Basically you're not legally allowed to leave someone de facto stateless by removing their citizenship. The fact begum had Bangladeshi citizenship, all be it she was unaware of this and it was automatic, meant her British citizenship could be removed.
British IS schoolgirl 'wants to return home'
- Thread starter hipipol
- Start date
Basically you're not legally allowed to leave someone de facto stateless by removing their citizenship. The fact begum had Bangladeshi citizenship, all be it she was unaware of this and it was automatic, meant her British citizenship could be removed.
Rob Ray
Weight is meaningless
If you think the use of such punishments, once enabled, begin and end at teenagers joining cults I've got a bridge to sell you. Much of the argument about the dangers of this decision is not just about the celebrity case of Shamima Begum and its moral merits, but about the precedent being set. A precedent which only adds to an existing and expanding phenomenon.
Good old slippery slope argument? About 300 pages back it was asked who else has this happened to. It's not a new provision.
cesare
shady's dreams ♥
Return where? I thought she went to Syria. So yep going back to Syria might have that risk. But I thought she was looking to Bangladesh as a backstop, not Syria.
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
No.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
It is also a gift to the radicalisers.
You think you're British? They don't. They'll find any way to disown you they can. You will never truly belong.
JimW
支那暗杀团
That's the precedent isn't it? It's always been a technical possibility but none of the absolute cunts we've had as home secretaries have sunk this low before.
cesare
shady's dreams ♥
bimble
floofy
I don’t give even a tiny shit about her or what happens to her but people mixing up the two issues for years on here is a bit disturbing, at least some of you must be doing it on purpose.
This government has made human rights lawyers one of their favourite public enemies and the idea that it’s all fine nothing to worry about cos that begum is a baddie is just stupid.
This government has made human rights lawyers one of their favourite public enemies and the idea that it’s all fine nothing to worry about cos that begum is a baddie is just stupid.
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
Sorry, I don't mean return - I mean go to Bangladesh. It's not that they reneged on anything, its that it is unlikely they could/would keep her safe from harm, thus breaching her human rights.
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
Mohamed Sakr and at least four others have had it happen to them, under s40 of the 1981British Nationality Act
Parents of British man killed by US drone blame UK government
In an exclusive interview, the parents of Mohamed Sakr speak out about his killing.
www.thebureauinvestigates.com
JimW
支那暗杀团
At least I was right about the cunts bitMohamed Sake and at least four others have had it happen to them, under s40 of the 1981British Nationality Act
Parents of British man killed by US drone blame UK government
In an exclusive interview, the parents of Mohamed Sakr speak out about his killing.
It kinda does. 300 was an obvious exageration.
All the same arguments have been made before. By now you'd think there be a few cases you can point to to bolster your wider point but seemingly there aren't any. So saying it's not about this particular case doesn't hold much water.
OK edited. Read above post now. So yes, it's happened a few times in terrorism or suspected terrorism related cases.
If your position is it should never happen even if well founded and demonstrable security risks exist, fair enough. I disagree.
Last edited:
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
I'll propose you the same challenge that was laid down on this thread 3 or 4 years ago and still hasn't been won.
Find someone whose citizenship has been stripped unreasonably. If you can then I'll get right beside you in arguing his case (assuming of course that you wish to. Oh ...)
cesare
shady's dreams ♥
My take on this is informed by my Dad; we grew up during the Troubles and how those played out in England. He always maintained his stance, don't get an Irish passport, don't point out your Irish heritage, stay safe under the UK, don't jeopardise that. He had a deep suspicion of the UK state. He probably would have had a deep suspicion of any state tbf. Anyway, I can imagine him giving the young Shamina that sort of advice too.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
yeh but tbh you're conflating unreasonably here with against the law. The law can be wholly unreasonable even when it's working as intended, as many people feel it's being in sb's case
Rob Ray
Weight is meaningless
Yep, in fact I've said outright on this thread that the Begum case is itself unreasonable. It is an inconsistent application (ie. it would not apply to you or I), obviously using a loophole to effect a political outcome. You've managed to fall at that very first hurdle by conflating the case with your personal animus for Begum and personal agreement with the outcome.
cesare
shady's dreams ♥
I don't get that.
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
Probably because it’s guff!
In the case of Begum, and indeed anyone else who joins genocidal rape cults for 5 years whilst they murder their way across 2 countries; I’m supremely ambivalent to the stripping of their citizenships where possible.
Rob Ray
Weight is meaningless
In terms of whether the outcome is unreasonable or not it doesn't matter whether Begum is a monster. The application of the law has been shown not to be consistent across Britain's citizenry – ie. if your parents are from the wrong country you face a different legal system from that of people whose parents were born in Britain. That, in my view, is as unreasonable here as it was in the Windrush scandal. I am suggesting Spymaster's rejection of this argument stems from his dislike of the person it was applied to, and his protestations about legal technicalities are in aid of that position rather than having any real sense of interrogating the justice system or a wish to render it fair.
The reason it's important here is the same as for every extension of political power - there's little to stop it being used on people you do like. Maybe not today or even tomorrow, but as long as it's on the books, it's a problem.
The reason it's important here is the same as for every extension of political power - there's little to stop it being used on people you do like. Maybe not today or even tomorrow, but as long as it's on the books, it's a problem.
Last edited:
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
You don't seem ambivalent at all to me.
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
As to what happens to her, I always have been. My only strong opinion on the removal of her citizenship is that it wasn’t illegal.
cesare
shady's dreams ♥
Blimey. I thought this was a "one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter" situation. You obviously think differently. Genocidal rape cults across two countries is a long stretch from that
I need to read more about it.
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
Blimey. I thought this was a "one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter" situation. You obviously think differently. Genocidal rape cults across two countries is a long stretch from that
I don't think you'll get much argument from anyone here as to what ISIS were and what they did. Most of them object to Begum's treatment on the basis of her age when she joined them and her supposed lack of agency.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Her position isn't like yours. She had absolutely no idea she had this automatic Bangladeshi citizenship. Not only had she not applied for it, she simply had no idea that she could apply for it. It had never crossed her radar. I'm sure if you went down to Bethnal Green where she grew up and asked a bunch of 15 year olds with Bangladeshi heritage about it, they wouldn't know either. Perhaps one or two would know now, actually, as a result of this case.
And given that said automatic citizenship expires aged 21 if you haven't done anything about confirming it, I would argue that it isn't really citizenship, whatever the exact wording of Bangladeshi law might be. It's an automatic right to citizenship that can be exercised upon proof of parenthood. Hence I think the entire British govt/courts stance is pure self-serving sophistry.
cesare
shady's dreams ♥
The UK state defends the citizenry of those that they think should have citizenry. I don't think it expends any energy against those that don't threaten it - I think it expends much much energy in those it thinks it does. And if any of you libs that are piling out in defence of a young unformed person that "only" renounced their citizenship to go out to their brave new world, this is a clear lesson of don't trust your friendly state, isn't it.
Rob Ray
Weight is meaningless
The liberal position is to trust that the State's definition of "threatening" will only sweep up those who deserve it. It has been a very long time since I believed that.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
'you libs'? fuck's sake. 
8ball
Decolonise colons!
One day they’ll make an anarchist stateless and we’ll have the most awesomely confusing protests about it.
Similar threads
