You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
But that doesn’t relate in any way to the principle of non-refoulement.
She doesn't need to come back here solely to have her case heard fairly.
There are two polar options here isn’t there.
1) She’s a victim.
2) She’s a shit.
To be fair, much earlier on in the thread (I know I started it, but even I gave up after a while), there was a popular third option of
3) If there's a suspicion that she's a shit, bring her back and try her for being a shit, cos that's what a nation that believes in the rule of law is supposed to do.
Because justice cuts both ways.
Yet you seem to have made a judgment about her without any court case regarding her crimes ever taking place.
its also wrong to say she hasn’t had her day in court.
She hasn't, for the crimes of which she is accused. This has never happened. She hasn't yet set foot in a UK court for anything. The legal proceedings and applications have been about her right to return to the UK, the only country where she has ever been a citizen.
the only country where she has ever been a citizen.
And the only country that she can be a citizen of. She is not Bangadeshi, she cannot take bangladeshi citizernship. she has been made stateless
If there’s a suspicion that she’s a shit, bring her back and try her for being a shit, cos that’s what a nation that believes in the rule of law is supposed to do.
That avenue was forever closed when Javid made the decision to take away her citizenship. He was though; entitled to make that decision. None of us may like it, or think that's it right, but it is his to make, again the Supreme Court say:
that it is the Home Secretary who has been charged by Parliament with responsibility for making such assessments, and who is democratically accountable to Parliament for the discharge of that responsibility.
she has been made stateless
Again because Javid has the responsibility to make an assessment of whether she presents a danger, and he's entitled to listen to and take advice from experts who advise him. I think he made that decision for political reasons, but he's at the very least covered his arse, and in part the arse covering was made for him by Shamina.
Yet you seem to have made a judgment about her without any court case regarding her crimes ever taking place.
You seem to keep missing the part where I say that I disagree with what Javid did. However I have read both the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court decisions and I can see why they came to the decisions they have.
Considering the citizenship rules of Israel I think it’s highly likely that the mechanism by which Shamima Begum was stripped of her British citizenship is a piece of incidental systemic anti-Semitism; it subjects all British Jews to the risk in principle of being legally stripped of their British citizenship on the say-so of the Home Secretary.
For me neither are fully exclusive. She can be groomed, leading to being taken advantage of in various ways - including engaging in terrorist behaviour. Surely grooming, is using a variety of techniques used to manipulate someone.
I do think she has been treated appallingly by our government. If she is a problem - she is our problem as a citizen of the UK. Making her stateless was a petty move by a shit Home Secretary and inconsistent with how we treat others in a similar situation.
This. And only this. <br />
conversely, I’m of the opinion that a trial would be a complete waste of time and money, and another opportunity for the government to grand stand to their voter base
shes was a 15 year old lass when she made the very ill judged decision to travel to join isis. She’s subsequently lost numerous kids, and spent 4 years in a hell hole of a camp. I’m inclined to say that’s probably enough punishment for the error of her ways already. Likely more so than she’d get sentenced to by a court. Let her come back and serve as an example to others, and perhaps demonstrate that we as a country can show a bit of compassion
if she subsequently shows any indication that she hasn’t learned her lesson (ie any further terrorist sympathies), throw the full weight of the law at her and try her as a British citizen
I find it surprising how little coverage this latest development is getting from the MSM.
Here's more stuff focusing on issues which concerned her former lawyer:
https://www.thejusticegap.com/shamina-begum-lawyer-withdraws-due-unfair-process/
That avenue was forever closed when Javid made the decision to take away her citizenship.
Wrong. Any future Home Secretary can reverse that decision.
You seem to keep missing the part where I say that I disagree with what Javid did. However I have read both the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court decisions and I can see why they came to the decisions they have.
I haven't. I've seen your claims to disagree with Javid's decision, you keep repeating them. What I haven't seen yet, is an explanation of why you seem to have judged Shamima in the absence of any evidence other than what you've seen reported in various media. There has, as yet, been no actual trial. Under UK law, a person is deemed to be innocent until proven guilty. This is a basic cornerstone of law within a democracy. Yet you have stated: "Despite the obvious tragedy of the situation she found herself in, she wasn’t (at that point anyway) an innocent." No explanation as to why you have made such a judgment. As for the court decisions, I've read the decisions and various analyses of both. I just have a different view of them. The Supreme court wasn't presented with the fact that Ms Begum cannot ever become a Bangladeshi national. ie, Javid withheld vital information. The real problem is, that there isn't a sufficient mechanism to prevent politicians from abusing their powers purely for political reasons. This is a government that has abused its power on countless occasions, such as here, and not least during the Covid crisis. If this case has achieved anything, it's in exposing these flaws in our justice system, regarding accountability of politicians and governments to ensure their work is done in the best interests of all people within our society and nation.
conversely, I’m of the opinion that a trial would be a complete waste of time and money, and another opportunity for the government to grand stand to their voter base
shes was a 15 year old lass when she made the very ill judged decision to travel to join isis. She’s subsequently lost numerous kids, and spent 4 years in a hell hole of a camp. I’m inclined to say that’s probably enough punishment for the error of her ways already. Likely more so than she’d get sentenced to by a court. Let her come back and serve as an example to others, and perhaps demonstrate that we as a country can show a bit of compassion
if she subsequently shows any indication that she hasn’t learned her lesson (ie any further terrorist sympathies), throw the full weight of the law at her and try her as a British citizen
I completely agree. I think the reality is that any trial would prove pretty much a waste of time, for various reasons. I doubt very much that any major charges could even be brought against her, meaning the government would be left somewhat embarrassed. But if justice is to be served, then she must be brought back to face it in full, as a UK citizen. To do otherwise would be to undermine the very institution of law, and the very notion of fairness and equality. And I think this is a fair point that's been raised:
Considering the citizenship rules of Israel I think it’s highly likely that the mechanism by which Shamima Begum was stripped of her British citizenship is a piece of incidental systemic anti-Semitism; it subjects all British Jews to the risk in principle of being legally stripped of their British citizenship on the say-so of the Home Secretary.
Not that I can see such a scenario actually happening, but if you follow the logic of the decisions against Shamima Begum, then technically I think that this would in theory be possible. Which is exactly why a politician should never wield such power.
Ah, I see the single-issue sock puppet is back.
And this is why every thread on any subject that is sensitive, controversial or divisive gets shut down.
If you've got something constructive to add, please do. If not, shut the f--k up.
I too thought like you when I first became aware of whom she was but I very quickly realised I was being an utter dick and amended my view and position.
I see you still have quite a way to go
? She has lost her appeal; the court has ruled that stripping her of her citizenship was 'lawful'. This was always going to be the case, as the UK courts could not afford to lose face over this, having already ruled the HO decision as lawful. But her legal team will appeal to the Supreme court, although this will now become a headache for the next government. The tories have only really succeeded in pushing the problem down the road; Shamima was eventually going to have to be allowed back the the UK, as she is effectively 'stateless' so can only ever return to the country of her birth, and the tories will now be able to use the case as a stick to beat Labour with in the future, when they trot out the old 'Labour are weak on immigration and terrorism' tropes.
By law, it was the correct decision, but in reality she was a young girl who did something daft and has paid a heavy price for it, compassion would let her come back and be with her family, rather than making her some political pawn to score points with like this.
By law, it was the correct decision
Yet based on an initial false premise. Hence it's a massive miscarriage of justice in any moral sense, and a huge embarrassment to the British justice system and and exposure of how politics and law aren't as separate as they should be.
Woops didn't hear the radio correctly due to a) age and b) too little coffee. The miscarriage of justice goes on.
Shamima was eventually going to have to be allowed back the the UK, as she is effectively ‘stateless’ so can only ever return to the country of her birth
This ain't true. Javid was entitled to ignore the issue of her statelessness* when he made the decision to refuse her re-entry under grounds of national security. She doesn't ever have to have her UK citizenship returned to her.
* Under international law being stateless isn't a punishment; as it carries no prison sentence or fine. It turns out that if the Home Sec thinks that you're a danger to national security and he can demonstrate that he took advice about it, then he can make you stateless.
In that case I apologise for my post above ☝️
This ain’t true. Javid was entitled to ignore the issue of her statelessness* when he made the decision to refuse her re-entry under grounds of national security. She doesn’t ever have to have her UK citizenship returned to her.
* Under international law being stateless isn’t a punishment; as it carries no prison sentence or fine. It turns out that if the Home Sec thinks that you’re a danger to national security and he can demonstrate that he took advice about it, then he can make you stateless.
I think eventually it will be found that making her stateless was unlawful in the beginning, as it was a political decision, and one that did not follow any proper legal procedure. The government lied about her having rights to Bangladeshi nationality, which was never the case. No politician should ever have the power to make such decisions; I hope that what comes from this case will be a correcting of the current clearly flawed and racist system, and a return to proper justice.
What happened to Shamima Begum would never have happened to a British born person with white skin. Proving that this decision by the HS was racist from the very beginning. Hopefully, this will be the Achilles heel of the case, and the factor that leads to an improvement in our laws. Justice should be blind; here is proof that it is not.
I think the whole thing is shocking. She was a kid and should not be made stateless. The measure of a civilised is how well they treat their criminals. Giving a kid a lifelong punishment for being too easily influenced is appalling.
This case would be handled very differently if she was a white middle class kid with a more 'English' sounding name
A terrible terrible example of Gov playing with people's lives in the pursuit of populism
3) If there’s a suspicion that she’s a shit, bring her back and try her for being a shit, cos that’s what a nation that believes in the rule of law is supposed to do.
Whilst i agree with the sentiment here- i think it should be more like -
3) If there’s a suspicion that she’s a shit, let her make her own way back, present herself at a UK border, try her for being a shit, cos that’s what a nation that believes in the rule of law is supposed to do.
There is no way on earth we should be spending a penny of tax payers money, or risking anyone's life to go and fish her out of a refugee camp - she made her way out there, she can make her own way back.
Yes, this makes me incredibly uncomfortable too. A life sentence for a (significant) error of judgement at 15.
I know the reasoning behind this is making an example of her, but I think it is so counterproductive. We make our future more secure and safe by winning over all but the most militant that as a society we are the good guys. This does not do that.
This case would be handled very differently if she was a white middle class kid with a more ‘English’ sounding name
A wise man once said...
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.
There is no way on earth we should be spending a penny of tax payers money, or risking anyone’s life to go and fish her out of a refugee camp – she made her way out there, she can make her own way back.
I mean, fair enough, but I'm not aware anyone has suggested that anything like that should happen
There is no way on earth we should be spending a penny of tax payers money, or risking anyone’s life to go and fish her out of a refugee camp – she made her way out there, she can make her own way back.
A refugee camp the UK government have forced her into. Returning her so would cost a hell of a lot less than continuing the current disgraceful saga. If you're that worried about 'taxpayers money' (some of which is mine too, actually, just thought I'd point that out). And following your own logic; if you are accused of a crime then surely you should fund your own legal case, and if you can't, then it's jail for you. Right? Thought not. So let's try to protect and improve justice instead. And give everyone equal rights under law.
So let me get this straight - we now have a precedent for the government making child victims of online grooming stateless and condemning them in absentia to a life sentence in Syria, is that right? Go us.
Despicable case, ruining someone's life as some kind of half-arsed propaganda tool.
I wasn't aware she'd been accused of a crime?
For clarity, i don't agree with revoking her citizenship - as a supposedly sensible and affluent country i feel we've got a responsibility to deal with our own issues, and not dump our trash on other people.
However, i also feel we've got no responsibility to go and 'rescue' her - I personally feel she should have her citizenship reinstated and if she wants to make her way to Dover or Gatwick the authorities can treat her as they would any other UK citizen who left the country to join a terrorist organisation, then decided to come home when it didn't work out.
The Supreme Court case was to determine that very thing, and they concluded that it was not.
I thought the supreme court case was about whether she could return to the UK to appeal against the removal of citizenship and didnt really look at whether it was valid.
Otherwise this appeal case today wouldnt make sense if the top court had already said no.
Justice should be blind; here is proof that it is not.
Justice should also pay attention to the case from both sides, and the case laid out by the government was watertight perfectly correct and has been heard 3 times now at all levels of the justice system. Shamina's case has been heard, and heard again. She has not lacked access to the justice system in the UK.
As other young folks from all sorts of backgrounds and from all over Europe who were trafficked to ISIS have returned (and there are hundreds of them) with no issues whatsoever, only a few (Shamina and her husband for instance) have had re-entry refused. I don't think this case has overtones of racism, its a lazy slur.
and didnt really look at whether it was valid.
Nope, in the judgement they covered this. They decided that its perfectly legal for the Home Sec to ignore whether the action to deny her re-entry will make her stateless, if there is grounds of National Security. It looked at whether Javid had done that, and concluded that yes: He'd taken advice from the very people that are qualified to give that advice, and acted upon their advice. He was in fact perfectly entitled to make her stateless. It's literally in his (or any future Home Secs) job description.
The more I've read into about her situation, especially the the BBC podcast, the more I feel that the government has created a situation out of all proportion to the actions of a 15 year old girl.
Groomed, trafficked with the assistance of a Canadian intelligence source, abused, seen her friends and kids die, now left stateless. Other countries are repatriating former Isis members and charging them where appropriate.
But more worrying, this sets a precedent that could be used to apply to any number of UK nationals a government deems to be a risk. As a foreign born British citizen, that concerns me greatly.
Justice should also pay attention to the case from both sides, and the case laid out by the government was watertight perfectly correct and has been heard 3 times now at all levels of the justice system. Shamina’s case has been heard, and heard again. She has not lacked access to the justice system in the UK.
She hasn't had proper access to the UK justice system. For a start, she's been in a refugee camp for the last few years, with very limited access to anyone. She hasn't had a single day inside a UK court. If you want to be an apologist for the government's racism, that's your choice, but don't make stuff up.
The miscarriage is happening because there has been no mechanism for any courts to consider the fact the government's decision to render her stateless was based on a lie. And this needs correcting. The Nationality and Borders bill was introduced to reinforce the racism inherent in tory government policy. This needs reversing. There has to be transparency and accountability with decisions about citizenship. It should never come down to the whim of a politician.
Nope, in the judgement they covered this. They decided that its perfectly legal for the Home Sec to ignore whether the action to deny her re-entry will make her stateless, if there is grounds of National Security. It looked at whether Javid had done that, and concluded that yes: He’d taken advice from the very people that are qualified to give that advice, and acted upon their advice. He was in fact perfectly entitled to make her stateless. It’s literally in his (or any future Home Secs) job description.
Why are you so intent on defending this racist government's immorality?
The tories have only really succeeded in pushing the problem down the road
So mission accomplished. If at some point she does end up back in the Uk then they can say the government of the day is weak and supports terrorists and all the other political drama they can make.
The Supreme Court case was to determine that very thing, and they concluded that it was not.
No doubt I am being a bit thick but I am struggling to follow this thread - what Supreme Court case?
As far as I am aware she hasn't yet appealed to the Supreme Court?
Why are you so intent on defending this racist government’s immorality?
...and we're done. If you're just going to imply that I'm racist or immoral by association I think it's pointless discussing it with you.
I actually thought the opposite. I thought that by asking you why you are apparently defending "this racist government’s immorality" he was suggesting that you are not yourself racist or immoral?
Anyway can you explain what "Supreme Court case"?
"The miscarriage is happening because there has been no mechanism for any courts to consider the fact the government’s decision to render her stateless was based on a lie"
This.
I think eventually it will be found that making her stateless was unlawful in the beginning, as it was a political decision, and one that did not follow any proper legal procedure. The government lied about her having rights to Bangladeshi nationality, which was never the case.
This is my understanding also.
What happened to Shamima Begum would never have happened to a British born person with white skin. Proving that this decision by the HS was racist from the very beginning.
Speculation.
he was suggesting
How do you know the poster is a 'he'?
"Anyway can you explain what “Supreme Court case”?"
This is the second series of cases she has already been to the Supreme Court once, may go again if she appeals the decision announced today and leave is given.
How do you know the poster is a ‘he’?
Because he is familiar with what the poster has said in the past.
If only she’d been a university chaplain and gone to Israel to spend her vacation murdering children.
This is the second series of cases she has already been to the Supreme Court once, may go again if she appeals the decision announced today and leave is given.
Thanks mefty, I confess that I hadn't read the thread very diligently and wasn't aware that Nick was referring to the previous Supreme Court case which as dissonance suggests it's really relevant to this latest court case.
Speculation.
Reality. Unless you can prove this has also happened to any white, British born people. The current legislation is racist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Letts
JackLetts did have dual nationality, this is the key difference.
…and we’re done. If you’re just going to imply that I’m racist or immoral by association I think it’s pointless discussing it with you.
No, I wasn't implying anything. Just asking why you're intent on defending this government's racist immorality? Nobody was arguing the 'legality' of the court's decision. We fully understand why the court made its decision, I think that was inevitable anyway. We're just discussing the morality of it.
Unless you can prove this has also happened to any white, British born people.
You do realise the fallacy of this argument, yes? You cannot claim "racism" on the grounds of it being 100% of one case, L'Oreal has better statistics than that.
I've tried, and failed, to find any stats revealing demographic data for people the UK has made stateless. Everything I have found has been behind a paywall. If you have data showing that we routinely make former British citizens stateless or not based on skin colour then I would - genuinely - like to see it cos I've got nothing I'm afraid.
We’re just discussing the morality of it.
Well, of course it's immoral. I think we reached that consensus about ten pages back.
I don't doubt that racism is playing a large part in UK politics. I rather suspect that the treatment of Begum is at least in part the Tories pandering to their racist voters.
But claiming that it wouldn't have happened if she were white without any further evidence to back that up is on shaky ground.
Well at least the Daily Hail can congratulate itself. Meanwhile a vulnerable child is left without a state because she was groomed into an ideology, that ideology will have the chance to groom her against because of how she’ll be feeling.
Unless you can prove this has also happened to any white, British born people.
Unless you can prove white British born always get away with it, then no it’s not.
But claiming that it wouldn’t have happened if she were white without any further evidence to back that up is on shaky ground.
"New Statesman analysis of data from the Office for National Statistics also finds that two in every five people from non-white ethnic minorities (41 per cent) are likely to be eligible for deprivation of citizenship, compared with just one in 20 people categorised as white (5 per cent)."
Of course, you could double down and claim I'm 'wrong' in asserting that the UK Nationality and Borders bill is racist, but as someone with 50+ years of suffering racism as a non-white British citizen, I'll go with what I know to be fact. If it's all the same.
Unless you can prove white British born always get away with it, then no it’s not.
Why do I have to prove anything? Are you saying that the government's policies surrounding immigration and denying British citizens their right to citizenship isn't racist?
I do understand why others may hold views different to mine. Personally, I feel this is down to lived experience. There are many times in my life where I know I have suffered racism, but can't 'prove it', certainly not in a 'legal' sense. Doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It's not just a 'feeling'. So when people say 'oh well prove it', I just feel tired. Tired of having to try to explain that sometimes, just because YOU don't experience something yourself, or cannot see it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Please try to take this on board.
Having read those links abive there is an awful lot of could, might and therotically and no actual fact. Only the guaridan one actually has some facts in it about the number of sucessful and unsucessful appeals but it provides no evidence or comment on the race or if any of those sucessful or not had a recognised dual nationality status so no conclusions can be drawn.
Why do I have to prove anything?
Because you made the claim.
Did you not read the rest of my post? Why not try to understand, instead of trying to be clever?
Yes I did.
You claimed that it the current legislation is racist bur have failed to provide any proof. Fact is there no real identical case that you can be provided, so unless there is then it’s not racist. Belgium is innocent, a child preyed upon because of her vulnerability, and has been discarded because of a ridiculous law.
Yes I did
Yet you still failed to understand.
Fact is there no real identical case that you can be provided, so unless there is then it’s not racist
Perhaps not identical, but there have been many:
"The Home Office does not publish data on the demographics of people who
have been deprived of their citizenship.38
However, there are (statistically speaking) relatively few cases of citizenship
deprivation, and the background and/or identity of the person concerned is
sometimes in the public domain. This has allowed some commentators to
collate the known cases and draw conclusions about the characteristics of
people deprived of their citizenship, particularly on the ‘public good’ ground:
• In 2011, the barrister Amanda Weston identified nine people by
nationality and said “the common denominator is that by far the majority
if not all are Muslims”.39
• In 2014, the Bureau of Investigative Journalism reviewed 53 deprivation
cases, from which it identified 18 individuals. Of those 18, “at least five”
had been born in the UK.40
• In 2022, the Institute of Race Relations commented “the vast majority of
those deprived are Muslim men with south Asian or middle Eastern/
north African heritage”.41
You claimed that it the current legislation is racist bur have failed to provide any proof
So is the above 'proof' enough for you?
Let me ask you a question; what is your experience of racism as a non-white British citizen?
Belgium is innocent
Hmm. I rather think that nation's colonial past would suggest otherwise...
Belgium is innocent, a child preyed upon because of her vulnerability, and has been discarded because of a ridiculous law.
In my opinion she has been "discarded" for political expediency.
I rather suspect that the treatment of Begum is at least in part the Tories pandering to their racist voters.
I suspect it's wholly for that reason.
Fact is there no real identical case that you can be provided, so unless there is then it’s not racist.
Eh? You mean if I act out of racial prejudice in a way that hasn’t been done before, then it’s not actually racist?
What happened to Shamima Begum would never have happened to a British born person with white skin. Proving that this decision by the HS was racist from the very beginning.
I'm not entirely sure about that. Does anybody remember Sally-Anne Jones? Samantha Lewthwaite? both of whom were given the unimaginative nickname of 'white widow'. One with Al-Shabaab and one with IS. Both were it seems far more directly engaged in terrorism than Shamima Begum was, but I could imagine a situation where a home secretary might have deprived them of citizenship were not one of them dead and the other on the run in Africa. I'm sure there are others too.
I disagree with the decision and think she should be returned to UK, but I'm not sure claims her treatment is solely due to her skin colour stack up.
but I could imagine a situation where a home secretary might have deprived them of citizenship
I’m not sure that would be possible as neither has a second nationality, however tenuous or unrealistic, so depriving them of citizenshipship would definitely render them stateless
Yep true and lots of hypotheticals I know. However if they did have a second nationality, I don't think the fact they were born white British would have stayed a HS' hand in revoking Brit citizenship. A clumsy analogy admittedly.
• In 2014, the Bureau of Investigative Journalism reviewed 53 deprivation
cases, from which it identified 18 individuals. Of those 18, “at least five”
had been born in the UK.
So potentially 13 we’re not born in the U.K. that’s not even close to conclusive evidence. Of those how many had turned up in known terrorist camps and were broadcasting their pr
UK immigration and nationality legislation is racist to its very core
IMO you would have to be remarkably naive not to think that.
And it is certainly not unique to Tory governments. IMO Labour governments have a disgraceful history of being responsible for racist immigration and nationality legislation stretching back to the 1960s.
Although in their defence the UK was a significantly more racist society in the 1960s than it is today. And Labour did in the 1960s introduce the first legislation which made racism actually illegal.
Having said all that UK immigration and nationality legislation is no more racist than the average European country, and in many cases probably less so. Racism against black/brown people is widespread across Europe.
Although on the issue of nationals with former links with the isis caliphate I get the impression that all other European countries have taken their responsibilities far more seriously than the UK has.
Yet you still failed to understand.
No I didn’t. The link and data you provided doesn’t prove your point, it mentions a a majority are Asian or Muslims. What it doesn’t say is how that works as a percentile or take into account factors of why any of them may have ended up in these circumstances.
Eh? You mean if I act out of racial prejudice in a way that hasn’t been done before, then it’s not actually racist?
No, and you know that.
Second thread lock of the night?
Can we just agree that making someone stateless is a dick move regardless of alleged crimes. If shes as guilty as people think she is she should have come home to face the allegations in court.
“ UK immigration and nationality legislation is racist to its very core
IMO you would have to be remarkably naive not to think that.”
chrismac knows exactly what he’s doing, shit stirring
She has paid her due, suffered enough, let her come home.
Perhaps not identical, but there have been many:
You know nothing about the specifics of those cases. You’re suggesting causation, when what’s more likely is correlation.
What are the primary reasons for deprecation of citizenship? Danger to the public/terrorism/serious crime. Which group has statistically the highest rate of terrorism per percentage of the population?
Let me ask you a question; what is your experience of racism as a non-white British citizen?
This unfortunately leads to observer bias. Your personal history leads you to to look for racism and assume racist motives. It’s zebras and horses.
Whilst there undoubtedly is racism, be that conscious or otherwise, you constantly shout racism, when it’s often nationalism at the core. The two concepts do overlap (quite substantially) but are distinct.
When I see Conservative policies. I see nationalism (which I still see as a bad thing) whereas you, with your history see racism.
You see the name, skin colour and religion as the driving force behind what’s happening to SB, I don’t. I don’t think it matters to them who/what she is, it was what she did (rejecting Britain), showing no remorse, then expecting to be taken back…the Conservatives want to be seen as the protectors of Britain - they always have “strong on defence”. “British sovereignty”, “we will fight them…”, “no, no, no! This lady…”
Fact is there no real identical case that you can be provided, so unless there is then it’s not racist.
Thank you for making abundantly clear how utterly infantile your argument is.
No too cases are ever identical, so there is no racism. You must be very clever.
She has paid her due, suffered enough, let her come home.
Indeed, and not a political pawn.
But if she got into the country, say via a dingy across the channel, I dont think there would be any way of deporting her as she doesnt have a country of residence.
To be fair to Brownperson, him (I'm guessing him, apologies if that's wrong) saying "this wouldn't have happened if she was white" is not very different to my Jemima Baker from Bath analogy, and no-one jumped down my throat.
Can we just agree that making someone stateless is a dick move regardless of alleged crimes.
Even if it hadnt made her stateless it would still be dubious given I think she has spent at most a month or two in Bangladesh. So making her their problem seems somewhat dickish as well.
In terms of racism or not by the government. I think the key driving factor for them was simply the number of headlines dedicated to Begum (plus the other two before they died/disappeared). Removing citizenship showed they were doing something.
Which group has statistically the highest rate of terrorism per percentage of the population?
Over the last 50 years? I'm guessing we haven't been stripping their British citizenship.
Which group has statistically the highest rate of terrorism per percentage of the population?
Which group has statistically the highest rate of terrorism per percentage of the population?
I guess that depends on what you "group" people by. In a group of terrorists, it would be 100%...
chrismac knows exactly what he’s doing, shit stirring
No I’m not I’m just waiting for some real evidence to support the claims. All the links so far show no evidence to support the claim just speculation and assertions