Current Affairs Shemima Begum

[edge]

She did, though obviously at this point it should be pointed out that she was a minor when that happened.

@Kurt. 's point is important though - to expand on it a bit, if Begum (and the others) had their citizenship stripped when they left, or when it was confirmed they were in IS territory supporting IS, or when the security services deemed them to be a threat then that would be one thing. Begum however never had her citizenship stripped until she'd left the collapsing IS state, turned up in a refugee camp with a child, gave an interview to one of the papers and caused embarassment to the government. It certainly very much appears as if they did it to prevent a fuss, not to protect the country.

I don't think anyone should have their citizenship stripped on that basis; as Kurt pointed out people who had done far worse but not caused a fuss didn't.

Does it really matter when they say she broke the law if she did indeed break it?
Jails are full of people who got charged with crimes, well after their illegal acts,
not that I would put anything past the government or the current home secretary to be honest, so I am not saying by their way there is not an element of politics in play here by the way.
Sure part of her problem is, she is being used as a high profile guinea pig for this law, as others are sure to be in the pipeline

I'm no expert as you would imagine. When this first came about a couple of years ago I saw, not just one but a number of articles, where it mentioned that under International Law a nation was not allowed to removed somebodies citizenship if it rendered them stateless. I took those reports at face value.

I am certainly not mate thought actually the same as you till I looked it up this morning, seemed strange to me that the government could do this, but when you get to the section , there is a subsection you click into that gives the reasons you can be made stateless under international law, I didn't know there were any to be truthful before this morning.

 

[JLW]

Mate if I had my way she’s be locked up forever.... but the government have got this wrong in my opinion. Like it or not she was born in the U.K. so should be subject to the same rights and protections as everybody else, by not doing so they are setting a dangerous precedent

She did, though obviously at this point it should be pointed out that she was a minor when that happened.

@Kurt. 's point is important though - to expand on it a bit, if Begum (and the others) had their citizenship stripped when they left, or when it was confirmed they were in IS territory supporting IS, or when the security services deemed them to be a threat then that would be one thing. Begum however never had her citizenship stripped until she'd left the collapsing IS state, turned up in a refugee camp with a child, gave an interview to one of the papers and caused embarassment to the government. It certainly very much appears as if they did it to prevent a fuss, not to protect the country.

I don't think anyone should have their citizenship stripped on that basis; as Kurt pointed out people who had done far worse but not caused a fuss didn't.

Lads i appreciate your views, lets agree to disagree on this. We will just go round in circles

 

[arminisgod]

She is a terrorist. She has no rights

 

[Yarrgh]

Very interesting case.

Section 40(2) of the British Nationality Act 1981 allows the Secretary of State to deprive someone of their British citizenship if this is conducive to the public good. Generally deprivation happens when the individuals are abroad and appeals are usually heard in front of the Special Immigration Appeals Commissions

From the UN 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness which was ratified by the UK.

Article 8

Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph 1 of this Article, a Contract-
ing State may retain the right to deprive a person of his nationality, if at the
time of signature, ratification or accession it specifies its retention of such
right on one or more of the following grounds, being grounds existing in its
national law at that time:
(a) that, inconsistently with his duty of loyalty to the Contracting State, the
person
(i) has, in disregard of an express prohibition by the Contracting State
rendered or continued to render services to, or received or contin-
ued to receive emoluments from, another State, or
(ii) has conducted himself in a manner seriously prejudicial to the vital
interests of the State;
(b) that the person has taken an oath, or made a formal declaration, of alle-
giance to another State, or given definite evidence of his determination
to repudiate his allegiance to the Contracting State.
4. A Contracting State shall not exercise a power of deprivation permitted
by paragraphs 2 or 3 of this Article except in accordance with law, which shall
provide for the person concerned the right to a fair hearing by a court or other
independent body.

It is therefore my opinion that the UK government behaved in accordance with national and international law in removing citizenship from Begum using the reason of national security and the judgment yesterday was sound.

I don't agree with a lot of what the government does but I agree with them here. She is not British and should not be allowed to return here under currentcircumstances.

 

[ForeverBlue92]

She’s a working class Brit who was educated and groomed here so what you actually mean is you want a country that listens to those you deem the right citizens.
Not sure it’s elitism to want the country to afford due process to its own citizens.

You have gone off on a tangent that doesn’t really relate to whether it’s right or not.

If you feel for her so much invite her to come live with you and support her and her kids financially so I dont have to out my taxes.

I couldnt care less if she was "groomed" soon as she joined a terrorist organisation on her own free will thats it over in my eyes.

As usual we look for excuses - well maybe the person who groomed her was groomed thenselves, and them by someone else and so on and so on - where is the line drawn?

Actions = consequences.

 

[tsubaki]

Does it really matter when they say she broke the law if she did indeed break it?
Jails are full of people who got charged with crimes, well after their illegal acts,
not that I would put anything past the government or the current home secretary to be honest, so I am not saying by their way there is not an element of politics in play here by the way.
Sure part of her problem is, she is being used as a high profile guinea pig for this law, as others are sure to be in the pipeline

edge - she’s not been found to have broken the law, or even been charged with anything as far as I am aware; that’s one of the key issues here.

 

[coollino]

She is a terrorist. She has no rights

She isn't yet though as there have been no charges.

Or are you going by the court of you?

 

[Tubey]

edge - she’s not been found to have broken the law, or even been charged with anything as far as I am aware; that’s one of the key issues here.

The only reason it's contentious at all is because she's a born British citizen. Naturalised citizens can be stripped of citizenship for the very reason Begum has been without too much bother, but Brits born here generally cannot as it makes them stateless - but the contention is that the UK have ruled she's not stateless as she's a Bangladeshi citizen too and that she renounced her UK citizenship first, much as Einstein renounced German citizenship etc.

Which apparently is technically true.

So, if she's no longer a British citizen and has committed no crime on British soil that we want to prosecute yet, then the UK is correct in their assessment that they can bar her entry.

It's a huge 'if' though, but we have courts and parliament for a reason. It really is hard to argue that allowing Begum back isn't a national security issue, so for that reason I personally accept that given the unique circumstances of people betraying their country to join a terrorist state intent on beheading as many people from the UK as humanly possible, then national security supercedes legal technicalities for me, and the courts have found that too.

 

[Spadge Vernacular]

Sadly for her, she made some very bad choices and has been made an example of. I am sure that for some of the crackpots that are too far down that rabbit hole this decision will be fuel for the fire, but for others it might make them rethink what they are doing, possibly making some parents rethink the direction they send their children.

 

[tsubaki]

The only reason it's contentious at all is because she's a born British citizen. Naturalised citizens can be stripped of citizenship for the very reason Begum has been without too much bother, but Brits born here generally cannot as it makes them stateless - but the contention is that the UK have ruled she's not stateless as she's a Bangladeshi citizen too and that she renounced her UK citizenship first, much as Einstein renounced German citizenship etc.

Which apparently is technically true.

So, if she's no longer a British citizen and has committed no crime on British soil that we want to prosecute yet, then the UK is correct in their assessment that they can bar her entry.

It's a huge 'if' though, but we have courts and parliament for a reason. It really is hard to argue that allowing Begum back isn't a national security issue, so for that reason I personally accept that given the unique circumstances of people betraying their country to join a terrorist state intent on beheading as many people from the UK as humanly possible, then national security supercedes legal technicalities for me, and the courts have found that too.

Tubey she’s never (IIRC) rescinded her British citizenship and she isn’t a citizen of Bangladesh, just (in theory) eligible to be one.

It’s the “in theory” but thats one of perverse bits to this because it’s the only reason they’ve been able to do this, for the rather spurious grounds already described.

The precedent this sets is also actually rather a troubling one - you could, for example, strip British Jews of their citizenship on this basis (as they have an automatic right to Israeli citizenship) if a government so wished to do that.

Again, if they’d done this to everyone who “emigrated” to IS then I think there would be much less of a moral question here, but when the British state seems to be making an example (using legal flummery) out of a girl whilst not doing the same to more dangerous, more guilty types it seems wrong.

 

[Boss_Blue]

Quick question lads - if she was, lets say 10 when she was groomed and left to join ISIS would you have the same views (i.e. she made the choice of her own free will so should be left to rot)? If not, then at what age does a child need to be (in your opinion) before they have to take full responsibility for their actions (regardless of context)?

Genuinely intrigued.

 

[Tubey]

Tubey she’s never (IIRC) rescinded her British citizenship and she isn’t a citizen of Bangladesh, just (in theory) eligible to be one.

It’s the “in theory” but thats one of perverse bits to this because it’s the only reason they’ve been able to do this, for the rather spurious grounds already described.

The precedent this sets is also actually rather a troubling one - you could, for example, strip British Jews of their citizenship on this basis (as they have an automatic right to Israeli citizenship) if a government so wished to do that.

Again, if they’d done this to everyone who “emigrated” to IS then I think there would be much less of a moral question here, but when the British state seems to be making an example (using legal flummery) out of a girl whilst not doing the same to more dangerous, more guilty types it seems wrong.

She was under the age of 21 and thus a Bangladeshi citizen automatically once her UK citizenship was revoked according to their law, as far I understand it. It hasn't been tested as she's appealed her UK citizenship of course.

And she rescinded her nationality through her act of joining ISIS - thus putting her under the purview of the law enabling the UK to interpret that action as that since 2006. Citizenship can be rescinded if 'conducive to the public good', it can't be done for no valid reason.

We've used that power quite a bit with ISIS terrorists; Begum is just the highest profile one.

 

[LEONARD]

Thank god for this judgement.

Those who support her 'right; to return, are endangering us all.

She obviously wants to live in some horrendous Islamic Republic, so let her do so.

 

[tsubaki]

She was under the age of 21 and thus a Bangladeshi citizen automatically once her UK citizenship was revoked according to their law, as far I understand it. It hasn't been tested as she's appealed her UK citizenship of course.

And she rescinded her nationality through her act of joining ISIS - thus putting her under the purview of the law enabling the UK to interpret that action as that since 2006. Citizenship can be rescinded if 'conducive to the public good', it can't be done for no valid reason.

We've used that power quite a bit with ISIS terrorists; Begum is just the highest profile one.

No Tubey - you become eligible for Bangladeshi citizenship, and there should be no impediment to getting it, but the ultimate arbiter there is Bangladesh (who still say she isn't one of their citizens).

Also as I said above, if we'd rescinded her citizenship when she joined IS that would be one thing - but we didn't; we rescinded it when she'd left IS.

 

[LEONARD]

Obscene, that at the time of the ongoing Manchester arena enquiry, we are even considering this.

Amazing that some many on the left now support the 'rights' of individuals like Begum.

She hates everything that OUR country stands for, tolerance. pluralism, freedom, and democracy.

If she ever steps down onto that tarmac at Heathrow, she would have the cheek to ask for political asylum.