Forum menu
Or she had been brainwashed or she was terrified of the UK press or she knew ISIS folk would be listening in or any one of a dozen other explanations
Oh absolutely, Look I don't think she should've been abandoned by the govt, I don't think she should've had her citizenship stripped, but Shamina played her own part in the tragedy that she found herself trapped in. I don't think for a minute that Javid made the right decision, but she made it very easy for him to make it.
However, the fact she is being denied a fair trial, kind of goes against our own law, let alone international.
You'd be the first to complain if this government blithely decided it could break international agreements when it suited them. It's wholly wrong to restore some-ones citizenship just so you can put them on trial. You must see the damage that would do around the world to the safety of political prisoners, and refugees.
Again, I think Javid's decision was a stupid one, but having made it, there's literally no going back unless she comes back as a welcomed and free citizen.
You’d be the first to complain if this government blithely decided it could break international agreements when it suited them. It’s wholly wrong to restore some-ones citizenship <em style="box-sizing: border-box; --tw-translate-x: 0; --tw-translate-y: 0; --tw-rotate: 0; --tw-skew-x: 0; --tw-skew-y: 0; --tw-scale-x: 1; --tw-scale-y: 1; --tw-scroll-snap-strictness: proximity; --tw-ring-offset-width: 0px; --tw-ring-offset-color: #fff; --tw-ring-color: rgb(59 130 246 / 0.5); --tw-ring-offset-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-ring-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-shadow-colored: 0 0 #0000; caret-color: #000000; color: #000000; font-family: Roboto, 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, 'Noto Sans', sans-serif, -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, 'Segoe UI', 'Apple Color Emoji', 'Segoe UI Emoji', 'Segoe UI Symbol', 'Noto Color Emoji';">just so you can put them on trial. You must see the damage that would do around the world to the safety of political prisoners, and refugees.
I'm not sure what argument you're trying to make here. Are you saying that Shamima would be at risk of torture or death at the hands of the UK state, were she to return here?
Or we’re all speculating based on our own preconceptions and none of us have any real idea either way.
In fairness; some of 'us' might have a slightly more real idea of the situation, given personal experience, field of work/study etc. Please ensure that you speak only for yourself in this regard.
Shamina played her own part in the tragedy that she found herself trapped in
I feel I need to understand this concept further. Please explain.
Are you saying that Shamima would be at risk of torture or death at the hands of the UK state, were she to return here?
I read it as ... "if the UK government could make someone a UK citizen to put them on trial... then other states could do the same, using the UK decision to ignore international agreements about this as a green light for them doing the same".
+
The original decision to remove her citizenship was wrong (by all and any measure I can think of, including the same argument above).
I read it as … “if the UK government could make someone a UK citizen to put them on trial… then other states could do the same, using the UK decision to ignore international agreements about this as a green light for them doing the same”.
The principle of 'non-refoulement' overrides this for good reason:
I can't find any reason why Shamima can't be returned, under such a principle.
You’d be the first to complain if this government blithely decided it could break international agreements when it suited them. It’s wholly wrong to restore some-ones citizenship just so you can put them on trial.
Was it not wholly wrong to strip her of citizenship in the first place?
That being the case, are we not "just" remedying this?
I can’t find any reason why Shamima can’t be returned, under such a principle.
I agree. If she could be here and safe. But that isn't that same as making her a UK citizen for prosecution.
Was it not wholly wrong to strip her of citizenship in the first place?
Yes. That doesn't make the mess of that awful decision as simple to address as we'd hope/wish.
In fairness; some of ‘us’ might have a slightly more real idea of the situation, given personal experience, field of work/study etc. Please ensure that you speak only for yourself in this regard.
Likewise.
Your username aside I have no idea what special experience you may be bringing to the table here. If you've worked in repatriation with former alleged terrorists then I missed that and can only apologise. We can only go on what you/others divulge here.
Like many I suspect I was very surprised that politicians have the ability to take away our citizenship so easily,
Some will be even even more surprised when those rules, which seemed fine against "whatever is the unpopular group at the time" also get used against people more like, well, "us".
See legal aid "reform"
Are you saying that Shamima would be at risk of torture or death at the hands of the UK state, were she to return here?
No I'm saying that it at the very least it would gives the cover to other states who's citizens are thankfully out of their reach, to act to try to get those citizens back to put them on show trials.
feel I need to understand this concept further. Please explain.
Because like all the young people who'd been lied to about the caliphate, she could've made the decision to come home much sooner when she got there are realised it was a shit hole. When Anthony Lloyd found her, after she'd lived there all that time, she was still saying that she didn't regret her decision to join Isis, but that she was happy that they'd lost becasue she thought "They weren't worthy". She made some other equally stupid comments about it being ok to rape Yazidi women - because they're Shia... It took Javid a couple of days (I think) to make the very easy decision for him to say "Yeah, you can stay there" Equally Shamina's husband, a former citizen of the Netherlands, also had his citizenship removed at the same time.
I feel I need to understand this concept further. Please explain. <br />
it’s been covered numerous times in this thread already. If you choose to not acknowledge that she bares even some responsibility for the situation she finds herself in then I don’t think anyone on here will be able to persuade you otherwise…and further explanation is a waste of time
No I’m saying that it at the very least it would gives the cover to other states who’s citizens are thankfully out of their reach, to act to try to get those citizens back to put them on show trials.
But if those citizens were seeking asylum in a country that abides by international Law, they'd be protected under that principle of 'non-refoulement'. So your comment about 'breaking international agreements' doesn't apply in this case.
Because like all the young people who’d been lied to about the caliphate, she could’ve made the decision to come home much sooner when she got there are realised it was a shit hole. When Anthony Lloyd found her, after she’d lived there all that time, she was still saying that she didn’t regret her decision to join Isis, but that she was happy that they’d lost becasue she thought “They weren’t worthy”. She made some other equally stupid comments about it being ok to rape Yazidi women – because they’re Shia… It took Javid a couple of days (I think) to make the very easy decision for him to say “Yeah, you can stay there” Equally Shamina’s husband, a former citizen of the Netherlands, also had his citizenship removed at the same time.
Do you believe that such comments attributed to Shamima suggest that she is of particularly sound mind and has an informed, objective view of the situation she is in? You seem to be trying to justify the actions of the former Home Secretary, an individual that I and I'm sure many others find utterly repulsive and morally reprehensible. Can you explain why please?
With respect Nick, you're usually a voice of reason here but you do seem to have made up your mind rather decisively. I wonder whether you've read more on this case than I have?
Any decisions she could have made fly in the face of other allegations around grooming, brainwashing... this is surely just differing opinions rather than objective fact? She may have said blah blah at the time but how much of that was hammered into her?
How many of us have stuck with shitty relationships, going "yes but I love her/him and I'm sure they'll change" when it's way past its sell-by date? I know I have, more than once. Something as relatively simple as an abusive partner, it's easy for the victim to make excuses for, to leap to defend the indefensible. See my tee-shirt. Now extend that out to an organised terror group deliberately targeting teenagers over a sustained period of months or years... 🤷♂️
Equally Shamina’s husband, a former citizen of the Netherlands, also had his citizenship removed at the same time.
Utterly irrelevant to anything, n-est-ce pas?
it’s been covered numerous times in this thread already. If you choose to not acknowledge that she bares even some responsibility for the situation she finds herself in then I don’t think anyone on here will be able to persuade you otherwise…and further explanation is a waste of time
I haven't at any point said that I don't feel she bears any responsibility for her actions. I'm merely trying to understand, not judge.
...
There are two polar options here isn't there.
1) She's a victim.
2) She's a shit.
I think that leaping to either of those conclusions based on the knowledge we have in the public domain is probably a mistake. If I were to guess I'd say the truth is somewhere around 1.5.
I can’t find any reason why Shamima can’t be returned, under such a principle.
Shamina's case has been heard by both the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, and the Supreme court made the point that she doesn't actually have to be in the country to get a fair trail, summed up in para 110 and issued in para's 90-94 in their Judgement
The Supreme Court can rule what they like but it doesn’t mean squat if she’s not a UK citizen, surely?
The Supreme court are ruling on whether she is entitled to return to the UK plus some other associated matters as part of her appeal against having citizenship removed. So it does mean rather a lot.
Shamina’s case has been heard by both the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, and the Supreme court made the point that she doesn’t actually have to be in the country to get a fair trail, summed up in para 110 and issued in para’s 90-94 in their Judgement
But that doesn't relate in any way to the principle of non-refoulement. So I have to question why you've brought up something that's already been discussed on here?
This article summarises things very well, although it's still utterly confusing to most people I'd imagine:<br /><br /> https://www.statelessness.eu/updates/blog/shamima-begum-supreme-court-judgment-what-are-implications-statelessness-cases
Genuine question: under whose legal jurisdiction does she fall when she’s stateless? The Supreme Court can rule what they like but it doesn’t mean squat if she’s not a UK citizen, surely?
There's a very strong argument that she still is a UK citizen, as the decision to strip her of UK citizenship is invalid as it was based on the wrongful assumption she is a foreign national. She has never made any application even, for Bangladeshi citizenship. This is just a red herring used by the British government to try to get rid of her. It's not a tactic they could use if her parents were UK born, hence it's racist, as it discriminates against her unfairly. So Nickc; I will ask again:
You seem to be trying to justify the actions of the former Home Secretary, an individual that I and I’m sure many others find utterly repulsive and morally reprehensible. Can you explain why please?
Can you explain why please?
Because justice cuts both ways.
In the Supreme Court judgement they made the point that the Home Sec was entitled to take inference from the fact that she made the decision to stay there for four years, when all around her people in exactly her situation were legging it home as fast as their little trollies would carry them. Yes she's been trafficked, and you need to take that into consideration, but you do also need to take into consideration all the things that she does differently to everyone else. Plus, and again reading the Supreme Court decision transcript is valuable, it makes the point that its seen the secret service assessment of her, and while they point out that its secret and they can't say what's in it, they do make the point that is did materially affect their decision, and that importantly; it was entirely consistent and appropriate for the Home Sec to take their (SIS) advice about her
Again. I'll make the point I think Javid made the wrong decision to take away her citizenship, but its also wrong to say she hasn't had her day in court.
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