British IS schoolgirl 'wants to return home'

[littlebabyjesus]

I didn't ask if he was aware of it. that's another issue.

Was his citizenship revoked on the grounds of his ethnicity?

It's not another issue. It's central to the idea that citizenship rights here now vary according to ethnicity, not according to some other thing such as you or your parents having applied for dual nationality with another country.

I also don't agree with Letts losing his citizenship, remember. However, in his case, his ethnicity was not weaponised against him in this way. It didn't need to be. With Begum, it did need to be - it was the only way to do it.

 

[Spymaster]

It's not another issue. It's central to the idea that citizenship rights here now vary according to ethnicity, not according to some other thing such as you or your parents having applied for dual nationality with another country.

Oh, get out of it.

I understand why you're avoiding the question though, because you know it sinks your boat.

 

[Spymaster]

As such, she should pay for her crimes either here or where she committed them ...

She should pay for them where she committed them. Iraq or Syria.

We don't insist that Brits who break other laws in other countries get brought back to the UK to stand trial here. Why now?

 

[JimW]

She should pay for them where she committed them. Iraq or Syria.

We don't insist that Brits who break other laws in other countries get brought back to the UK to stand trial here. Why now?

Yes, I'd be fine with that. Didn't Iraq or the Kurds offer as well?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Whatever the laws of other countries may or may not say, it is the duty of this court to uphold the fairness and non-discriminatory nature of British law. For that reason, nobody should ever be held accountable in a British court for a citizenship law of a different country to which they may have links by ancestry but of which they are not aware. If the person concerned or their legal guardian did not take any measures to secure said citizenship, it should be assumed not to exist. To do otherwise is to discriminate against people from ethnic minorities.

... or similar. Is a judgement the court could have reached.

But they chose not to.

 

[Spymaster]

Yes, I'd be fine with that. Didn't Iraq or the Kurds offer as well?

Yes.

 

[Tones]

Letts was well aware of his dual nationality. It is not comparable.

Do you think she would not have gone if she had known she had Bangladeshi citizenship?

 

[JimW]

Yes.

Bringing her home for me would be the option if due to the situation out there they weren't in a position to deal with her but seems at least two polities are now.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Do you think she would not have gone if she had known she had Bangladeshi citizenship?

I think that question is entirely irrelevant.

 

[Spymaster]

But they chose not to.

Because it's bollocks.

All of that is outside the remit of the siac hearing.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Because it's bollocks.

All of that is outside the remit of the siac hearing.

Judging whether or not this was a lawful action was outside the remit? Really?

 

[Spymaster]

Bringing her home for me would be the option if due to the situation out there they weren't in a position to deal with her but seems at least two polities are now.

France have allowed some to return and some to be tried by Iraq.

I'm not sure how they choose who's who

 

[Tones]

I think that question is entirely irrelevant.

You are saying it is unfair because she diidn't know she was Bangladeshi. I think the outcome probably would havve been the same even if she did know.

 

[JimW]

France have allowed some to return and some to be tried by Iraq.

I'm not sure how they choose who's who

Would it be if they might be liable to the death penalty? French law might not allow that.

 

[Tones]

Judging whether or not this was a lawful action was outside the remit? Really?

It is lawful to discriminate when it's national security. So they would have been wrong to say it was unlawful because its discrimination.

 

[Spymaster]

Judging whether or not this was a lawful action was outside the remit? Really?

Ffs.

They had to decide whether the HS acted unlawfully according to the law.

NOT according to the law as LBJ off the internet wants it to be.

 

[Spymaster]

Would it be if they might be liable to the death penalty? French law might not allow that.

I've no idea. I'd have thought that they'd all face the death penalty in Iraq though.

 

[JimW]

I've no idea. I'd have thought that they'd all face the death penalty in Iraq though.

Me either, I'll see if I can find out.

 

[JimW]

This is from a couple of years ago, has Macron getting flak for allowing trials in Iraq that lead to sentence of death: Countries Don’t Want Their ISIS Foreign Fighters Back: A Review

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I don't think the French have behaved well here either. If these are people born and bred in your country, you should take responsibility for them, not shove that responsibility onto others, no matter how inconvenient that may be.

There are long-term considerations here as well. If you are seen to be acting in an opportunistic, unprincipled way, what does that do for the future of radicalisation if not give it a boost?

 

[JimW]

I don't think the French have behaved well here either. If these are people born and bred in your country, you should take responsibility for them, not shove that responsibility onto others, no matter how inconvenient that may be.

There are long-term considerations here as well. If you are seen to be acting in an opportunistic, unprincipled way, what does that do for the future of radicalisation if not give it a boost?

Reading a couple of articles it seems major factors driving repatriation decisions in most European nations were costs and domestic political expediency, not surprisingly

 

[Tones]

If these are people born and bred in your country, you should take responsibility for them, not shove that responsibility onto others, no matter how inconvenient that may be.

I agree I think we have a moral duty and there are practical reasons why we should, even if technically what was done to her was lawful.

 

[Spymaster]

This is from a couple of years ago, has Macron getting flak for allowing trials in Iraq that lead to sentence of death: Countries Don’t Want Their ISIS Foreign Fighters Back: A Review

That's a good piece. People here should read it.

 

[Magnus McGinty]

She should pay for them where she committed them. Iraq or Syria.

We don't insist that Brits who break other laws in other countries get brought back to the UK to stand trial here. Why now?

But hasn’t she also committed crimes in the UK (if she was allowed back) such as membership of a proscribed organisation and possibly terrorism and treason?

 

[Spymaster]

But hasn’t she also committed crimes in the UK (if she was allowed back) such as membership of a proscribed organisation and possibly terrorism and treason?

Certainly joining a proscribed organisation. I don't think she's committed terrorism in the UK, and I've no idea wrt treason.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

This argument isn't even about the British govt actively bringing her back here. It's about the British govt actively preventing her from coming back. There's a bit of a difference.

She'd face probably three or four years in prison if she came back.

 

[Pickman's model]

But hasn’t she also committed crimes in the UK (if she was allowed back) such as membership of a proscribed organisation and possibly terrorism and treason?

Theft...

 

[Magnus McGinty]

Certainly joining a proscribed organisation. I don't think she's committed terrorism in the UK, and I've no idea wrt treason.

Anyway you can be tried in a country where you have committed no crime such as Assange’s extradition demonstrates.

 

[Pickman's model]

Anyway you can be tried in a country where you have committed no crime such as Assange’s extradition demonstrates.

Or the Birmingham 6

 

[Spymaster]

Anyway you can be tried in a country where you have committed no crime such as Assange’s extradition demonstrates.

You can, and several countries have tried some of these people in absentia. Ther issue with this is that they don't get tried for the larger crimes they've committed because they get done for the crimes they committed in their home countries, not the crimes they committed in Iraq or Syria.

So they get 3 or 4 years for joining a terrorist organisation rather than life for their rape and murder rampage.