Forum menu
It would be Bangladesh not the UK making her stateless
Don’t you mean “keeping” her stateless, by not granting her citizenship? She is currently stateless, and was made so by Javid, a UK politician.
But in this case, I’m relating it more to the recent judgement that it was deemed to be legal.
It's not illegal for politicians/MP's/Cabinet/PM to lie...
Like this decision though or looking for loopholes in the NI-Brexit saga it just shows the rest of the world not to trust us.
She was born here and our problem..
Like this decision though or looking for loopholes in the NI-Brexit saga it just shows the rest of the world not to trust us.
She was born here and our problem..
So much this, I just hope if we ever get rid of these arseholes that the rest of the world can see past one administration and welcome another.
I feel like we have permanently tarnished brand Britain though.
Sometime parody is the best way to explain it: https://twitter.com/rosieisaholt/status/1628672239267639297?s=46&t=2W4dR2XvGd5QGeMW8w8HJw
5plusn8
So much this, I just hope if we ever get rid of these arseholes that the rest of the world can see past one administration and welcome another.
I feel like we have permanently tarnished brand Britain though.
If only it was so simple... look at the USA as a parallel.
Biden can say and do whatever but any agreements/treaties etc. beyond the next election they have shown their political system to support a politician like Trump... so someone who might take over and just disregard/ignore the agreements/treaties etc.
Unless other nations believe our political system would protect them against a return of a regime I think we'll find it hard to get longer term trust.
I feel like "she's our problem" should be the primary consideration, and should have been even if she had actual dual citizenship anyway. Stripping citizenship rather than dealing with our own messes is a terrible approach.
While I am disgusted with the Tory government for doing this, sadly I doubt I'd have been surprised back in the day if Jack Straw or David Blunkett had done something similar.
If there wasn't a person at the centre of this (for whom I have a lot of sympathy - married off at 15 - statutory rape in most places) I would suggest that she gets on a boat and sneaks into the UK and let's go from there...
Who knows what her next move is, she is stuck in a terrible place, lost her son etc.
To be honest Im surprised she is still alive to have this debate.
Many women/girls (who were trafficked from the UK as girls by the same team, a team that included that Canadian spy) are not alive. Death was the most likely outcome for them by some margin. An utterly depressing story of radicalisation and needless and senseless loss all around.
Starmer has just done another u-turn. ****.
4h ago
09.45 GMT
Starmer defends court saying Shamima Begum shouldn't regain citizenship, arguing 'national security has to come first'In an interview with BBC Breakfast this morning Keir Starmer defended the special immigration appeals commission (Siac) decision yesterday to refuse Shamima Begum’s appeal against the decision to remove her British citizenship. Starmer said “national security has to come first”.
'Should Shamima Begum be allowed back in order to face justice in the UK?'
Labour leader Keir Starmer was questioned on #BBCBreakfast after Shamima Begum lost her latest legal challenge over the decision to deprive her of British citizenship https://t.co/ISCqbCQjbg pic.twitter.com/eF3DTSSEa4
— BBC Breakfast (@BBCBreakfast) February 23, 2023Yesterday, after the Siac decision was announced, the Conservative party was tweeting a clip from an interview that Starmer gave to Sophy Ridge on Sky News in March 2019 saying that the decision by the then home secretary, Sajid Javid, to deprive Begum of her citizenship was “wrong”.
🚨 REMINDER: Keir Starmer doesn't think Shamima Begum should have been stripped of her citizenship and wants her brought back to Britain pic.twitter.com/wUo7a6sfhh
— CCHQ Press (@CCHQPress) February 22, 2023This comment was put to Starmer in his interview this morning. Describing the decision yesterday as “the right decision”, he did not explain why he had changed his mind since four years ago, although he did refer obliquely to Siac considering evidence that was not available in 2019.
The court has reached its decision. It has looked at all the evidence. I support that decision. As I say, national security has to come first.
Starmer’s comment this morning opens him up to the charge of doing a U-turn, and this morning CCHQ has been using emojis to accuse him of flip-flopping.
🩴🩴🩴🩴 https://t.co/VMIJ77N6iq
— CCHQ Press (@CCHQPress) February 23, 2023But Starmer may have decided that it is better to be accused of being inconsistent than to be accused of being weak on national security issues.
It is being weak on national security issues if you claim that she can't be repatriated and dealt with here. What happens about all those who will be radicalised in the UK but don't leave the country? Do we not have what it takes to deal with them here...?
That BBC breakfast clip...
https://twitter.com/BBCBreakfast/status/1628666086785961984?s=20
I disagree with him. Wrong decision by the government. Not interested in the courts taking the "right decision"... they probably did given the law. It's Javid's decision that was wrong, and the Labour leader should be saying so.
Bangladeshi law does not allow dual citizenship. Although it is prepared to make exceptions for dual citizenship with certain countries, including the UK. However this is not automatic and the Bangladeshi government must approve it first.
Saying “technically entitled” is stretching it a bit. She was, until the age of 21, technically allowed dual Bangladeshi-UK citizenship, if the Bangladeshi government had approved. It was not an automatic entitlement.
Yes, you keep saying this. So assuming you're not just a man on the internet but the chairman of a court higher than the one that decided she is technically entitled (and the commission that agreed with them). Why don't you have the decision overturned? Or tell their lawyers that they are mistaken.
I understand if you mean that you don't agree with the decision, or that you just don't like it. But to present it as fact is misleading. The UK government found a crafty way to revoke her citizenship as they found she was <i>technically </i>entitled to Bangladeshi citizenship. That there is the fact. Whether you or Bangladesh like it or not. Technically it's Bangladesh who are potentially leaving her stateless as the UK moved first so tough tits. And ranting that they'll execute her if she arrives is just childish temper tantrums
Technically it’s Bangladesh who are potentially leaving her stateless as the UK moved first so tough tits.
Well, this is nonsense. She has never had Bangladeshi citizenship, therefore how could they "move first"?
The UK is signed up to:
https://www.unhcr.org/un-conventions-on-statelessness.html
The courts obviously didn't take that into account considering themselves above the UN.
I don't know! Ask the bloody lawyers that found the loophole.
Well, this is nonsense. She has never had Bangladeshi citizenship, therefore how could they “move first”?
From a common sense POV it's nonsense. However from a last one to leave forgot to turn off the lights POV then Bangladesh are saying "but we didn't turn the bloody lights on" we (UK Govt not us) are saying "So we said last one turn off the lights"
From a how does this look POV ... looks like we (UK Govt not us) are trying to go lower the bar on Bangladesh for human rights.
Starmer has just done another u-turn. ****.
Starmer's current position was very much predicted a couple of months before he became Labour Party leader in this article by another left-wing barrister who knew him well.
Renton particularly pointed out that there was a risk that Starmer would not mount principled defence of victims of injustice but instead say whatever the right-wing press wanted to hear:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/feb/16/keir-starmer-past-scrutiny
Note the last paragraph in the article:
Starmer’s enthusiasm while DPP for using mundane news events to feed the press with rightwing talking points is a possible concern for Labour members. If such a leader was faced with news of an injustice in the future – the consequence of a change to immigration rules, say, or of a strike in public services – Starmer’s approach to the press as DPP might raise worries that he would not give a principled defence of the victims but would tell the press whatever it wanted to hear.
It is almost as if Starmer has followed the script written by David Renton KC
From a common sense POV it’s nonsense
Oh yeah, agree. The law doesn't always work on common sense though. That's why if you have the cash you can hire Mr Loophole to get you off your drink driving charge due to a technicality.
<span style="font-size: 0.8rem;">From a how does this look POV … looks like we (UK Govt not us) are trying to go lower the bar on Bangladesh for human rights.</span>
Matter of opinion. A lot of people don't agree. Including Sir Keir Starmer. It's an interesting topic. A real polarising one too. There are two camps; those who think she's an innocent child trafficked away, indoctrinated and kept against her will. And those who think that's a load of rubbish. I'm afraid I fall into the latter camp. I think if ISIS weren't routed, this young lady would still be living her islamic wife best-life whilst hubby's at work chucking gay people off the roof. And turning up on a BBC documentary in aviators and a baseball cap isn't fooling anybody.
I support the government's decision on this, not as a punishment to her, I feel sorry for her personally. But to discourage others and to avoid setting a precedent for future Jihadis returning to the UK.
There are two camps; those who think she’s an innocent child trafficked away, indoctrinated and kept against her will. And those who think that’s a load of rubbish.
Well, that's quite binary, isn't it. She was a British child trafficked way. She could also now be a risk to national security. Both could be true. She may well have also broken laws, but she's innocent until proven guilty, and the whole discussion about judgement and sentencing (if it comes to that) may or may not have to take into account her radicalisation and trafficking as a child. But it still comes down to should she be handled here, or do we wash our hands of her and make her another nation's problem... despite being British... irrespective of being the child of immigrants.
to discourage others
A child being radicalised in such a way against the UK, and prepared to go and join a group like ISIS... when making that choice at the age of 15 or whatever... they really aren't going to care that they risk losing UK citizenship... they're running away from the UK to a new life (built on lies and grooming).
What crimes is she alleged to have committed anyway? Certainly none in the UK surely? So why bring he back to face justice? For what? If she's been up to no good in the Islamic State or Syria then surely that's for them to deal with?
ISIS weren’t routed
Were they!? News to me but that might take this thread off course.
Even if she was "living her Islamic wife best-life" does it change how she ended up there? If I child is kidnapped and raised by another family is it the child's fault? I honestly don't think this will discourage others because at the time people have been groomed to do something they are not thinking about the consequences of the action.
Well, out of Raqqa I mean, or wherever it was she was living. Of course I realise they're still an entity.
I support the government’s decision on this
Apparently today you do but it appears to depend on what day of the week it is.
Yesterday you were claiming that "she's clearly British" which is obviously at odds with a government which has revoked her British citizenship and washed their hands of her.
You added that your opinion was irrelevant, which strongly suggests that you were fully aware that it was at odds with the government's.
This is what you wrote yesterday:
jambourgie Free Member
She’s clearly British. Not that it matters one iota, my opinion is irrelevant.
Today you have decided to support the government. Any ideas what your position tomorrow will be?
What crimes is she alleged to have committed anyway? Certainly none in the UK surely? So why bring he back to face justice? For what? If she’s been up to no good in the Islamic State or Syria then surely that’s for them to deal with?
Definitely not my specialist subject but I think you can commit offences against the UK whilst physically outside the territory of the UK. She was allegedly a member of a proscribed terrorist organisation. Some of the offences in the terrorism act apply universally, some apply to British citizens regardless of where they are located and some only apply when someone was in the UK at the time. She may even have committed offences before she left, simply by making travel arrangements to go and meet proscribed terrorists.
However go watch this to the end: https://twitter.com/rosieisaholt/status/1628672239267639297?s=46&t=2W4dR2XvGd5QGeMW8w8HJw/a > you might see a wee problem with your logic - if someone travels to a third country and then commits a crime and their home state can simply disown them - we end up with a lot of "foreign national" criminals in the UK who we can't deport. So the logical choice is: 1. Accept that a small number of brits will come back and we have to deal with them, their crimes and the risk they might represent OR 2. Accept that all foreign nationals who commit offences here are our problem forever. We can't have it both ways.
Today you have decided to support the government. Any ideas what your position tomorrow will be?
For a start. I reserve the right for my views and opinions to change over time. It's one of the good reasons to frequent this 'chat forum' as opposed to echo chamber hellholes like FB. One can read other, different opinions which can challenge one's own. (Unless it's Tj ranting at you, then it just makes you want to think the opposite, whatever it may be) 😉
But also, it's not binary, it's almost well, parallel. Doublethink if you will. I agree with the government's position, whilst fully agreeing that she is British, as in talks the language, grew up here etc. But accept that in order to keep her out they had to come up with some crafty legal loophole to make her Bangladeshi. 'The end justifies the means'. So now she's Bangladeshi. I know that she's British. But she's technically now Bangladeshi.
Cake and eat it.
( could be referring to the excellent Rosie Holt clip, could be referring to Jambourgie's journey )
to discourage others
Unfortunately this kind of treatment actually aids recruitment (radicalisation) for terrorist groups, they can now just point at this and say "you will never be treated the same, you can be cast aside with impunity because they don't consider you one of them"
If this is meant to discourage it is likely to have the opposite effect.
On the subject of Starmer then I see 2 possibilities.
The first is this is just a PR stunt so the Tories / right wing media cant attack him on being soft on terrorists etc.
The second is that as the Leader of the Opposition he has seen/been briefed by the security services and knows alot more about her that the combined minds of this forum.
Or probably both. Take your pick
70/30
There are two camps; those who think she’s an innocent child trafficked away, indoctrinated and kept against her will. And those who think that’s a load of rubbish.
Oddly enough this is also a load of rubbish.
Some people think she is entirely innocent.
Others, like me, really dont know but feel the best place to test it is in court with the help of psychologists/police/intelligence professionals and then a judge and jury to make the decision.
Not a home secretary wanting to appear tough.
But to discourage others and to avoid setting a precedent for future Jihadis returning to the UK.
A great deterrent, perhaps, for those people with the possibility of dual nationality but not so much for anyone without or who doesnt know they have dual citizenship/forgot to claim it.
I would go for a more generic option personally.
Or probably both. Take your pick
The problem is even if he has seen more evidence (given he doesnt mention it I would have my doubts) doesnt address the key problem.
Its that it sits outside the criminal justice system and is by personal choice of the home secretary.
Its not putting the security of the nation first. Its putting the whims of a politician first.
he has seen/been briefed by the security services and knows alot more about her that the combined minds of this forum.
You know that the suggestion it is all just a ruse by Shamima Begum so that she can come to the UK to commit acts of terrorism is laughable, don't you?
The whole sorry saga has its basis in the ambitions of a dark skinned second generation immigrant Home Secretary, who was desperate to become Prime Minister, trying to prove to the Daily Mail and its readers that he could be totally relied on to pander to their bigotry.
It's not easy being an ambitious brown Tory - you have to prove yourself.
It all has bugger all to do with fighting terrorism.
Even if there's intelligence that she could pose a risk to the UK... presumably we have people in the UK with similar intelligence on them, right now. If we can't handle that situation at home, we have a weak security system here that needs addressing.
"Javid says so" isn't good enough for making someone stateless... yes, in UK law it is... but we'd be challenging politicians in other countries making such decisions and pointing to international agreements, laws and commitments... the negative effects of a race to the bottom when it comes to offloading a nation's responsibilities could increase the risk to us all.
There are two camps; those who think she’s an innocent child trafficked away, indoctrinated and kept against her will. And those who think that’s a load of rubbish.
Jesus christ, after 13 pages of almost unanimous consensus, you can't even get that right.
I'll make it truly binary for you:
You either believe that people are entitled to a fair trial prior to sentencing, or you don't.
If you believe that they are, then you should support her being brought back to the UK for trial and to face the legal consequences of her actions.
If you don't think they are, we find ourselves in middle-school ethics curriculum territory, and so this becomes a different conversation.
Whether or not what the home secretary did was legal (in the context of international law) is largely irrelevant to most people. What most people are bothered about is what OUR government did to one of OUR citizens, and WHY they did it. back to middle school ethics again: if they have that power (and find out they can wield it without public consequences) then what's to stop them wielding it again? Against whom?
if they have that power (and find out they can wield it without public consequences) then what’s to stop them wielding it again? Against whom?
This 100%.
Eg there was talk of starving the Irish during brexit negotiations, Priti Patel - https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/brexiteer-blasted-over-threat-to-starve-ireland-tjp7k76mq.
Lots of other people on FB and forums asked why we let the Irish "stay" here.
Many UK citizens came from Ireland or parents, grandparents came from Ireland. All eligible for Irish Cit.
With populism on the rise, it makes you wonder how fast things could change here.
Another thing that's scary is that all of the appeals seem to be based around whether the Home Secretary had the ability to make the decision he made, and whether she can return to fight the case - at no point has she ever faced terrorism charges, Javid just made a decision and (thus far) that's it, she's gone. IANAL but it seems like the courts, deliberately or otherwise, are testing only the right of the HS to remove citizenship, and not whether it was the correct judgement?
Again, this could be any of us if the state so chose.
I know that she’s British. But she’s technically now Bangladeshi.
Technically?
Seems that they have an age 21 cut-off, so she's not.
You either believe that people are entitled to a fair trial prior to sentencing, or you don’t.
This, and it applies to EVERYONE along with how we should all be tried if we committed the same offence - no matter how 'important' you are.
This, and it applies to EVERYONE along with how we should all be tried if we committed the same offence – no matter how ‘important’ you are.
So easy to overlook - removing rights from one person removes them from us all.
are testing only the right of the HS to remove citizenship, and not whether it was the correct judgement?
Yeah the court a couple of days ago made it clear that it wasn't their duty to decide whether Shamima Begum posed a national security risk, only whether the Home Secretary had based his decision on that consideration.
They were satisfied that he had even if they didn't necessarily agree with his assessment.
The whole thing stinks and the issue is a complete mess, but for me the most depressing aspect of this situation is that it is extremely unlikely that it will be resolved by an incoming Labour government.
Indeed the powers used by the Home Secretary in this clear breach of natural justice have their origins in a Labour government.
The only difference I can see a Labour government making is that some people will be more reluctant to critise injustices when Labour are in power, which actually makes it easier for them to get away with it.
Depressing, truly.
Javid says so” isn’t good enough for making someone stateless… yes, in UK law it is… but we’d be challenging politicians in other countries making such decisions and pointing to international agreements, laws and commitments
Totally agree with this. THe challenge is how. Will a change of government change it? I have my doubts as why would a Home Secretary want to not be able to do this. Its easier to do nothing than change the law and the political flack from the right that would come with it
trafficked, or terrorist
Both I think. She appears neither contrite or sincere in interview. Like she's reading badly from a script.
what actual evidence of terrorist activity is there? she was trafficed and "married" to somone. ( presumably raped multiple times) and has spent most of the time in a refugee camp while the children she has had and all her friends die
Did she ever get to bomb hurling? Nothing I have ever seen suggests so
trafficked, or terrorist
Both I think.
So presumably you don't agree with the British government's decision to ban her from the UK?
I mean, why would any other country in the world accept a British born and radicalised terrorist?
I was answering the OPs actual question.
I don't agree with the government's decision. Aside from what it means for human rights for the rest of us more generally, it leaves a potentially dangerous actor still in play.