I think it is all a bit more nuanced than it is made out to be. It is illegal under international law to make someone stateless. The reason she could have her UK citizenship revoked is because she also has Bangladeshi citizenship.
This is untrue and needs challenging. She has been left stateless which is the illegality.
Link to the modern use of Treason in International Law:
You are all over the place Duffy. I will remind you of what you said:
Trafficked or Terrorist? Neither. Traitor maybe.
You said that Shamima Begum could possibly be described as a traitor.
And you fully acknowledge that no one has been found guilty of treason since Lord Haw-Haw was hanged in 1946, and now that you are using the modern term of Treason in International Law.
So you are saying that a 15 year old girl was possibly guilty of a crime that no one else has been found guilty of for nearly 80 years? Get a grip FFS.
And why does her alleged support for terrorism make her possibly guilty of treason but it doesn't make this white British terrorist boy guilty of the same crime:
https://www.cps.gov.uk/cps/news/youngest-british-terrorist-sentenced-neo-nazi-manuals-stash
In your desperate attempt to prove racism
Yeah right, it's got **** all to do with racism 🙄
The reason she could have her UK citizenship revoked is because she also has Bangladeshi citizenship.
So I keep hearing, through her parents I believe. Yet Bangladesh doesn't want her either. So it's sour grapes because the UK binned her off first and now Bangladesh can't otherwise she'd be stateless so is claiming that she never was Bangladeshi/dual nationality in the first place. Is that the crux of the argument?
Yet Bangladesh doesn’t want her either.
IMO the whole Bangladeshi thing is a complete red herring, she is a British born British citizen. But even if you want to go down that road she is not entitled to Bangladeshi citizenship :
Bangladesh's nationality laws say that any individual who has parents with Bangladeshi citizenship is automatically deemed entitled to citizenship.
The law, however, states that this entitlement expires if the individual has not claimed it before the age of 21.
It is a fact which the British courts fully accept:
N3 citizenship was restored in 2018 by the Special Immigration Appeals Committee (SIAC), which rejected the government's argument that he was entitled to Bangladeshi citizenship and had not therefore been left stateless.
N3 was born in Bangladesh but was entitled to British citizenship by birth, and he grew up in the UK. SIAC ruled that his right to claim Bangladeshi citizenship had expired at the age of 21.
Shamima Begum is 23 years old.
IMO the whole Bangladeshi thing is a complete red herring, she is a British born British citizen. But even if you want to go down that road she is not entitled to Bangladeshi citizenship :
Right, I see. Thanks. Sounds like the UK Gov will have to take her back eventually then but are kicking the can down the road because they know the voters will kick off.
Who on earth is she going to appeal to to reinstate her Nationality? Who has jurisdiction? International Courts of Justice mebbies?
because they know the voters will kick off.
I'm not convinced of that at all. If she has her British citizenship which she is fully entitled to restored and she returns to the UK to face British justice who is going to complain?
I can't imagine a "stop this madness, Shamima Begum must not be held legally accountable for any crimes she might be guilty of" campaign by the Daily Mail, for example.
I expect all loyal British subjects to have profound faith in British justice! It's probably the best in the world. Surely.
Who on earth is she going to appeal to to reinstate her Nationality? Who has jurisdiction?
According to my link above the Special Immigration Appeals Committee.
They have already rejected the government’s argument in a very similar case.
K. I assumed it'd be outside of the UK's processes.
Can't imagine why she'd want to if everyone is so sure she's got zero chance of a fair trial... I'd have thought her life here would be pretty shitty tho mebbies slightly less shitty than one in Syria...
She'd get a fair trial here. And life after whatever sentence she got would be far better than one in a land she doesn't know (and infinitely better than living in a refugee camp!).
I think she stands a very good chance of a fair trial. Despite the suggestion what she did as a 15 year old child is not of the magnitude of what Lord Haw-Haw did.
A couple of days ago a child got convicted of killing a 14 year old when he was 16
https://news.met.police.uk/news/teenager-pleads-guilty-to-murder-in-croydon-460029
I'm sure that he got a fair trial. I don't think what Begum is possibly guilty of is any worse than that. I can't see that the publicity makes much difference. I don't even know what specific crimes she would be charged of. Organising terrorism? I don't think so. It's hard to be prejudicial when you don't even know what they are accused of. Plenty of high profile terrorist cases have been fairly judged.
It's a tragic story. Groomed, trafficked and abused. What a disgraceful country the UK is. All that and stories which suggest the intelligence services knew exactly what was happening and may have been directly involved. At 15, the law considers you unable to make decisions over your own body, drive, join the army, or vote; yet perfectly able to make a responsible decision to join a terrorist network?
Definition of grooming from the nspcc website as follows:
“What is grooming? Grooming is when someone builds a relationship, trust and emotional connection with a child or young person so they can manipulate, exploit and abuse them. Children and young people who are groomed can be sexually abused, exploited or trafficked.”
Quite clear. She was a child who was groomed and trafficked.
Fraser guidelines and Gillick competency is case law used when a child under 16 wants to make their own decision, usually regarding medical intervention, which contradicts what their parent or carer would decide.
Of course the case is very different but:
“- their understanding of the issue and what it involves - including advantages, disadvantages and potential long-term impact
- their understanding of the risks, implications and consequences that may arise from their decision
- how well they understand any advice or information they have been given”
If someone had sat down with shamina prior to her joining isis and gone through the above with her, would she have been found to be “gillick competent”? Very much doubt it.
Whether or not the treatment is right or wrong could part of the rationale for removal of citizenship be to send a message to others thinking of going the same way.
Whilst being tried here might not be a smooth ride for a ‘perpetrator’, I suspect it would be seen as an easier/fairer ride than being left in another country.
The whole citizenship issue is as much a travesty for Bangladesh.
Imagine if roles were reversed. A Bangladeshi national came to the UK to join a terrorism organisation, we want to send her back where she came from deport her, but Bangladesh revokes her citizenship so we can't and we're stuck with her. Can you imagine the headlines? The gutter press would be dining out on it for years.
We can't have it both ways. If we want to enjoy the ability to return criminals to their points of origin then we have to reciprocate. She is - was - a British citizen. Like it or not she's our mess to deal with.
What i have never quite understood about this story is why, given that 'we' seem to have decided that she is somehow terribly dangerous, have decided that 'someone else' should now take her.
If you pull the pin from a grenade, you can't just then hand it to someone else and ask them to deal with it.
Because there is a percentage of this country that doesn't want brown doctors here, let alone brown terrorists.
I don't know. I think Ernie's whataboutery around "white terrorists" is a bit of a misdirection, but he's right in that it's difficult to believe that race hasn't at least been a contributory factor here. I'd be surprised if the decision to revoke her citizenship (breaking international law) wasn't driven by an attempt to point-score with public opinion.
I think as much as race its religion thats the problem. If she had "run away" to join a terrorist group based on "christianity" would the reaction have been the same?
I’m not all over the place Ernie. Terrorism can be applied and proven in a number of ways, domestic, incitement, etc. the difference between the two cases you outline above is that one person was promoting terrorism against certain groups inside and outside of the UK based on race, religion, etc. The other is of someone actively taking up arms against their own country.
The law journal I linked to (which you obviously didn’t bother to read fully) talks about RENEWED interest in charges of treason SPECIFICALLY for cases which have similarities to this case. The thought behind charges of treason is specifically to separate them from domestic terrorism, particularly when action is not nationally directed. And yes, the application of treason as a charge is additionally supposed to reinforce national identity.
Again, skin colour has nothing to do with it, neither does religion, at least not specifically. The issue here is about what IS were/are, what she knew about it and her intent when joining them.
Let me put it in another context: if someone from Ukraine decided to actively join and support Russian forces engaged in Ukraine, would they be a terrorist or a traitor?
One persons terrorist / traitor is anothers freedom fighter
Mandala? Gerry Adams? Jomo Kenyatta?
Edit: Im not saying Begum was right just that the terrorist / traitor label is not easy to define
The dividing line on this thread is clear, some of us are prepared to empathise with a 15 year old girl caught in a cultural web and fed huge amounts of misinformation. I think we see crime as a result of society and want to rehabilitate and show criminals that civilisation is the way forward, and the other half are a bit old testament and want to write off anyone who transgresses. We soft liberal types have to ensure that we are still nice and forgiving to those that we disagree with.
I think as much as race its religion thats the problem. If she had “run away” to join a terrorist group based on “christianity” would the reaction have been the same?
I suspect you're right - I linked to it on page one but there was an item on the BBC recently about a young girl who was groomed by right-wing extremists, who went as far as downloading bomb-making instructions. Her prosecution was halted because she'd been exploited (albeit far later than it should have been - a reflection of the goverment's gross mishandling of the criminal justice system), but it stands in stark contrast to the Shamima Begum case.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-63736944
I think as much as race its religion thats the problem. If she had “run away” to join a terrorist group based on “christianity” would the reaction have been the same?
I doubt it.
To the "send them back where they came from" brigade, having a complexion associated with the Indian Subcontinent and being Muslim are synonymous. You're one of "them" not one of "us." The only time these roasters care about religion is when they can squawk about sharia law, Muslim rape gangs or banning Christmas. They probably think Begum is a [the four-letter short form of ****stani].
Consider:
Brown person runs away to join a Christian terrorism group.
White person runs away to join a Muslim terrorism group.
What do we suppose the media narrative would be in either case?
The whole citizenship issue is as much a travesty for Bangladesh.
Yes thats one of several reasons to object to the removal of citizenship part.
She was born and raised in the UK so just shrugging and going "its your problem now" to some country she has limited interaction with is more than a tad dubious.
I've just thought,
Does that mean that even if we wanted to extradite her, we no longer could?
Does that mean that even if we wanted to extradite her, we no longer could?
Probably not. Extradition is about whether something has committed a crime in your country not whether they are a citizen.
I guess it would depend on whether the law required the person to be a citizen (traitor or similar) but even then I think it would be "they were at the time of the offence".
Hm. Did I use the wrong word?
I thought that as a British citizen we could ask / demand Bangladesh send her back, now we can't? I don't really understand this stuff TBH.
She can't go to Bangladesh, pretty sure they've said they'll execute her. Besides, she doesn't speak the language and has never been there before.
Edit - ah, I'll tone that down - they've said she won't be allowed in and will face the death penalty if she did. Which is not the same as pledging to execute her, but still - it'd put me off.
TiRed linked to this when it was on live yesterday, but it's now on BBC Sounds. I listened to the first one yesterday, I think it's going to be an eye-opener.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/brand/p08yblkf
We soft liberal types have to ensure that we are still
nice and forgivingfair to those that we disagree with.
I can live with that.
Wherever posters are falling on the traitor-victim continuum, it’s very telling that there hasn’t been a single argument, elegant or course, in favour of the removal of Begum’s citizenship. That is a shocking indictment on the state of our government, and makes me think that if STW is an echo chamber it’s one of decency and humanity. I’m glad I’m within it.
I do wonder if Javid, in possession of all available details of possible charges and legal opinion on probable outcomes given the evidence available, took the decision to render Begum stateless because there’s a very good chance that she would not be found guilty of anything at all and the Tories couldn’t risk losing that sort of face to the dirty right gutter press and it’s baying readership?
I’m also of the opinion that he took the decision knowing full well that it was illegal and will be overturned in the fullness of time, but did it to kick the can down the road and make it somebody else’s problem. If/when the decision is found to be illegal, I hope (forlornly) that Javid is held criminally accountable for effectively the most cynical and disgusting abuse of (absolute) power against a minor that you could possibly think up.
I’m not all over the place Ernie.
Yeah you are. You claim that Shamima Begum could possibly be described as a traitor, and then you yourself point out that the last person found guilty of treason was someone that was hanged in 1946.
Initially I thought you were using the term "traitor" in a non-legal sense, which still made it an inappropriate term to use, but then you emphasis that you are using it in the legal sense of the term, which makes it even more inappropriate to use.
You are using the term in the same context as it was used in the case of Lord Haw-Haw FFS. Who btw wasn't even British, he was born in the USA, both his parents were Irish, he became a German citizen in 1940, and the British passport that he had previously secured he wasn't even entitled to have. His conviction for treason was in fact illegal and the only reason it happened was to satisfy public opinion - which is possibly the only similarities between him and the case of Shamima Begum.
it’s very telling that there hasn’t been a single argument, elegant or course, in favour of the removal of Begum’s citizenship.
When you made the mess, it’s your responsibility to clear it up. The decision will be found to be illegal and she’ll be back to face justice. I have no issue with that whatsoever. Whether a trafficked victim of grooming or not, it’s for the courts to decide not a Home Secretary. I thought that it was a disgusting decision personally. That’s before you count the cost of the death of one British citizen (her remaining child who died).
I think Ernie’s whataboutery....
What you dismiss as whataboutery is a vital aspect of justice cougar. It provides fairness and equality.
And the whole concept of "legal precedent" is entirely based on whataboutery.
To dismiss equality in the eyes of the law and whataboutery in a fair justice system is absurd.
The dividing line on this thread is clear, some of us are prepared to empathise with a 15 year old girl caught in a cultural web and fed huge amounts of misinformation. I think we see crime as a result of society and want to rehabilitate and show criminals that civilisation is the way forward, and the other half are a bit old testament and want to write off anyone who transgresses.
Nice attempt at oversimplification there but no, it's not that binary. There are some who think she may be guilty or innocent ('we' absolutely don't know) but should be allowed to come back to her home Country to face whatever is in store for her under the Rule of Law. No flaying/burning at the stake etc, just the usual legal process which doesn't involve arbitrarily (and illegally) making her Stateless.
If she's innocent through manipulation (or whatever) this should form part of her defence.
There are some who think she may be guilty or innocent (‘we’ absolutely don’t know) but should be allowed to come back to her home Country to face whatever is in store for her under the Rule of Law.
Yup, that's me. I certainly believe that a 15 child can be held responsible for breaking the law and should face the consequences if necessary.
But if Shamima Begum is guilty of anything I have no reason to believe that it was high treason or some sort of hanging offence.
I certainly don't think that she should be stripped of her birthright to satisfy the bigotry of Daily Mail column writers.
There are some who think she may be guilty or innocent (‘we’ absolutely don’t know) but should be allowed to come back to her home Country to face whatever is in store for her under the Rule of Law.
I've said this before but no-one will disagree with that - it is however a seperate issue from the question of "trafficked or terrorist".
There are some who think she may be guilty or innocent (‘we’ absolutely don’t know) but should be allowed to come back to her home Country to face whatever is in store for her under the Rule of Law. No flaying/burning at the stake etc, just the usual legal process which doesn’t involve arbitrarily (and illegally) making her Stateless.
If she’s innocent through manipulation (or whatever) this should form part of her defence.
Not at all, I consider this approach to be part of the soft liberal view, my objection is to the removal of her citizenship. We show our civlization by bringing her back and putting her through the legal system. As you correctly said, she has not had a trial so we don't really know what happened. Lets bring her back and let the system do its work.
The current status is politcally driven, illegal, amoral, populist scumbaggery.
The dividing line is those who would include her in our society, and those who think it is fine to just metaphorically drop her in the ocean.
The more we reject anyone who we do not agree with, the more problems we create. She is one of us, and needs to be treated accordingly.
So the STW majoity view is that Begum should be allowed back, good. What about the others for whom no effort is being made?
https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/two-british-nationals-repatriated-northeast-syria-camps
Poor excuses from the government. It contrasts starkly with other events when military operations are undertaken to recover British citizens.
So the STW majoity view is that Begum should be allowed back, good. What about the others for whom no effort is being made?
I wouldn't expect opinion to be vastly different.
the question of “trafficked or terrorist”.
Aye but that's a single sentence and a very short thread: 'We don't know'
[/endthread] 🙂
Aye but that’s a single sentence and a very short thread: ‘We don’t know’
Indeed, even if she is a terrorist, we still need to try her as a peer.
So the STW majoity view is that Begum should be allowed back, good. What about the others for whom no effort is being made?
Presumably if the very high profile case of Shamima Begum is satisfactorily resolved the whataboutery it will generate, aka as legal precedent, will greatly help others in similar circumstances.
the whataboutery it will generate, aka as legal precedent
Exactly.
Yeah you are. You claim that Shamima Begum could possibly be described as a traitor, and then you yourself point out that the last person found guilty of treason was someone that was hanged in 1946.
I'm really not.
Initially I thought you were using the term “traitor” in a non-legal sense, which still made it an inappropriate term to use, but then you emphasis that you are using it in the legal sense of the term, which makes it even more inappropriate to use.
Why? I provided evidence to back up my side - where's yours or am I just arguing with opinions?
You are using the term in the same context as it was used in the case of Lord Haw-Haw FFS. Who btw wasn’t even British, he was born in the USA, both his parents were Irish, he became a German citizen in 1940, and the British passport that he had previously secured he wasn’t even entitled to have. His conviction for treason was in fact illegal and the only reason it happened was to satisfy public opinion – which is possibly the only similarities between him and the case of Shamima Begum.
Again, I'm not, and congratulations for finally reading something. The only reason this case was mentioned was that it was the last case of treason and you implied that others during the cold war had been found guilty, which they weren't- that's it. Other than the term, its potential modern application isnt at all similar. The law surrounding its use and its potential application are still uncertain.
I linked to the modern argument for the use of treason and thus traitor. I was aware of this growing trend in western democracies and law to differentiate between terrorism and treason. Hence why I said, "traitor maybe"
