Current Affairs Shemima Begum

Status
Not open for further replies.
Tubey said:
Doesn't matter, was made after the decision was made public as well as before and contrary to their own laws. She wasn't made stateless.

Same as Jack Letts being Canadian when the decision was made on him without telling Canada.

Is it a bit of an arlarse thing to do from the UK? Yes. But there's little doubt they were allowed to do it.
Click to expand...
I understand that. Plenty of international commentary about the UK actions to 'wash our hands' of our own problems, in doing so - not just in this case.

But, the issue for me in this particular instance is that a) she was eligible, not necessarily approved b) it was a decision made exclusively by the HS based upon information only available to them c) there was no separation between executive and judiciary d) the Supreme Court have effectively stated they (ie the law) should defer to the opinion of the HS in matters of individual freedoms.
 
degsy said:
Maybe if she did own her problem, especially before she committed her crimes.
Right and Wrong

Kids of various ages know right from wrong - they just don't care
Some people never progress/grow up from not caring if a thing is right or wrong...but they still know if it is

Do I believe this stuff they're telling me? Choose Y or N
If Y; do I want to go and do something about it? Choose Y or N, (aka, right or wrong and do I care)
If Y; do I want to take part in violent acts to further these new beliefs? Choose Y or N, (aka etc, etc)
If Y; how far do I want to go? Help others kill people? Choose Y or N, (aka, etc, etc,)
People know right from wrong - they just don't care.
Funny how they're all sorry when they get caught, or the fighting ends and they're on the losing side

Nah, Theres no choices, none at all...except the ones You personally make.
Small ones first...is this right or wrong...and do I care?

Oh and 2 (or more perceived wrongs) wrongs Still, don't make a right,
Click to expand...
Maybe she's taken the lead from the UK Government in it's ownership of it's decisions and those of it's citizens...
 
Judith: Any Anti-Imperialist group like ours must *reflect* such a divergence of interests within its power-base.

Reg: Agreed.
(General nodding.)
Francis?

Francis: I think Judith's point of view is valid here, Reg, provided the Movement never forgets that it is the inalienable right of every British citizen --

Shamima: Or a member of ISIS.

Francis: Or a member of ISIS...to rid Britain—

Shamima: Or the Caliphate.

Reg: Or the Caliphate. Agreed. Thank you, sister.

Shamima: Or mujahid.

Francis: Thank you, sister... Or mujahid. Where was I?

Reg: I thought you'd finished.

Francis: Oh, did I? Right.

Reg: Furthermore, it is the birthright of every citizen ...

Shamima: Or mujahid.

Reg: Why don't you shut up about mujahedeen, Shamima, you're putting us off.

Shamima: Mujahid have a perfect right to play a part in our movement, Reg.

Francis: Why are you always on about mujahid, Shamima?

Shamima: (pause) I want to be one.
(pregnant pause)

Reg: What?

Shamima: I want to be a mujahid. From now on I want you all to call me Al-Shamikha.

Reg: What!?

Shamima: It's my right as a mujahid in waiting.

Judith: Why do you want to be Al-Shamikha, Shamima?

Shamima: I want to shoot infidels.

Reg: You want to shoot infidels?!?!?!

Shamima: It's every mujahid’s right to shoot infidels if she wants to.

Reg: But you can't just go killing people.

Shamima: Don't you oppress me.

Reg: I'm not oppressing you, Shamima -- you haven't got a gun. Where's the gun coming from? Are you going to buy it at Tesco?

(Shamima starts crying.)

Judith: Here! I've got an idea. Suppose you agree that she can't actually kill infidels, not having a gun, which is nobody's fault, not even the Gammons', but that she can have the *right* to shoot infidels.

Francis: Good idea, Judith. We shall fight the oppressors for your right to shoot infidels, sister! Mujahid… sorry.

Reg: (pissed) What's the *point*?

Francis: What?

Reg: What's the point of fighting for her right to shoot infidels, when she doesn’t have a gun and killing is illegal in the UK?

Francis: It is symbolic of our struggle against oppression.

Reg: It's symbolic of her struggle against reality.
 
Spadge Vernacular said:
Judith: Any Anti-Imperialist group like ours must *reflect* such a divergence of interests within its power-base.

Reg: Agreed.
(General nodding.)
Francis?

Francis: I think Judith's point of view is valid here, Reg, provided the Movement never forgets that it is the inalienable right of every British citizen --

Shamima: Or a member of ISIS.

Francis: Or a member of ISIS...to rid Britain—

Shamima: Or the Caliphate.

Reg: Or the Caliphate. Agreed. Thank you, sister.

Shamima: Or mujahid.

Francis: Thank you, sister... Or mujahid. Where was I?

Reg: I thought you'd finished.

Francis: Oh, did I? Right.

Reg: Furthermore, it is the birthright of every citizen ...

Shamima: Or mujahid.

Reg: Why don't you shut up about mujahedeen, Shamima, you're putting us off.

Shamima: Mujahid have a perfect right to play a part in our movement, Reg.

Francis: Why are you always on about mujahid, Shamima?

Shamima: (pause) I want to be one.
(pregnant pause)

Reg: What?

Shamima: I want to be a mujahid. From now on I want you all to call me Al-Shamikha.

Reg: What!?

Shamima: It's my right as a mujahid in waiting.

Judith: Why do you want to be Al-Shamikha, Shamima?

Shamima: I want to shoot infidels.

Reg: You want to shoot infidels?!?!?!

Shamima: It's every mujahid’s right to shoot infidels if she wants to.

Reg: But you can't just go killing people.

Shamima: Don't you oppress me.

Reg: I'm not oppressing you, Shamima -- you haven't got a gun. Where's the gun coming from? Are you going to buy it at Tesco?

(Shamima starts crying.)

Judith: Here! I've got an idea. Suppose you agree that she can't actually kill infidels, not having a gun, which is nobody's fault, not even the Gammons', but that she can have the *right* to shoot infidels.

Francis: Good idea, Judith. We shall fight the oppressors for your right to shoot infidels, sister! Mujahid… sorry.

Reg: (pissed) What's the *point*?

Francis: What?

Reg: What's the point of fighting for her right to shoot infidels, when she doesn’t have a gun and killing is illegal in the UK?

Francis: It is symbolic of our struggle against oppression.

Reg: It's symbolic of her struggle against reality.
Click to expand...

Do a Biggus Dikkus one my son.

God bless.
 
Tubey said:
Section 5 of the Citizenship Act 1951 states that, a person born outside Bangladesh ‘shall be a citizen of Bangladesh by descent’ if either of his or her parents is a citizen of Bangladesh at the time of his or her birth.

Therefore, a person is automatically a citizen of Bangladesh at birth if either of his or her parents is a Bangladeshi citizen by birth (i.e. was born in Bangladesh).

So she's not stateless as she is eligible for Bangladeshi citizenship, until the age of 21. Worth a read. Complicated but the law generally comes down on the side of the UK here.

www.ejiltalk.org

Shamima Begum may be a Bangladeshi Citizen After All

In 2015, Ms Shamima Begum, then a 15-year-old British citizen living in London, travelled to Syria to join the so-called Islamic State. Her fate was unknown until recently when Ms Begum was discovered in a refugee camp in Syria. On 19 February 2019, the British Home Office in a letter delivered...
www.ejiltalk.org
Click to expand...

Tubey surely the decision over who is or is not a citizen of Bangladesh is one for the government of Bangladesh?

They’ve consistently said she isn’t, she says she isn’t, and if there were implications of Bangladeshi citizenship (military service for example, or certain laws like blasphemy) we’d never expect them to apply to or be enforceable on someone who is a British citizen.

Or to put it another way, if Russia brought in a law that said everyone was a Russian citizen, irrespective of nationality, would we then be ok with stripping citizenship from people because they’d no longer be stateless?
 
tsubaki said:
Tubey surely the decision over who is or is not a citizen of Bangladesh is one for the government of Bangladesh?

They’ve consistently said she isn’t, she says she isn’t, and if there were implications of Bangladeshi citizenship (military service for example, or certain laws like blasphemy) we’d never expect them to apply to or be enforceable on someone who is a British citizen.

Or to put it another way, if Russia brought in a law that said everyone was a Russian citizen, irrespective of nationality, would we then be ok with stripping citizenship from people because they’d no longer be stateless?
Click to expand...

It is in the same way its upto the UK to decide who is a citizen too.

Fact is legally she was eligible. Its up to Bangladesh now to formally make her stateless if she applies - until she does she's merely chosen not to apply for a nationality.

I'll freely admit its a thoroughly arlarse act by the UK, but it's legally sound.
 
Tubey said:
It is in the same way its upto the UK to decide who is a citizen too.

Fact is legally she was eligible. Its up to Bangladesh now to formally make her stateless if she applies - until she does she's merely chosen not to apply for a nationality.

I'll freely admit its a thoroughly arlarse act by the UK, but it's legally sound.
Click to expand...
Legally, the question is if the HS is satisfied that the decision will not make her stateless...

‘The Secretary of State may by order deprive a person of a citizenship status if the Secretary of State is satisfied that deprivation is conducive to the public good.’

Unless

‘The Secretary of State may not make an order under subsection (2) if he is satisfied that the order would make a person stateless.’

There is no legal scrutiny involved there, it's purely based upon the satisfaction (opinion, assumption, fact, belief?) of the HS based upon evidence not in the public domain. Now it may be that we can accept the HS judgement in good faith, however I would suggest the SC apply a greater degree of scrutiny and application to the matter than simply stating they need to defer to the HS.
 
Wow, I'm sure glad I put my wellies on before wading into this thread! :hayee:

The issue I have with the whole thing, is removing her British Citizenship stinks of trying to wash our hands of the problem to let another country deal with it.

It's all well and good saying "would you let her move in next door to you" or "what if she comes back here and radicalizes more people?"
But that is the type of single mindedness that has swept through this country over the past few years. Like you are happy for her to go elsewhere and do those things there? As long as she isn't causing problems on our shores then it doesn't matter?

She was born here and was radicalized here. She is our problem and it should be down to this country to deal with her and the threat she may or may not pose.
 
LostLegend said:
Wow, I'm sure glad I put my wellies on before wading into this thread! :hayee:

The issue I have with the whole thing, is removing her British Citizenship stinks of trying to wash our hands of the problem to let another country deal with it.

It's all well and good saying "would you let her move in next door to you" or "what if she comes back here and radicalizes more people?"
But that is the type of single mindedness that has swept through this country over the past few years. Like you are happy for her to go elsewhere and do those things there? As long as she isn't causing problems on our shores then it doesn't matter?

She was born here and was radicalized here. She is our problem and it should be down to this country to deal with her and the threat she may or may not pose.
Click to expand...
Walking round the refugee camp with all the the racist locals telling her 'go back to your own country!'
 
coollino said:
See, there are people like Tubey and a few others, where I may not agree with all the time, but I can understand their reasoned arguments.

Then there are people like you, who just type sound bites and enter certain words on a subject to attempt to have a view. You just use a template. For example, the amount of times
you talk about having 'xxxx' as your neighbour.

It is very clear you never have a basis for any discussion and you use the same rhetoric. It's embarrassing.
Click to expand...

Blah blah blah blah blah blah far left

Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah no wonder the Tories are in power.

Thats the gist of it.

Rather like @chicoazul previews

Blah blah blah

* Black and white photo

Blah blah blah

* Picture of trabs

Blah blah blah

* Panani sticker

Blah blah blah WOOLS
 
Moomin said:
Blah blah blah blah blah blah far left

Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah no wonder the Tories are in power.

Thats the gist of it.

Rather like @chicoazul previews

Blah blah blah

* Black and white photo

Blah blah blah

* Picture of trabs

Blah blah blah

* Panani sticker

Blah blah blah WOOLS
Click to expand...

A multi would make perfect sense tbh
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome

Join the Everton conversation today.
Fewer ads, full access, completely free.

→ Log in 🔑 Register
🛒 Visit Shop

Support Grand Old Team by checking out our latest Everton gear!
Back
Top