Shamima Begum – trafficked, or terrorist?

Assuming ‘we all’ are technically entitled to Bangladeshi citizenship of course.

Assuming ‘we all’ are technically entitled to Bangladeshi citizenship of course.

Why does that matter? She couldn’t get it even if she wanted it.

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.

Her parents have or held dual national status did they/do they not? Therefore, regardless of whether she was born outside of Bangladesh and irrespective of whether Bangladesh actually want her, the citizenship act inherited from Pakistan in the 50s means that by law she’s entitled to Bangladeshi citizenship. The fact that she doesn’t yet have it is again irrelevant from a point of law. If the UK strips her citizenship, she’s no longer a dual national and thus by writ of the citizenship act, is entitled to Bangladeshi status. In essence, by stripping her citizenship, the UK made it easier for her to have Bangladeshi citizenship as it removes the difficulty of dual national status.

Perhaps this is the legal thinking behind the judgement. Morally objectionable? Perhaps. Legal? Probably.

Bangladesh

Daffy, you’ve just argued very forcibly that Javid did make her stateless, but that she’s now free to apply for citizenship elsewhere. Still been made stateless. All other states could refuse her citizenship. Including Bangladesh, where she has never lived, and who have said they would refuse her.

The “it’s been justified by the courts” argument is a little bit “Lance has never failed a drugs test” for me.

Saudi Arabia publicly flogs or stones adulterers, cuts hands off robbers, and heads off homosexuals, but it’s OK because it’s justified by their courts / within their legal system?

Especially since we changed the law to allow this situation to occur.

It might technically be legal but when the authority defining “legal” is not controlled properly, where are we?

Is she stateless if she has almost guaranteed Bangladeshi citizenship were she to apply for it or is she just temporarily stateless?

I’m not sure Javid even knew about the laws pertaining to this before he acted. Certainly the Tories have a history of speaking first and worrying about the consequences later. But in this case, I’m relating it more to the recent judgement that it was deemed to be legal. There must be something allows them to firmly support the decision to strip her citizenship and I’m wondering if this might be the crux of the matter.

Ironic that they never managed to deport Captain Hook’s daughter-in-law even though she is Moroccan born and did time for trying to smuggle him a sim card in Belmarsh.

Still been made stateless. All other states could refuse her citizenship. Including Bangladesh, where she has never lived, and who have said they would refuse her.

The question is, now that the UK has acted, can they deny her? It would be Bangladesh not the UK making her stateless by denying her rights under the law.

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, 2023

Yesterday, 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, 2023

This 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, 2023

But 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…

'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, 2023

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 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