Radovan Karadzic

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
 Pete Pozman 12 May 2021

Radovan Karadzic (proven guilty by a court of the crime of genocide; never been a UK citizen) can come to the UK and serve out his sentence. Shamima Begum (never been to court: UK citizen according to International Law) can't. Explain that.

29
 Timmd 12 May 2021
In reply to Pete Pozman:

It's a good question,  especially if one considers that online grooming and deception could have played a part in Shamima Begum leaving to join ISIS ( ie, 'The bad thing in the news are all propaganda, come and play your part as a Muslim') as a teenager, and Karadzic was an adult when he killed people or ordered them to be.

13
 DaveHK 12 May 2021
In reply to Pete Pozman:

> Radovan Karadzic (proven guilty by a court of the crime of genocide; never been a UK citizen) can come to the UK and serve out his sentence. Shamima Begum (never been to court: UK citizen according to International Law) can't. Explain that.

I'm not really sure what your point is? Karadzic is being sent here by the UN, it's not like he's requested it is it? There are so few parallels between the cases that it's hard to see how anything illuminating could come from comparing them.

Post edited at 18:04
2
 mutt 12 May 2021
In reply to Timmd:

not sure I quite follow your argument there. Karadzic wasn't groomed into commiting genocide and inventing the term 'ethnic cleansing' to add the other atrocities committed by nationalist facists, but he did it. Therefore he spends time in jail, and there is long history of neutral states hosting the imprisonment, for instance of the Third Reich leaders after WWII. Obviously they can't be imprisioned in their home country as he managed to hide out amoungst fellow serbian nationalists for 20 years or so. WE aren't offering him the benefits of citizenship. Just a jail cell from which he won't be sprung. 

Shamina Begum I'm not so sure about but her position is arguably pretty much the same, but she's getting imprisoned elsewhere for her  crimes. Her position though is not of life imprisonment and I suspect therefore that the reason for not being imprisoned in the UK is that there is too much risk that one day she will walk free and commit further outrages. Need I remind you that ISIS sawed of the heads of innocent people. 

I don't know how complicit Shamina Begum was in ISIS crimes but she definately allied hereself with an enemy of the state and that is treason. Which I think is still inprisonable .  There are no rights for those who are imprisoned. Thats the whole point. Liberty is deprived as a punishment. So trying to draw out some percieved injustice for the treatment of these two individuals seems a little pointless. Grooming is not a defence, they both had time to come to their senses

11
 Tyler 12 May 2021
In reply to mutt:

> there is too much risk that one day she will walk free and commit further outrages.

That is a risk with every prisoner, that's why they have parole hearings etc.

> I don't know how complicit Shamina Begum was in ISIS crimes but she definately allied hereself with an enemy of the state and that is treason. Which I think is still inprisonable . 

I think you might right, so why not charge her with treason in the UK?

> There are no rights for those who are imprisoned.

That's not true as surely you know.

> Grooming is not a defence, 

Are you sure?

6
OP Pete Pozman 12 May 2021
In reply to mutt:

I'm deliberately avoiding citing any mitigating circumstances in relation to Shamima Begum. The issue is that he's been tried and found guilty then somehow finds himself serving time at HM's pleasure in the UK. Whereas a British citizen who's never been tried (except by the British press) is "imprisoned" in a different country with no recourse to justice because she is eligible for citizenship elsewhere.

I have a similar eligibility. Does this mean that when I am suspected of a crime the UK government can simply banish me to the country I happen to be in at the time indefinitely? Does the UN allow banishment?

(If she'd actually chopped off somebody's head I might not be quite such a stickler for due process. The principle would still stand.) 

13
In reply to mutt:

>Her position though is not of life imprisonment and I suspect therefore that the reason for not being imprisoned in the UK is that there is too much risk that one day she will walk free and commit further outrages. 

Awww, bless. You really do think that's the reason, don't you?

I think the reason is rather simpler; Johnson and his gang reckon that there's votes to be had in bashing Muslims, and no votes to be had in complying with international law.

>There are no rights for those who are imprisoned. Thats the whole point. 

Er, yeah. That's really not the law, now is it?

jcm

12
 DaveHK 12 May 2021
In reply to Pete Pozman:

You sound like you've got some good points to make about Begum's case, why muddy the waters by bringing in the mostly irrelevant Karadzic case? 

 Andy Hardy 12 May 2021
In reply to Pete Pozman:

The UN should have sent him to Guantanamo. 

9
In reply to Pete Pozman:

Kadadzic is rightly in prison and it’s important that the UK continues to do its part in supporting the ICC. He poses no risk to the general public.

Begum poses a small, but significant risk to the UK public if she was to return. Either by carrying out a terrorist attack or encouraging others to do the same.

It’s worth pointing out that Shamima Begum is not a UK citizen. Her UK citizenship has been removed from her as she was a dual national. International law clearly allows for citizenship to be stripped if an individual is a dual national.

15
In reply to VSisjustascramble:

>Her UK citizenship has been removed from her as she was a dual national. International law clearly allows for citizenship to be stripped if an individual is a dual national.

No, she wasn't - this is the standard right-wing lie on the subject. It was claimed that she was entitled to apply for Bangladeshi citizenship - a country she's never been to and doesn't speak the language of, but hey - which would not be the same thing even if it were true, and which would not make the UK's action lawful even if it were true. Bangladesh have said she isn't entitled, or at least that they have no intention of granting any application.

In any case, there's no reason why the woman should be Bangladesh's problem rather than ours.

jcm

2
 Tyler 12 May 2021
In reply to VSisjustascramble:

> Begum poses a small, but significant risk to the UK public if she was to return. Either by carrying out a terrorist attack or encouraging others to do the same.

Seems odd how the sort of people who fetishise Britain’s military might etc think we have to cower in the face of this ‘threat’ and out source justice. Still, keeps the culture war fires burning and these are the new British values now. 

7
 65 12 May 2021
In reply to VSisjustascramble:

> It’s worth pointing out that Shamima Begum is not a UK citizen. Her UK citizenship has been removed from her as she was a dual national. International law clearly allows for citizenship to be stripped if an individual is a dual national.

I'm hoping the moderators put a 'may contain false information' banner on this.

4
 Timmd 12 May 2021
In reply to Tyler:

> > Begum poses a small, but significant risk to the UK public if she was to return. Either by carrying out a terrorist attack or encouraging others to do the same.

> Seems odd how the sort of people who fetishise Britain’s military might etc think we have to cower in the face of this ‘threat’ and out source justice. Still, keeps the culture war fires burning and these are the new British values now. 

It seems reactionary and unjust to me.

Post edited at 20:26
1
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

> No, she wasn't - this is the standard right-wing lie on the subject. It was claimed that she was entitled to apply for Bangladeshi citizenship - a country she's never been to and doesn't speak the language of, but hey 

Lie is a very strong word in this context.

It’s a legal position put forth by the government and supported by the Supreme Court. You might disagree with the decision, but the UK courts don’t consider her a UK citizen.

Edit:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/explainers-53428191

Just putting the link in to prove that this is actually correct.

Post edited at 20:33
6
In reply to Tyler:

It's not surprising at all; these are people who like cruelty, as long as it's being done on their behalf to helpless women they don't like in countries a long way away.

jcm

9
 mondite 12 May 2021
In reply to VSisjustascramble:

> Begum poses a small, but significant risk to the UK public if she was to return. Either by carrying out a terrorist attack or encouraging others to do the same.

That is an argument for her to investigated and if found to be a risk to put her in prison or under close watch.

Its not an argument for the UK to say sod it and revoke citizenship and leave it to Bangladesh where she has never lived to pick up the pieces.

In reply to mondite:

> That is an argument for her to investigated and if found to be a risk to put her in prison or under close watch.

> Its not an argument for the UK to say sod it and revoke citizenship and leave it to Bangladesh where she has never lived to pick up the pieces.

Fair point - I haven’t comment on the ethical decision to strip her of citizenship. Only the fact she is no longer a UK citizen.

I suppose if I was to be drawn into the ethics of it all I would need to fully understand why she has been stripped of citizenship, so that I could weigh up the considerations around keeping UK citizens safe vs ensuring that the UK plays it’s part in delivering justice to its citizen. I don’t have enough information to form an opinion on that (and I don’t think anyone else does either).

As to why she was stripped of citizenship, the official line is that she’s a threat to national security, but neither you nor I have any idea what that means. It could be that our intelligence is that she’s extremely likely to carry out a terrorist attack if she returns to UK soil, it could mean that she is likely to incite others, it could mean she has the skills to build bombs out of easily available household items, or it could mean something much more remote and harmless. We simply don’t know.

Post edited at 21:25
1
 Ridge 12 May 2021
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

> ... these are people who like cruelty, as long as it's being done on their behalf to helpless women they don't like in countries a long way away.

Don't talk daft. I reckon Priti Patel would love to get up close and personal when it comes to being cruel.

 Rob Exile Ward 12 May 2021
In reply to VSisjustascramble:

I think we probably have a pretty good idea, frankly.

OP Pete Pozman 12 May 2021
In reply to VSisjustascramble:

She is not a dual citizen but is eligible to another citizenship. I pointed this out above. I have eligibility to another citizenship but if I had my British citizenship revoked before claiming it then I would be stateless. This is what our government have done in Begum's case. This is illegal.

I raised the issue because the discrepancy is startling: mass murderer condemned by an international court somehow comes to a UK gaol; young woman not found guilty of any crime (because she has never been tried) stuck in some sort of nightmare terrorist concentration camp in some nameless desert with no hope of justice. 

8
 DaveHK 12 May 2021
In reply to Pete Pozman:

>  I raised the issue because the discrepancy is startling: 

It's not a discrepancy. It would be a discrepancy if they were similar cases that were treated differently but they are completely different cases.

> mass murderer condemned by an international court somehow comes to a UK gaol.

There's no 'somehow' about this, it's crystal clear why he's coming here.

Post edited at 22:19
In reply to Pete Pozman:

> She is not a dual citizen but is eligible to another citizenship. I pointed this out above. I have eligibility to another citizenship but if I had my British citizenship revoked before claiming it then I would be stateless. This is what our government have done in Begum's case. This is illegal.

You’re wrong. Let me get technical and explain.

First have a quick read of the “international law” you’re quoting first. https://www.unhcr.org/ibelong/wp-content/uploads/1961-Convention-on-the-red...

The key point I’m making is that the argument around Bangladeshi citizenship is irrelevant as there are other reasons that citizenship can be revoked.

In the UK we have a domestic replication of Article 8.3.a.ii which allows the government to remove citizenship of an individual if they have “conducted himself in a manner seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the State“ thanks to the British Nationality Act 1948.

Therefore we can remove citizenship from any individual who does something awful like joins a terrorist organisation bent on destroying the west. The UK government have chosen not to make this argument, but there’s an extremely strong argument that it applies in the case of Begum. 

The UK government has gone down the Article 8.1 route (presumably so it wouldn’t need to prove what she’d done in a UK court and reveal the governments intelligence sources). This does relay on her being any to obtain Bangladeshi citizenship. Bangladeshi citizenship can be obtained through the principle of Jus sanguinis (despite the Bangladeshi government’s denials) and many people do get Bangladeshi citizenship this way.

She’s in a bit of a pickle when she turns 22 and can’t claim Bangladeshi citizenship. I think that would mean that the Syrians have to grant her citizenship if they’ve signed and ratified the convention on the reduction of statelessness.

3
 jkarran 12 May 2021
In reply to VSisjustascramble:

> Lie is a very strong word in this context.

Not if you fail to retract it once you've been made aware it's incorrect.

To quote the BBC piece you linked to support your lie: 

But in February 2020, a tribunal ruled that removing Ms Begum's citizenship was lawful because she was "a citizen of Bangladesh by descent".

But Bangladesh has said that is not the case and she would not be allowed into the country.

jk

2
RentonCooke 12 May 2021
In reply to Tyler:

> Seems odd how the sort of people who fetishise Britain’s military might etc think we have to cower in the face of this ‘threat’ and out source justice. Still, keeps the culture war fires burning and these are the new British values now. 

Seems equally odd how some people focus so much Begum's treatment as a sign of Islamaphobia or flag-waving British nationalism led by UK tabloids....and are seemingly less profoundly struck by the severity of what Begum consciously participated in. 

The grooming defence looks about as phony as her overly conspicuous placement of Union-Jack cushions when interviewed trying to make the case she prefers British values over ISIS ones.

ISIS is an utterly deplorable organisation, on par with the Nazis.  The fact that anyone, in today's world, would go to such efforts to join them leaves little doubt in my mind where they place their values - and the message it sends to others within her community.  SS guards were equally likely to have been "groomed" and opposition to Nazis was just as likely based on flag-waving British nationalism.  

10
 wbo2 12 May 2021
In reply to VSisjustascramble:

You need to explain the Bangladesh part as it's not very obvious - certainly the Bangladeshii government don't buy the logic.  Why Bangladesh as opposed to any other country?

At 22 I don't think there's any obligation on the Syrian government at all - that's wishful thinking. 

8.4 of the document you provided suggests that she'll end up a UK citizen as due process hasn't been followed.

This is all irrelevant as to her crimes, or not, as a supporter of ISIS.  But it isn't a good look internationally for the UK

Post edited at 23:13
Removed User 12 May 2021
In reply to Pete Pozman:

> Radovan Karadzic (proven guilty by a court of the crime of genocide; never been a UK citizen) can come to the UK and serve out his sentence. Shamima Begum (never been to court: UK citizen according to International Law) can't. Explain that.

Two unrelated cases with two different outcomes?

If your gist is double or corrupt standards then I think it's a bit flimsy. Their crimes and legal processes are totally different so hard to see why there would be outcomes in some way comparable. It's unlikely the people on the Karadzic case factored in Begum's situation when making their decisions.

Maybe in two decades of deliberation at the Hague Begum will be shuffled off to somewhere for containment where she is not a national hero to some.

They can both enjoy a cell in Syria for all my opinions worth.

RentonCooke 12 May 2021
In reply to wbo2:

> You need to explain the Bangladesh part as it's not very obvious - certainly the Bangladeshii government don't buy the logic.  Why Bangladesh as opposed to any other country?

Surely it isn't that difficult?

Her parents are Bangladeshi citizens therefore potential existed for her to be rehomed/imprisoned there.  Given ISIS's views on the West, and her stated lack of regret at having joined them, returning to a Muslim nation that she would appear to have more culturally in common with, as opposed to a nation she wished to see overthrown by an Islamic caliphate, would seem to be logical?

It would also send a message to the many others like her that actively moving to and supporting such a regime would potentially leave you unable to benefit from the safety, security and freedoms of Western society when the hard-line, zenophobic, racist, extremist doctrine you supported began to fail in its attempt at global domination. 

The issue of her citizenship is a rather technical issue and seemingly open to interpretation both legally and in principle.  In the circumstances, the hard-line is understandable.

As to whether its a "good look", I think most people on planet earth would fully understand the UK's point here and would be fully on board with it.

Post edited at 00:00
10
In reply to VSisjustascramble:

> Lie is a very strong word in this context.

> It’s a legal position put forth by the government and supported by the Supreme Court. You might disagree with the decision, but the UK courts don’t consider her a UK citizen.

Utter cock. Why don't you just read the link you've provided? What the Supreme Court said was that the UK government didn't have to let SB to return to the UK to argue her case that the removal of her citizenship was unlawful. The case remains on foot and the SC ruled that it remain stayed until SB is able to return here to argue it, which the government, cynically and disgracefully, is preventing.

It's amazing how racists always behave like this. It's just lie after lie after lie. It's so depressing to watch.

jcm

7
In reply to RentonCooke:

Precisely. You couldn't have illustrated better my point. There are votes to be garnered from the right wing base by demonising Muslims, and none in complying with international law.

jcm

Removed User 13 May 2021
In reply to Pete Pozman:

It's interesting to look at Bangladesh's laws, punishments and courts for the sort of things Begum is accountable for. I don't think I'd be lining up for citizenship there any time soon. 

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

So you agree that her citizenship has been removed I.e. she is no longer a UK citizen?

4
In reply to wbo2:

Her parents were born in Bangladesh. So the (https://www.refworld.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/rwmain/opendocpdf.pdf?reldoc=y&a...) applies.

If you scroll down to the bottom of page 2 you can see that she meets the citizen by decent criteria. 

It’s very odd how many climbers are terrorist sympathisers and seem desperate to bring someone with the potential to cause harm into the UK.

14
 Michael Hood 13 May 2021
In reply to VSisjustascramble:

> It’s very odd how many climbers are terrorist sympathisers and seem desperate to bring someone with the potential to cause harm into the UK.

You're funny 😁, I think you're deliberately poking the wasp nest by rather extrapolating from what people have said to produce this rather provocative statement 1/10

And ooh, you've been registered for over a week now. Wonder what your previous names on UKC were. Have you got a good reason for hiding your name or are you just a coward.

Post edited at 08:12
3
 wintertree 13 May 2021
In reply to VSisjustascramble:

> It’s very odd how many climbers are terrorist sympathisers and seem desperate to bring someone with the potential to cause harm into the UK.

Disagreeing with you and the present government does not mean someone sympathises with a terrorist, although your response does make me think you might just be trolling.

I have no sympathy for her at this point.  I am deeply unhappy at the process that has played out.  

If she is not dangerous, I do not think she is worth the toxic precedent her case has set - we should deal with our own problems, not disown them.  If she is a danger to the UK I fail to see why it’s not in our best interests to throw due process at her, lock her up and make the best use of her - intelligence etc.

We are throwing away hard won aspects of our democracy to appease idiots over her conduct.  This is exactly what the terrorists and those pulling their puppet strings want - to chip away at the fabric of our society.  Faux virtue signalling outrage is a great lever for that.  If anything you in your blindness are showing more sympathy to their cause than anyone I’ve seen here arguing for her return.

 jkarran 13 May 2021
In reply to VSisjustascramble:

> So you agree that her citizenship has been removed I.e. she is no longer a UK citizen?

That isn't the point (lie) you're being picked up on. You argued that she was a dual national, she wasn't. Not that she is stateless, which she is, as a result of our government's disregard for the law.

Jk

1
 Martin Hore 13 May 2021
In reply to Pete Pozman:

I've not studied every response on this thread so apologies if this has been mentioned before.

Shamina Begum was born in the UK, educated here and indoctrinated here. She was a minor when she left to join ISIS. I believe she is straightforwardly Britain's responsibility, to try in court, imprison, re-educate, treat, protect - whatever we choose to do with her. But I can't see how she is any other country's responsibility in any way. It seems remarkably simple to me.

Martin

1
 TobyA 13 May 2021
In reply to VSisjustascramble:

> Lie is a very strong word in this context.

You said she was a dual national. No she isn't. So "lie" or "wrong", you decide.

> Just putting the link in to prove that this is actually correct.

Your link actually states that you were wrong - either from lack of knowledge or in a deliberate attempt to deceive. Again, you can decide.

In reply to TobyA:

> You said she was a dual national. No she isn't. So "lie" or "wrong", you decide.

> Your link actually states that you were wrong - either from lack of knowledge or in a deliberate attempt to deceive. Again, you can decide.

Sorry maybe I’m being a bit dim, but can you quote the bit that says she’s not a Bangladeshi national from the article. I’m struggling to find it.

2
 Ridge 13 May 2021
In reply to Pete Pozman:

Just heard on Radio 4 that Karadzic's lawyer is appealing against his transfer to the UK as he'll be in danger from Muslim extremists in jail.

Maybe Begum's safer where she is, given her new found love for the UK?

 TobyA 13 May 2021
In reply to VSisjustascramble:

You said she is a dual national. She does not have Bangladeshi citizenship. So she is not a dual national. Click on the link in your article where it says the Bangladesh Government says this is not the case (that she is a citizen) and the linked news article says further "Shamima Begum is not a Bangladeshi citizen and there is "no question" of her being allowed into the country, Bangladesh's ministry of foreign affairs has said."

Whether she is possibly entitled to citizenship in the Bangladesh isn't what you said. You said she is dual national. She isn't.

Two of my children are now dual nationals, one of them isn't because we haven't gone through the moderately expensive and time consuming process of applying to the Home Office yet. He is now eligible for recognition on the same grounds as his older brother, but he is not yet a citizen because it hasn't been recognised. In the case of SB you have the government quite clearly stating she is not a citizen and she is not eligible for that citizenship. Perhaps if you understand international law better than Bangladesh government, the FCO will give you a contract to force them to give Begum Bangladeshi citizenship and make her their problem, as that is definitely what HMG seems to think is the answer.  

 mondite 13 May 2021
In reply to Martin Hore:

>  It seems remarkably simple to me.

Yes thats part of the problem for me.

The other part is that its a catch 22 for the citizenship. The only way she can challenge the loss of citizenship is by being able to return to the UK for the tribunal but the government is preventing that from happening.

So maybe she should be stripped of her citizenship but preventing her from having a fair trial (hearing whatever the correct legal term in this case is) about it is a dangerous precedence.

1
 TobyA 13 May 2021
In reply to Ridge:

> Just heard on Radio 4 that Karadzic's lawyer is appealing against his transfer to the UK as he'll be in danger from Muslim extremists in jail.

I heard that too, I hadn't heard about the Serb (or maybe Bosnia-Serb) general who was (is?) banged up in Wakefield Prison, I think they said, who had his throat cut. The report didn't actually say if he had been killed or not - does anyone know? 

 mondite 13 May 2021
In reply to TobyA:

> The report didn't actually say if he had been killed or not - does anyone know? 

Radislav Krstić

Survived and transfered to the Netherlands and then to Poland.

Blanche DuBois 13 May 2021
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

> It's amazing how racists always behave like this. It's just lie after lie after lie. It's so depressing to watch.

Stroppygib (and his various incarnations, including this one) always did this.  Perhaps we can petition Australia to have him back...

 neilh 13 May 2021
In reply to mondite:

I thought they said at the SC the judges  agreed that specifically she did not need to return to the UK to make her case.

There again there have been so many legal twists and turns it can be difficult to follow.

 Timmd 13 May 2021
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

> Precisely. You couldn't have illustrated better my point. There are votes to be garnered from the right wing base by demonising Muslims, and none in complying with international law.

> jcm

I think there's political capital to be made not just from the right wing voters, but anybody who has an emotional reaction against her, which can seem to apply to left wing people too, going on who I've met. She might be an objectionable & warped person now, but I'm not sure if that's the point given how old she was when she left, plausibly still a naive and easily swayed 15 year old, and fed lies about what ISIS was really doing. The people we don't like need to have justice too.

Post edited at 12:25
2
 wbo2 13 May 2021
In reply to VSisjustascramble:

> It’s very odd how many climbers are terrorist sympathisers and seem desperate to bring someone with the potential to cause harm into the UK.

I think it's this odd notion that the rule of law trumps a nice headline in the Daily Mail

OP Pete Pozman 13 May 2021
In reply to VSisjustascramble:

> Her parents were born in Bangladesh. 

My dad was born in Hungary. Despite this I am a British citizen and am subject to British justice. I have the right to be tried by my peers, to be judged and punished according to British law. 

> It’s very odd how many climbers are terrorist sympathisers and seem desperate to bring someone with the potential to cause harm into the UK.

No one can point to any harm she's actually done. Apart from being lured to the desert where she's been given to some terrorist to provide sexual consolation, which is about as much as as her support for terrorism amounts to, what other enormity has she committed to make her too dangerous to be brought to trial? 

3
 Alkis 13 May 2021
In reply to RentonCooke:

My take on this is a bit different. We, as in the U.K., effectively grew an international criminal. When criminals come into this country, we rightly want them out. Now that the opposite is the case we cannot ethically just go "not our problem". It's not just a matter of her rights, it's also a matter of our responsibility to the rest of the world. Why is she not our problem anymore?

Removed User 13 May 2021
In reply to Pete Pozman:

There are good reasons why she shouldn't be let back into the UK or any other infidel country for that matter.

There are good reasons why she shouldn't be allowed into any moderate Muslim country, they have their own problems with ISIS and the rest of those arseholes.

It hardly seems fair to leave her with the Syrian Kurds, what did they do to deserve her and the rest of that shower?

The international community could create Guantanamo 2.0 I suppose but it's not going to happen and would effectively be sentencing ex ISIS members to life imprisonment.

It would be great to create a new country, a small one, to put them where they could happily live out their lives in a reconstructed 8th century theocracy where they could live happily ever after sealed off from the rest of us....but that isn't going to happen. 

Not sure what the solution is but I don't want her or any of her comrades harming any more innocent people and that trumps any feelings I might have for her own personal well being. The rights of the innocent come before the rights of those that might harm them in my opinion.

5
 Rob Exile Ward 13 May 2021
In reply to Alkis:

The basic principle is still what gets me - the idea that my citizenship can be withdrawn on the whim of a home secretary. No it can't, it's mine. I feel the same way whenever the govt witter on about issuing ID cards - no thanks, they're not yours to give 

Same with Begum - whatever we may think about her, she is a British citizen and if we there is any meaning to 'the rule of law' that gives her inalienable rights.

Also, the idea that she is some terrorist mastermind who we should be terrified of -  well, I certainly wouldn't like to meet with her downright evil Isis mates in a dark alley but Begum? What on earth does anybody think she could do, safely ensconced in prison? 

 Rob Exile Ward 13 May 2021
In reply to Removed User:

The rights of the innocent are not protected by upending the rule of law. 

2
Removed User 13 May 2021
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

The rights of the innocents are not protected by allowing terrorists to live amongst them.

8
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

I think locking her up would the the difficult thing. What would the government be able to convict her of?

She’s alleged to have been part of the female security police (executing women if their hair can be seen ect) and manufacturing suicide vests for front line fighters. I don’t buy the innocent girl version of events (although I do have more time for point that she’s our responsibility). [https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/s...]

If she came back the most likely scenario is that she’d be jailed for a few years and then require 24/7 monitoring by the security services for the rest of her life.

I go back to the point that I made above. People are assuming that she poses no threat to the UK if she came back, but clearly those who get to see the details of the case think she does.

Given the government believes it has a legal case to prevent her returning to the UK by removing her citizenship the morale case has to be risk of harm to the UK vs she’s our responsibility. 

2
 wintertree 13 May 2021
In reply to VSisjustascramble:

Are you going to tell us which regular poster you are/were?

2
In reply to neilh:

She doesn't, in theory. She seems to be having difficulty in finding lawyers who will travel to a Syrian refugee camp to take instructions from her there, for some reason.

jcm

In reply to Removed User:

> The rights of the innocents are not protected by allowing terrorists to live amongst them.

But it's fine for her to live among the Syrian Kurds and for them to spend resources on dealing with her, obvs. Just so long as it's not us.

jcm

1
 neilh 13 May 2021
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Thanks......it illustrates neatly both the legal and practical complexities of the position.

Personnaly I am far more interested in getting Zaghari- Radcliffe out of Iran.if the legal profession want to reaaly get wound  up about a case that to me far outweighs Begums position.Destroys me every time I read about Z-R plight.

Post edited at 14:05
 mondite 13 May 2021
In reply to neilh:

> Personnaly I am far more interested in getting Zaghari- Radcliffe out of Iran.if the legal profession want to reaaly get wound  up about a case that to me far outweighs Begums position.

What would our legal profession be doing about case?

Outside maybe suing the government to hand back that cash to Iran and hoping that does the trick.

 Rob Exile Ward 13 May 2021
In reply to Removed User:

I really don't understand why this is such a difficult concept. It is the rule of law that makes everything possible - leave governments to rule by arbitrary decree (which is what they've tried to do here) - and you're not at the top of a slippery slope, you're already halfway down it. It never ends well. 

 Rob Exile Ward 13 May 2021
In reply to neilh:

F*ck me, what the Iranians are (almost certainly) doing with Zaghari- Radcliffe is exactly the same that we're doing with Begum - ignoring the law in the name of political expediency.

Let's not hear any Tory criticize Iran for 'breaking international law', they're just copying us. 

4
 Timmd 13 May 2021
In reply to Removed User:

> The rights of the innocents are not protected by allowing terrorists to live amongst them.

It isn't about whether she's been a terrorist, it's about the rule of law applying to all and to those we don't like, so that we are also protected if ever it's our own turn to be involved with the legal system.

I echo Rob in not seeing it as a difficult concept, we don't have to have any sympathy for her, to want the rule of law to apply to her, there's the self interest angle of so that it can apply to ourselves, and the sense of justice angle as well.

Not sticking to the rule of law creates a knife which we can also be cut by.

Post edited at 15:38
2
OP Pete Pozman 13 May 2021
In reply to VSisjustascramble:

> I think locking her up would the the difficult thing. What would the government be able to convict her of?

> She’s alleged to have been part of the female security police (executing women if their hair can be seen ect) and manufacturing suicide vests for front line fighters. I don’t buy the innocent girl version of events (although I do have more time for point that she’s our responsibility). [https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/s...]

> If she came back the most likely scenario is that she’d be jailed for a few years and then require 24/7 monitoring by the security services for the rest of her life.

Karadzic actually instigated genocide. This is proven. If we as a country can cope with him, surely we are equipped to manage this woman. 

> Given the government believes it has a legal case to prevent her returning to the UK by removing her citizenship the morale case has to be risk of harm to the UK vs she’s our responsibility. 

Our gaols are already full of actual terrorists; real vicious, tough, trained mass killers. It's a nasty problem to have, but all countries have it. Anders Breivik planned and executed a one man mass murder spree at a youth camp. Somehow the Norwegians keep him locked up safe. But only after the course of justice has run. 

According to our laws she needs to be brought to justice. If the law allows summary banishment then it is wrong. But of course it doesn't allow that. 

2
Removed User 13 May 2021
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

No it isn't.

That's what I said.

Trouble is her poisonous ideology makes her a threat almost anywhere.

1
 wercat 13 May 2021
In reply to mondite:

> What would our legal profession be doing about case?

> Outside maybe suing the government to hand back that cash to Iran and hoping that does the trick.


The poor woman is paying in person for our army getting Challengers to replace Chieftain

Post edited at 15:52
 thomasadixon 13 May 2021
In reply to Pete Pozman:

> According to our laws she needs to be brought to justice.

According to what law?

> If the law allows summary banishment then it is wrong. But of course it doesn't allow that. 

It does allow removal of citizenship though, which is what has happened.

4
 Alkis 13 May 2021
In reply to thomasadixon:

Not if it results in statelessness, which is what has occurred. I have very little sympathy with her or her cause, but we cannot just dump our dirty laundry on other countries to deal with just because dealing with them is inconvenient.

The HO's take on this is that they can remove citizenship because she is /eligible/ for Bangladeshi citizenship, not because she is a Bangladeshi citizen.

Imagine the following scenario, which would be equivalent. British person of Irish descent is radicalised, goes abroad and commits crimes. Because they /may/ be eligible for Irish citizenship by descent, the Home Office decides that they are Ireland's problem, even though they are in fact a home-grown problem of the U.K.. They were born, educated and, importantly, radicalised in the U.K..

Would I /want/ this person walking around here and potentially radicalising others? Absolutely not, but neither do the countries we have dumped them onto pretending they are their problem to solve.

 thomasadixon 13 May 2021
In reply to Alkis:

Which is an interesting question but has nothing to do with law.  I’m interested in this claim (which seems to have no substance) that we’re not following the rule of law.

3
 neilh 13 May 2021
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Doe that really stand upto scrutiny when its gone to the SC here...... most people would agree that the SC is indpendent...with any UK Gov  the courts  follow the law and not the  political mob in power.

OP Pete Pozman 13 May 2021
In reply to neilh:

I understand that the Supreme Court ruled that it was outside the court's competence to gainsay the government on what constitutes a threat to national security or whether it could tell the government how dangerous the repatriation exercise would be; they could not order the government to put public servants at risk.

The point about Irish citizenship I've already made; it applies to me. I'm also eligible for Hungarian and Slovak citizenship. If I go to Syria and marry a terrorist does that mean I can be rendered stateless. 

Nobody is sticking up for ISIS, or Begum, but rather the Rule of Law. If British Values don't include respect for that, we've had it I'm afraid. 

Post edited at 16:50
In reply to thomasadixon:

What do you want to know? The Universal Declaration of Human Rights declared that everyone has the right to a nationality. Our argument here is that SB does have that right because if she applies to Bangladesh they'll be bound to grant her Bangladeshi citizenship, even though Bangladesh have said they won't.

Frankly, this argument has only to be stated to see how contemptible it is.

jcm

 jkarran 13 May 2021
In reply to Removed User:

> Not sure what the solution is but I don't want her or any of her comrades harming any more innocent people and that trumps any feelings I might have for her own personal well being. The rights of the innocent come before the rights of those that might harm them in my opinion.

When her rights are trampled with impunity for political capital/expediency yours are too.

Jk

 Rob Exile Ward 13 May 2021
In reply to thomasadixon:

It's not a claim, it's quite simple and clearcut. Under international law a state cannot remove an individual's citizenship if so doing makes that person stateless. 

If Begum HAD Bangladeshi citizenship then we could. But nobody - anywhere - has said that she has -only that she could have possibly, if she had applied. Which she hasn't, and which Bangladesh has stated quite clearly wouldn't be considered anyway.

Ergo, we have made her stateless, which is against international law. 

Incidentally, these laws were introduced after WW II in a measured and considered response to the Holocaust, and were intended to ensure as far as possible that such a thing could not happen again. Obviously they haven't completely succeeded - but the insouciance with which Javed just cast them aside with as much consideration as he would indent for paperclip, makes me pretty hacked off.   

Post edited at 17:43
Removed User 13 May 2021
In reply to jkarran:

> When her rights are trampled with impunity for political capital/expediency yours are too.

Possibly, but that isn't what's happening.

Here's another grand sounding assertion. A government's first duty is to ensure the safety of its citzens.

5
 thomasadixon 13 May 2021
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

> It's not a claim, it's quite simple and clearcut. Under international law a state cannot remove an individual's citizenship if so doing makes that person stateless. 

Sounds like a claim to me.

> If Begum HAD Bangladeshi citizenship then we could. But nobody - anywhere - has said that she has -only that she could have possibly, if she had applied. Which she hasn't, and which Bangladesh has stated quite clearly wouldn't be considered anyway.

No, they said she’s entitled based on Bangladeshi law.  They stated *after* our decision that they wouldn’t let her in, not before.

> Ergo, we have made her stateless, which is against international law.

Or Bangladesh did, when they announced they wouldn’t let her in.  Do you mind Bangladesh’s decision or just ours?

> Incidentally, these laws were introduced after WW II in a measured and considered response to the Holocaust, and were intended to ensure as far as possible that such a thing could not happen again. Obviously they haven't completely succeeded - but the insouciance with which Javed just cast them aside with as much consideration as he would indent for paperclip, makes me pretty hacked off.   

Good Godwin!  No idea how this case relates to the holocaust.  “Such a thing”. What thing are you talking about?

9
 wintertree 13 May 2021
In reply to Removed User:

> Here's another grand sounding assertion. A government's first duty is to ensure the safety of its citzens

Which, if she’s a danger, is bettered served by:

a) Leaving her somewhere unstable to spread danger, train, recruit, and return under cover

b) Bringing her back and dealing with her.

This is where the “dangerous” argument falls down.  If she’s not dangerous, no problem returning her, right?

 wintertree 13 May 2021
In reply to thomasadixon:

> No, they said she’s entitled based on Bangladeshi law.  They stated *after* our decision that they wouldn’t let her in, not before.

Maybe our government could have checked this critical point with Bangladesh first?  It’s almost as if they guessed the answer and didn’t what it confirmed, that’s the logic of a 4 year old that.

 thomasadixon 13 May 2021
In reply to wintertree:

They checked their law, that’s not guessing.  It’s following the law.

6
 neilh 13 May 2021
In reply to Pete Pozman:

Did not the S C also if I am correct rule that it was unsafe for U.K. Gov to go in and get her.....amongst other things. 

 wintertree 13 May 2021
In reply to thomasadixon:

> They checked their law, that’s not guessing.  It’s following the law.

It’s our governments interpretation of their law.  When it comes to “checking the law”, if we could just read it and be correct there’d be no need for lawyers would there?

Who should we believe here, the country whose law it is, or the country who wants the law of another to work in their favour?

They should have asked the Bangladeshi legal system.  Not doing so is cowboy stuff.

 thomasadixon 13 May 2021
In reply to wintertree:

You don’t check what the law is by asking the government (any goverment), you read the law.  That’s how law works...

3
In reply to wintertree:

> > Here's another grand sounding assertion. A government's first duty is to ensure the safety of its citzens

> Which, if she’s a danger, is bettered served by:

> a) Leaving her somewhere unstable to spread danger, train, recruit, and return under cover

> b) Bringing her back and dealing with her.

> This is where the “dangerous” argument falls down.  If she’s not dangerous, no problem returning her, right?

I suppose we have to assume that the HO and the security services have considered both of those options and decided that it’s safer to keep her out of the UK. 

I suspect eventually she’ll fall into Syrian or Iraqi custody and will be dealt with by their justice systems.

 wintertree 13 May 2021
In reply to thomasadixon:

> You don’t check what the law is by asking the government (any goverment), you read the law.  That’s how law works...

Is it?  I regularly consult with solicitors over commercial law.

I didn’t say they should have asked their government, but their courts (“their legal system).

Who do you think is wrong about Bangladeshi law, our government or the Bangladeshi government?  Given the later is presumably advised by their equivalent of our attorney general...

 Ridge 13 May 2021
In reply to Pete Pozman:

> Karadzic actually instigated genocide. This is proven. If we as a country can cope with him, surely we are equipped to manage this woman. 

There aren't a few hundred Karadzics inside, with a few thousand more supporters outside. Plus he isn't going to be let out into UK society in a couple of years and require constant surveillance.

Ultimately, and it pains me to say it, we have to apply the rule of law to everyone. At some point she, and many others, will be back and it's our responsibility to deal with them.

We just have to accept that many more innocent people are going to find themselves on the wrong end of a truck, machete or exploding rucsac as a direct consequence of doing so.

 neilh 13 May 2021
In reply to wintertree:

Has  it not been tested in the SC? The governments decision has been through the legal millstone on this issue?

 thomasadixon 13 May 2021
In reply to wintertree:

You speak to lawyers, right.  You don’t ask courts, that’s not how it works.  I’m 100% certain our government did exactly that, and then as far as I can see they then followed the law.  Our courts agree.

8
 wintertree 13 May 2021
In reply to thomasadixon:

So why do you believe our government is right and the Bangladeshi government is wrong on this issue of Bangladeshi law?  Given our government struggles serious with our own low (prorogation, for example).

> Our courts agree.

Yet our courts don’t decide matters of Bangladeshi law now, do they?  

> You don’t ask courts, that’s not how it works. 

It’s exactly how it should have worked.

UK: Will you grant her citezenship?

Bangladesh: No

UK: Fine., we file a law suit in your court making our case in your law, for your courts to decide upon, asking you to grant her citezen ship.

The UK then revokes hers only if successful in Bangladeshi court.

Otherwise we leave someone stateless in a legal quagmire.

Post edited at 19:37
 wintertree 13 May 2021
In reply to neilh:

> Has  it not been tested in the SC? The governments decision has been through the legal millstone on this issue?

At our end, but the Bangladeshi government don’t appear to recognise any decision on their law at our end.  As it’s the decision of the Bangladeshi government - not our interpretation of their law - that cuts to the issue of her statelessness, there would seem to be a set of contrary views that are unresolved and mean our actions leave someone stateless.  

 thomasadixon 13 May 2021
In reply to wintertree:

You understand both could be correct decisions?  Also that she could be entitled to citizenship and Bangladesh could be able to refuse her under Bangladeshi law?  Not seen any discussion on that.

There’s a claim being made that the U.K. government aren’t following ‘the’ law, it’s (still) without any substance.

2
 wintertree 13 May 2021
In reply to thomasadixon:

> You understand both could be correct decisions?  Also that she could be entitled to citizenship and Bangladesh could be able to refuse her under Bangladeshi law?

In which case, it seems to me, that proceeding unilaterally to revoke her citizenship without first attaining a binding agreement from the Bangladeshi government or failing that a definitive judgement from their courts poses a clear risk of leaving her stateless, and that if we wished to honour obligations not to do so, we would not proceed down that route.  If, however, we wished to wash our hands of the matter, it’s a very convenient aspect.

Post edited at 19:55
 Rob Exile Ward 13 May 2021
In reply to thomasadixon:

That's because you're not reading what you don't want to see.

It is illegal to make someone stateless. That is what we have attempted to do. It's not a complicated law.

 neilh 13 May 2021
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

 I am sure this has been tested in the SC on thispoint. I am sure JC will be along to correct me if this wrong. 

In reply to Removed User:

> No it isn't.

> That's what I said.

You can't have it both ways. If it's OK for us to revoke her citizenship and refuse to deal with her, it must also be OK for us to say that the Kurds have to deal with her.

> Trouble is her poisonous ideology makes her a threat almost anywhere.

Sure. That was the comparison the OP drew with Karadzic. He's also a problem which the international community has to deal with. We're willing to help deal with that problem, but not SB. The reason is simple - cruelty to people they don't like plays well with the voters, and complying with our  international obligations when it's inconvenient doesn't.

To see how deplorable our behaviour is, one only has to imagine the situation reversed - some Syrian mass murderer comes over here illegally, and when we find him and try to repatriate him the Syrians say we don't want him back and we've stripped him of his citizenship so it's your problem.

jcm

 neilh 14 May 2021
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

 Difficult one . I remember the SC also upheld the U.K. s govt right to protect its citizens and take this action.

The independent legal system ( most of us agree it’s independent) does not always come down in support of what people think or believe  is morally or politically right.

for all we know there are more than likely prisoners in U.K. jails where other governments are refusing to have them back. 

 mrphilipoldham 14 May 2021
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

If it was indeed illegal for the UK Gov to strip her of her citizenship then that is a regrettable (correctable?) exercise. Ultimately we are responsible for her, as a final safety net, however she has committed a crime on foreign soil. In the immediacy she is the responsibility of the government of that land. If they choose to deal with her in their legal system that is entirely their prerogative. If they wished to enter diplomacy with out government to return her then so be it. She has also committed a crime here, so should be dealt with correctly upon any return. 

I do not understand how people think we should be spiriting her away from a sovereign state to deal with ourselves. Do we think we should be doing the same with British drug smugglers, for example, facing similar justice in other countries or are they getting their just desserts? 

> To see how deplorable our behaviour is, one only has to imagine the situation reversed - some Syrian mass murderer comes over here illegally, and when we find him and try to repatriate him the Syrians say we don't want him back and we've stripped him of his citizenship so it's your problem.

Unless the Syrian mass murderer committed the crimes on our soil then that is a poor example, sorry. If he came here with a criminal history, then he should be dealt with as in immigration case.. detained until removal can be facilitated. If he came here then he committed mass murder then he'd be dealt with as both an immigration and murder (terrorism?) case and detained also. Either way, he would be no further danger to the UK public. In relation to Begum, are the Syrians trying to deport her? Or is she awaiting trial for crimes committed there?

Post edited at 09:29
1
 Michael Hood 14 May 2021
In reply to neilh:

> The independent legal system ( most of us agree it’s independent) does not always come down in support of what people think or believe  is morally or politically right.

As (I know) you know, the courts apply the legislation and interpret/judge any ambiguities in the legislation. If we don't like the laws then it's up to us (via the elected government) to change them.

> for all we know there are more than likely prisoners in U.K. jails where other governments are refusing to have them back. 

A suitable question for an MP in the house.

 wercat 14 May 2021
In reply to thomasadixon:

> You don’t check what the law is by asking the government (any goverment), you read the law.  That’s how law works...


you ask the judges unless you are in 1933 Germany.  What you say is as simplistic as your form on sovereignty

Oh, I forgot, for Brexiteers Judges are the enemies of the people.  That worked in 1930s Germany too.

Post edited at 09:41
 jkarran 14 May 2021
In reply to Removed User:

> Here's another grand sounding assertion. A government's first duty is to ensure the safety of its citzens.

Just not those inconvenient unpopular citizens it left stateless in a camp with a dying child.

jk

 thomasadixon 14 May 2021
In reply to wercat:

Ah wercat, big chip on the shoulder and not much in the way of thought!  Always the same and, as always, you’re wrong.  Hard to believe you were a lawyer, but then we all know standards for acceptance were rather low in the past.

No one on here has been able to point to where the government hasn’t followed the law, so I’ll stick with thinking that they did, as the courts have ruled.

7
 wercat 14 May 2021
In reply to thomasadixon:

ha, from you it's a compliment

 thomasadixon 14 May 2021
In reply to wercat:

Likewise.  Every time I see you post your content free nastiness it reassures me that I’m right on the issue at hand.

4
 neilh 14 May 2021
In reply to Michael Hood:

And on a wider issue we have the fishmongers hall incident were the person was released from prison....despite it appears advice to the contrary.

It illustrates how difficult these calls are.

In reply to mrphilipoldham:

> Unless the Syrian mass murderer committed the crimes on our soil then that is a poor example, sorry. If he came here with a criminal history, then he should be dealt with as in immigration case.. detained until removal can be facilitated. If he came here then he committed mass murder then he'd be dealt with as both an immigration and murder (terrorism?) 

Actually yours is the poor example since in all cases Britain would be keen to have them removed (either bbefore or after serving prison time) and be irate if Syria refused to take their citizen back.

1
 Cobra_Head 14 May 2021
In reply to mutt:

> I don't know how complicit Shamina Begum was in ISIS crimes but she definately allied hereself with an enemy of the state and that is treason.

She was 14 years old at the time!! Can you be guilty of treason at 14?

 mrphilipoldham 14 May 2021
In reply to DubyaJamesDubya:

No it’s not, as they’d stand trial and be imprisoned until their deportation could be facilitated.. like I said. I didn’t go so far in my example as to whether or not the country of origin would have them back. Hence why I asked if Syria are actively trying to deport Begum, or if she’s awaiting trial. Of course the UK would be irate if Syria refused to have their national back, but that’s a pointless comparison if Syria aren’t actively pursuing Begum’s deportation. 
Don’t confuse her, or sections of our society, wanting to come back with the will of the Syrian government. If they want her there then it’s tough cookies.

Post edited at 12:15
 wercat 14 May 2021
In reply to thomasadixon:

di dah di dah dit

 TobyA 14 May 2021
In reply to mrphilipoldham:

> I do not understand how people think we should be spiriting her away from a sovereign state to deal with ourselves.

You do get that she is not under imprisonment by any sovereign state? She is being held by a non-state militia group on Syrian territory that is not controlled by the Syrian government. Additionally many states do no recognise the Syrian "government" as the legitimate representatives of the Syrian people due to their crimes against humanity.

 Alkis 14 May 2021
In reply to thomasadixon:

> No one on here has been able to point to where the government hasn’t followed the law, so I’ll stick with thinking that they did, as the courts have ruled.

Further reading would indicate that this is all sorts of grey in a very complicated case. Regardless of whether you agree with conclusions at the bottom, this provides a pretty good summary of what has occurred and according to what laws:

https://www.statelessness.eu/updates/blog/shamima-begum-supreme-court-judgm...

I am not a lawyer but it sounds to me like both sides are right in effect: It is very possible that removal of her citizenship may have been unlawful but removed by lawful means. It could be appealed, but the conditions of the appeal can be blocked on national security grounds. She has to be present for appeal, without that the court refuses to accept there can be a fair appeal and as a result will not hear it at all. No longer being a citizen, that would require a visa which will never be granted.

Quite academically interesting and I bet it will have legal experts discussing it for ages. 

 mrphilipoldham 14 May 2021
In reply to TobyA:

How does that make a difference? So currently she is a prisoner of war, that does not make her innocent of any crimes that she may have committed under the laws of the land in which she is held - disputed or not. If the Syrian government, legitimate or not in the eyes of some, retakes the land and captures her, or she is released, then she becomes their prisoner. Will they release someone who at the bare minimum allied themselves to the terrorist organisation that has systematically destroyed swathes of their country? Time will tell, but I wager they’ll want to put her through their justice system as would be their right. We have no right to remove her. But yes, we should take her back if it were requested.

Post edited at 12:46
4
 wintertree 14 May 2021
In reply to mrphilipoldham:

> We have no right to remove her.

I’ll wager good money that if you ever ended up in the custody of a non-state militia that you’d be asking for some men with pixelated faces from our armed forces m to come and get you.

2
 mrphilipoldham 14 May 2021
In reply to wintertree:

I probably would, but that doesn’t change the realities of the situation does it? It’s not her, or our, choice to make. People are acting like her fate rests with No. 10 but they’re well down the queue.

1
 TobyA 14 May 2021
In reply to mrphilipoldham:

> How does that make a difference? 

It makes a difference for various reasons connected to international law, as I understand it. States have different responsibilities to their citizens depending on what sort legal situation the citizen finds themselves in I think. But there are all sorts of practical and political issues around people being under the control of non-state actors. The YPG or which ever Kurdish groups it is that controls those camps, wants shot of all the Europeans they are sort of sheltering/sort of imprisoning. Lots of European countries have brought home their "ISIS brides" and particularly their children. It's caused lots of political strife in other countries - my old boss is the current Finnish foreign minister, and there were a lot of opposition calls for his head for how their government handled the Finnish citizens and their children in those camps, but they did repatriate them. I think some of the kids have been taken in care and women prosecuted.

I doubt very much anyone would consider her POW because that's defined under the Geneva conventions I believe, and non-state actors aren't signatories. I doubt she would be classed as a combatant anyway, although that's a question for a lawyer.

In reply to thomasadixon:

What you mean that you'll keep lying. The courts have not held that stripping SB of her citizenship was legal. A first-tier tribunal held that, and SB's appeal is in process.

I continue to be amazed at your ability to simply keep lying and lying and lying, even when the facts have been pointed out to you.

jcm

 Ian W 14 May 2021
In reply to thomasadixon:

Before getting too far into an argument on points of law with jcm, it may be instructive for you to know his profession............

Post edited at 13:51
 wercat 14 May 2021
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

careful or he might pay you one of his "compliments"

 wercat 14 May 2021
In reply to Ian W:

~Thomas is the World's biggest legal expert, don't you know

 thomasadixon 14 May 2021
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

You’re a lot like wercat but a bit wordier!

A tribunal is, of course, a court.

6
 thomasadixon 14 May 2021
In reply to Alkis:

Well worth reading, especially by those who are claiming the government aren’t following the law.

5
In reply to thomasadixon:

>A tribunal is, of course, a court.

Of course it is, babes. That's why we call them tribunals, and courts courts. So that people can tell that they're really the same thing.

jcm

 thomasadixon 14 May 2021
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

😂 so predictable.  Go argue with a dictionary.

6
In reply to thomasadixon:

The one thing TD is right about is that Alkis' link is very well worth reading. In particular it makes clear that the government has deliberately enacted law which makes the decision as to whether SB has been made stateless both effectively unchallengeable, and at the same time not open to public scrutiny.

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

> The one thing TD is right about is that Alkis' link is very well worth reading. In particular it makes clear that the government has deliberately enacted law which makes the decision as to whether SB has been made stateless both effectively unchallengeable, and at the same time not open to public scrutiny.

> jcm

At the end of the day the government isn’t going to change its mind. She’s almost certainly going to be handed over to the Iraqis or Syrians at some point and be executed.

Do I think that’s a fitting punishment for being part of an terrorist organisation that enslaved people and threw gay people off of roofs - I’m not sure. Will the majority of people in the country lose sleep over it - absolutely not.

2
 TobyA 14 May 2021
In reply to VSisjustascramble:

You suggested yesterday that you were maybe just being dim about claiming, incorrectly, that she had dual nationality. Did you manage to understand what you had got wrong in the end? 

In reply to TobyA:

No - as far as I can tell she’s eligible for Bangladeshi citizenship.

3
 Harry Jarvis 14 May 2021
In reply to VSisjustascramble:

> No - as far as I can tell she’s eligible for Bangladeshi citizenship.

Does she currently have Bangladeshi citizenship?

In reply to Harry Jarvis:

No

 TobyA 14 May 2021
In reply to VSisjustascramble:

Ok, I can see you are being a bit dim so I'll try and help out: a) that's not what you said, and b) the government of Bangladesh has stated she is not.

 Harry Jarvis 14 May 2021
In reply to VSisjustascramble:

> No

So what are the nations of which she has dual nationality?

 jkarran 14 May 2021
In reply to VSisjustascramble:

Yet you described her as a dual national. You were challenged on that. Instead of acknowledge your error you doubled down on it.

What's wrong with your previous psudonym, banned or credibility burned?

jk

In reply to Harry Jarvis:

She has no nationality at the moment, but is eligible to apply for Bangladeshi citizenship.

2
In reply to jkarran:

The OP stated that she was a UK citizen in the initial post I was just correcting this using the simplistic example.

I spent a lot of time trying to explain that she isn’t a UK citizen.

2
 Harry Jarvis 14 May 2021
In reply to VSisjustascramble:

> She has no nationality at the moment, but is eligible to apply for Bangladeshi citizenship.

So she isn't a dual national. 

So when you posted 'Her UK citizenship has been removed from her as she was a dual national.' you now acknowledge that to be incorrect. 

In reply to Harry Jarvis:

Yes, it should have said eligible for Bangladeshi citizenship.

No one is calling the op out for the very clear falsehood that she’s a UK citizen.

5
 Harry Jarvis 14 May 2021
In reply to VSisjustascramble:

> Yes, it should have said eligible for Bangladeshi citizenship.

> No one is calling the op out for the very clear falsehood that she’s a UK citizen.

You have been making that point, so it's clearly not true that 'no one is calling the OP ...'

If it is right to assert that she is not a UK citizen, it is also right to assert that she is not, and never has been, a dual national. 

In reply to Harry Jarvis:

> If it is right to assert that she is not a UK citizen, it is also right to assert that she is not, and never has been, a dual national. 

I agree with you.

 TobyA 14 May 2021
In reply to VSisjustascramble:

> but is eligible to apply for Bangladeshi citizenship.

She maybe eligible to apply for it, but let's remember the Bangladeshi government has said she's not eligible to receive it. So probably a waste of postage stamps to apply.

In reply to VSisjustascramble

> No one is calling the op out for the very clear falsehood that she’s a UK citizen.

The OP said she was a UK citizen according to international law. What he presumably meant by that was that the UK's decision to make her stateless was in his opinion contrary to the various international commitments the UK has made on statelessness, a view shared by a significant number of informed people, but not by the SIAC, featuring as it does secret advice from a government-appointed official, and a government appointed lay member whom one might imagine was not chosen by Ms Patel and her gang for his or her rigorous impartiality and/or commitment to international human rights.

jcm

In reply to TobyA:

> So probably a waste of postage stamps to apply.

Always assuming there's a post office in the relevant Syrian refugee camp.

jcm

 Timmd 14 May 2021
In reply to Removed User:

> No it isn't.

> That's what I said.

> Trouble is her poisonous ideology makes her a threat almost anywhere.

It strikes me that keeping her in the current situation she is, in a camp surrounded by other refugees, isn't doing anything to change any perception she has, of the 'the west' being in conflict with Islam, which is basically the Islamist world view. Any hope of her being de-radicalised might hinge on her returning to the UK, and getting to talk to other ex Islamists who have already made the journey back from 'being a nutter'. There's no sayingit'd work, but there's plausibly more chance of it happening here, than if she stays where she is and living in limbo and a life of shitness. It could be of net benefit to the world to attempt de-radicalisation, if it succeeded it would be.

Post edited at 19:17
4
 off-duty 14 May 2021
In reply to Cobra_Head:

> She was 14 years old at the time!! Can you be guilty of treason at 14?

She was 15 and 1/2 when she left the UK.

 off-duty 14 May 2021
In reply to Pete Pozman:

> Radovan Karadzic (proven guilty by a court of the crime of genocide; never been a UK citizen) can come to the UK and serve out his sentence. Shamima Begum (never been to court: UK citizen according to International Law) can't. Explain that.

You can eat apples without peeling them, but you need to peel oranges. 

Explain that.

 Cobra_Head 15 May 2021
In reply to off-duty:

> She was 15 and 1/2 when she left the UK.


OK, then , sorry about that.

So she left when she couldn't get married, couldn't buy a pint, or by a packet of tabs. If you'd  had sex with her you'd possibly have be convicted of rape, whether she wanted you to or not. She should have still been in school and her parents could have been fined for not making sure she went there.

My mistake. She deserves to be cast out and made stateless, I do beg your pardon.

Post edited at 01:05
2
 Cobra_Head 15 May 2021
In reply to VSisjustascramble:

> Do I think that’s a fitting punishment for being part of an terrorist organisation that enslaved people and threw gay people off of roofs - I’m not sure.

Well you shouldn't be sure until you've heard her story, surely. But given she was a minor, and if she'd been talked into having sex with some bloke in the UK, she'd be a victim. But for some unknown reason since she was talked into leaving the country and then lost any chance of coming back, she's suddenly the devil incarnate. Very strange how people can't make their mind up.

4
 off-duty 15 May 2021
In reply to Cobra_Head:

> OK, then , sorry about that.

I just think it's important not to misrepresent the facts.

> So she left when she couldn't get married, couldn't buy a pint, or by a packet of tabs. If you'd  had sex with her you'd possibly have be convicted of rape, whether she wanted you to or not. She should have still been in school and her parents could have been fined for not making sure she went there.

Yes. That is the age she travelled at. (Though for the sake of clarity having sex with her would only be "rape" if she didn't consent. It would be sexual activity with a child otherwise.)

> My mistake. She deserves to be cast out and made stateless, I do beg your pardon.

I've made no comment on that, so no need to apologise to me.

My understanding is that the concerns around her activities are focussed more on what she may have been involved in as a now 21 year old adult, who has been unlucky enough to remain with ISIS as their territory got smaller and smaller and they moved to different strongholds.

Others with her who were also unlucky enough to be in that position included the most hard core jihadists and, undoubtedly coincidentally, members of the female Al-khansaa brigade morality police, within which the British converts were famed for their brutality. 

Post edited at 08:45
RentonCooke 15 May 2021
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

> Ergo, we have made her stateless, which is against international law. 

Have we made her stateless?  She joined "Islamic State".  I would say in doing so she, morally, chose to abandon her citizenship and as such ceased to be a British citizen.  This is in the same way someone becoming a citizen of any one of a number of other states that deny dual citizenship would. Simply because the jihadi manning the desk of Raqqa's Home Office didn't get round to completing her Infidel-Citizenship Renouncement paperwork is a minor bureaucratic matter

The fact that she chose to join Islamic State, in particular, should put her at the top of the list for being denied her old citizenship - she essentially joined the Martian side when Mars attacks earth.  ISIS' stated goals couldn't be clearer and in greater opposition to everything her now desired citizenship stands for.  British citizenship for her is purely a flag of convenience, now she's a bit miffed at having to live in a refugee camp like millions of others have to.

3
 Ridge 15 May 2021
In reply to Cobra_Head:

> Well you shouldn't be sure until you've heard her story, surely. But given she was a minor, and if she'd been talked into having sex with some bloke in the UK, she'd be a victim. But for some unknown reason since she was talked into leaving the country and then lost any chance of coming back, she's suddenly the devil incarnate. Very strange how people can't make their mind up.

The key thing is that IS didn't coerce someone into thinking they were loved and cherished in order to obtain sex. The extremely professional videos were all about executions, slavery, beheadings, torture, burning people in cages etc. Any 15 year who watched that content and though "F***ing brilliant, I want some of that!" isn't in any way, shape or form a victim.

I accept we have to deal with her at some point, but I really couldn't care less about her 'plight'.

 TobyA 15 May 2021
In reply to Ridge:

What about her children? I can't remember but haven't all of them died in infancy? Because my partner isn't British I'm not actually sure how UK citizenship transfers but I expect if you are born to a British mother, you are British regardless of where in the world you are born. I know this is the case with Finnish citizenship - my British born child automatically qualified as a Finnish citizen because of his mother's citizenship. There was a lot of news in Finland 18 months ago or so over their "ISIS brides" and I believe similar has happened elsewhere across Europe; basically even if governments could find a way of not needing to deal with their adult citizens captured by Kurdish or other western-friendly forces they couldn't NOT deal with their child citizens - in many cases that was "repatriation", or I suppose "patriation" if they child had been born in Syria. By making her stateless haven't the British government condemned British children to a pretty miserable fate regardless of what their mother had done or not done, or what she believes or not? 

I genuinely don't know if any of her children would have a qualified automatically as British or not, but I get the feeling its a lot easier for the government to talk tough about (at least now) adults, than it is for them to say they are happy wash their hands of the welfare of babies and infants. I think in Finland children have been removed from their mothers and placed in care on arriving in Finland, so it doesn't have to be a "all is forgiven" situation for the mothers. If Begum has committed a crime she should go to prison for it but I don't see how anyone could say her children should be punished for her crimes.

1
In reply to TobyA:

Yes, all her children were British citizens who all died in infancy as a result of being unable to obtain medical care as a result of the government's decision. But, hey, to slightly paraphrase the government's position, f*ck them, they'd only have grown up to be terrorists anyway.

jcm

6
In reply to Ridge:

>The extremely professional videos were all about executions, slavery, beheadings, torture, burning people in cages etc. 

I don't believe that's true. I think their recruitment was rather more targeted than that.

But anyway, like all the right wing, you are persisting in this whole she-deserves-it attitude. That's not the point.

First of all, either we sign up to international commitments not to make people stateless, or we don't. If we do (as we have), we should abide by them, both the letter and the spirit. If we intend not to do so when we don't want to, we shouldn't sign up in the first place. I want my country to behave with more honour than that.

Secondly, the question is not what Ms Begum deserves, it's whether countries should be entitled simply to declare that they don't want their citizens and that other countries should have to deal with them instead. The answer is obvious. Our behaviour is grubby and dishonourable.

jcm

3
 Ridge 15 May 2021
In reply to TobyA:

I thought her children had all died? I think the Finns have it right, the children would have the best chance being removed from the mothers. I think the older children would be more problematic, you're essentially dealing with a similar situation to child soldiers in Africa, so there might be some previous experience to draw on to deal with that situation.

I think the government have got themselves into a right mess with this.

 off-duty 15 May 2021
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

> Yes, all her children were British citizens who all died in infancy as a result of being unable to obtain medical care as a result of the government's decision. But, hey, to slightly paraphrase the government's position, f*ck them, they'd only have grown up to be terrorists anyway.

> jcm

To be fair her third child was born in the refugee camp and might have benefited had the UK government allowed her to return to the UK and expedited that return.

Blaming the UK government for the failure of ISIS' healthcare system contributing to the death of her previous children seems s bit unfair.

In reply to off-duty:

Yes, I think you're right, the first two were under ISIS. Just the one child dead on account of our decision, then.

jcm

2
 Timmd 15 May 2021
In reply to off-duty:

> To be fair her third child was born in the refugee camp and might have benefited had the UK government allowed her to return to the UK and expedited that return.

> Blaming the UK government for the failure of ISIS' healthcare system contributing to the death of her previous children seems s bit unfair.

It might be unfair if she hadn't been a UK citizen wanting to return to the UK, and ISIS was a country, and if the new born baby wasn't innocent? Who cares who the mother is, when a baby is involved (and it's the baby of a UK citizen)? 

Edit: Even if she is warped and unpleasant, I don't get why some people felt okay with her baby dying because she'd chosen to fly over there, as if the parent was the baby's fault...?

Post edited at 18:21
3
 Ridge 15 May 2021
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

> >The extremely professional videos were all about executions, slavery, beheadings, torture, burning people in cages etc. 

> I don't believe that's true. I think their recruitment was rather more targeted than that.

It was certainly sophisticated, but the USP was the whole murder, torture, destruction ethos.

> But anyway, like all the right wing, you are persisting in this whole she-deserves-it attitude. That's not the point.

Aye, me and Priti Patel often spend the evenings reading Thatcher's memoirs and drowning kittens together 🙄

> First of all, either we sign up to international commitments not to make people stateless, or we don't. If we do (as we have), we should abide by them, both the letter and the spirit. If we intend not to do so when we don't want to, we shouldn't sign up in the first place. I want my country to behave with more honour than that.

Not disagreeing.

> Secondly, the question is not what Ms Begum deserves, it's whether countries should be entitled simply to declare that they don't want their citizens and that other countries should have to deal with them instead. The answer is obvious. Our behaviour is grubby and dishonourable.

Well, our government's is. In fact they make a point of behaving like that in all situations.

1
 Timmd 15 May 2021
In reply to Ridge: It sounds like you know the actual content of the online material she viewed online before flying to join ISIS?

3
 Ridge 15 May 2021
In reply to Timmd:

I've a reasonable idea on what was being pumped out. You'd have to be incredibly lucky to only be exposed to the fluffy kitten and sparkly unicorn content.

 Timmd 15 May 2021
In reply to Ridge:

> I've a reasonable idea on what was being pumped out. You'd have to be incredibly lucky to only be exposed to the fluffy kitten and sparkly unicorn content.

So, do you know if it included anything which painted what was in the general media as being untrue?

Edit: There's been other posters on here talking about how it would have been obvious what ISIS were about, because of what's been in the news, but none of them seem to know whether what's been in the news was painted as being untrue. If one is going to judge her for flying over to join, that strike me as being something worth knowing.

Or else it's an emotional reaction of a lack of sympathy, rather than a more considered point of view.

Post edited at 18:27
3
 off-duty 15 May 2021
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

> Yes, I think you're right, the first two were under ISIS. Just the one child dead on account of our decision, then.

> jcm

The UK decision won't have helped, but for UK healthcare to have had any chance her return to the UK would have had to be specifically expedited.  

It might be very emotive to claim that "the UK government killed her baby" but she would probably have to have been repatriated prior to birth of the baby to successfully manage or prevent neo natal pneumonia. 

 off-duty 15 May 2021
In reply to Timmd:

> It might be unfair if she hadn't been a UK citizen wanting to return to the UK, and ISIS was a country, and if the new born baby wasn't innocent? Who cares who the mother is, when a baby is involved (and it's the baby of a UK citizen)? 

> Edit: Even if she is warped and unpleasant, I don't get why some people felt okay with her baby dying because she'd chosen to fly over there, as if the parent was the baby's fault...?

On that rationale we probably should have evacuated her from Raqqa when she was first pregnant with her first child. We could have ensured the safety of her child then sent her back...

Unfortunately sometimes the choices grown-ups make have consequences.

Post edited at 18:27
1
 Timmd 15 May 2021
In reply to off-duty: Huh, I'm a grown up too. The choices callous people make can have consequences. The second best option was letting her come back when she expressed concern for the baby, and that didn't happen.

Post edited at 18:29
1
 off-duty 15 May 2021
In reply to Timmd:

> Huh, I'm a grown up too. The choices callous people make can have consequences. 

Indeed they can. And sometimes that results in them giving birth in refugee camps.

 Timmd 15 May 2021
In reply to off-duty: It's odd that you post that after musing the best choice would have been to let her come back to give birth for the welfare of the baby (in question). Either looking out for the welfare of the baby would have been the right thing to do, or it wouldn't have been. You can't change principles to win an internet discussion, either babies matter or they don't.

Edit: Stop being argumentative.

Post edited at 18:42
1
 off-duty 15 May 2021
In reply to Timmd:

> It's odd that you post that after musing the best choice would have been to let her come back to give birth for the welfare of the baby (in question). Either looking out for the welfare of the baby would have been the right thing to do, or it wouldn't have been. You can't change principles to win an internet discussion. (!)

I'm not changing principles. I'm just highlighting the fact that you appear to place all responsibility on the fate of her child on the "callous" UK governments failure to expedite her return.

If we'd offered free healthcare to all pregnant ISIS members throughout the fighting we would have undoubtedly saved the lives of many more children.

 Timmd 15 May 2021
In reply to off-duty:

> I'm not changing principles. I'm just highlighting the fact that you appear to place all responsibility on the fate of her child on the "callous" UK governments failure to expedite her return.

Of course they were callous, they placed the weight of the decision of the baby's mother on the baby, she talked about her previous babies having died, and they still didn't let her return as a UK citizen.

Post edited at 18:49
1
 Ridge 15 May 2021
In reply to Timmd:

> Edit: There's been other posters on here talking about how it would have been obvious what ISIS were about, because of what's been in the news, but none of them seem to know whether what's been in the news was painted as being untrue. If one is going to judge her for flying over to join, that strike me as being something worth knowing.

It wasn't like Nazi Germany denying the existence of extermination camps and claiming it was all Allied propaganda. It wasn't the mainstream media saying IS are bad, and a Daesh spokesman being interviewed and saying “Not us, it's all kindergartens and windsurfing and candlelit suppers with our Yazidi friends over here in the peaceful Caliphate”.

It was virtually impossible for the security services to stop the flow of graphic content being distributed by IS. They were completely unapologetic about it and went to great lengths to ensure it was seen worldwide.

But, I suppose it is theoretically possible SB never knew about it.

Post edited at 18:57
 off-duty 15 May 2021
In reply to Timmd:

> Of course they were callous, they placed the weight of the decision of the baby's mother on the baby, she talked about her previous babies having died, and they still didn't let her return as a UK citizen.

Having had two babies who died in infancy, she was pregnant with a third whilst still within IS territory, with the same Dutch jihadist husband. 

Subsequently following the fall of IS she was found in a refugee camp 4 days before she gave birth by a Times reporter who interviews her. During the interview she says she has no regrets but would like to be repatriated back to the UK. 

But yes, it's the UK government's fault.

 Timmd 15 May 2021
In reply to off-duty:

I didn't say it was all the government's fault, just that it was callous of them to refuse her right to come back.

We have social services in this country, which the government, or people who don't think they did anything wrong wouldn't be against, I'm thinking, and the social services act to look after children, because they're the responsibility of the state where parents are unfit. In this case, we have a UK citizen asking for a better situation for their child, and the state acted to stop that from happening, because of the bad decisions of the parent. While, when parents make bad decisions when in this country, the state acts to look out for the welfare of their children.

Putting aside the technical aspects of them being in another country, why should/would the state have a cut off point, where it no longer looks out for the wellbeing of children born to it's citizens, how does that become the right thing for it to do?

Post edited at 19:36
3
 Rob Exile Ward 15 May 2021
In reply to off-duty:

This is below your usual standard. The only thing that everyone is objecting to is the arbitrary overriding of clear international laws, which were formulated with care and for a reason.

When Javid gave himself the right to make Begum stateless, he gave himself - and his successors  - the right to make you and me stateless too. He can f*ck off with that.

2
In reply to Timmd:

So let me get this straight. The baby is definitely a UK citizen as it had a Ex-British mother and a Dutch father, but SB can’t be a Bangladeshi citizen despite having two Bangladeshi parents.

Solid logic guys.

Post edited at 21:41
4
 off-duty 15 May 2021
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

> This is below your usual standard. The only thing that everyone is objecting to is the arbitrary overriding of clear international laws, which were formulated with care and for a reason.

> When Javid gave himself the right to make Begum stateless, he gave himself - and his successors  - the right to make you and me stateless too. He can f*ck off with that.

I don't know about you, but before I had any understanding of the technicalities, I'd always kind of assumed that if I went to another country and got myself involved in criminality, let alone murder, and not even considering fighting against the UK; then I probably wouldn't have a great deal of luck asking to be bailed out by the UK.

 wintertree 15 May 2021
In reply to off-duty:

> I don't know about you, but before I had any understanding of the technicalities, I'd always kind of assumed that if I went to another country and got myself involved in criminality, let alone murder, and not even considering fighting against the UK; then I probably wouldn't have a great deal of luck asking to be bailed out by the UK.

My understanding is that there are some crimes that, if committed abroad by a citizen of the UK, can and will see the person pursued by the UK courts, particularly around child sex abuse.

Not bailed out but held to justice for their conduct.  

1
 TobyA 15 May 2021
In reply to off-duty:

You have a right to consular support.

 Ridge 15 May 2021
In reply to Timmd:

> We have social services in this country, which the government, or people who don't think they did anything wrong wouldn't be against, I'm thinking, and the social services act to look after children, because they're the responsibility of the state where parents are unfit. In this case, we have a UK citizen asking for a better situation for their child, and the state acted to stop that from happening, because of the bad decisions of the parent. While, when parents make bad decisions when in this country, the state acts to look out for the welfare of their children.

TBH social services are massively overstretched, and don't have the resources to adequately protect children resident in the UK. Inserting a crack team of social workers Into Syria when there are children at significant risk in Bethnal Green probably wouldn't go down too well, even if Mum is a 'celebrity'.

 off-duty 15 May 2021
In reply to TobyA:

If you are in a country with a consul.

> You have a right to consular support.

 elsewhere 16 May 2021
In reply to VSisjustascramble:

> So let me get this straight. The baby is definitely a UK citizen as it had a Ex-British mother and a Dutch father, but SB can’t be a Bangladeshi citizen despite having two Bangladeshi parents.

> Solid logic guys.

The logic that if Bangladesh says no it overrides all else when it comes to Bangladeshi citizenship.

 65 16 May 2021
In reply to off-duty:

> I don't know about you, but before I had any understanding of the technicalities, I'd always kind of assumed that if I went to another country and got myself involved in criminality, let alone murder, and not even considering fighting against the UK; then I probably wouldn't have a great deal of luck asking to be bailed out by the UK.

That avoids Rob's point. The UK refusing to bail you out after a foreign misadventure is not the same as making you stateless in contravention of international law. But I'm sure you know that.

In reply to VSisjustascramble:

> So let me get this straight. The baby is definitely a UK citizen as it had a Ex-British mother

You are lying again. The baby had a British mother. Her citizenship wasn't taken away until Javid discovered she was still alive and had a baby.

As to your general argument, it is difficult to believe that it is necessary to explain this, but here goes. Whether someone is a British citizen or not is a question of British law, in this case section 2(1) of the British Nationality Act 1981, which provides that someone born anywhere in the world to a British citizen after some date in 2006 is themselves automatically a British citizen (an oversimplification, but good enough for the present purpose).

Whether someone is or not a Bangladeshi citizen is a question of Bangladeshi law. I know nothing about Bangladeshi law and neither do you, but there is no reason to think it is the same as British law, so to argue as you do that because SB was not a Bangladeshi citizen therefore her son could not be a British citizen is just moronic.

I do know that even the government accepts that SB was not actually a Bangladeshi citizen in the way that her son was automatically a British citizen without more. They merely say that she was entitled to apply and therefore she is not actually stateless, despite the fact that in practice she obviously is.

jcm

 wintertree 16 May 2021
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

> You are lying again.

Don’t hold back, if you tarnish their reputation they can just move on to another burner account...

 off-duty 16 May 2021
In reply to 65:

> That avoids Rob's point. The UK refusing to bail you out after a foreign misadventure is not the same as making you stateless in contravention of international law. But I'm sure you know that.

Practically speaking there isn't a whole lot of difference. The principle of not expecting to be rescued by the UK if you have gone abroad to get involved in a recognised criminal enterprise.

And prior to this whole issue few of us were the experts on immigration and citizenship law that we now all appear to be.

 65 16 May 2021
In reply to off-duty:

> Practically speaking there isn't a whole lot of difference. The principle of not expecting to be rescued by the UK if you have gone abroad to get involved in a recognised criminal enterprise.

Legally there is, assuming one has regard for the actual law.

> And prior to this whole issue few of us were the experts on immigration and citizenship law that we now all appear to be.

See JCM's posts. I suspect he is better versed in it than most on this thread.

 Cobra_Head 16 May 2021
In reply to off-duty:

> My understanding is that the concerns around her activities are focussed more on what she may have been involved in as a now 21 year old adult, who has been unlucky enough to remain with ISIS as their territory got smaller and smaller and they moved to different strongholds.

Which is what? and where is there any evidence for what you are suggesting she was involved in.

Did she have any opportunity to leave?

> Others with her who were also unlucky enough to be in that position included the most hard core jihadists and, undoubtedly coincidentally, members of the female Al-khansaa brigade morality police, within which the British converts were famed for their brutality. 

Collective enterprise then, even though we don't know her story or again, any evidence to link her to the rest of it.

It's hardly a stretch of the imagination for a 15 1/2 year old to find herself trapped in a marriage to someone she'd never met, and not being able to find a way out of it.

6
In reply to Cobra_Head:

> Which is what? and where is there any evidence for what you are suggesting she was involved in.

I believe there was an article in the Daily Telegraph suggesting that she was a member of some sort of female enforcement brigade within ISIS, and was involved in sewing suicide bombers into their vests.  Whether one would describe that as evidence is another matter.

jcm

1
In reply to off-duty:

> Practically speaking there isn't a whole lot of difference. The principle of not expecting to be rescued by the UK if you have gone abroad to get involved in a recognised criminal enterprise.

> And prior to this whole issue few of us were the experts on immigration and citizenship law that we now all appear to be.

You'd like to think that didn't include the Home Secretary.

I don't really understand your point here. You keep on with this nonsensical straw man about how people can't expect the British state to rescue them from war zones, but that's not what anyone is advocating.

And anyway I think 'people', assuming that includes our former allies the Syrian Kurds, are well entitled to say to us 'here is this citizen of yours who seems to have been doing all sorts of bad things in our land and is swearing to do more bad things to us if released; we don't want to be spending resources on her, kindly take her back'. One of the major purposes of signing up international conventions on statelessness was to ensure that nations did not seek to evade their obligations to other peoples as we have done.

jcm

Post edited at 10:47
3
RentonCooke 16 May 2021
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

> Yes, all her children were British citizens who all died in infancy as a result of being unable to obtain medical care as a result of the government's decision. But, hey, to slightly paraphrase the government's position, f*ck them, they'd only have grown up to be terrorists anyway.

Perhaps instead they died as a result of her decision to go live in a basket-case society and warzone, that either wouldn't be able to provide for her children or would result in her living in a refugee camp? 

The best-case scenario was that her chosen society would succeed in their goals of wiping out and subjugating all non-believers, in which case her children may have survived.  Though I don't think that increases her moral standing at all.

There are plenty of other children around the world who die daily.  If you really believe some bureaucratic paperwork qualifies (or makes more deserving) her and her offspring, to greater access to life-saving treatment than the many other innocents, something might be askew.

Madeleine McCann's parents certainly copped a lot of flak on here for leaving their child unattended for a few hours.  Yet the UK government is responsible for the death of Shamima Begum's children?

4
 Rob Exile Ward 16 May 2021
In reply to RentonCooke:

'Madeleine McCann's parents certainly copped a lot of flak on here for leaving their child unattended for a few hours.  Yet the UK government is responsible for the death of Shamima Begum's children?'

I think that is truly one of the greatest non-sequitors that I have even seen. It's like a turn in Mornington Crescent.

I'm going to try and compete in the same vein:

'When the Windrush generation arrived they weren't British citizens, so the Home Secretary has been saved the bother of of removing their citizenship before ignoring their rights as well. What do you Guardianistas think of THAT?'  

3
OP Pete Pozman 16 May 2021
In reply to Ridge:

> But, I suppose it is theoretically possible SB never knew about it.

There are 70 million people in the US who truly believe that the election was stolen from trump and that the Capitol Building was stormed by antifa to frame his supporters. They really truly believe that and most of them seem to be in their fifties. A 15 year old girl will jump out the window if a handsome guy tells her he loves her. 

5
 jkarran 18 May 2021
In reply to off-duty:

> Unfortunately sometimes the choices grown-ups make have consequences.

Even more unfortunately we live in a time and a place where those consequences in the form of a dead 'terrorist' baby are electoral gold.

jk


New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...