British IS schoolgirl 'wants to return home'

[Serge Forward]

Buffoon.

 

[PTK]

Buffoon.

That is rather generous. Buffoons are at least entertaining.

 

[Spymaster]

Buffoon.

You’re the one fabricating nonsense.

 

[Spymaster]

Given that the process whereby someone is deprived of their UK citizenship is in this and other cases secret, we have no way of being sure that it would not happen to us.

You're just making stuff up, like Serge. There was nothing secret about Begum's citizenship removal. It happened very publicly.

1. Deprivation of citizenship where it is conducive to the public good is reserved for those who pose a threat to the UK or whose conduct involves very high harm, for example in response to activities such as those involving:

• national security including espionage and acts of terrorism
• unacceptable behaviour such as the ‘glorification’ of terrorism
• war crimes
• serious organised crime

In such cases the power is used sparingly and complies with the UN Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness. The Home Secretary decides each case personally.

The fact that she had travelled 2000 miles to join the most disgustingly murderous organisation on the planet, spent 5 years with them, married one of their murderers, and gave defiant interviews when captured, might have tipped him the wink. Even her own father said she hadn't shown remorse!

If you have evidence that Shamima Begum committed genocide, then you have a duty to pass it on to the International Criminal Court. Many people have been members of, or given their support to, organisations that have engaged in crimes against humanity and/or genocide, but not every member of those organisations was guilty of those crimes.

If you have any doubt that IS committed war crimes and genocide then you are an idiot. The evidence that she was complicit is in her own words and actions. She should be tried in the countries where those crimes are alleged to have been committed. Iraq or Syria. France has the right idea here. That may yet happen with Begum eventually if her captors deem her legal challenges against the UKG to be exhausted.

 

[kabbes]

If Begum was a Bangladeshi citizen then is she still a Bangladeshi citizen?

If she is not still a Bangladeshi citizen then when was that citizenship removed from her? And what was the process by which it was removed?

 

[Spymaster]

If Begum was a Bangladeshi citizen then is she still a Bangladeshi citizen?

If she is not still a Bangladeshi citizen then when was that citizenship removed from her? And what was the process by which it was removed?

By their law, she ceased to be a Bangladeshi citizen when she reached the age of 21.

 

[kabbes]

By their law, she ceased to be a Bangladeshi citizen when she reached the age of 21.

So merely reaching that age stripped her of her citizenship? And this is clear and known in advance by all parties and all legal processes?

 

[Spymaster]

So merely reaching that age stripped her of her citizenship? And this is clear and known in advance by all parties and all legal processes?

By Bangladeshi law, if a person with conferred citizenship doesn't apply to retain it by the age of 21, it lapses. This was certainly clear to the UK and Bangladeshi governments, although Bangladesh did wheel out their version of Comical Ali at the time to try to deny what was very clearly stated on their own website. Whether Begum's side knew isn't known, but it's legally irrelevant. At least people know now.

 

[kabbes]

By Bangladeshi law, if a person with conferred citizenship doesn't apply to retain it by the age of 21, it lapses. This was certainly clear to the UK and Bangladeshi governments, although Bangladesh did wheel out their version of Comical Ali at the time to try to deny what was very clearly stated on their own website. Whether Begum's side knew isn't known, but it's legally irrelevant. At least people know now!

So when the UK stripped her of her citizenship, they did so in the full knowledge that, by default, they were going to leave her stateless once she reached 21, unless she took a very specific positive action to avoid this? An action that it was not clear that she had the ability to undertake?

 

[Pickman's model]

By Bangladeshi law, if a person with conferred citizenship doesn't apply to retain it by the age of 21, it lapses. This was certainly clear to the UK and Bangladeshi governments, although Bangladesh did wheel out their version of Comical Ali at the time to try to deny what was very clearly stated on their own website. Whether Begum's side knew isn't known, but it's legally irrelevant. At least people know now!

Ain't life grand

 

[Spymaster]

So when the UK stripped her of her citizenship, they did so in the full knowledge that, by default, they were going to leave her stateless once she reached 21, unless she took a very specific positive action to avoid this? An action that it was not clear that she had the ability to undertake?

Debateable. It was after the UK deprived her, that 'Comical Ali' started ranting that she wasn't a Bangladeshi citizen and that she would be executed for terrorism if she went there. By the letter of the law it is Bangladesh who has made her stateless, not the UK.

 

[kabbes]

Debateable. It was after the UK deprived her, that 'Comical Ali' started ranting that she wasn't a Bangladeshi citizen and that she would be executed for terrorism if she went there. By the letter of the law it is Bangladesh who has made her stateless, not the UK.

Her Bangladeshi citizenship, by their law, ceases at 21. I thought you were focusing on the letter of the law? That’s their law. Everybody knew this in advance, you said. This was decided in advance, long before the UK government made any decision. The Bangladeshi decision took priority.

 

[Spymaster]

Her Bangladeshi citizenship, by their law, ceases at 21. I thought you were focusing on the letter of the law? That’s their law. Everybody knew this in advance, you said. This was decided in advance, long before the UK government made any decision. The Bangladeshi decision took priority.

And? Her UK citizenship was revoked when she was 20. She had a further year of Bangladeshi citizenship.

 

[kabbes]

And? Her UK citizenship was revoked when she was 20. She had a further year of Bangladeshi citizenship.

I don’t think that works. If there is a precedent contractual obligation, a third party can’t hurriedly insert a new state of affairs that overrides it.

 

[Spymaster]

I don’t think that works. If there is a precedent contractual obligation, a third party can’t hurriedly insert a new state of affairs that overrides it.

Two SIAC hearings, The Supreme Court of The United Kingdom, and The Court of Appeal, disagree with you.

 

[kabbes]

Two SIAC hearings, The Supreme Court of The United Kingdom, and The Court of Appeal, disagree with you.

I know, but the law has been known to side with political expedience.

If the equivalent situation happened in my professional world — for example, if I’d written an retrocession reinsurance treaty that gained the benefit of an underlying inuring reinsurance, and then that insurer attempted to remove the inuring treaty while still claiming on the original contract — I’d definitely be looking to sue and it’s clear cut that I’d win.

So I think it’s rational and reasonable for me to feel that the legal decision on this one is morally wrong and actually pretty dubious in principle

 

[Silas Loom]

I don’t think that comparisons with insurance contract law are ever going to be germane here. This has been all the way to the court of appeal and the supreme court on one set of grounds, and now is likely to go all the way to the supreme court on a further set of grounds, all of which are specific to the nationality, rights and security legislation that is in play. All the best arguments that could be deployed by either side in those abstruse domains can be assumed to have been deployed.

The fact is that legislation gives the Secretary of State for the Home Department quite a lot of headroom for decisions in the interest of national security. It’s neither surprising nor a sign of judicial capture that the supreme court has tended to side with the Home Office.

 

[Spymaster]

If the equivalent situation happened in my professional world — for example, if I’d written an retrocession reinsurance treaty that gained the benefit of an underlying inuring reinsurance, and then that insurer attempted to remove the inuring treaty while still claiming on the original contract — I’d definitely be looking to sue and it’s clear cut that I’d win.

I’ll take your word for it.

Where you want to draw your moral lines is, of course, your prerogative. If this was about morality this thread would have been a quick discussion where everyone set-out their stalls, called each other cunts for a few pages then left it. Not the 4 year, 200 page odyssey that it is. Instead we’ve had constant misunderstandings, misinterpretations, and straight-up fabrications of the legal positions, mixed with total nonsense that the UK is acting out of step with the rest of the world and “outwith” international law.

 

[Pickman's model]

I don’t think that comparisons with insurance contract law are ever going to be germane here. This has been all the way to the court of appeal and the supreme court on one set of grounds, and now is likely to go all the way to the supreme court on a further set of grounds, all of which are specific to the nationality, rights and security legislation that is in play. All the best arguments that could be deployed by either side in those abstruse domains can be assumed to have been deployed.

The fact is that legislation gives the Secretary of State for the Home Department quite a lot of headroom for decisions in the interest of national security. It’s neither surprising nor a sign of judicial capture that the supreme court has tended to side with the Home Office.

strangely you don't see the home office and right wing media proclaiming the courts the friends of the people in this instance.

 

[Spymaster]

The fact is that legislation gives the Secretary of State for the Home Department quite a lot of headroom for decisions in the interest of national security. It’s neither surprising nor a sign of judicial capture that the supreme court has tended to side with the Home Office.

It's not just the Supreme Court though is it? It's the entire appeals process.

This decision was inevitable and no surprise whatsoever to anyone who actually understood what was going on. It wasn't a moral issue. It was a legal issue to which they could only apply the law.

 

[MickiQ]

This could be very easily resolved by ruling that it's not possible to be a dual national without your knowledge due to some ancestral link and law of another country that you have no reason to know about. That way, people from certain ethnic minorities cannot be treated differently and considered 'less British'.

Those pretending not to get this point and pretending it isn't a rotten form of discrimination are being disingenuous.

That's not really possible is it? Since that would effectively mean that the UK Parliament was passing laws that overrode the laws of foreign countries in those countries. The best solution is for the Home Secretary to be stripped of his powet to remove British citizenship from people who acquired it by birth. I support that but am still cool with him have the power to strip it from people who acquired it by nationalisation.

 

[Spymaster]

That's not really possible is it? Since that would effectively mean that the UK Parliament was passing laws that overrode the laws of foreign countries in those countries. The best solution is for the Home Secretary to be stripped of his powet to remove British citizenship from people who acquired it by birth. I support that but am still cool with him have the power to strip it from people who acquired it by nationalisation.

Probably the most sensible post on the thread for a while apart from my own.

I think someone should have the power to deprive people of citizenship in the public interest, and within UK and international law regarding statelessness. If that's one person, it should necessarily be the HS. We have a system of government in which the Home Secretary is appointed according to the Government that people vote for.

If Corbyn had won the GE in 2019, Begum would be probably sitting in Tower Hamlets right now. A few of the cranks on here have been doing their best to convince us that there's a principle at stake that they'd uphold even if the subject were a nazi, but we know that's utter bollocks. If this had been some right-wing loon stripped for supporting nazi's there'd be unmitigated glee on these boards and anyone who says otherwise is a liar.

Begum's main hope of re-entering the UK lies in a change of administration. However, Keir Starmer, a KC so presumably with some knowledge of the legal system, is also on record as saying that her deprivation was not unlawful, so that could prove difficult too.

 

[MickiQ]

Probably the most sensible post on the thread for a while apart from my own.

I think someone should have the power to deprive people of citizenship in the public interest, and within UK and international law regarding statelessness. If that's one person, it should necessarily be the HS. We have a system of government in which the Home Secretary is appointed according to the Government that people vote for.

If Corbyn had won the GE in 2019, Begum would be probably sitting in Tower Hamlets right now. A few of the cranks on here have been doing their best to convince us that there's a principle at stake that they'd uphold even if the subject were a nazi, but we know that's utter bollocks. If this had been some right-wing loon stripped for supporting nazi's there'd be unmitigated glee on these boards and anyone who says otherwise is a liar.

Begum's main hope of re-entering the UK lies in a change of administration. However, Keir Starmer, a KC so presumably with some knowledge of the legal system, is on record as saying that her deprivation was not unlawful, so that could prove difficult too.

A change of administration is probably her only hope now, The courts have agreed time and again that stripping her of her citizenship was legal (whether it was just or fair is a different argument). But like you I don't think a Starmer led government is any more likely to be more generous. Still opposed to the idea of stripping birthright citizenship (bring em and sling in jail till they die of old age I'm fine with though) As thing stand at the moment she will most likely die where she is.

 

[Serge Forward]

Probably the most sensible post on the thread for a while apart from my own.

I think someone should have the power to deprive people of citizenship in the public interest, and within UK and international law regarding statelessness. If that's one person, it should necessarily be the HS. We have a system of government in which the Home Secretary is appointed according to the Government that people vote for.

If Corbyn had won the GE in 2019, Begum would be probably sitting in Tower Hamlets right now. A few of the cranks on here have been doing their best to convince us that there's a principle at stake that they'd uphold even if the subject were a nazi, but we know that's utter bollocks. If this had been some right-wing loon stripped for supporting nazi's there'd be unmitigated glee on these boards and anyone who says otherwise is a liar.

Begum's main hope of re-entering the UK lies in a change of administration. However, Keir Starmer, a KC so presumably with some knowledge of the legal system, is also on record as saying that her deprivation was not unlawful, so that could prove difficult too.

That's quite a few people you're calling liars then. I welcome any and all misfortune that falls on the heads of Islamo-fascists and Nazis. But cheering the UK government/Home Secretary for deciding who gets to lose their citizenship for political "crowd pleasing" or populist reasons sets a dangerous precedent.

 

[Spymaster]

But cheering the UK government/Home Secretary for deciding who gets to lose their citizenship for political "crowd pleasing" or populist reasons sets a dangerous precedent.

I'm not cheering them either. I just recognise that there's a process whereby citizenship can be revoked; that it's happened here within the law; that if it happened to a nazi I'd be ok with it, and that I consider Begum to be no better than a nazi.

 

[cupid_stunt]

But cheering the UK government/Home Secretary for deciding who gets to lose their citizenship for political "crowd pleasing" or populist reasons sets a dangerous precedent.

How have they done that? Are you suggesting this only happened because of media interest in her, like some have?

Plenty of people have their citizenship removed, most of which don't feature much, if at all, in the media.

According to the Home Office, 220 people were stripped of their British citizenship for the public good between 2010 and 2022. That was almost always due to national security concerns. BBC Link

The Home Office does not routinely publish comprehensive figures on citizenship deprivation. The available data shows there have been at least 847 deprivation orders for fraud, and 217 orders for the ‘public good’, since 2010. The exact number of successful appeals against these orders is not known. House of Commons Library.

 

[xenon]

That's not really possible is it? Since that would effectively mean that the UK Parliament was passing laws that overrode the laws of foreign countries in those countries. The best solution is for the Home Secretary to be stripped of his powet to remove British citizenship from people who acquired it by birth. I support that but am still cool with him have the power to strip it from people who acquired it by nationalisation.

I'd go along with that. I just don't give enough of a shit about Begum to argue the point. Amusing though the number of posters who keep popping up with their special interpretations of the law or weird victim casting of her. i.e. they're not making the argument about any of the others who've been stripped of citizneship for joining Isis.

"With those benefits come a few responsibilities. One of those is not being such a massive cunt that you attract the attention of the Home Secretary."

Given that the process whereby someone is deprived of their UK citizenship is in this and other cases secret, we have no way of being sure that it would not happen to us.

If you have evidence that Shamima Begum committed genocide, then you have a duty to pass it on to the International Criminal Court. Many people have been members of, or given their support to, organisations that have engaged in crimes against humanity and/or genocide, but not every member of those organisations was guilty of those crimes.

^Like this dross for example. Who's even mentioned genocide in relation to Begum's actions. I don't imagine you think it's all fine and just a bit of a regular adalescent mistake to have gone and joined a rapey fenatical death cult cos that would make you look a bit of a div. Instead you're making stuff up.

Spy's right. If on page 1 people had just said. However morally repugnant, vile etc, the UK born individual, there should not exist the power to strip them of that citizenship. We'd have been done.

Instead, pages of reckons by apparent experts in both UK and Bangladeshi law...

 

[Pickman's model]

Spy's right. If on page 1 people had just said. However morally repugnant, vile etc, the UK born individual, there should not exist the power to strip them of that citizenship. We'd have been done.

Instead, pages of reckons by apparent experts in both UK and Bangladeshi law...

i think you're missing the point of urban if you feel that is a bad thing

 

[Pickman's model]

That's quite a few people you're calling liars then. I welcome any and all misfortune that falls on the heads of Islamo-fascists and Nazis. But cheering the UK government/Home Secretary for deciding who gets to lose their citizenship for political "crowd pleasing" or populist reasons sets a dangerous precedent.

the cheering on doesn't set a dangerous precedent, altho' people ought to consider whether they should be agreeing with decisions made by the conservative party. it is the hmg/home secretary decisions which set a dangerous precedent.

 

[Serge Forward]

the cheering on doesn't set a dangerous precedent, altho' people ought to consider whether they should be agreeing with decisions made by the conservative party. it is the hmg/home secretary decisions which set a dangerous precedent.

True.