Shamima Begum...

[Jinx]

gazza285 said:

Flag’s upside down.

Well I could forgive the joining ISIS, promoting terrorism, assisting and glorifying beheadings but having the flag upside down!!!!

[anonymous-user]

JuanCarlosFandango said:

Are we sure we can keep her safe from that here?

It's funny the retribution thing, that was said nearly 2 years ago, she would be punished, tortured etc yet what has happened, nothing.. yet people still say it like it is fact.

And this is the point, the courts cut through the BS and base there decisions on facts.

[Mrr T]

skwdenyer said:

The mistake I appear to have made is to believe that progress made towards proper human rights was permanent; it is anything but. Those rights are simply in the gift of whichever populist government has power this week. History provides us with ample warning as to the dangers that holds.

I have not yet read the judgement but I did listen to the announcement. That was clear her lawyers appeal did not cover her rights under the HR act. It did sound as if it had the decision might have been different if it had. Not sure if they can appeal on new grounds.

[Mrr T]

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.

What matters in this case is not this rather stupid woman but a principal of law.

At some point I suspect her case on the revoking will be heard and she will win. She will then have the right to return and likely a claim for damages.

At the moment the government is show boating to get some good headlines and you and I are paying.

[anonymous-user]

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.

[Mrr T]

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.

[techguyone]

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'm starting to wonder if we've been infiltrated by Mumsnet or Momentum there's some really lefty wtfness ongoing .

[7n8n]

neilr said:

The UK has handled this all wrong. Going down the stripping citizenship route will only harden the resolve of uk based extremists and loons. She will be seen by these types as some kind of hero and soething to aspire to.

The right way to do it would have been to bring her back to the UK then very publicly arrest her at the airport followed by trial. Lets face it, even though she was a minor when was radicalised she still took her sisters passport to travel on so I cant' see a trial turning out well for her. That would properly send the message that if you do this, there are consequences when you come back to the UK.

Plus, seeing that she was a minor at the time this all happened, we can't procalim to be a bastion of morality and progresive values and at the same time behave like s ourselves.

Don't let that get in the way of the baying mobs blind rage and desire for revenge though.

Completely agree. I think that the government should be taking the high ground here. If they're really worried about the security risk that's pretty easily solved, compared to the consequences of their actions to remove her citizenship.

They've tried to take the easy way out of a difficult situation but I think it'll bite in the longer term.

Also, arguably allowing her back is the best way for justice to be done.

[7n8n]

jakesmith said:

Why do you think that one decision you disagree with equals an entire country with a history of law and order going back hundreds of years, abandoning it’s principles on the world stage, a bit dramatic, no?

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? I can tell you we’ve done far worse in geopolitics and it’s not harmed our standing in the way you say.

If the case is so clear for her committing treason and/or terrorism/murder/whatever, why not try her in the UK? A lot of people blab on about how the UK's legal system is one of the best in the world with history going back hundreds of years. Shouldn't be a problem then.

[psi310398]

7n8n said:

Completely agree. I think that the government should be taking the high ground here. If they're really worried about the security risk that's pretty easily solved, compared to the consequences of their actions to remove her citizenship.

They've tried to take the easy way out of a difficult situation but I think it'll bite in the longer term.

Surely the easiest way out is to ensure that she is dealt with by the internationally recognised authority on whose turf she is alleged to have committed serious offences i.e. Assad’s Syria?

[anonymous-user]

Mrr T said:

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 HS is accountable. The evidence to make this decision was deemed to be be secret due to national security.

Do you really think a conspiracy existed to ensure this one girl was stripped of her citizenship on a whim, with the highest courts in the land joining this conspiracy all based on minor offences??? Come on that is absolute lunacy.

[Vickers_VC10]

7n8n said:

jakesmith said:

Why do you think that one decision you disagree with equals an entire country with a history of law and order going back hundreds of years, abandoning it’s principles on the world stage, a bit dramatic, no?

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? I can tell you we’ve done far worse in geopolitics and it’s not harmed our standing in the way you say.

If the case is so clear for her committing treason and/or terrorism/murder/whatever, why not try her in the UK? A lot of people blab on about how the UK's legal system is one of the best in the world with history going back hundreds of years. Shouldn't be a problem then.

The issue is she would then be, at taxpayers expense, looked after for the rest of of her life. When most people would happily prefer her to be a drone target and then the problem is solved.

[JuanCarlosFandango]

skwdenyer said:

If we abandon those principles, how can we pretend to be superior to all those "lesser" states we see on the news?

Perhaps because we don't burn people alive, throw homosexuals off buildings, sponsor mass murder of innocent civilians or seek to impose our barmy theological thuggery on great swathes of the world by force of arms?

And indeed because we have dealt with this in relatively transparent courts following due process where she had representation (I believe some was paid for by legal aid) and covered by the media, much of which support her.

How was the legal aid system for the defence of people accused of immodest dress or improper behaviour under ISIS? What sort of scrutiny was there over the legal process before determining that someone was to be beheaded for sex outside marriage or stoned for witch craft? Were the owners of slaves under ISIS held to standards similar to our prisons?

And to varying degrees Saudi Arabia, Iran, Afghanistan, Somalia and many more besides.

You might not like the judgement or the way we have dealt with this in general, and there's plenty not to like about it, but to say it puts us on a par with the worst regimes in the world simply cheapens the point. It doesn't come close.

[skwdenyer]

Mrr T said:

skwdenyer said:

The mistake I appear to have made is to believe that progress made towards proper human rights was permanent; it is anything but. Those rights are simply in the gift of whichever populist government has power this week. History provides us with ample warning as to the dangers that holds.

I have not yet read the judgement but I did listen to the announcement. That was clear her lawyers appeal did not cover her rights under the HR act. It did sound as if it had the decision might have been different if it had. Not sure if they can appeal on new grounds.

I have read the judgement; I commented on it a couple of pages back. In effect, the SC said that politicians making national security decisions trump any rights to a fair trial she may have. It absolutely made "fundamental" rights optional.

[Mrr T]

The Spruce Goose said:

Mrr T said:

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 HS is accountable. The evidence to make this decision was deemed to be be secret due to national security.

Do you really think a conspiracy existed to ensure this one girl was stripped of her citizenship on a whim, with the highest courts in the land joining this conspiracy all based on minor offences??? Come on that is absolute lunacy.

Have you even seen the news conference or read the judgement?

The judgement related to the right of the HS to exclude someone from the UK. The court made no judgement on whether she was a danger or not.

The court decision was on very narrow legal process. The court also noted the appeal did not include an claim under the the HR act.

As for whether she is a danger or not when the appeal against revocation finally comes to court this will not really matter.

[skwdenyer]

The Spruce Goose said:

skwdenyer said:

The mistake I appear to have made is to believe that progress made towards proper human rights was permanent; it is anything but. Those rights are simply in the gift of whichever populist government has power this week. History provides us with ample warning as to the dangers that holds.

The mistake you made was for your emotions to cloud you viewpoint and not read the judgement, it seems pretty clear on all counts.

The supreme court unlike the USA one is not political biased as you make out, in fact your whole rhetoric is tainted with very biased viewpoints that bear nothing to the actual facts.

I've read the SC judgement in detail. I assume you have likewise.

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.

I have not suggested the SC was political. I have repeated what they said: (a) that in their view it is entirely proper for a politician to, by order, deny SB entry to participate in a hearing; and (b) that the grounds (if any) relied upon by said politician are not justiciable.

This is not new. For the last 25+ years, "national security" has been used in this country as a premise for pushing through various pieces of unsavoury legislation.

You are right to draw attention to a comparison with the USA; whilst the SC there can be political, it is ultimately required to interpret the US Constitution, a document which very definitely protects the rights of a citizen such as SB against executive overreach. We are continually assured that our own "unwritten constitution" provides us with all of the benefits, but far more flexibility when, in reality, it does no such thing - the very essence of a constitution (in whatever form) is that it should define rights and set limits on their curtailment.

Incidentally, some learned observers have suggested the SC might have been influenced by a sense of its own mortality, since even it has no constitutional protection here. So robust are our "constitutional protections" that they do not even protect the idea of a court supreme even over Ministers...

Yes, I am emotionally connected to the idea of a society in which citizens can depend upon their rights being upheld. I don't apologise for that

[JuanCarlosFandango]

skwdenyer said:

I've read the SC judgement in detail. I assume you have likewise.

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.

I have not suggested the SC was political. I have repeated what they said: (a) that in their view it is entirely proper for a politician to, by order, deny SB entry to participate in a hearing; and (b) that the grounds (if any) relied upon by said politician are not justiciable.

This is not new. For the last 25+ years, "national security" has been used in this country as a premise for pushing through various pieces of unsavoury legislation.

You are right to draw attention to a comparison with the USA; whilst the SC there can be political, it is ultimately required to interpret the US Constitution, a document which very definitely protects the rights of a citizen such as SB against executive overreach. We are continually assured that our own "unwritten constitution" provides us with all of the benefits, but far more flexibility when, in reality, it does no such thing - the very essence of a constitution (in whatever form) is that it should define rights and set limits on their curtailment.

Incidentally, some learned observers have suggested the SC might have been influenced by a sense of its own mortality, since even it has no constitutional protection here. So robust are our "constitutional protections" that they do not even protect the idea of a court supreme even over Ministers...

Yes, I am emotionally connected to the idea of a society in which citizens can depend upon their rights being upheld. I don't apologise for that

I actually agree with all of that. I suppose to me it seems like an odd case to pick when so many other rights are routinely trampled on, which in turn makes me suspect that this particular battle ground has been chosen as an easy win.

[anonymous-user]

Mrr T said:

Have you even seen the news conference or read the judgement?

''It did not justify putting the United Kingdom’s national security at risk
by not depriving her of her citizenship.''

''The Security Service advised that the threat from individuals who returned to
the United Kingdom from ISIL-controlled territory could manifest itself in a number
of ways: (1) involvement in ISIL-directed attack planning, (2) involvement in ISILenabled attacks, (3) radicalising and recruiting UK-based associates, (4) providing
support to ISIL operatives, and (5) posing a latent threat to the United Kingdom.
''

This information in the documents, yet you havve decided that even the best judges in the land have allowed the HS to take citizenship based on minor offences......

[Mrr T]

skwdenyer said:

Mrr T said:

skwdenyer said:

The mistake I appear to have made is to believe that progress made towards proper human rights was permanent; it is anything but. Those rights are simply in the gift of whichever populist government has power this week. History provides us with ample warning as to the dangers that holds.

I have not yet read the judgement but I did listen to the announcement. That was clear her lawyers appeal did not cover her rights under the HR act. It did sound as if it had the decision might have been different if it had. Not sure if they can appeal on new grounds.

I have read the judgement; I commented on it a couple of pages back. In effect, the SC said that politicians making national security decisions trump any rights to a fair trial she may have. It absolutely made "fundamental" rights optional.

I am relying on the news conference.

The court can only consider the grounds for the appeal as presented by her lawyers. The grounds where about the powers of the HS to stop her returning to the UK for the hearing on removal.

The SC decided it did not have power to review the HS decision because on matters of public safety the decision must rest with the government not a court.

The news conference also said the appeal did not include any claim under the right to a fair trial. It did sound as if the SC might have found differently if this had been part of the appeal.

[Mrr T]

The Spruce Goose said:

Mrr T said:

Have you even seen the news conference or read the judgement?

''It did not justify putting the United Kingdom’s national security at risk
by not depriving her of her citizenship.''

''The Security Service advised that the threat from individuals who returned to
the United Kingdom from ISIL-controlled territory could manifest itself in a number
of ways: (1) involvement in ISIL-directed attack planning, (2) involvement in ISILenabled attacks, (3) radicalising and recruiting UK-based associates, (4) providing
support to ISIL operatives, and (5) posing a latent threat to the United Kingdom.
''

This information in the documents, yet you havve decided that even the best judges in the land have allowed the HS to take citizenship based on minor offences......

I have answered the above question in my post above. Your quote even supports my view. The second paragraph is quite clearly a generic comment and includes no specific details that she is a danger.

You also seem to believe the decision is related to her appeal again removal? it does not that case is yet to be decided and when it is I expect the government to lose.