Forum menu
This is what I find utterly astonishing:
In a summary of the ruling, Mr Justice Jay said: "The commission concluded that there was a credible suspicion that Ms Begum had been trafficked to Syria.
"The motive for bringing her to Syria was sexual exploitation to which, as a child, she could not give a valid consent.
"The commission also concluded that there were arguable breaches of duty on the part of various State bodies in permitting Ms Begum to leave the country as she did and eventually cross the border from Turkey into Syria."
So the court fully accepts that she was, as a child, the victim. And yet despite that, that she should be stripped of her birthright and in effect punished for the remainder of her life.
If this is being passed off as "justice" then it makes complete mockery of the term justice.
It is precisely the perversion of the concept of justice which I would associate with a brutal dictatorship.
Home Secretary has the power to strip anyone of citizenship with a quick signature or did when I worked for the Home Office many moons ago, may of changed now.
Not put out by the fact she has lost her case.
I was trafficked to Magaluf in the early nineties. I was a but a seventeen year old horny child with cash to burn, and yet that travel agent, motivated purely by financial gain groomed me with tales of cheap booze and loose women.
If this is being passed off as “justice” then it makes complete mockery of the term justice.
It's not justice at all, it's just respecting the fact UK law offers her (or any of us) no protection if a Home Secretary decides to remove our citizenship, even if it makes us stateless, irrespective of whether we are guilty or innocent, a perpetrator or a victim. We're in that dangerous territory where democracy is taken to mean that the government can arbitrarily remove all rights from any citizen, or group of citizens. It is what I would associate with a brutal dictatorship as well... it's a reminder of where the idea of democracy as purely about voting and not about rights, justice and protections can take us.
This is test of whether the Home Secretary acted within the law (he did). That's not the same as a test of the rightness of the law, which will be at a higher court than this review. A test of "justice" is the latter. Expect this to and up at the Supreme Court eventually.
I was trafficked to Magaluf in the early nineties. I was a but a seventeen year old horny child with cash to burn, and yet that travel agent, motivated purely by financial gain groomed me with tales of cheap booze and loose women.
So you want to turn a court's decision that a 15 year old child was trafficked to Syria to be sexually exploited into some sort of joke?
Classy.
Still I guess that crass comments is all that you have left.
Home Secretary has the power to strip anyone of citizenship with a quick signature....
He or she needs to say those magic words "national security" first, although not necessarily provide any evidence.
I would dearly love to see the next Labour Home Secretary strip all those Tory politicians who have been rubbing shoulders and accepting money from the Russian oligarchy of their citizenships, on the grounds of "national security".
Although as Yvette Cooper is likely to be the next UK Home Secretary I won't be holding my breath.
The court was asked to adjudicate if the Home Secretary had acted legally. They concluded he had. Thats what the hearing was about. It gave no legal view on if she was there by force or her own choice as that was not within the courts remit
It gave no legal view on if she was there by force or her own choice as that was not within the courts remit
Yes it did:
The commission concluded that there was a credible suspicion that Ms Begum had been trafficked to Syria.
“The motive for bringing her to Syria was sexual exploitation to which, as a child, she could not give a valid consent".
Credible suspicion is not evidence or proof of anything. It means there is some suspicion that hasn’t been tested in a court
if a Home Secretary decides to remove our citizenship, even if it makes us stateless
- I don't think she is stateless though, is she? She has dual Bangladeshi citizenship. Not sure you can make someone stateless.
What happened to the girls that she travelled to Syria with? Did they return or were they killed? (Sorry if mentioned in the previous 10 pages!)
I wax and wane on this one. I don't know all the details, or how much of a threat to national security she now is. But she was trafficked as a child. I did a lot of stupid things at 15. (Not as bad as heading to Syria to join ISIS, mind).
She had Bangladeshi citizenship, through her parents, until she was 21.
Credible suspicion is not evidence or proof of anything.
So you think that the court ruled, quote:
"The motive for bringing her to Syria was sexual exploitation to which, as a child, she could not give a valid consent”.
Without "evidence or proof of anything"?
You don't have much confidence in British justice, do you?
I don’t think she is stateless though, is she?
Yes, she is.
She has dual Bangladeshi citizenship.
No, she does not.
She had Bangladeshi citizenship, through her parents, until she was 21.
No she didn't. She has never had Bangladeshi citizenship. It is not given automatically to anyone born in the UK to Bangladeshi parents, it has to be applied for.
Shamima Begum has never applied for Bangladeshi citizenship. Why would a British child living in London apply for the citizenship of a country on the other side of the world?
What happened to the girls that she travelled to Syria with? Did they return or were they killed?
Yeah they died.
She has dual Bangladeshi citizenship.
Nope. UK withdrew citizenship so it's Bangladeshi only now. Although they don't like that one little bit...
She never had Bangladeshi citizenship, she only ever had UK citizenship. And her parents stopped having Bangladeshi citizenship when they took UK citizenship (IIRC).
Badly expressed. I think she could have applied for it until 21.
Yeah she could have done but didn't so at the time that the government stripped her of her UK citizenship she was left stateless.
Although they don’t like that one little bit…
And our government would like it if they could offload responsibility for her because her parents were immigrants.
I'm actually pleased the court said “The motive for bringing her to Syria was sexual exploitation to which, as a child, she could not give a valid consent”. They didn't have to make this statement and could have just said it was legal.
So I think it is positive they have said this and it will allow the debate on rights and wrongs of if she should have had her citizenship stripped to be further questioned and no doubt subject of further proceedings. However this was a test about if the Government can legally remove someone's citizenship - worryingly they can.
They didn’t have to make this statement and could have just said it was legal.
They dont seem overly happy with the decision they had to legally make.
Understandably.
So a sitting Home Secretary can simply say the magic words ‘National Security’ and strip you of your citizenship with no opportunity for you to challenge that.
The law gave the Home Secretary that power. That power has, and will again, be abused.
Interesting comments by the court - seems to me they are pointing out that the decision is not one they are comfortable with.
Soldier Lisa Smith. Converted, joined ISIS, went to Syria etc
Got 15 months. No removal of citizenship.
Not a child. Similar case and two completely different judgements.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisa_Smith_(soldier)
Did Lisa have dual nationality?
And our government would like it if they could offload responsibility for her because her parents were immigrants.
No, probably because they feel she is a terrorist, who is not repentant, and playing the system. It has nothing to do with her parents at all. I suspect that is the government's view.
Did Lisa have dual nationality?
No more than Shamima Begum did.
No, probably because they feel she is a terrorist
If they thought that they would be demanding her extradition claiming that she had to face justice.
It has nothing to do with her parents at all
It has everything to do with her parents. If both her parents were British born British citizens, like her, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
No more than Shamima Begum did.
And yet,
This isn't the first time a legal challenge by Ms Begum's lawyers has failed. In February 2020 the same commission rejected her team's argument that she had been made "de facto stateless" when her citizenship was removed.
It agreed with the Home Office's position that since she was technically entitled to Bangladeshi citizenship, it wasn't legally obliged to allow her to keep her UK rights.
- BBC article on their front page.
I suspect that is the government’s view.
Arrest her.
Try her and lock her up then.
A less charitable view of the governments view is it was handy for the home secretary to look tough.
Lets get her in a court though rather than at a politicians whim.
It agreed with the Home Office’s position that since she was technically entitled to Bangladeshi citizenship, it wasn’t legally obliged to allow her to keep her UK rights.
BBC article on their front page.
Did you follow the link from there to the story...?
Shamima Begum is not a Bangladeshi citizen and there is "no question" of her being allowed into the country, Bangladesh's ministry of foreign affairs has said.
The UK has stripped the 19-year-old - who fled London to join the Islamic State group - of British citizenship.
Such a move is only possible if an individual is eligible for citizenship elsewhere.
It was thought Ms Begum had Bangladeshi citizenship through her mother.
But the ministry of foreign affairs said the government was "deeply concerned" she had been "erroneously identified" as a Bangladeshi national.
In a statement, it said Ms Begum had never applied for dual nationality with Bangladesh and had never visited the country.
The UK Home Office wants to designate a UK citizen as a foreign citizen because their parents were immigrants. It has won legal battle after legal battle because the Home Secretary has legal powers to pretty much do as they wish. The legal case you're referring to seems to hang on the meaning of "eligible" or "entitled"... she has not and has never been a Bangladeshi citizen, has never applied to be one, has been told she'd be turned down even if she did apply, and has never even lived there... see has only ever been a UK citizen, and is now stateless.
I did, and -
Bangladesh’s ministry of foreign affairs has said.
Well that's that then! Case closed!
Did Lisa have dual nationality?
Since she was born in Ireland and served in the Irish army and air corp I think its a safe bet she has dual UK/Irish nationality.
Oh so that woman is Irish? What on earth has that got to do with anything then?
Well that’s that then! Case closed!
As they alone do appear to have the final say on who has Bangladeshi citizenship then you seem to be right, it is case closed.
Oh so that woman is Irish? What on earth has that got to do with anything then?
I thought dyna-ti point was fairly obvious.
Why hasnt she had her UK citizenship removed the same as Begum. If anything its more justifiable since there is no question about her having alternate citizenship.
ernielynch Full Member
I would dearly love to see the next Labour Home Secretary strip all those Tory politicians who have been rubbing shoulders and accepting money from the Russian oligarchy of their citizenships, on the grounds of “national security”.
While the wish to see this lot punished for what they've done in government is beguilling, the arbitrary and summary punishment of political opponents would accelerate the race to the bottom that UK politics seems to be engaged in to supersonic speeds.
Any Tory politicians found to have done such things should be dealt with through the courts will full transparency, anything else would just make everything so much worse.
Well it's irrelevant, regardless of what you, me, or man in Bangladesh says. The UK has found her technically entitled to Bangladesh citizenship and has thus been able to legally strip her of her UK citizenship. And the Appeals Commission agrees with them. These are the facts. This has happened has it not?
I understand that you and others think that it is wrong. But that doesn't mean it hasn't happened. I think the key word here is technically.
Perhaps the young lady and her lawyers could try the Bangladeshi decision next.
Perhaps the young lady and her lawyers could try the Bangladeshi decision next.
Why? She has no connection to the country beyond her parents being born there.
She’s never lived there, never had citizenship there. She’s a Brit. She’s our problem.
I don't know f all about the case but she can't be the only one. Smells of media manipulation of the masses to me.
Only issue I can see is she now considered a risk to to deep indoctrination (as she went out so young and is now considered "too far gone") but pressing any charges would be difficult? I have no idea about the law on this or how the other in a similar situation are being dealt with.
Perhaps the young lady and her lawyers could try the Bangladeshi decision next.
Explain why you think that would be appropriate - she is British not Bangladeshi.
She was born in Britian not Bangladesh. Do you know if she has ever been to Bangladesh or even speaks Bangladeshi?
I suspect that your sentiments are basically racist - ie she isn't proper British because her parents were immigrants from a former British colony.
Although I am happy to hear why you think she might be more Bangladeshi than British.
Why? She has no connection to the country beyond her parents being born there.
I've absolutely no idea. You'd have to ask the government lawyers for an explanation. I suspect it'll be some morally-dubious crafty little technicality.
Explain why you think that would be appropriate
To get out of the Syrian camp she's in of course. The rest of your post is irrelevant, see the first half of this post.