Forum menu
My position is this is entirely political.. If this was a middle class white girl from Surrey we wouldn't be having this conversation.
Are you familiar with Jack Letts? He is a middle class white boy from Oxfordshire who moved to Islamic State territory, is not accused of direct terrorist activity, had his UK citizenship removed because one of his parents is an immigrant, and is currently in custody of Kurdish militia in Syria.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Letts
Not familiar but that's wrong IMO.
Revoking citizenship is lazy and very wrong IMO.
It's a convenient way of making a perceived problem dissappear rather than addressing the real, wider and more fundamental issues
Revoking citizenship is lazy and very wrong IMO.
It's a convenient way of making a perceived problem dissappear rather than addressing the real, wider and more fundamental issues
I think that is quite a binary POV and IMO sometimes the revocation of citizenship can be a valid method to protect the public. Occasionally the best way to deal with a fundamental issue, i.e to protect the UK people, is to remove that issue from the UK. IMO this would relate more to conventional crime cases rather than terrorism but I can see why it might be regarded as the best option in some CT too.
Not sure I agree with lazy given how little the power is used and how long the cases drag on for.
Occasionally the best way to deal with a fundamental issue, i.e to protect the UK people, is to remove that issue from the UK.
The practical effect of this is to flush the Begum problem either onto the Kurds or the Bangladeshis, both of whom are much worse equipped to deal with the issue. Both Syria and Bangladesh have porous borders, weak institutions and low ability to track individuals.
If you really wanted to protect the UK from Begum (a 26 year old partially-educated woman), you'd bring her back and bang her up or keep her under surveillance in the UK.
I think I reality the UK government has been secretly hoping that Begum will simply die in Syria (like her 2 friends and her children) through illness or the violence that both sweep these camps. That's not a strategy.
I didn't say I agreed with it in the Begum case.
I didn't say I agreed with it in the Begum case.
Bangladeshi citizenship is provided primarily jus sanguinis, or through bloodline, irrespective of the place or the legitimacy of the birth
Yet they (the Bangladeshis) chose not to allow this as they aren't dumping ground for our foul-ups. The Supreme Court has no legal standing in Bangladesh and is not competent to pronounce on what they need to do. The courts here may know what the law abroad is but has no ability to compel a foreign power to act as we would prefer.
Revoking citizenship is lazy and very wrong IMO.
It's a convenient way of making a perceived problem dissappear rather than addressing the real, wider and more fundamental issues
I think that is quite a binary POV and IMO sometimes the revocation of citizenship can be a valid method to protect the public. Occasionally the best way to deal with a fundamental issue, i.e to protect the UK people, is to remove that issue from the UK. IMO this would relate more to conventional crime cases rather than terrorism but I can see why it might be regarded as the best option in some CT too.
Not sure I agree with lazy given how little the power is used and how long the cases drag on for.
It is somewhat binary, because I very strongly belive in the strongest terms possible, the government and judiciary should be independent of each other for edge/bull shit sceanarios like this.
Politics and religion have no place in law, as far as I'm concerned.
The law should apply to all, and be applied in an equal and transparent manner, not decided by a transieant government or a 'red top' news paper de jour in a willy nilly manner depending on what mood they are in, that day.
Once that balance starts getting tinkered with, be it by racist brexit voters or racist 'news papers', very bad and far reaching things happen to all of our fundamental human rights.
A fundamental part of the ECHR, and human rights in general, is the right to a fair trail, and the farrages and weatherspoons patrons of this country don't seem to appreciate that.
It's a slippery slope into facism.
Non of this bullshit is nessesary - the government should have just brought her back and tried her in a contolled legal environment.
But we are where we are..the UK government mis-stepped, over reached, and ****ed up.
Mistakes happen, if there's one thing we can guarentee in life, it is that mistakes will be made.
It's what we do now to correct it, and if lessons are learned, that makes a good and progressive society, rather than a regressive, like the USA seem to be currently doing.
T
Web glitches causing multiple replies.
Being eligible for citizenship and having citizenship are two very different things.
Merely living in Japan for 5 years made me eligible to apply for Japanese citizenship.
I wasn’t even a permanent resident.
It’s nonsense to claim that someone is actually a citizen by dint of having fulfilled some requirements to be a citizen.
Good posts by mattyfez and sandwich above.
I would add that the UK governments and legal systems actions tell a section of society that they are not considered full and equal members of UK society therefore making them feel isolated and mistreated and making them candidates for radicalisation. The government has not made us safer, by cutting off one head they are allowing many more to grow.
I would also say that a one line summary of "fake law" by "the secret barrister" would be that "the uk legal system is independent in principle but not in practice"
I would also say that a one line summary of "fake law" by "the secret barrister" would be that "the uk legal system is independent in principle but not in practice"
Could also be summed up by "Reacting to Press populism weakens all our rights"
The law should apply to all, and be applied in an equal and transparent manner, not decided by a transieant government or a 'red top' news paper de jour in a willy nilly manner depending on what mood they are in, that day.
As long as you stick to should then that’s fine. In the real world we all know that’s not true.