You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Over the last 50 years? I’m guessing we haven’t been stripping their British citizenship.
Over the sample selection of cases posted by brown person for citizenship removal which was from 2005-2022.
From my admittedly limited knowledge, the IRA were predominantly Irish, not British. Difficult to strip someone’s citizenship when they’re not actually a citizen of your country. As for the paramilitaries, that’s if possible, even more complicated. Nationalism, possibly supported (though not acknowledged) by the government, who committed crimes on British soil, but who aren’t actively working against the state, but are a danger to the public and who demonstrably can’t be stripped of citizenship.
I cannot believe anyone still thinks Begum is anything but a victim in this. Radicalised then trafficked as a child into a "marriage" that [i]I guess[/i] she had little choice in. Borne 3 children two of which have died then illegally stripped of her citizenship and made stateless.
She has been used as a political pawn to appease racists and islamophobes
It’s as if an election was coming up.
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.
Can you find a case where a white British citizen was radicalised as a child, forced to live abroad, given little contact to their friends and family. Then when realised their mistake tried to return home? She was a vulnerable child.
It might have helped her case had she shown a little remorse, but at the age of 21, calling the Manchester attacks “justified” and stating that beheadings in IS weren’t at all a concern to her, doesn’t particular help her case of returning to society.
1. Was she naive in 2015/16 when she decided/was convinced to go? Maybe. Quite possibly.
2. Did she at any point reach out to request a return whilst IS were at the height of their power? Not to my knowledge.
3. Did she only try to return when it all collapsed? It seems so.
4. Did she later (4-5y later) show any contrition? No.
You’re all saying that 1 justifies 2-4.
I don’t know if she’s a threat, but evidence (3-4) suggests that she could be.
I genuinely don’t know the law about citizenship, the government and their machinations, so can’t say whether she should be excommunicated or face trial, but several courts have now upheld decisions. I do believe that the government (and to a lesser degree the courts) are using this to set a very public example, but if it’s legal, then it’s legal. If it’s legal due to badly written law, then that’ll have to altered, but the verdict will stand until it is.
I genuinely don’t believe it’s a racist agenda (either the case or the law) but is/could be a nationalist one to help the Conservatives appeal to their base.
Anyway, those are just my thoughts, I don’t want to get into an argument over it, as frankly, I don’t know enough, so I’ll be happy to have other peoples hopefully more informed opinions.
You know nothing about the specifics of those cases
I wasn't commenting on the 'specifics'.
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.
This falls into 'victim blaming'. It was a simple question, as yet unanswered. Are you considering your own 'observer bias' as you put it?
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.
Thanks for 'splaining that to me. I 'constantly shout racism', do I? Or merely call it out when I see it?
When I see Conservative policies. I see nationalism (which I still see as a bad thing) whereas you, with your history see racism.
This is why my question was so pertinent. Because perception in this context is based on experience and knowledge. The thing with racism, is that like sexism, like homophobia and other forms of xenophobia, it doesn't have to be overt in order for it to exist. Because YOU can't see something, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. My wife often reminds me of my unconscious sexism, because as a man, I cannot have the same experience as a woman. So what I do is try to listen, and moderate my behaviour accordingly. I don't think I'm particularly bad, but we can all improve. Women will suffer from sexism from the moment they are born, so it's vital to keep challenging such behaviours. With racism, my experience draws from over half a century of prejudiced and discriminatory behaviours, practices and how these are institutionalised within our society. With sexism, I, as a man, do not always recognise nor am affected by it. So it's about learning to understand the experience of others, even if you'll never be in their position yourself. If someone is talking about their experience of racism, it's not a great move to deny their experience, to try to dismiss it as 'imagined', or to waffle on about zebras and horses.
The experience of racism is complex and multifarious. It affects everyone differently, of course. The racism I experience may be very different to that suffered by a black woman, or a Jewish person, or someone from Poland. I would never speak to their experience. But what is common, are the insidious little things that percolate through daily life; the casual comments the way people look at you, the micro-aggressions, the discriminatory treatment in the workplace, shops and pubs. The things you can't 'prove', yet you know exist. The knowledge and experience you gain over a lifetime. The government will have taken great care, and spent a lot of time and money, to ensure something like the Nationalities and Borders Act isn't overtly 'racist'. But that doesn't mean it isn't inherently racist.
You see the name, skin colour and religion as the driving force behind what’s happening to SB, I don’t.
So I ask again; what is your experience of racism as a non-white British citizen?
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.
Interesting, that.
So I ask again; what is your experience of racism as a non-white British citizen?
I have none in that specific category, but have seen businesses, through policies, enable overt racism in their own workforce. I left that organisation (and that sector) because of it.
I am also extremely conscious of unintended bias, indeed we’re trained to recognise it every year in my organisation. I try to be better, to be inclusive, to understand.
Your tone in all of the topics you contribute to is condescending (‘splaining) and accusatory (what’s your experience) - I guess this is what you call “calling out”? Your hammer approach of you’re not a minority so don’t and can’t and will never understand often isn’t helpful.
I’ll bow out here as I don’t think it’s helping either understanding or the discussion.
Your tone in all of the topics you contribute to is condescending (‘splaining) and accusatory (what’s your experience) – I guess this is what you call “calling out”? Your hammer approach of you’re not a minority so don’t and can’t and will never understand often isn’t helpful.
What you see as 'condescension' is a response to how you, in my perception, seek to diminish the value of my experience. This is something that people fighting against xenophobia of all types struggle against. This is why such work makes such glacial progress. If you aren't the subject of such xenophobia, then no, you cannot talk to the experience of those who are. Because you cannot ever know what it feels like to suffer it. That's not to say you cannot empathise, nobody is saying that. But simply saying 'well no it's not racism because I don't see it' is really really unhelpful. It's not about you. Sometimes it's about listening, not talking. Voices of minorities aren't heard enough as it is. They need amplifying and listened to.
I’ll bow out here as I don’t think it’s helping either understanding or the discussion.
I see it as an opportunity to discuss the experience of racism, so on that score, I think it's been quite constructive, ultimately.
Isn't the danger there though, that if you repeatedly tell people who are trying hard to understand racism, that they simply can't because of their background, that they will eventually stop trying?
It’s like Vietnam.
Isn’t the danger there though, that if you repeatedly tell people who are trying hard to understand racism, that they simply can’t because of their background, that they will eventually stop trying?
That's not what I'm doing at all. I'm just asking people to try to appreciate that those with lived experience of racism might just have a particular level of insight that others may not. And to try to just listen, instead of needing to flex their egos.
As someone with no experience in the matter, and deferring to yours, what’s it like to be banned?
I’m all ears.
I've got a mate/riding buddy called Asif, he's Muslim.
He's definitely not a terrorist though, works for the Met police as a call handler.
Edit: He goes on the pro Palestinian demos in London - the cycling ones (Big Ride for Palestine)
I’m just asking people to try to appreciate that those with lived experience of racism might just have a particular level of insight that others may not.
How do you know others haven’t experienced racism. You are assuming that you are unique and the only one who has and therefore your experience must be more valid than anyone else’s.
1. Was she naive in 2015/16 when she decided/was convinced to go? Maybe. Quite possibly.
Of course she was ****ing naive, she was fifteen ****ing years old. Persuading a child (she was a child, remember) to do something like this, with false promises of what is going to happen and making sure they don't tell friends or family is grooming, short and simple.
I don’t know if she’s a threat, but evidence (3-4) suggests that she could be.
So, again, for the gagillionth time, if there is evidence she's a wrong'un, let her come back and try her on that evidence. Not letting her come back is, frankly, just ****ing cowardly.
It just ****ing stinks.
Lacking the eloquence of some here and written in a crude manner.
I'm in the bring her back and try them here fairly camp. Otherwise she and others will live in an extremist echo chamber and extremism will flourish.
Back here her plight will fuel further extremism here and further alienate many.
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.
I'm not about to "double down" and I don't doubt that you've suffered racism, for that I can only apologise as far as I can on behalf of my colour. But I read them all and none of those links you've supplied back up your claim.
I’m in the bring her back and try them here fairly camp.
She's got no chance of a fair trial here or anywhere else. No other country wants her either.
Ironically, by making such a stink about it, stripping her of citizenship etc to make a political point, there's now a complete dead end. She can't be tried fairly - no jury in the land would be fair and objective given the media sensationalism. Any trial result either way will bounce around the appeal courts for decades, costing millions.
Meanwhile she's living as a nothing in a detention camp in Syria. I couldn't really care one way or the other what becomes of her but in attempting to score political points, the Government have created this situation and now, not for the first time, find out that this has consequences and - much as they want to - they can't just wash their hands of it and wish the problem away.
I can't see why she would not get a fair trial. It is perfectly reasonable imo to assume that a jury could come to a conclusion on whether she was trafficked or a terrorist based on the evidence put before them at a trail.
There are plenty of high profile cases which have extensive news coverage that still go to court.
much as they want to – they can’t just wash their hands of it and wish the problem away.
Sure they can. And that's exactly what they'll do. There's always another dead cat, anyone know what Harry and Meghan have been up to lately? We're living in era of Squirrel! Politics.
No other country wants her either.
I wonder why that might be….
perhaps Canada might like to have her if reports that they smuggled her to Syria in the first place are true
I can’t see why she would not get a fair trial. It is perfectly reasonable imo to assume that a jury could come to a conclusion on whether she was trafficked or a terrorist based on the evidence put before them at a trail.
Probably because the government know damn well that any criminal trial would fail given that:
A) She was a minor at the time
B) It would be pretty easy to assert she was trafficked/groomed
No other country wants her either.
I wonder why that might be….
This really is the problem with making people stateless.
Despite what the racists may think about the colour of her skin, she is British-born. She is our problem. We may have washed our hands of her but that doesn't automatically make her someone else's responsibility, be that Canada (seriously?) or Bangladesh or whoever.
If roles were reversed and we had someone from another country stuck here after being groomed by a terrorist cell, unable to be deported back home because her country of birth had gone "**** her and **** you, you can keep her, we don't want her back" there would be a national outcry. And rightly so.
Short of sticking her on the next moon rocket we can't have it both ways.
She should be brought home to face trial, and I rather suspect that the reason she hasn't is - political point-scoring aside - because they know full well that the courts will declare her a victim.
Why not Canada. If as reported she smuggled from the UK to Syria by a member of Canadian intelligence then why shouldn’t take some responsibility for the impact of those actions. Without the help of Canadian intelligence she might well still be in the UK
No other country wants her either.
I wonder why that might be….
Because she’s a British citizen it should be us her gives her a recognised state.
I don’t know what her motives were, or her crimes if any, but I know she’s British so she’s our problem and should be dealt with here.
I’m not one, but I imagine every brown person is thinking, if they can do that to her, they can do that to me.
I don’t know what her motives were, or her crimes if any, but I know she’s British so she’s our problem and should be dealt with here.
Well, exactly... She was born in the UK, so she should be tried for any alleged crimes under UK law. Citizenship shouldn't be allowed to even come into it...
...but heaven forbid the tories lose face by allowing a failed criminal trial to take place!!
As someone else said, or alluded to, under the next labour government, if they are more sensible about it, the tories can use it to whip up even more racist sentiment among the populous whilst pointing the finger at labour for being terrorist sympathisers or whatever.
She is being used as a political football, and that is shamefull. If there's evidence she comitted crimes, she should go to trial just like anyone else would.
Why not Canada. If as reported she smuggled from the UK to Syria by a member of Canadian intelligence then why shouldn’t take some responsibility for the impact of those actions. Without the help of Canadian intelligence she might well still be in the UK
No, one of the links in the chain that got her into Syria was an informant for Canadian intelligence, and is now resettled over there. The rest of the trip she was told what to do by a former friend who had gone already and filled her head with lies about how great it was. The whole sorry saga is really well covered in the BBC Monster podcasts, my view of her changed quite dramatically when presented with an awful lot of facts that really don't match up with the government/Press sensationalism
Without the help of Canadian intelligence she might well still be in the UK
they've apologised profusely
Well as long as they have said sorry I suppose that’s ok.
The U.K. government is quite good at trying to extradite citizens to the USA who haven’t even been to the country but because it was done on the internet.
Why not Canada.
Uh, because she isn't Canadian?
If the UK/Canada roles were reversed, she was born Canadian and the UK had played whatever role you're suggesting Canada has in all this, you'd be happy for her to come here?
You've thought this through, haven't you.
The U.K. government is quite good at trying to extradite citizens to the USA
Trying, or succeeding?
I can only apologise as far as I can on behalf of my colour
There's no need for you to do that; your colour isn't an issue at all. Racism is the issue, and that's all about using things like skin colour as a means of discriminating against people within a structure of social power.
But I read them all and none of those links you’ve supplied back up your claim
Well, they do to me, and for others, but perhaps this more of a subjective thing:
There are many other organisations that consider the N+B Act 'racist'. And I'm sure most people would agree that such organisations might have a pretty good handle on what racism is.
She’s got no chance of a fair trial here or anywhere else
I don't believe this is true at all. As has already been pointed out, she has every chance of a fair trial in the UK. The reality is that her coming back to the UK and standing trial would be a massive embarrassment to the government, as she'd likely not be convicted of much if anything at all. The fact she's been groomed and trafficked would soon destroy any case against her for 'terrorism'. The tories cannot afford to allow her any access to actual justice, especially not in an election year. Which is more than enough reason to allow her back to have her day in court. Anyone who genuinely thinks she is a 'threat' to the safety of our nation is a deluded idiot. Even the tories don't actually believe that. But whilst there are enough idiots that do, they'll keep her out for as long as they need their votes. That's what it really boils down to.
I’m not one, but I imagine every brown person is thinking, if they can do that to her, they can do that to me.
Yep. It's now clear there is a tiered citizenship system. Citizenship should be one thing, and we should all be equal within it. But we aren't. Which undermines society in the sense that we are not all equal under law. And that's not something that I'm comfortable about.
When even the foul Rees-Mogg calls it a "fundamentally racist policy" it's impressive that people here will still defend it.
There’s no need for you to do that; your colour isn’t an issue at all.
That's magnanimous of you to say. Nonetheless, I feel... maybe guilty is the wrong word, it's not my fault. Let's go with "embarrassed."
Well, they do to me, and for others, but perhaps this more of a subjective thing:
I'll have a read and get back to you, thanks.
The reality is that her coming back to the UK and standing trial would be a massive embarrassment to the government
Good? 😁
as she’d likely not be convicted of much if anything at all.
Even that being the case, it's a resolution rather than it all just rumbling on and on with various factions having various opinions of varying degrees of credulity and/or unpleasantness.
The tories cannot afford to allow her any access to actual justice, especially not in an election year. Which is more than enough reason to allow her back to have her day in court.
100% on the money there.
When even the foul Rees-Mogg calls it a “fundamentally racist policy” it’s impressive that people here will still defend it.
Who's defending it, sorry? One poster is suggesting she should go to Canada because who the **** even knows, she likes moose or something. But if anyone has defended it - "it" here being the decision to make her stateless, I found the JRM quote you're referring to - then I've either missed it or forgotten.
Speaking from personal experience - having lived with racism personally, I think it is hard for people to understand, if they have never experienced it.
I had a difficult time, trying to let my wife know what it was like for me. It’s a bit like trying to understand what sexism is like, when you are a man.
People can and do empathise and be an effective ally, but never necessarily experience the fear or the aggression.
I think it’s because you and a couple of others were saying you couldn’t see ‘proof’ that the N+B Act is racist. I suppose that could be viewed as ‘defending’ it, by not denouncing it.
I still looking for proof. The link shared all give, no doubt well held, opinions on what the act may or may not do. However opinion is not fact and none of the links provide any evidence, based on current legislation, that deportation orders have been used in a racist way. If there is proof, as in court rulings, statistics, evidence that would st@nd up I court then plead share. Until then it’s just partial use of statistics or opinion.
I think it’s because you and a couple of others were saying you couldn’t see ‘proof’ that the N+B Act is racist. I suppose that could be viewed as ‘defending’ it, by not denouncing it.
Fair. But not my intention.
Rather my raison d'etre in these sorts of discussions is "show your working." It's easy to make emotive but baseless statements like, oh I don't know, how illegal immigrants get free houses rather than the council spending the money to fill in potholes (an actual conversation I had yesterday).
It could be true. It could be bollocks. But if someone is presenting something - anything - as a fact without evidencing it then I'm going to call it out every time. The claim that you (or someone?) made and which I questioned was that none of this would have happened if Begum was white. That may well be the case, I don't know, but you cannot just make such a statement and walk away without evidencing it.
It's racist by design, as Rees-Mogg explained in simple terms. The law applies predominantly to those with foreign-born parents, who are mostly not white native british (though the law also applies to my white BiL as it happens, he is also at risk of having his nationality stripped if he doesn't toe the line).
This is a paywall-dodging link to the Rees-Mogg quote.
He says (gods help me, I'm quoting JRM):
... the decision to deprive Ms Begum of her citizenship is wrong because it attacks two linchpins of the constitution that safeguard us all. It is easy to defend constitutional principles in favour of good people, but it is more difficult to do so when it is acknowledged that someone has been involved with evil actions and organisations. Ms Begum, by her association with and strong support for Isis, falls into the second category, but the constitution ought not to be abandoned when it is inconvenient, because a fair process routinely benefits us all.
The first principle that is breached is the idea of equality of all British citizens before the law. The ability to deprive people, who have a claim to another citizenship, of their British passport, creates two categories of Briton. Those with no right to another nationality are in the first-class carriage. Whatever they do, they cannot be made an exile or outlaw and expelled from the country. On the other hand, those who themselves came to the UK or whose parents did so are in the second-class carriage. They may be stripped of their citizenship even if they have never claimed another foreign nationality or even visited the country. This is a fundamentally racist policy as it denies the absolute Britishness of all those who are either recent immigrants themselves or their children.
Lord, I'm agreeing with Rees-Mogg
The other thing there is he says,
The ability to deprive people, who have a claim to another citizenship,
I may be wrong, but to the best of my knowledge Begum has never had claim to another citizenship. So his "first-class carriage" (familiar as JRM will undoubtedly be with public transport) analogy should have applied to her also.
The argument repeatedly presented by the govt was that she had the right to claim Bangladeshi citizenship.
It was never tested of course. But that was the excuse they used to defend against the accusation that she was (illegally) being rendered stateless.
For a while I had the right to apply for Japanese citizenship too (living there for 5y). I would have failed the application, but that wouldn't necessarily have stopped Javid from rendering me stateless and preventing me from returning.
I may be wrong, but to the best of my knowledge Begum has never had claim to another citizenship.
Shamima Begum had the right up to the age of 18 (or maybe 21) to apply for Bangladeshi nationality on the grounds of her parent's nationality.
She never did and the Bangladeshi authorities have said that she will not be given Bangladeshi nationality.
They consider her to be the UK's problem and not theirs as she was born, raised, and radicalised, in the UK.
I didn't know that.
How old was she when we made her stateless?
How old was she when we made her stateless?
According to Wikipedia, born in 1999 and lost her British citizenship in 2019.
Our local town facebook group has stumbled into this topic, racism and islamaphobia are rampant. People clearly have no idea how the law should work and who it protects. Even JRM gets it (in this case at least), shame the GBP are so ignorant.
PS im only on the group because theres occaisional snippets of useful local information and to be blunt it reminds me I'm at the tolerant end of our population, the stated views of many are abhorent, no wonder the morally bankrupt Tories are weaponising it. For the first time Im seeing parrallels with Germany in the early 30s.
As ever with JRM - one has to question the timing and the motive. Not a peep from him when Bojo was in power and Javid was with him in the cabinet, but now that it's Sunak and there's a GE coming where the Tory leadership will likely change hands afterwards...suddenly he has something to say.
He's not wrong, and the law is definitely discriminatory, but, it's JRM...he's a slippery fella.
EDIT - It's also uniformly discriminatory - it doesn't care what colour your skin is, nor where you came from, just that it's from somewhere else. You could be a white American and still face the same treatment under the law.
Well if by attacking what he claims is an inherently racist aspect of the policy JRM is trying to influence the direction of the party post general election then that should be welcomed.
Fat chance.
The law applies predominantly to those with foreign-born parents, who are mostly not white native british
Not sure about that unless Irish citizenship is excluded.
Given the automatic citizenship of any children of Irish parents and that their children are entitled to claim citizenship (then their kids as well if the parent claimed citizenship before their birth) then there are a lot of white native British with potential or actual dual citizenship (pre brexit I do wonder how many accidentally lied on forms about only being British citizenship. I know I did).
I remember the more or less episode where they looked at it post brexit and instead of the normal "this number in the news is rubbish because of these reasons" went "ermmm. actually it might be an underestimate".
He’s not wrong, and the law is definitely discriminatory, but, it’s JRM…he’s a slippery fella.EDIT – It’s also uniformly discriminatory – it doesn’t care what colour your skin is, nor where you came from, just that it’s from somewhere else. You could be a white American and still face the same treatment under the law.
It's also worth noting that similar such discriminatory such laws and policies already exist and have done for some time. There are quite a number of jobs/positions that non-native British ancestry will exclude you from and similarly, there a quite a number of positions that you could have held with a foreign company/country and then be denied entry to this country. These also discriminate (almost) uniformly.
There are quite a number of jobs/positions that non-native British ancestry will exclude you from
Id be amazed if that were true. You mean if you were born elsewhere possibly.
what does "stripping her of her nationality" even mean?
Where is she right now? shes effectively stateless, so does she spend the rest of her life living in airports getting passed around?
i dont want to give "the terrorists" any ideas, but that doesnt seem like the brightest of solutions.
“ EDIT – It’s also uniformly discriminatory – it doesn’t care what colour your skin is, nor where you came from, just that it’s from somewhere else. You could be a white American and still face the same treatment under the law.”
What’s the difference between uniformly discriminatory and equality? I would expect all nations to treat non nationals differently to nationals. In fact they do for access to healthcare to your legal status in the country.
Where is she right now? shes effectively stateless, so does she spend the rest of her life living in airports getting passed around?
She's in a prison camp (of sorts) in Syria, I believe.
Also never imagined the day I'd be agreeing wholeheartedly with Rees-Mogg.
Yep. It’s now clear there is a tiered citizenship system. Citizenship should be one thing, and we should all be equal within it. But we aren’t. Which undermines society in the sense that we are not all equal under law. And that’s not something that I’m comfortable about.
Much better way of putting it and I agree with that. The issue was the previous wording was claiming solely that she’d be back here if she was white, with no real evidence. Yes, essentially the sane thing but you’ve put it much better.
Just read JRMs response. Sounds like he’s preparing to defend someone whose parents moved here and they are a female Tory MP. But as painful as it is to admit, he’s right.
what does “stripping her of her nationality” even mean?
It means she can't travel to the UK without H.O permission.
Where is she right now?
The Al-Hawl displaced person camp in Northern Syria being detained by the SDF (Syrian Democratic Forces) Effectively a POW camp for ISIL members run by Kurdish-Syrian separatists
Id be amazed if that were true. You mean if you were born elsewhere possibly.
I don't. I mean if you or your parents had other citizenship prior to becoming British. I've witnessed it firsthand when security classifications for projects have changed. There's a cull and then a prohibition.
DaffyFull Member
Id be amazed if that were true. You mean if you were born elsewhere possibly.[//quote]
I don’t. I mean if you or your parents had other citizenship prior to becoming British. I’ve witnessed it firsthand when security classifications for projects have changed. There’s a cull and then a prohibition.
I just don't believe people who are British citizens who have no other citizenship, who were born here and never lived anywhere else are told they can't do a job because of their ancestry. There'd be a huge outcry if that were true - it'd be state approved racism. Unless I'm just incredibly naive. I'm sure it goes on unofficially, but Rishi Sunak, 2nd gen immigrant, is PM!
His parents were from British India as it was at the time.
But if someone is presenting something – anything – as a fact without evidencing it then I’m going to call it out every time. The claim that you (or someone?) made and which I questioned was that none of this would have happened if Begum was white. That may well be the case, I don’t know, but you cannot just make such a statement and walk away without evidencing it.
The issue was the previous wording was claiming solely that she’d be back here if she was white, with no real evidence.
The problem with you asking for 'evidence' in this context, is that you are failing to see experience and knowledge of racism as the 'evidence' needed to prove something like the N+B Act is inherently racist. 'Evidence' in this context isn't the same as someone being caught on CCTV putting stolen items in their bag then walking out of a shop, it doesn't work in that way. This is what I was trying to explain, but it seems you only started actually listening when I presented multiple examples of prominent organisations denouncing it.
Just read JRMs response. Sounds like he’s preparing to defend someone whose parents moved here and they are a female Tory MP. But as painful as it is to admit, he’s right.
But what evidence is he providing to prove he's right?
It’s also worth noting that similar such discriminatory such laws and policies already exist and have done for some time. There are quite a number of jobs/positions that non-native British ancestry will exclude you from
I think in this case we really do need some evidence to back up this claim.
if you turn up at (say) GCHQ with (say) Iranian parents, having spent a few summers there, you can expect them to dig deep into your background. Depending on how that goes, they might say no clearance, sorry.
I was mildly worried about having this happenen when i worked on some SC cleared projects as a CAD technician on account of my NI parents background. My boss explained that this might be how it goes, but it didnt.
dakuanFree Member
if you turn up at (say) GCHQ with (say) Iranian parents, having spent a few summers there, you can expect them to dig deep into your background.
I would have though GCHQ would have snatched your hand off - they're desperate for people who properly understand the places they're monitoring! It must be possible to silo people in a place like that so they're only know about the thing asked of them.
Again, naive, I expect.
if you turn up at (say) GCHQ with (say) Iranian parents, having spent a few summers there, you can expect them to dig deep into your background. Depending on how that goes, they might say no clearance, sorry.
That's not the same as someone being deliberately excluded automatically on the basis of their ethnicity or culture. Because that would be illegal.
The swerve into security clearance is red herring. The whole process is based around assessing risk against a set criteria for you to be deemed suitable and safe to have access to certain data. Your heritage and familial connections are something that are assessed regardless of ethnicity.
A mate and I we were posted to a unit where we required DV got dropped because of his financial situation and as a result of his wife's spending habits and debt. The reasons for rejection will be articulated very clearly and concisely and if there is any remedial action you can take.
I'd avoid this subject as a line of argument as it adds no value to this convo.
“ That’s not the same as someone being deliberately excluded automatically on the basis of their ethnicity or culture. Because that would be illegal.”
Again another emotive statement with no evidence to support it. Just because you keep saying something doesn’t make it true. In this case she is being excluded because she as an individual has spent years as a member of isis and publicly supported their attacks.
Again another emotive statement with no evidence to support it. Just because you keep saying something doesn’t make it true. In this case she is being excluded because she as an individual has spent years as a member of isis and publicly supported their attacks.
Publicly supported their attacks? Where? I am willing to be corrected but that claim sounds suspiciously like an emotive statement with no evidence to support it. Ironically.
A quick Google search doesn't throw anything for me.
My boss explained that this might be how it goes, but it didnt.
My NI clearance took a stupidly long time. Either it got lost down the back of the filing cabinet for a bit or I have some dodgy relatives that the authorities wanted to make sure I didnt know.
Again another emotive statement with no evidence to support it
A few seconds Googling finds sufficient 'evidence':
https://www.gov.uk/discrimination-your-rights/discrimination-at-work
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/contents
There's quite a bit to go through though, might take you longer than 5 seconds. Worth a read to be knowledgable about actual law regarding employment though.
So; it's illegal for anyone to be discriminated against when applying for a job, on the grounds of ethnicity, religion or where their parents come from. Therefore the assertion that "There are quite a number of jobs/positions that non-native British ancestry will exclude you from" is false. You cannot, legally, be excluded from any job based on your ancestry alone. In practice, an individual's background will certainly be taken into account for certain roles, which may require special security clearance, and some individuals might be excluded from a particular role for reasons that the security services may not have to give, and I'm sure that there are instances where illegal discrimination does take place, but this is not within the legal framework of employment in the UK. Currently at least.
The swerve into security clearance is red herring. The whole process is based around assessing risk against a set criteria for you to be deemed suitable and safe to have access to certain data. Your heritage and familial connections are something that are assessed regardless of ethnicity.
Which sounds almost exactly like the law aimed to deprive dangerous and risky people of citizenship and thus remove the risk of their access to the general public. It was implied that the policy is racist, as certain groups seemed to have historically been more susceptible to its application, but the law is applied uniformly, this is also true (in theory) of security clearance.
How is one different from the other? They're both applied based on risk, both applied uniformly, both result (in the words of JRM) in a two tier society of Britishness, its just one has more significant consequences than the other. Neither is racist by nature. Their both nationalist by nature, but again, based on perceived risk, not projected reward.
*they're