MegaSack DRAW - This year's winner is user - rgwb
We will be in touch
With the rise of Reform - I just don't see the government backing down regardless what the ECHR conclude.
Who is paying her legal fees? Can only imagine how expensive they will be.
I see that her final route of appeal looks to be ECHR. I then thought about the Daily Mail reaction if ECHR overrule and she (brown girl with foreign name) comes back to the UK as a result of an ECHR ruling. The Daily Wail readers will absolutely explode. I would imaging a fair few of them would have an actual stroke through sheer anger. It will be brilliant.
Unfortunately, this would be weaponised and the next election will be fought around leaving the ECHR to protect our borders 🙁
She needs to win. I don't want to live under any government that has the power to strip me of my citizenship and abandon me or deport me because I did something stupid at 15.
Something Farage would do well to keep in mind.
He’s struggling with the stuff he did at 15 at the moment 🙂
Unfortunately, this would be weaponised and the next election will be fought around leaving the ECHR to protect our borders
Which is why Labour's decision to keep fighting it is so stupid and self defeating.
The majority of Brits understand the importance of human rights and staying in the ECHR. I want a party/government that will loudly champion that to drown out the noisy minority.
Who is paying her legal fees?
I suspect that a lot of Pro Bono work is being undertaken but as for who, it is neither my nor your business. (Unless you are not a fan of due process, in which case beware as that can bite you too if you step out of line).
I feel reassured that the ECHR are to be involved, and look forward to their thoughts on this mess. I can’t access the telegraph article, and it may not answer this question anyway, what court do adults appear in to face justice for their behaviour as children? The point was made a few posts ago about being tried as a juvenile and probably having been released by now following any imprisonment.
A while ago I heard a conspiracy theory that she had been smuggled back into the country and was living a life of luxury with a new identity, while laughing at the British taxpayers funding it.
I always suspected the guy was a nob, and this just gave me the proof I needed to cut him out of my circle
Telegraph opinion basically said what I did. That she should face due process (whatever that might be). And that stripping a citizen of their nationality is not a good look for a country. Thats all it said - no mention of what justice she should face. One presumes she is tried as a 15yo for offences committed as a 15yo. Or not.
Labour just can't seem to help tripping over their own feet.
So they are going to support/defend (or at least appear to support/defend) the Tories decision to strip her of her citizenship - in an effort to avoid uproar from all the various right wingers/racists/xenophobes/islamophobes/gammons (not sure if that's still a relevant cultural ref?) which now seem to make up a depressingly significant chunk of the electorate.
But what happens when the ECHR upholds her challenge? Are they going to line-up with the groups mentioned above to criticise the ECHR as a bunch of woke leftie liberal elites? Thus alienating (further) absolutely everyone else, except those on the right.
Why not just call this what it is - an egregious politicization of a case by the Tories, and one that puts the UK in MORE danger by leaving her loose, and see's us shirking our responsibilities by allowing a home-grown terrorist to "escape justice". I don't believe those last two points, but it's the obvious way to position it for those on the right.
To accompany the first - legislation to unambiguously prohibit the removal of citizenship from people born in the UK, but which also contains a clearer pathway for the removal of naturalised citizenship for those accused of (only) the most serious crimes. Who's going to be seen to oppose that?
Seriously - they have known this has been coming for years - why is there not a whole policy and media strategy ready to go? Better still - why didn't they get out in front of this and set the narrative themselves?
For the record - I regard Ms Begum as something between a victim of trafficking and a teenage girl who made a series of terrible decisions. I believe that she should face justice for what she did - but that removing her citizenship is enormously disproportionate (and outrageous). I would imagine that her life has been absolute hell since 2015, and overall my feeling towards her is one of sympathy.
Who's going to be seen to oppose that?
Me. If I’m “accused” of something, I want the same rights as any other Brit “accused” of the same thing.
Terrible situation – am I right in assuming the decision that there were no valid legal reasons for an appeal is because the law gave the government the power to do this?
Unusual for a law to be drafted so thoroughly, sadly.
That's the way I understand it... I might be wrong though.
The fact is she was a minor, and obviously coerced/groomed, so 'normally' any back street lawer should easily be able to fight it in court and win, on grounds she wasn't old enough to make an informed and free choice.
This is wildly, wildly wrong. The age of criminal responsibility in England & Wales is 10, for a start. Kids are convicted for criminal activity they were coerced or pressured into all the time. Kids rarely get caught up in County Lines of their own free will, for example. The bar for duress as a defence is very high.
Who's going to be seen to oppose that?
Me. If I’m “accused” of something, I want the same rights as any other Brit “accused” of the same thing.
Apologies - I meant "convicted" not accused.
She needs to win.
She needs to have access to the same justice as the rest us. Which she has had, thankfully
Why not just call this what it is - an egregious politicization of a case by the Tories, and one that puts the UK in MORE danger by leaving her loose, and see's us shirking our responsibilities by allowing a home-grown terrorist to "escape justice". I don't believe those last two points, but it's the obvious way to position it for those on the right.
Goes for a lot of Labour policies (or lack thereof). Simply saying "look at the absolute shit show we inherited, this is the fault of the Tories doing questionably legal things, we now have to fix it" would, if not solve, then at least mitigate a lot of the fallout and the "here you go Nigel!" open goals they're creating for themselves.
For the record - I regard Ms Begum as something between a victim of trafficking and a teenage girl who made a series of terrible decisions. I believe that she should face justice for what she did - but that removing her citizenship is enormously disproportionate (and outrageous). I would imagine that her life has been absolute hell since 2015, and overall my feeling towards her is one of sympathy.
I think, generally, overall I have less sympathy for her (although I'm am sympathetic to the fact that she made some bad decisions, and finds herself in the situation she now is, which must be shit) - I think while she was trafficked. Once she was there, she behaved in a way consistent with someone who wanted to be there. Other western kids who had been like her - trafficked, once they joined the caliphate and saw what it was like in reality, legged it back home as fast as they could. She stayed for four years, and only started to try to come home once it was clear the caliphate was obviously collapsing, and her life in the camp was in danger - in part, because of the way she had behaved.
I agree that the decision to remove her citizenship was a mistake, but also I can see that it was completely legal to do so, and in their ruling the Supreme Court go into some detail about the fact that the Home Office met all of the legal criteria to come to the decision they did. It was a clearly still a political decision, but it was an easy one to make, and backed up by the facts on the ground. It's not like Javid had to create justifications, or rely on dodgy legal sleight of hand. It was clearly the decision he wanted to get to, but Begum made it really easy for him.
Once she was there, she behaved in a way consistent with someone who wanted to be there. Other western kids who had been like her - trafficked, once they joined the caliphate and saw what it was like in reality, legged it back home as fast as they could.
Genuinely curious, but the reports I've read suggest she and her friends - none of whom survived, remember - were effectively held/controlled until they were married off to IS fighters. I've not seen any stories of anyone getting out as easily as they got in.
As a British citizen born abroad - albeit registered correctly at birth with the Consulate - the implications of badly drafted knee jerk legislation about citizenship being implemented by poorly trained civil servants under a lot of hostile press scrutiny scares the life out of me.
Genuinely curious, but the reports I've read suggest she and her friends - none of whom survived, remember - were effectively held/controlled until they were married off to IS fighters
She was 'married' (obviously illegally) within days of arriving, to a Dutch national. There's obviously a bunch of reporting stating that she'd been held captive and alternatively that she was a convert to the ISIL cause. I think given that she appears to have behaved differently to more or less every other western kid and there was a least a couple of hundred of them- who left pretty much as soon as they could, and reporting from other ISIL women in the camp indicate that she has at the very least some questions to answer about her behavior.
The original reporting of her situation came about solely as the Sunday Times reporter was surprised to hear that she was in the camp at all; he understood that all the western women had been repatriated. Begum was the only woman alongside a group of western European men that were being denied citizenship and repatriation because of what they had done while in ISIL.
Personally I fall on the side that she was probably a bad'un. I still think she should've been repatriated back to the UK to face criminal charges here. However I can see why/how Javid came to the conclusion he did, and I don't have to weigh up public safety. It's notable that the Supreme Court* had access to intelligence reporting (that wasn't made public,and Javid had relied on to make his decision to revoke her citizenship) and said that it was "compelling"
* included representations from the UN, Liberty, and JUSTICE (a human rights group) and a representative from the International Commission of Jurists, as well as the QCs of Begum and the Govt. It wasn't some kangaroo court.
Once she was there, she behaved in a way consistent with someone who wanted to be there. Other western kids who had been like her - trafficked, once they joined the caliphate and saw what it was like in reality, legged it back home as fast as they could.
Genuinely curious, but the reports I've read suggest she and her friends - none of whom survived, remember - were effectively held/controlled until they were married off to IS fighters.
...and it was only 10 days between her arriving in Syria and being married to some Dutch psychopath.
"Other western kids who had been like her...legged it back home as fast as they could."
Like who?
I agree that the decision to remove her citizenship was a mistake, but also I can see that it was completely legal to do so, and in their ruling the Supreme Court go into some detail about the fact that the Home Office met all of the legal criteria to come to the decision they did.
Recently a British Government declared by act of Parliament, that a third country was safe to deport immigrants to (it was not and never had been). Just because the country's law says it is legal does not necessarily make it so, that's why ECHR is there to prevent government over-reach.
As for the part about returning from the Caliphate once the mistake was realised! Words almost fail me.
As a white, cis man I have no concept of what hell the child was trafficked to nor to what extent Stockholm and other survival syndromes would have had on her staying put to protect her life. As a further thing where was the money going to come from to return and how would she access it.
As a British citizen born abroad - albeit registered correctly at birth with the Consulate - the implications of badly drafted knee jerk legislation about citizenship being implemented by poorly trained civil servants under a lot of hostile press scrutiny scares the life out of me.
The difference in her case is that she technically held dual nationality, here and in Bangladesh.
Bangladesh says that she isn't currently registered as a citizen, but our Courts say that's a technicality and she isn't without citizenship, which is the crux of the legal argument. The relevant legislation is decades old and well-tested
Both UK and UN law say that you can't render someone stateless and the Supreme Court was unanimous that wasn't the case.
We'll see what the ECHR decides and whether that decision changes anything.
It wasn't some kangaroo court.
Whilst SIAC isn't a kangaroo court by any means, it certainly isn't like a court virtually all UK citizens would face. The defence are hampered by the fact that they cannot always get effective instruction regarding the confidential material used as evidence in SIAC, and how to rebut it, from the subject of the proceedings. They are not allowed to discuss this material with the subject, iirc they can't even speak to the subject after their initial meeting, and before the evidence is served on Counsel for SIAC proceedings, without permission from SIAC.
As a British citizen born abroad - albeit registered correctly at birth with the Consulate - the implications of badly drafted knee jerk legislation about citizenship being implemented by poorly trained civil servants under a lot of hostile press scrutiny scares the life out of me.
The difference in her case is that she technically held dual nationality, here and in Bangladesh
But MCTD could also have some "technical" foreign citizenship due to being born in that country that he is not aware of, not exercised and have no links whatsoever to that country - just like Begum
The question has to be if she is such an upstanding citizen why have, according to the Supreme Court, Bangaldesh relied on a technicality not to accept her as Bangladeshi when, according to the court, the case for her being Bangladeshi is stronger than that of being a UK citizen? Clearly they are about as keen on having her as we are.
Im of the view that whilst I might not like all the decisions the Superme Court makes, as someone who believes in the rule of law I accept their decision not just the ones I agree with.
Bangladesh says that she isn't currently registered as a citizen
The UK Supreme court in over-reaching shock. If Bangladesh say she isn't a citizen due to no registration then no amount of bluster will make the Supreme Court correct. I am confident that the Bangladesh authorities will know their own rules rather better the the Justices in Parliament Square.
I think she's a woman who holds (or held) repulsive views, but also one who was probably manipulated at an early age. I do think that we should own our problems.
It's interesting that Tice / Reform / Daily Mail etc are keen to say that the racist and fascist views that someone like Farage held at the ago of 15 were youthful hijinks, but that in this case she knew exactly what she was doing at the same age.
Clearly [Bangladesh] are about as keen on having her as we are.
Maybe that's because Begum was a British citizen born in Britain who grew up in Britain and committed offences under British law on one hand, and on the other hand she's never been to Bangladesh and they have no idea who she was. Seems pretty reasonable.
The UK would be pretty pissy about foreign terrorists being deported to the UK merely because their parents were born in the UK. The UK shouldn't be washing its hands of its own problems and leaving it to the Bangladeshis or Kurds to clean up.
The UK Supreme court in over-reaching shock.
It’s always refreshing to see how a bunch of mountain bikers somehow think they know better than the Supreme Court judges. Does the STW massive have access to evidence the court hasn’t seen? Has it seen any of the evidence or is it just relying on the biased media pronouncements from all sides of those who hold views that support their personal position.
Bangaldesh relied on a technicality not to accept her as Bangladeshi when, according to the court, the case for her being Bangladeshi is stronger than that of being a UK citizen?
It's an interesting question. Let's say that technically I'm eligible for Norwegian citizenship because I'd fulfilled all the requirements but I hadn't gotten round to filling out the paperwork. If I then committed some terrorist hi-jinks, could the British government strip me of my citizenship?
If I then tried to apply for Norwegian citizenship it seems like a no-brainer that I wouldn't be eligible because I'm a terrorist and no country is under any obligation to grant citizenship to anyone.
Could anyone who has an Irish grandparent be stripped of their British citizenship. Anyone whose great-great-great Grandmother was Italian?
Being eligible for citizenship and having citizenship are two very different things.
It's an interesting question. Let's say that technically I'm eligible for Norwegian citizenship because I'd fulfilled all the requirements but I hadn't gotten round to filling out the paperwork. If I then committed some terrorist hi-jinks, could the British government strip me of my citizenship?
It’s not quite a technicality. As someone who is born to Bangladeshi parents who registered her birth at the Bangladeshi consulate then she has automatic temporary Bangladesh citizenship upto the age of 21. At 21 her right to bangldeshi citizenship ends if she hasn’t applied to keep it.
The difference in her case is that she technically held dual nationality, here and in Bangladesh.
Not quite, she had access to Bangladeshi citizenship upto 2021 when she was 21 but she didn't have dual citizenship. She never held it, and obviously they weren't keen on granting it either.
Whilst SIAC isn't a kangaroo court by any means,
The Supreme court isn't SIAC. In this case SIAC originally overturned Javid's decision to revoke her citizenship. The Supreme court reversed that, saying [broadly] National Security took precedence over her rights, and that the path the Home Office took took account of her rights and the intelligence briefings that they had access to. Both the SIAC and the Supreme court have pointed out that Begum being in the UK would've had little to no bearing on the decision they'd came to. While Begum's lawyers are entitled to claim that she's not had access to justice, all the courts so far have come to the opposite conclusion.
As for the part about returning from the Caliphate once the mistake was realised! Words almost fail me.
It's been reported that up to 850-900 UK citizens joined ISIL at the height of their recruitment campaigns. Some have obviously been killed, but there are at least 400 returned who've faced no prosecution. The camps in Syria are full of stateless ex-terrorists that no one wants to take responsibility for.
It’s not quite a technicality. As someone who is born to Bangladeshi parents who registered her birth at the Bangladeshi consulate then she has automatic temporary Bangladesh citizenship upto the age of 21. At 21 her right to bangldeshi citizenship ends if she hasn’t applied to keep it.
Yeah, but the problem is that's the UK court's interpretation of Bangladeshi law. The Bangladeshi court's interpretation of Bangladeshi law is different and I would argue that is the one that matters.
Also, she was never registered with the Bangladeshi consulate or anywhere else related to Bangladesh.
The problem the UK government has is it is relying on a technicality. The technicality that Begum should have Bangladeshi citizenship. In practice she doesn't and I suspect the ECHR is going to take the view that actual passports and the right to travel trump a technically legal gotcha.
It's been reported that up to 850-900 UK citizens joined ISIL at the height of their recruitment campaigns. Some have obviously been killed, but there are at least 400 returned who've faced no prosecution. The camps in Syria are full of stateless ex-terrorists that no one wants to take responsibility for.
They all need returning to their appropriate countries and face appropriate justice for any crimes they committed.
It's the only way that the international community can come out of this mess with any moral high ground.
The UK shouldn't be washing its hands of its own problems and leaving it to the Bangladeshis or Kurds to clean up.
This is where I am. I think the decision to make her stateless was the wrong one, not least because if the decision is reversed, we loose the chance to actually give her a day in court. Currently there is a problem in that the POW camps for these ex-terrorists are 1) pretty grim, and filled with small children who're wholly innocent of anything their parents have done 2) not going away without some sort of international agreement, 3) unfairly burdensome to countries that can ill-afford it. But it'd be wildly politically unpopular, and I can understand (even as I don't agree) why politicians shy away from it.
The problem the UK government has is it is relying on a technicality. The technicality that Begum should have Bangladeshi citizenship.
No, the law says that the Home Sec has to pay due regard to the fact that he may make some-one stateless - which the Supreme court said that he had done. They (the Govt) didn't rely on any "technicality", the law's very clear. The Supreme court judged that the Home sec had acted completely legally in placing national security first above her individual rights.