Shamima Begum...

Author
Discussion

Oilchange

8,421 posts

259 months

Tuesday 2nd March 2021
quotequote all
Maybe those specific details are the 'secret' bit.

anonymous-user

53 months

Tuesday 2nd March 2021
quotequote all
Oilchange said:
Maybe those specific details are the 'secret' bit.
Whatever it is, it CLEARLY to anyone without steamy glasses, not a ''minor offence''.

It is just rabble rousing, plain and simple.

It actually worries me that people think like this, we are not talking about an innocent here, she supported an EVIL state fully and has never apologized or changed her viewpoints, and comes across as cold and manipulative. The security services must know the type that would cause harm to the general public, and this is what it all distils into.


Edited by anonymous-user on Tuesday 2nd March 13:28

Murph7355

37,648 posts

255 months

Tuesday 2nd March 2021
quotequote all
skwdenyer said:
...
I'm not emotionally connected to the case of SB at all. However, if you look back at my history here on such matters, you'll find my point consistent: fundamental rights are inalienable, constitutional limits on the power of (a) the executive and (b) a simple majority in Parliament are critical. I am emotionally connected to those fundamental principles of justice in a constitutional democracy....
What about the fundamental rights of every other citizen in this country?

This case only came about because of her dual nationality. If she hadn't had that, then the situation would be quite different I suspect.

A problem for all those with dual nationality? Damn right it is - and the answer is not to get involved in criminal behaviour.

Whether the HS would use these powers for citizens with dual nationality who parked illegally as MrrT seems to think might happen is doubtful I suspect. Though I guess ultimately the same responsibility applies as it does to us all - don't act illegally, ie hold up your civic responsibilities and you don't give anyone an excuse to impinge upon your "rights".

Oilchange

8,421 posts

259 months

Tuesday 2nd March 2021
quotequote all
Which includes a justice system that has a mechanism of appeal.

Justice has been upheld by the Supreme Court. Not the Executive.

Mrr T

12,152 posts

264 months

Tuesday 2nd March 2021
quotequote all
Murph7355 said:
What about the fundamental rights of every other citizen in this country?

This case only came about because of her dual nationality. If she hadn't had that, then the situation would be quite different I suspect.

A problem for all those with dual nationality? Damn right it is - and the answer is not to get involved in criminal behaviour.

Whether the HS would use these powers for citizens with dual nationality who parked illegally as MrrT seems to think might happen is doubtful I suspect. Though I guess ultimately the same responsibility applies as it does to us all - don't act illegally, ie hold up your civic responsibilities and you don't give anyone an excuse to impinge upon your "rights".
What about the fundermental rights of citizens in every country. We made her but we want someone else to deal with the problem we created.

Most people with dual citizenship have some connection with both countries. They will have been born in one country and likely applied in the second. This is not the position here where she was born in the UK has never visited Bangladesh or applied for citizenship. Likely she had no idea she was entitled to citizenship.

It's also clear Bangladesh will not and cannot be forced to accept her. It is highly likely her appeal will be successful when the case is heard.

You make joke about parking illegally but it is an inconvenience and so might well be viewed by a HS, with publicity in mind, as against the public good. The public good is a test which could be used not just because of criminal actions but political as well.

The fact is at some point she will make it somewhere they can mount an appeal. She will win and likely have to be compensated. All of which means we the tax payer will have spent lots of money to get the HS some headlines.

ruggedscotty

5,606 posts

208 months

Tuesday 2nd March 2021
quotequote all
The Spruce Goose said:
Oilchange said:
Maybe those specific details are the 'secret' bit.
Whatever it is, it CLEARLY to anyone without steamy glasses, not a ''minor offence''.

It is just rabble rousing, plain and simple.

It actually worries me that people think like this, we are not talking about an innocent here, she supported an EVIL state fully and has never apologized or changed her viewpoints, and comes across as cold and manipulative. The security services must know the type that would cause harm to the general public, and this is what it all distils into.


Edited by The Spruce Goose on Tuesday 2nd March 13:28
I know jumping on a post... But thing is no matter what you think about the lady in question she left the UK, and went to a country and supported an organisation that was part of ISIS. Now thing is for someone to do that, it meant that she turned her back on the UK,

Question - why should we take her back ?

Why should we let her back into a country that she obviously despised, and had little disregard for ?

She made that choice, and she now has to live with it. And hopefully it gives out a message to any others that are contemplating it, that maybe just that your actions will have a long term impacto on you and your own life choices.

Goodbye Shamima Begum.

AJL308

6,390 posts

155 months

Tuesday 2nd March 2021
quotequote all
Mrr T said:
The Spruce Goose said:
Mrr T said:
In this case its our obligation.

The government removal of her citizenship, if it is legal, raises the possibility of the UK government removing citizenship from any UK citizen with Bangladesh parents under the age of 21 for quite minor offences.
no it doesn't, minor offenses, you are twisting this to make it sound like it fair reaching when it is clearly nothing of the sort.



I am not twisting anything. The HS has the power to remove citizenship for the "public good". That's a very low bar and could be applied to many minor offences.
The "public good" or "Public interest" or "public safety/security" will be a rather high bar to meet, I think you'll find. In this case they are saying it applies because her retaining her citizenship represents a danger of serious criminal or terrorist activity the effects of which far outweigh her rights to citizenship. That argument could never be sustained for "minor" offences. Little Mohammed is not going to get kicked out for shoplifting.

AJL308

6,390 posts

155 months

Tuesday 2nd March 2021
quotequote all
The Spruce Goose said:
Oilchange said:
Maybe those specific details are the 'secret' bit.
Whatever it is, it CLEARLY to anyone without steamy glasses, not a ''minor offence''.

It is just rabble rousing, plain and simple.

It actually worries me that people think like this, we are not talking about an innocent here, she supported an EVIL state fully and has never apologized or changed her viewpoints, and comes across as cold and manipulative. The security services must know the type that would cause harm to the general public, and this is what it all distils into.


Edited by The Spruce Goose on Tuesday 2nd March 13:28
I've said it before and I'll repeat it; I think there is a lot more to this lass than we are being allowed to know; she was, whilst still a teenager, strutting about a "caliphate" with an assault rifle enforcing dress codes and various other stuff; she was helping to stitch people into explosive clothes and was quite busy pushing out kids to bolster the regime. Savage ideologies like this absolutely do not entrust "enforcement" of their core rules and beliefs to people unless it is very convinced that the person concerned is 100% committed to them. She was not a simple baby machine or "comfort woman" for the fighters. I have no doubt that she would have had to prove herself worthy of the jobs she was given rather than being the subject of random selection.

There is still the issue that, as mentioned by the court, she has not provided her fingerprints in support of her application to enter the UK as a special measure to circumvent the usual way. I wonder why? It is, after all, a very easy thing to do. Is it the case that her fingerprints will link her to lots of other stuff she's done? Has she, for instance, at some point tried to send something back here (or to another country) which has been intercepted?

She's the modern day Irma Greese.

Edited by AJL308 on Tuesday 2nd March 16:39

Mrr T

12,152 posts

264 months

Tuesday 2nd March 2021
quotequote all
AJL308 said:
Mrr T said:
The Spruce Goose said:
Mrr T said:
In this case its our obligation.

The government removal of her citizenship, if it is legal, raises the possibility of the UK government removing citizenship from any UK citizen with Bangladesh parents under the age of 21 for quite minor offences.
no it doesn't, minor offenses, you are twisting this to make it sound like it fair reaching when it is clearly nothing of the sort.



I am not twisting anything. The HS has the power to remove citizenship for the "public good". That's a very low bar and could be applied to many minor offences.
The "public good" or "Public interest" or "public safety/security" will be a rather high bar to meet, I think you'll find. In this case they are saying it applies because her retaining her citizenship represents a danger of serious criminal or terrorist activity the effects of which far outweigh her rights to citizenship. That argument could never be sustained for "minor" offences. Little Mohammed is not going to get kicked out for shoplifting.
The wording in the 1981 Act is "conducive to the public good" . That's a very low bar

I agree she would pass that test. The issue is that she can only be removed if it does not leave her stateless. The government argues that she is not stateless. However, Bangladesh is not a signature to the international convention and has made it clear she is not a citizen.

So the government is likely in breach of the Immigration act and almost certainly has breached her rights under the HR Act.

AJL308

6,390 posts

155 months

Tuesday 2nd March 2021
quotequote all
Mrr T said:
AJL308 said:
Mrr T said:
The Spruce Goose said:
Mrr T said:
In this case its our obligation.

The government removal of her citizenship, if it is legal, raises the possibility of the UK government removing citizenship from any UK citizen with Bangladesh parents under the age of 21 for quite minor offences.
no it doesn't, minor offenses, you are twisting this to make it sound like it fair reaching when it is clearly nothing of the sort.



I am not twisting anything. The HS has the power to remove citizenship for the "public good". That's a very low bar and could be applied to many minor offences.
The "public good" or "Public interest" or "public safety/security" will be a rather high bar to meet, I think you'll find. In this case they are saying it applies because her retaining her citizenship represents a danger of serious criminal or terrorist activity the effects of which far outweigh her rights to citizenship. That argument could never be sustained for "minor" offences. Little Mohammed is not going to get kicked out for shoplifting.
The wording in the 1981 Act is "conducive to the public good" . That's a very low bar

I agree she would pass that test. The issue is that she can only be removed if it does not leave her stateless. The government argues that she is not stateless. However, Bangladesh is not a signature to the international convention and has made it clear she is not a citizen.

So the government is likely in breach of the Immigration act and almost certainly has breached her rights under the HR Act.
The Bangladesh Citizenship Law or whatever its called makes it very clear that she is. It says If your Dad is a Bangladesh citizen then you are too regardless of where you were born, or words to that effect. The government of Bangladesh can say what it likes but it does not change their law. She is Bangladeshi.

Mrr T

12,152 posts

264 months

Tuesday 2nd March 2021
quotequote all
AJL308 said:
The Bangladesh Citizenship Law or whatever its called makes it very clear that she is. It says If your Dad is a Bangladesh citizen then you are too regardless of where you were born, or words to that effect. The government of Bangladesh can say what it likes but it does not change their law. She is Bangladeshi.
The Bangladesh government is clear she is not a citizen and will not be allowed entry. The UK would have know this was likely when they removed her citizenship. The government may therefore have been in breach of the Immigration act and was certainly in breach of the HR Act.

Just from a moral perspective who should be responsible for sorting out this mess. Bangladesh a country she has never visited, who had nothing to do with her education, her radicalism, or her escape from the UK. Or the UK.

HRL

3,329 posts

218 months

Tuesday 2nd March 2021
quotequote all
Mrr T said:
The Bangladesh government is clear she is not a citizen and will not be allowed entry. The UK would have know this was likely when they removed her citizenship. The government may therefore have been in breach of the Immigration act and was certainly in breach of the HR Act.

Just from a moral perspective who should be responsible for sorting out this mess. Bangladesh a country she has never visited, who had nothing to do with her education, her radicalism, or her escape from the UK. Or the UK.
How about we leave it to the Syrians? She wanted to live there, well now she does.

Good riddance.

Murph7355

37,648 posts

255 months

Tuesday 2nd March 2021
quotequote all
Mrr T said:
The Bangladesh government is clear she is not a citizen and will not be allowed entry. The UK would have know this was likely when they removed her citizenship. The government may therefore have been in breach of the Immigration act and was certainly in breach of the HR Act.

Just from a moral perspective who should be responsible for sorting out this mess. Bangladesh a country she has never visited, who had nothing to do with her education, her radicalism, or her escape from the UK. Or the UK.
I tend to agree with you that the courts will be used to determine the citizenship point. Though one presumes the rules on Bangladeshi citizenship were clear at the time.

I also have a fair amount of sympathy with the view that this is broadly being done on a technicality. Though I also suspect that her parents' origins are not entirely irrelevant in her upbringing and what that then led to. Parental responsibility feels like a diminishing thing in many areas of life here, and that is not a good thing IMO.

I do wonder what the state here could have done on this one. And the problem from my perspective is what it will be able to do if/when she returns here. It certainly won't help heal division.

amgmcqueen

3,343 posts

149 months

Tuesday 2nd March 2021
quotequote all
Mrr T said:
jakesmith said:
Do you honestly think that refusing to take back someone who effectively renounced their citizenship, borderline committed treason, and joined a criminal terrorist organisation opposed to every value our society holds, is some shocking violation of our own values?
In this case its our obligation.

The government removal of her citizenship, if it is legal, raises the possibility of the UK government removing citizenship from any UK citizen with Bangladesh parents under the age of 21 for quite minor offences. There maybe also be other countries with similar citizenship laws.
We live in hope.

Mrr T

12,152 posts

264 months

Tuesday 2nd March 2021
quotequote all
HRL said:
Mrr T said:
The Bangladesh government is clear she is not a citizen and will not be allowed entry. The UK would have know this was likely when they removed her citizenship. The government may therefore have been in breach of the Immigration act and was certainly in breach of the HR Act.

Just from a moral perspective who should be responsible for sorting out this mess. Bangladesh a country she has never visited, who had nothing to do with her education, her radicalism, or her escape from the UK. Or the UK.
How about we leave it to the Syrians? She wanted to live there, well now she does.

Good riddance.
She went to support ISIS. i doubt many Syrians support ISIS, I suspect most would prefer Assad even though he a very unpleasant dictator. As it is with the help of the US and Russia most of Syria is a failed state. That's means at the moment she is in the care of NGO's. So for them just another mouth to feed.

However, one day I am sure we all hope there maybe a better outcome for the Syrians. Do we then expect they should have to look after her?

Tom Logan

3,191 posts

124 months

Tuesday 2nd March 2021
quotequote all
Mrr T said:
She went to support ISIS. i doubt many Syrians support ISIS, I suspect most would prefer Assad even though he a very unpleasant dictator. As it is with the help of the US and Russia most of Syria is a failed state. That's means at the moment she is in the care of NGO's. So for them just another mouth to feed.

However, one day I am sure we all hope there maybe a better outcome for the Syrians. Do we then expect they should have to look after her?
Hopefully sanity will prevail and she will be 'dealt with' under the laws of Syria together with the rest of her ISIS cohorts.

HRL

3,329 posts

218 months

Tuesday 2nd March 2021
quotequote all
Mrr T said:
She went to support ISIS. i doubt many Syrians support ISIS, I suspect most would prefer Assad even though he a very unpleasant dictator. As it is with the help of the US and Russia most of Syria is a failed state. That's means at the moment she is in the care of NGO's. So for them just another mouth to feed.

However, one day I am sure we all hope there maybe a better outcome for the Syrians. Do we then expect they should have to look after her?
That’s up to the Syrians to decide. Why should we give a toss?

She made her bed and now she has to sleep in it. If down the line the Syrians decide to incarcerate her for being part of ISIS, that’s up to them.

Of course if they decide she’s British then we can cross that bridge when we come to it.

I don’t understand why anyone in their right mind would have any sympathy for her at all.

AJL308

6,390 posts

155 months

Tuesday 2nd March 2021
quotequote all
Mrr T said:
AJL308 said:
The Bangladesh Citizenship Law or whatever its called makes it very clear that she is. It says If your Dad is a Bangladesh citizen then you are too regardless of where you were born, or words to that effect. The government of Bangladesh can say what it likes but it does not change their law. She is Bangladeshi.
The Bangladesh government is clear she is not a citizen and will not be allowed entry. The UK would have know this was likely when they removed her citizenship. The government may therefore have been in breach of the Immigration act and was certainly in breach of the HR Act.

Just from a moral perspective who should be responsible for sorting out this mess. Bangladesh a country she has never visited, who had nothing to do with her education, her radicalism, or her escape from the UK. Or the UK.
The Bangladesh Government will say that because until she provides proof of her citizenship they can say nothing else. Right at the start they said, we have no record of her being a citizen which is true, they won't do. For them to say anything else would be wrong as they do not have have the information before them in an official form.

Their law though says absolutely categorically she is a citizen. Whether the government there decide to ignore their own law is another matter but that is something we will not know unless and until they decide to ignore her legal status as one of their citizens. Even if they do, it still does not mean she is not a citizen. She is, absolutely 100% she is. I could say that I was a citizen of Bangladesh and if you asked the Bangladesh government whether I was they'd say no. If my dad was born there though I would be and they'd still say no until I'd proved it. Doesn't mean that I wasn't a citizen, it just means I'd be one they didn't know they had.

The moral aspects of us revoking her UK citizenship is another matter but we have not made her stateless.

Edited by AJL308 on Tuesday 2nd March 18:19

Muddle238

3,871 posts

112 months

Tuesday 2nd March 2021
quotequote all
Mrr T said:
The Bangladesh government is clear she is not a citizen and will not be allowed entry. The UK would have know this was likely when they removed her citizenship. The government may therefore have been in breach of the Immigration act and was certainly in breach of the HR Act.

Just from a moral perspective who should be responsible for sorting out this mess. Bangladesh a country she has never visited, who had nothing to do with her education, her radicalism, or her escape from the UK. Or the UK.
Morals rather go out the window when you’re dealing with someone who chose to get involved in terrorism.

It seems the “mess” is sorted. Neither the UK or Bangladesh want her, but she’s in a camp in Syria, so it’s academic. As long as she’s stuck there, she’s nobody’s problem and there’s no mess to sort out. She chose to travel to Syria to join ISIS, she must live with the consequences.


F1GTRUeno

6,335 posts

217 months

Tuesday 2nd March 2021
quotequote all
Muddle238 said:
Morals rather go out the window when you’re dealing with someone who chose to get involved in terrorism.

It seems the “mess” is sorted. Neither the UK or Bangladesh want her, but she’s in a camp in Syria, so it’s academic. As long as she’s stuck there, she’s nobody’s problem and there’s no mess to sort out. She chose to travel to Syria to join ISIS, she must live with the consequences.
They don’t actually, otherwise you let the terrorists win don’t you?

We are at least partly responsible for why she went to Syria to join ISIS to begin with. If we don’t front up to that responsibility and work on the reasons why then we’re doomed to create more terrorists from our shores.