Shamima Begum...

[pequod]

The Surveyor said:

Using Rolf Harris as an example is not going to help you here. Harris is a British Citizen due to his parents being British even though he was born in Australia. Using that example Begum is a Bangladeshi Citizen due to her parents being Bangladeshi even though she was born in the UK.

Unfortunately we are stuck with Harris, and using the same principle Bangladesh are stuck with Begum !

Your summary is correct, has Australia stripped RH of his citizenship?

[Pastor Of Muppets]

pequod said:

The Surveyor said:

Using Rolf Harris as an example is not going to help you here. Harris is a British Citizen due to his parents being British even though he was born in Australia. Using that example Begum is a Bangladeshi Citizen due to her parents being Bangladeshi even though she was born in the UK.

Unfortunately we are stuck with Harris, and using the same principle Bangladesh are stuck with Begum !

Your summary is correct, has Australia stripped RH of his citizenship?

Why would they do that?, he isn't an ISIS Terrorist / sympathiser.

[Bam89]

The Surveyor said:

Bam89 said:

When is Rolf Harris being stripped of his citizenship and being deported?

…..

Using Rolf Harris as an example is not going to help you here. Harris is a British Citizen due to his parents being British even though he was born in Australia. Using that example Begum is a Bangladeshi Citizen due to her parents being Bangladeshi even though she was born in the UK.

Unfortunately we are stuck with Harris, and using the same principle Bangladesh are stuck with Begum !

So in your view, Harris (born in Australia) is more British than Shamima (born in London) because her parents are Bangladeshi and his are British?

At what point do brown and black people born here become more British than white nonces in your view Surveyor?

[The Surveyor]

Bam89 said:

The Surveyor said:

Bam89 said:

When is Rolf Harris being stripped of his citizenship and being deported?

…..

Using Rolf Harris as an example is not going to help you here. Harris is a British Citizen due to his parents being British even though he was born in Australia. Using that example Begum is a Bangladeshi Citizen due to her parents being Bangladeshi even though she was born in the UK.

Unfortunately we are stuck with Harris, and using the same principle Bangladesh are stuck with Begum !

So in your view, Harris (born in Australia) is more British than Shamima (born in London) because her parents are Bangladeshi and his are British?

At what point do brown and black people born here become more British than white nonces in your view Surveyor?

Give your head a shake and stop deliberately ignoring the reality to try and prove your narrative. We are talking about citizenship dictating which undesirable we have to put up with here. You brought Harris into the Begum argument to try and prove that the rules are not being applied fairly. I'm simply pointing out that I don't think you're right.

The simple fact is that Begum is no longer British, that was legally revoked due to her actions. There are no degrees of Britishness, legally you are either a British citizenship, or you are not.

[pequod]

Pastor Of Muppets said:

pequod said:

The Surveyor said:

Using Rolf Harris as an example is not going to help you here. Harris is a British Citizen due to his parents being British even though he was born in Australia. Using that example Begum is a Bangladeshi Citizen due to her parents being Bangladeshi even though she was born in the UK.

Unfortunately we are stuck with Harris, and using the same principle Bangladesh are stuck with Begum !

Your summary is correct, has Australia stripped RH of his citizenship?

Why would they do that?, he isn't an ISIS Terrorist / sympathiser.

Exactly so, which was my point really. Conflating RH to the case before us is stretching right/wrong to the detriment of the debate. IMO.

I may be wrong though, and some may argue that RH is no better than a terrorist ... I'll ask my Aussie friends if they would prefer RH or SB to be welcomed over there!

[psi310398]

pequod said:

Exactly so, which was my point really. Conflating RH to the case before us is stretching right/wrong to the detriment of the debate. IMO.

I may be wrong though, and some may argue that RH is no better than a terrorist ... I'll ask my Aussie friends if they would prefer RH or SB to be welcomed over there!

Why get hung up on alleged terrorism as the crime that is so exceptional as to justify such extreme measures?

I'd hazard that RH has damaged more British lives more fundamentally (and over a longer period) than Shamima Begum ever managed.

[pequod]

psi310398 said:

pequod said:

Exactly so, which was my point really. Conflating RH to the case before us is stretching right/wrong to the detriment of the debate. IMO.

I may be wrong though, and some may argue that RH is no better than a terrorist ... I'll ask my Aussie friends if they would prefer RH or SB to be welcomed over there!

Why get hung up on alleged terrorism as the crime that is so exceptional as to justify such extreme measures?

I'd hazard that RH has damaged more British lives more fundamentally (and over a longer period) than Shamima Begum ever managed.

I'm not getting 'hung up' on alleged terrorism, I simply stated that some may argue the crimes RH committed is at least equivalent and possibly worse, than joining ISIS. It is not for us to decide as the laws in the UK are in place, and for the most part, satisfactory to determine the difference.

[psi310398]

pequod said:

I'm not getting 'hung up' on alleged terrorism, I simply stated that some may argue the crimes RH committed is at least equivalent and possibly worse, than joining ISIS. It is not for us to decide as the laws in the UK are in place, and for the most part, satisfactory to determine the difference.

Sorry, I wasn't aiming the 'getting hung up' at you, rather at using it as a reason for taking such exceptional steps.

As for the law, I think it is excessive and unjust (as well as counter-productive IMO) and I am, of course, quite free to suggest it should be repealed.

[TriumphStag3.0V8]

Alpinestars said:

You used the words “Muslim communities”. Sounds a bit all encompassing to me?

I did no such thing. I think you may be confusing me with another Triumph based poster.....

[TriumphStag3.0V8]

psi310398 said:

You have also evidently missed the parts where your 'saviour' bangs on at some length about forgiveness and about those without sin casting the first stone etc but that's fairly par for the course for the more sanctimonious type of Christian...

I'm also not a Christian. The term my religion was in reference to those who do blame religion.

I can be sanctimonious, yes, but I object to being branded a Christian. :-)

Edited by TriumphStag3.0V8 on Thursday 13th February 14:06

[Alpinestars]

TriumphStag3.0V8 said:

Alpinestars said:

You used the words “Muslim communities”. Sounds a bit all encompassing to me?

I did no such thing. I think you may be confusing me with another Triumph based poster.....

In which case, please accept my apologies.

[psi310398]

TriumphStag3.0V8 said:

I'm also not a Christian. The term my religion was in reference to those who do blame religion.

I can be sanctimonious, yes, but I object to being branded a Christian. :-)

Edited by TriumphStag3.0V8 on Thursday 13th February 14:06

[CAPP0]

Algarve said:

it'd be less funny if she decided to get a bit stabby or pop down Hertz and rent a van.

Which, based on what she's seen and done and said so far, has a somewhat higher probability than Sophie coming back from a few months in Magaluf in the summer and doing likewise.

[Agammemnon]

Bam89 said:

Agammemnon said:

Bam89 said:

Agammemnon said:

Didn't you say the exact same thing in the Jamaica deportation thread?

Do you have an answer for it on either thread, or are you a nonce apologist?

I decline to answer on the grounds that it's a stupid & provocative question.

So the latter then

Just grow up, there's a good chap.

[TriumphStag3.0V8]

Alpinestars said:

In which case, please accept my apologies.

No worries.

[The Surveyor]

psi310398 said:

pequod said:

Exactly so, which was my point really. Conflating RH to the case before us is stretching right/wrong to the detriment of the debate. IMO.

I may be wrong though, and some may argue that RH is no better than a terrorist ... I'll ask my Aussie friends if they would prefer RH or SB to be welcomed over there!

Why get hung up on alleged terrorism as the crime that is so exceptional as to justify such extreme measures?

I'd hazard that RH has damaged more British lives more fundamentally (and over a longer period) than Shamima Begum ever managed.

Bringing RH into the discussion has nothing to do with the severity of the crime. Even though I would agree that his crimes were worse that those alleged by Begum, that has no bearing on whether we can deport him or strip his citizenship.

There are no legal grounds to deport RH to Australia because he's not Australian, he's British, where as we can with Begum because she's no longer British and is now Bangladeshi.

[Algarve]

The Surveyor said:

There are no legal grounds to deport RH to Australia because he's not Australian, he's British, where as we can with Begum because she's no longer British and is now Bangladeshi.

But there would be grounds to remove his citizenship if he willingly left the country for any reason. Just wait till he goes on holiday and cancel it. If we can cancel begum's to keep her out the country as a terrorist why not cancel his too, keep a sex offender out?

[The Surveyor]

Algarve said:

The Surveyor said:

There are no legal grounds to deport RH to Australia because he's not Australian, he's British, where as we can with Begum because she's no longer British and is now Bangladeshi.

But there would be grounds to remove his citizenship if he willingly left the country for any reason. Just wait till he goes on holiday and cancel it. If we can cancel begum's to keep her out the country as a terrorist why not cancel his too, keep a sex offender out?

Unfortunately you can't make somebody stateless. RH wouldn't become Australian by default just because he was born there so sadly we're stuck with him.

[JuanCarlosFandango]

98elise said:

The "Muslim Community" is not an organisation. It has no hierarchy, power over the people within it. It's the people itself.

It is no more responsible for tackling extremism than the Catholic Community was for the IRA

That is fine if it's consistent. The trouble is there are some who claim that "the Muslim community" is outraged by our foreign policy, counter terrorism policy or some criticism of the tiny proportion of Muslim women who wear full face veils or any other perceived slight against some aspect of the faith or some small section of its followers.

I don't remember Italians or Poles or Catholic priests lining up to warn of an anti Catholic backlash following IRA terror attacks.

[Alpinestars]

JuanCarlosFandango said:

some who claim that.

Do some critical thinking rather than cherry picking. There’s no such thing as a Muslim community. Catholic community. Black community. Etc etc.