You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
There are two camps; those who think she’s an innocent child trafficked away, indoctrinated and kept against her will. And those who think that’s a load of rubbish.
Oddly enough this is also a load of rubbish.
Some people think she is entirely innocent.
Others, like me, really dont know but feel the best place to test it is in court with the help of psychologists/police/intelligence professionals and then a judge and jury to make the decision.
Not a home secretary wanting to appear tough.
But to discourage others and to avoid setting a precedent for future Jihadis returning to the UK.
A great deterrent, perhaps, for those people with the possibility of dual nationality but not so much for anyone without or who doesnt know they have dual citizenship/forgot to claim it.
I would go for a more generic option personally.
Or probably both. Take your pick
The problem is even if he has seen more evidence (given he doesnt mention it I would have my doubts) doesnt address the key problem.
Its that it sits outside the criminal justice system and is by personal choice of the home secretary.
Its not putting the security of the nation first. Its putting the whims of a politician first.
he has seen/been briefed by the security services and knows alot more about her that the combined minds of this forum.
You know that the suggestion it is all just a ruse by Shamima Begum so that she can come to the UK to commit acts of terrorism is laughable, don't you?
The whole sorry saga has its basis in the ambitions of a dark skinned second generation immigrant Home Secretary, who was desperate to become Prime Minister, trying to prove to the Daily Mail and its readers that he could be totally relied on to pander to their bigotry.
It's not easy being an ambitious brown Tory - you have to prove yourself.
It all has bugger all to do with fighting terrorism.
Even if there's intelligence that she could pose a risk to the UK... presumably we have people in the UK with similar intelligence on them, right now. If we can't handle that situation at home, we have a weak security system here that needs addressing.
"Javid says so" isn't good enough for making someone stateless... yes, in UK law it is... but we'd be challenging politicians in other countries making such decisions and pointing to international agreements, laws and commitments... the negative effects of a race to the bottom when it comes to offloading a nation's responsibilities could increase the risk to us all.
There are two camps; those who think she’s an innocent child trafficked away, indoctrinated and kept against her will. And those who think that’s a load of rubbish.
Jesus christ, after 13 pages of almost unanimous consensus, you can't even get that right.
I'll make it truly binary for you:
You either believe that people are entitled to a fair trial prior to sentencing, or you don't.
If you believe that they are, then you should support her being brought back to the UK for trial and to face the legal consequences of her actions.
If you don't think they are, we find ourselves in middle-school ethics curriculum territory, and so this becomes a different conversation.
Whether or not what the home secretary did was legal (in the context of international law) is largely irrelevant to most people. What most people are bothered about is what OUR government did to one of OUR citizens, and WHY they did it. back to middle school ethics again: if they have that power (and find out they can wield it without public consequences) then what's to stop them wielding it again? Against whom?
if they have that power (and find out they can wield it without public consequences) then what’s to stop them wielding it again? Against whom?
This 100%.
Eg there was talk of starving the Irish during brexit negotiations, Priti Patel - https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/brexiteer-blasted-over-threat-to-starve-ireland-tjp7k76mq.
Lots of other people on FB and forums asked why we let the Irish "stay" here.
Many UK citizens came from Ireland or parents, grandparents came from Ireland. All eligible for Irish Cit.
With populism on the rise, it makes you wonder how fast things could change here.
Another thing that's scary is that all of the appeals seem to be based around whether the Home Secretary had the ability to make the decision he made, and whether she can return to fight the case - at no point has she ever faced terrorism charges, Javid just made a decision and (thus far) that's it, she's gone. IANAL but it seems like the courts, deliberately or otherwise, are testing only the right of the HS to remove citizenship, and not whether it was the correct judgement?
Again, this could be any of us if the state so chose.
I know that she’s British. But she’s technically now Bangladeshi.
Technically?
Seems that they have an age 21 cut-off, so she's not.
You either believe that people are entitled to a fair trial prior to sentencing, or you don’t.
This, and it applies to EVERYONE along with how we should all be tried if we committed the same offence - no matter how 'important' you are.
This, and it applies to EVERYONE along with how we should all be tried if we committed the same offence – no matter how ‘important’ you are.
So easy to overlook - removing rights from one person removes them from us all.
are testing only the right of the HS to remove citizenship, and not whether it was the correct judgement?
Yeah the court a couple of days ago made it clear that it wasn't their duty to decide whether Shamima Begum posed a national security risk, only whether the Home Secretary had based his decision on that consideration.
They were satisfied that he had even if they didn't necessarily agree with his assessment.
The whole thing stinks and the issue is a complete mess, but for me the most depressing aspect of this situation is that it is extremely unlikely that it will be resolved by an incoming Labour government.
Indeed the powers used by the Home Secretary in this clear breach of natural justice have their origins in a Labour government.
The only difference I can see a Labour government making is that some people will be more reluctant to critise injustices when Labour are in power, which actually makes it easier for them to get away with it.
Depressing, truly.
Javid says so” isn’t good enough for making someone stateless… yes, in UK law it is… but we’d be challenging politicians in other countries making such decisions and pointing to international agreements, laws and commitments
Totally agree with this. THe challenge is how. Will a change of government change it? I have my doubts as why would a Home Secretary want to not be able to do this. Its easier to do nothing than change the law and the political flack from the right that would come with it
trafficked, or terrorist
Both I think. She appears neither contrite or sincere in interview. Like she's reading badly from a script.
what actual evidence of terrorist activity is there? she was trafficed and "married" to somone. ( presumably raped multiple times) and has spent most of the time in a refugee camp while the children she has had and all her friends die
Did she ever get to bomb hurling? Nothing I have ever seen suggests so
trafficked, or terrorist
Both I think.
So presumably you don't agree with the British government's decision to ban her from the UK?
I mean, why would any other country in the world accept a British born and radicalised terrorist?
I was answering the OPs actual question.
I don't agree with the government's decision. Aside from what it means for human rights for the rest of us more generally, it leaves a potentially dangerous actor still in play.
Yeah that's the point -
If she is a terrorist she needs to be hauled back here to face the consequences. She is the UK's problem.
If she is not a terrorist she needs to be allowed back to the UK. It is her birthright.
Whether she is a terrorist or not is irrelevant.
Yes, you keep saying this. So assuming you’re not just a man on the internet but the chairman of a court higher than the one that decided she is technically entitled (and the commission that agreed with them). Why don’t you have the decision overturned? Or tell their lawyers that they are mistaken.
I understand if you mean that you don’t agree with the decision, or that you just don’t like it. But to present it as fact is misleading. The UK government found a crafty way to revoke her citizenship as they found she was <i>technically </i>entitled to Bangladeshi citizenship. That there is the fact. Whether you or Bangladesh like it or not. Technically it’s Bangladesh who are potentially leaving her stateless as the UK moved first so tough tits. And ranting that they’ll execute her if she arrives is just childish temper tantrums
You keep smashing on about this "technically." What do you suppose it means? That she is Bangladeshi, really, it's just that no-one wants to admit it?
She is - or perhaps "was" is a more appropriate word - technically entitled to Bangladeshi citizenship in much the the same way that I'm technically entitled to a giraffe. Conclusion, you can shoot my dog in the head and I should go knocking on the doors at Whipsnade asking where my giraffe is?
What crimes is she alleged to have committed anyway?
A good question. Perhaps we should find out, some sort of "trial," like we do with every other alleged criminal?
Certainly none in the UK surely? So why bring he back to face justice? For what?
Because, well, because of exactly what you just said.
If she’s been up to no good in the Islamic State or Syria then surely that’s for them to deal with?
Why?
If a Bangladeshi national had been "up to no good" in the UK, should it be for us to deal with or should we be able to send them back to Bangladesh?
And, uh... you do know that "the Islamic State" isn't a geographical place, right?
Certainly none in the UK surely? So why bring he back to face justice? For what?
Because it is illegal in the UK to be engaged in acts of terrorism overseas.
Well it is according to the Crown Prosecution Service, and they are pretty red-hot on subject:
Yesterday, a former intelligence officer for the Canadian security services, which employed a double agent to smuggle Begum into Isis territory, condemned it as a “travesty of justice”.
Huda Mukbil, who worked with MI5, said the verdict defied belief. “They even recognise she was a child and was trafficked into Syria; there was a breach of duty on behalf of the state [the UK] to make sure she doesn’t leave the country,” she said.
It really isn't a good look when a former senior officer with the Canadian Security Intelligence Service - which was involved (with the UK's full knowledge) with smuggling children into Syria for sexual exploitation by ISIS, describes a UK court ruling as a "travesty of justice”.
Still, I guess that as long as the Opposition don't pursue the matter, or barely comment on it (I don't believe that the current Shadow Home Secretary has ever bothered commenting on the case) Tory Home Secretaries have little to worry about - the actual truth is unlikely to be known by the wider public.
A word on logic and thought.
This
What crimes is she alleged to have committed anyway?
And this
Certainly none in the UK surely? So why bring he back to face justice? For what?
In the same statement, disagree with the argument to deprive her of her citizenship.
She has not committed a crime in the UK , so why can the UK punish her?
EG your 17 your old son is accused of having sex with a 16 year old girl whilst on holiday in America.
He returns to the UK before the accusation comes to light, he cannot be extradited to the US, because it is not a crime in the UK.
Or should we deprive him of his citizenship because it is alleged he committed a crime abroad, perhaps he even admits he he had sex with her?
Can you see that your statements do not add up? They are logical failures.
You cannot have a punishment without a crime, and you admit you very charitably think she has not committed a crime.
Those of us who are less charitable think she may have committed a crime, but in order to find out we think she should be dragged back to her home country and tried and if necessary, punished here and rehabilitated back into the society she has wronged.
The UK isn't punishing her. She denounced the UK and left to join the Islamic State. She's in a pickle entirely of her own making. Just cos IS went tits up isn't the UK's fault. She isn't a UK citizen so how can she be brought back here to face justice?
It's ****ing Groundhog ****ing Day on this thread...
😁
It is indeed. Round and round and round we go.
She denounced the UK
I have never heard of a statement where Shamima Begum denounced the UK, have you got proof to back up this claim.
And I have no idea why you think "she’s in a pickle entirely of her own making." How on earth do you believe that a child from Bethnal Green managed to leave the UK illegally and travel across controlled borders thousands of miles away on her own?
It turns out that she only managed to do it with help from Western intelligence. She should have been stopped at Gatwick airport.
EG your 17 your old son is accused of having sex with a 16 year old girl whilst on holiday in America.
He returns to the UK before the accusation comes to light, he cannot be extradited to the US, because it is not a crime in the UK.
Or should we deprive him of his citizenship because it is alleged he committed a crime abroad, perhaps he even admits he he had sex with her?
Read through this a few time and perhaps I've missed the bit where after committing the heinous crime of having sex with a girl one year younger than himself, our laddo denounces the west and everything it stands for and goes off to join a murderous terror group in the middle east whilst also becoming a potential danger and threat himself.
If you're looking for a similar case that actually exists in the real world, then there's this splendid young fellow Jack Letts
I don't see many of the terminally outraged sticking up for him. Perhaps there aren't too many virtue signalling points to score from sticking up for a white male...
So you can't find any evidence that Shamima Begum denounced the UK, as you claim.
Was it something that you read in the Daily Mail perhaps?
Edit: Btw denouncing the UK isn't a crime, it happens every day on this forum. If it was STW would have been shut down a long time ago and hundreds of STWers would likely have lost their UK citizenships.
So you can’t find any evidence that Shamima Begum denounced the UK, as you claim.
Was it something that you read in the Daily Mail perhaps?
She did it by her actions old chap. Not that I should need to say it when it's so glaringly obvious...
You must be getting cross when the old "wah wah, you read the Daily Mail!" taunts start 😂
I'll have you know the only newspapers I have historically taken were The Guardian and The Sunday Sport.
I didn't know about Jack Betts, but I woudl apply the same to him, he should not have stripped of his citizen ship.
She isn’t a UK citizen so how can she be brought back here to face justice?
She was, and should have been, how can you not see that?
You must be getting cross
I actually enjoy the entertainment value of your comments, I mean you're not very good are you?
All you can come up with is crass comments which sound as if they have come straight out of a Daily Mail columnist's rants.
Personally I'm lovin it..... keep it up! 🤗
I’ll have you know the only newspapers I have historically taken were The Guardian and The Sunday Sport.
I feel a bit ashamed admitting to that on a public forum. Can I just clarify that I only had The Guardian delivered for about a year as I was quite young and that's what a lot of my friends read.
She was, and should have been, how can you not see that?
She was indeed!
Right, as others have pointed out, this is just going round in circles. It's a lovely day, off out on the bike.
It’s a lovely day
It's a crap day - it's bleeding freezing out there. And grey.
Are you ever right about anything Jambo?
Letts had dual nationality. And in this game the country that renounces it first wins the “not my problem” game. Begum had “access to” dual nationality. We all have access to lots of things that we don’t take up and are not punished for subsequently. The law is deciding whether the “not my problem” game was valid on account of “access to” rather than “had”.
It’s a crap day. Covid positive for the fourth time and a terrible night of sinus pain, cardiac pain, and vomiting. COVID loves me 🥲
Covid positive for the fourth time
Bleedin'ell no way!!!😳
Yeah covid obviously luvs you - you should be the subject of research!
Yeah covid obviously luvs you – you should be the subject of research!
When they say "do your own research" this is not how it's meant to happen!
Look after yourself, God knows we can't afford to lose the only one on the forum capable of reasoned, evidenced debate.
So it turns out that that Shamima Begum's lawyer has quit as Shamima Begum is only allowed to be represented by a special advocate who is not allowed to speak to her once the hearing begins.
He claims that it is impossible for Shamina Begun to get a fair hearing and that government ministers are deliberately placing obstacles in the way.
I would have thought that if she deserves nothing else she at least deserves a fair hearing. Even the Yorkshire Ripper was entitled to that.
Poor girl is just a scapegoat, a political pawn.
.
There are those in our government, and currently in power and inhabiting Downing st, who have caused far more harm to the UK than this girl.
Poor girl is just a scapegoat, a political pawn.
Undoubtedly, she is also, in many ways the author of her own downfall. I feel sorry for her, her life is by any standard a personal tragedy.
Undoubtedly, she is also, in many ways the author of her own downfall
No more so than any other 15 year old child who does something stupid. We've all done stupid things; mostly they don't result in our citizenship being stripped by a racist government.
The only authors of Shamima's 'downfall' are the UK government, who have pandered to xenophobia and fear-mongering as part of their greater vision of divide et impera.
I would have thought that if she deserves nothing else she at least deserves a fair hearing. Even the Yorkshire Ripper was entitled to that.
To deny her a fair trial under UK law, is to undermine the entire institution of Law itself. It basically states that if you are of a particular minority heritage, you cannot expect the same rights as others. If such an act were taking place in another country, you can guarantee that there would be universal condemnation of that nation by our press. History condemns such nations which carried out such practices. The one positive that can be taken from this, is that the legions of 'Lefty Lawyers' will be working tirelessly to restore what's left of our legal system, and ways to further protect UK citizens from future abuses of power. Such people are thankfully more intelligent than the majority of politicians, so there is hope that sanity, common sense and human decency will prevail.
IMO the reason the tories do not want to put her ontrial is that there is no hope of a conviction for anything much and that the involvement of security forces in her abduction / trafficking will come out and that their narrative of her as a terrorist will be exposed as false<br /><br />this was a vulnerable child trafficked to be at best a servant to some truely horrible people
IMO the reason the tories do not want to put her ontrial is that there is no hope of a conviction for anything much and that the involvement of security forces in her abduction / trafficking will come out and that their narrative of her as a terrorist will be exposed as false<br /><br />this was a vulnerable child trafficked to be at best a servant to some truely horrible people
Is pretty much the reality of it. Also, such a trial would raise questions about the UK Government's failure to ensure such 'radicalisation' of young people isn't being tackled adequately; this would raise further scrutiny of the government's failure to invest adequately in education, public services, family support and community relations etc. Shamima is far more a symptom of government and societal failure than actual 'terrorism'.
No more so than any other 15 year old child who does something stupid<br />
um no..I did some stupid things as a kid, but didn’t ever run off overseas with a terror group..
that said, I agree she’s being used as a political pawn, and I also agree she deserves a second chance.
Shamima is far more a symptom of government and societal failure than actual ‘terrorism’.
Yep
I think I've said it before, but if her name was Jemima Baker, not Shamima Begum, and she was from Bath not Bethnal Green, this whole sorry saga would have been very different from the start.
um no..I did some stupid things as a kid, but didn’t ever run off overseas with a terror group..
Do you think her real aim was to bring about the destruction of the West, or just some silly naive fantasy about falling in love with a handsome warrior? She was 15; It's quite unlikely she'd really considered international terrorism as a career option by that age. She certainly hadn't considered (or even known about) the actual reality that her quest would result in. Personally, I think bringing her back, and training her to talk to other impressionable young people about the folly of such actions, would serve society far better than wasting millions in taxpayers' money by continually blocking her any access to legal recourse.
think I’ve said it before, but if her name was Jemima Baker, not Shamima Begum, and she was from Bath not Bethnal Green, this whole sorry saga would have been very different from the start.
Precisely. Thank you for pointing that out.
Personally, I think bringing her back, and training her to talk to other impressionable young people about the folly of such actions, would serve society far better than wasting millions in taxpayers’ money by continually blocking her any access to legal recourse.
There is wisdom in this.
No-one should be made stateless, it is a basic human right.
How we treat criminals is a measure of a civilised society.
No more so than any other 15 year old child who does something stupid. We’ve all done stupid things; mostly they don’t result in our citizenship being stripped by a racist government.
When Shamina found herself in the Isis Caliphate, she wasn't the only girl who'd been trafficked there, in fact hundreds of these poor souls were. She was surrounded by other youngsters realising that they'd been lied to and were planning to, and successfully returning to their homes. Other women have said that Shamina was one of the very few young westerners who didn't immediately leg it home as fast as they could. The Home sec is entitled to take that into consideration: that she stayed there for 4 years and only when it was clear that the Caliphate had failed that she tried to return home
To deny her a fair trial under UK law
Under International law it's illegal to restore someone's citizenship solely for the purpose of repatriating them to put them on trail - for obvious reasons. It's also, weirdly (to me at least when I read it) not considered a punishment; as it carries no prison sentence or fine, so returning a citizenship can only be the same process as removing it, i.e. someone makes the decision to do so. The person it affects can't take anyone to court to claim that they've been harmed as it carries no punishment.
Should the Home Sec have made her stateless? IMO probably not, but as the Supreme Court ruled, he was entitled to take the advice of the secret service when making that decision, and that it was a perfectly legitimate one. Like many I suspect I was very surprised that politicians have the ability to take away our citizenship so easily, like I said regardless of whether one thinks she's a terrorist, its most certainly a tragedy.
I was very surprised that politicians have the ability to take away our citizenship so easily
I agree, but then Matt Hancock thought he could be the person who decides who should live and who should die in a NHS hospital.
I would have thought that if she deserves nothing else she at least deserves a fair hearing.
Absolutely. It's weird but wholly unsurprising that the people opposing this are the same people who were squealing about democracy and sovereignty not so long ago.
only when it was clear that the Caliphate had failed that she tried to return home
Did she ever "try to return home" even? I may be wrong, but as I recall this whole situation blew up in the first place over little more than a tabloid journalist happening across her, asking "would you like to return to Britain at some point?" and her answering "yes."
Do you think her real aim was to bring about the destruction of the West
This is a red herring. It doesn't matter. Even if you allow that at 15* she wasn't smart enough to make a decision to join a terrorist group, when she got there, it would've been abundantly clear to her that she'd been lied to and was surrounded by young people in exactly the same situation making exactly that assessment and returning home as soon as they could. Almost uniquely, she stayed.
*In the transcript of the Supreme Court it was revealed that she was - according to her school, exceptionally bright, an A* pupil who had every prospect of going to university. The whole thing is such a waste of a young life.
our citizenship being stripped by a racist government.
You know, I'm amongst the first to criticise what passes for our government but I'm not sure as 'racist' directly applies here. Rather, them pandering to the racist voters who enabled them into power in the first place, absolutely.
Is pretty much the reality of it. Also, such a trial would raise questions about the UK Government’s failure to ensure such ‘radicalisation’ of young people isn’t being tackled adequately; this would raise further scrutiny of the government’s failure to invest adequately in education, public services, family support and community relations etc. Shamima is far more a symptom of government and societal failure than actual ‘terrorism’.
Bang on.
I think bringing her back, and training her to talk to other impressionable young people about the folly of such actions, would serve society far better
And, bang on x100.
She has to come back, she has to face trial, and if she's remorseful (is she?) then she'd be a brilliant spokesperson to warn other impressionable teens of just how easy it is for a fan/excrement interface is to occur. Anything else is simple hypocrisy, we cannot hold ourselves up as some sort of bastion of the right and the just but only when it suits us.
that said, I agree she’s being used as a political pawn, and I also agree she deserves a second chance.
I'm not sure there's a realistic prospect of a second chance - I think that would require a name change, guaranteed anonymity and a move a very long way away.
She's got no chance of a fair trial (and as mentioned, trial opens up all sorts of uncomfortable questions for Government about how she managed to slip through the net, become radicalised etc), she's at risk of reprisals if she's re-homed anywhere under her current name (and potentially even her appearance), she's got limited education, no-one really wants her.
What kind of second chance could she ever have? She's world famous for all the wrong reasons...
Taking her citizenship was a stupid move, that's just made life a lot more complicated but that was all political.
little more than a tabloid journalist happening across her, asking “would you like to return to Britain at some point?” and her answering “yes.”
A Times journalist and former soldier interviewed her at the settlement camp becasue he discovered that there was a British girl there and he was surprised to learn about it as he thought all the western women had been long repatriated. When he interviewed her he said that it was clear that she'd been trained in resisting interrogation techniques, and was very guarded. Despite the obvious tragedy of the situation she found herself in, she wasn't (at that point anyway) an innocent.
When Shamina found herself in the Isis Caliphate, she wasn’t the only girl who’d been trafficked there
The assertion she'd been trafficked, rather than travelled entirely of her own volition, invalidates the decision to strip her of her UK citizenship. This is the argument her lawyers wanted to present in court. However, the fact she is being denied a fair trial, kind of goes against our own law, let alone international. As for Sajid Javid taking the advice of the secret service; that's a load of rubbish and anyone with any sense can recognise this. It's simply a device used to overrule human decency. The supreme court's decision rested on a technicality, that the journey was made by her 'voluntarily'. As she's never been able to present her own case before any UK courts, this cannot be determined, so that decision was nothing more than subjective, made by a court under political pressure. That many legal experts, including a former supreme court judge have condemned the decision, is damning. The government's own terrorism adviser, Jonathon Hall KC, has called for her return. But beyond whatever may be deemed 'legal' (and that is open for debate), society has to consider was is morally right. I've yet to see evidence of this government winning on that score.
invalidates the decision to strip her of her UK citizenship.
Other young British women were in the very same situation she was, and made the decision to return home much much sooner than she did, and their citizenship wasn't affected in any way. It's certainly a tragedy, but Shamina is at the very least, partly responsible for it.
When he interviewed her he said that it was clear that she’d been trained in resisting interrogation techniques, and was very guarded
Or she had been brainwashed or she was terrified of the UK press or she knew ISIS folk would be listening in or any one of a dozen other explanations
society has to consider was is morally right. I’ve yet to see evidence of this government winning on that score.
To be fair, this is hardly new either. Westminster has been morally bankrupt for years.
When he interviewed her he said that it was clear that she’d been trained in resisting interrogation techniques, and was very guarded
Or she had been brainwashed or she was terrified of the UK press or she knew ISIS folk would be listening in or any one of a dozen other explanations
Or we're all speculating based on our own preconceptions and none of us have any real idea either way.
Indeed cougar. I was merely giving some other possibilities
What we actually know is very little. What the government want us to believe is a very different thing. the reality? We can only guess but I see a naive child being trafficked, forced to bear children most of whom died and a ruined life.
Do you believe in redemption? I do and brownperson gave a very good way she could be redeemed
Or she had been brainwashed or she was terrified of the UK press or she knew ISIS folk would be listening in or any one of a dozen other explanations
Oh absolutely, Look I don't think she should've been abandoned by the govt, I don't think she should've had her citizenship stripped, but Shamina played her own part in the tragedy that she found herself trapped in. I don't think for a minute that Javid made the right decision, but she made it very easy for him to make it.
However, the fact she is being denied a fair trial, kind of goes against our own law, let alone international.
You'd be the first to complain if this government blithely decided it could break international agreements when it suited them. It's wholly wrong to restore some-ones citizenship just so you can put them on trial. You must see the damage that would do around the world to the safety of political prisoners, and refugees.
Again, I think Javid's decision was a stupid one, but having made it, there's literally no going back unless she comes back as a welcomed and free citizen.
You’d be the first to complain if this government blithely decided it could break international agreements when it suited them. It’s wholly wrong to restore some-ones citizenship <em style="box-sizing: border-box; --tw-translate-x: 0; --tw-translate-y: 0; --tw-rotate: 0; --tw-skew-x: 0; --tw-skew-y: 0; --tw-scale-x: 1; --tw-scale-y: 1; --tw-scroll-snap-strictness: proximity; --tw-ring-offset-width: 0px; --tw-ring-offset-color: #fff; --tw-ring-color: rgb(59 130 246 / 0.5); --tw-ring-offset-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-ring-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-shadow-colored: 0 0 #0000; caret-color: #000000; color: #000000; font-family: Roboto, 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, 'Noto Sans', sans-serif, -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, 'Segoe UI', 'Apple Color Emoji', 'Segoe UI Emoji', 'Segoe UI Symbol', 'Noto Color Emoji';">just so you can put them on trial. You must see the damage that would do around the world to the safety of political prisoners, and refugees.
I'm not sure what argument you're trying to make here. Are you saying that Shamima would be at risk of torture or death at the hands of the UK state, were she to return here?
Or we’re all speculating based on our own preconceptions and none of us have any real idea either way.
In fairness; some of 'us' might have a slightly more real idea of the situation, given personal experience, field of work/study etc. Please ensure that you speak only for yourself in this regard.
Shamina played her own part in the tragedy that she found herself trapped in
I feel I need to understand this concept further. Please explain.
Are you saying that Shamima would be at risk of torture or death at the hands of the UK state, were she to return here?
I read it as ... "if the UK government could make someone a UK citizen to put them on trial... then other states could do the same, using the UK decision to ignore international agreements about this as a green light for them doing the same".
+
The original decision to remove her citizenship was wrong (by all and any measure I can think of, including the same argument above).
I read it as … “if the UK government could make someone a UK citizen to put them on trial… then other states could do the same, using the UK decision to ignore international agreements about this as a green light for them doing the same”.
The principle of 'non-refoulement' overrides this for good reason:
I can't find any reason why Shamima can't be returned, under such a principle.
You’d be the first to complain if this government blithely decided it could break international agreements when it suited them. It’s wholly wrong to restore some-ones citizenship just so you can put them on trial.
Was it not wholly wrong to strip her of citizenship in the first place?
That being the case, are we not "just" remedying this?
I can’t find any reason why Shamima can’t be returned, under such a principle.
I agree. If she could be here and safe. But that isn't that same as making her a UK citizen for prosecution.
Was it not wholly wrong to strip her of citizenship in the first place?
Yes. That doesn't make the mess of that awful decision as simple to address as we'd hope/wish.
In fairness; some of ‘us’ might have a slightly more real idea of the situation, given personal experience, field of work/study etc. Please ensure that you speak only for yourself in this regard.
Likewise.
Your username aside I have no idea what special experience you may be bringing to the table here. If you've worked in repatriation with former alleged terrorists then I missed that and can only apologise. We can only go on what you/others divulge here.
Like many I suspect I was very surprised that politicians have the ability to take away our citizenship so easily,
Some will be even even more surprised when those rules, which seemed fine against "whatever is the unpopular group at the time" also get used against people more like, well, "us".
See legal aid "reform"
Are you saying that Shamima would be at risk of torture or death at the hands of the UK state, were she to return here?
No I'm saying that it at the very least it would gives the cover to other states who's citizens are thankfully out of their reach, to act to try to get those citizens back to put them on show trials.
feel I need to understand this concept further. Please explain.
Because like all the young people who'd been lied to about the caliphate, she could've made the decision to come home much sooner when she got there are realised it was a shit hole. When Anthony Lloyd found her, after she'd lived there all that time, she was still saying that she didn't regret her decision to join Isis, but that she was happy that they'd lost becasue she thought "They weren't worthy". She made some other equally stupid comments about it being ok to rape Yazidi women - because they're Shia... It took Javid a couple of days (I think) to make the very easy decision for him to say "Yeah, you can stay there" Equally Shamina's husband, a former citizen of the Netherlands, also had his citizenship removed at the same time.
I feel I need to understand this concept further. Please explain. <br />
it’s been covered numerous times in this thread already. If you choose to not acknowledge that she bares even some responsibility for the situation she finds herself in then I don’t think anyone on here will be able to persuade you otherwise…and further explanation is a waste of time
No I’m saying that it at the very least it would gives the cover to other states who’s citizens are thankfully out of their reach, to act to try to get those citizens back to put them on show trials.
But if those citizens were seeking asylum in a country that abides by international Law, they'd be protected under that principle of 'non-refoulement'. So your comment about 'breaking international agreements' doesn't apply in this case.
Because like all the young people who’d been lied to about the caliphate, she could’ve made the decision to come home much sooner when she got there are realised it was a shit hole. When Anthony Lloyd found her, after she’d lived there all that time, she was still saying that she didn’t regret her decision to join Isis, but that she was happy that they’d lost becasue she thought “They weren’t worthy”. She made some other equally stupid comments about it being ok to rape Yazidi women – because they’re Shia… It took Javid a couple of days (I think) to make the very easy decision for him to say “Yeah, you can stay there” Equally Shamina’s husband, a former citizen of the Netherlands, also had his citizenship removed at the same time.
Do you believe that such comments attributed to Shamima suggest that she is of particularly sound mind and has an informed, objective view of the situation she is in? You seem to be trying to justify the actions of the former Home Secretary, an individual that I and I'm sure many others find utterly repulsive and morally reprehensible. Can you explain why please?
With respect Nick, you're usually a voice of reason here but you do seem to have made up your mind rather decisively. I wonder whether you've read more on this case than I have?
Any decisions she could have made fly in the face of other allegations around grooming, brainwashing... this is surely just differing opinions rather than objective fact? She may have said blah blah at the time but how much of that was hammered into her?
How many of us have stuck with shitty relationships, going "yes but I love her/him and I'm sure they'll change" when it's way past its sell-by date? I know I have, more than once. Something as relatively simple as an abusive partner, it's easy for the victim to make excuses for, to leap to defend the indefensible. See my tee-shirt. Now extend that out to an organised terror group deliberately targeting teenagers over a sustained period of months or years... 🤷♂️
Equally Shamina’s husband, a former citizen of the Netherlands, also had his citizenship removed at the same time.
Utterly irrelevant to anything, n-est-ce pas?
it’s been covered numerous times in this thread already. If you choose to not acknowledge that she bares even some responsibility for the situation she finds herself in then I don’t think anyone on here will be able to persuade you otherwise…and further explanation is a waste of time
I haven't at any point said that I don't feel she bears any responsibility for her actions. I'm merely trying to understand, not judge.
...
There are two polar options here isn't there.
1) She's a victim.
2) She's a shit.
I think that leaping to either of those conclusions based on the knowledge we have in the public domain is probably a mistake. If I were to guess I'd say the truth is somewhere around 1.5.
I can’t find any reason why Shamima can’t be returned, under such a principle.
Shamina's case has been heard by both the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, and the Supreme court made the point that she doesn't actually have to be in the country to get a fair trail, summed up in para 110 and issued in para's 90-94 in their Judgement
The Supreme Court can rule what they like but it doesn’t mean squat if she’s not a UK citizen, surely?
The Supreme court are ruling on whether she is entitled to return to the UK plus some other associated matters as part of her appeal against having citizenship removed. So it does mean rather a lot.
Shamina’s case has been heard by both the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, and the Supreme court made the point that she doesn’t actually have to be in the country to get a fair trail, summed up in para 110 and issued in para’s 90-94 in their Judgement
But that doesn't relate in any way to the principle of non-refoulement. So I have to question why you've brought up something that's already been discussed on here?
This article summarises things very well, although it's still utterly confusing to most people I'd imagine:<br /><br /> https://www.statelessness.eu/updates/blog/shamima-begum-supreme-court-judgment-what-are-implications-statelessness-cases
Genuine question: under whose legal jurisdiction does she fall when she’s stateless? The Supreme Court can rule what they like but it doesn’t mean squat if she’s not a UK citizen, surely?
There's a very strong argument that she still is a UK citizen, as the decision to strip her of UK citizenship is invalid as it was based on the wrongful assumption she is a foreign national. She has never made any application even, for Bangladeshi citizenship. This is just a red herring used by the British government to try to get rid of her. It's not a tactic they could use if her parents were UK born, hence it's racist, as it discriminates against her unfairly. So Nickc; I will ask again:
You seem to be trying to justify the actions of the former Home Secretary, an individual that I and I’m sure many others find utterly repulsive and morally reprehensible. Can you explain why please?
Can you explain why please?
Because justice cuts both ways.
In the Supreme Court judgement they made the point that the Home Sec was entitled to take inference from the fact that she made the decision to stay there for four years, when all around her people in exactly her situation were legging it home as fast as their little trollies would carry them. Yes she's been trafficked, and you need to take that into consideration, but you do also need to take into consideration all the things that she does differently to everyone else. Plus, and again reading the Supreme Court decision transcript is valuable, it makes the point that its seen the secret service assessment of her, and while they point out that its secret and they can't say what's in it, they do make the point that is did materially affect their decision, and that importantly; it was entirely consistent and appropriate for the Home Sec to take their (SIS) advice about her
Again. I'll make the point I think Javid made the wrong decision to take away her citizenship, but its also wrong to say she hasn't had her day in court.