal.

ffs ok. In effect they have upheld it. If they had ruled it illegal, it would have had to have been reversed, no?

I'm leaving you here now. You're being an arse.

 

[Spymaster]

ffs ok. In effect they have upheld it. If they had ruled it illegal, it would have had to have been reversed, no?

FFS!

Why would they rule it illegal when it very clearly WASN'T!

You've been shown why it wasn't illegal.

You're argument boils down to "I don't like it, so it should be illegal".

 

[girasol]

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.

She didn't go there thinking she'd be murdering/raping anyone. She was sold a dream: going to a better place, a better life, where she'd fit in better. It made me think of children who are groomed into selling drugs because they think it harms no one and it's cool and they don't even realise that it can get violent and brutal. Rose tinted glasses and that.

The way women were treated and kept there was to give the men a family, "satisfy their needs" and to look after them - not much else. Basically, baby making machines/maid/someone to have sex with - barely being let out of their homes.

 

[bimble]

there's two totally separate things that people are constantly mixing up, basically
1) Is begum a horrible shit who deserves whatever she gets etc and
2) should the citizenship of some British people be contingent on their behaviour whilst everyone else's is irrevokable.
Mixing them up on purpose or not leads to 200 pages of shitposting.

 

[domestos]

It's a tough one. She was only a child of 15 and many other Isis fighters are back in the UK and haven't had their nationality stripped although that may be because they weren't citizens of another country or dual nationality. Her widely reported comment on seeing a decapitated head in a bin was "I thought only of what he would have done to a Muslim woman if he had the chance," and she was pretty brutal in her assessment of the manchester bombing. She was older when she made these comments

The tricky thing is deciding whether the earlier comments were to keep her alive in the camps or heartfelt and whether her contrition is genuine. I saw the documentary on her and at the end thought I wouldn't completely trust her not to carry out a terrorist attack here in the future.