Viewing 40 posts - 561 through 600 (of 764 total)
  • Shamima Begum – trafficked, or terrorist?
  • nickc
    Full Member

    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. 

    IHN
    Full Member

    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.

    brownperson
    Free Member

    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.

    brownperson
    Free Member

    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.

    This. And only this. 

    tjagain
    Full Member

    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

    nickc
    Full Member

    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.

    zomg
    Full Member

    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.

    jamj1974
    Full Member

    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.

    tpbiker
    Free Member

    This. And only this. 

    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

    ernielynch
    Full Member

    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:

    Shamina Begum lawyer withdraws due to unfair process

    brownperson
    Free Member

    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.

    brownperson
    Free Member

    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.

    😂

    IHN
    Full Member

    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.

    ernielynch
    Full Member

    If you’ve got something constructive to add, please do. If not, shut the f–k up.

    100% that.

    Sandwich
    Full Member

    Justice is being done for the young woman. Well done the appeal court. Now she can have her day in court regarding support for a proscribed organisation.

    somafunk
    Full Member

    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

    brownperson
    Free Member

    ? 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.

    yoshimi
    Full Member

    Correct ruling reached – IMO of course

    argee
    Full Member

    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.

    brownperson
    Free Member

    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.

    Sandwich
    Full Member

    Woops didn’t hear the radio correctly due to a) age and b) too little coffee. The miscarriage of justice goes on.

    nickc
    Full Member

    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.

    somafunk
    Full Member

    In that case I apologise for my post above ☝️

    brownperson
    Free Member

    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.

    franksinatra
    Full Member

    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

    freeagent
    Free Member

    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.

    Whilst i agree with the sentiment here- i think it should be more like –

    3) If there’s a suspicion that she’s a shit, let her make her own way back, present herself at a UK border, try her for being a shit, cos that’s what a nation that believes in the rule of law is supposed to do.

    There is no way on earth we should be spending a penny of tax payers money, or risking anyone’s life to go and fish her out of a refugee camp – she made her way out there, she can make her own way back.

    convert
    Full Member

    Yes, this makes me incredibly uncomfortable too. A life sentence for a (significant) error of judgement at 15.

    I know the reasoning behind this is making an example of her, but I think it is so counterproductive. We make our future more secure and safe by winning over all but the most militant that as a society we are the good guys. This does not do that.

    IHN
    Full Member

    This case would be handled very differently if she was a white middle class kid with a more ‘English’ sounding name

    A wise man once said…

    I think I’ve said it before, but if her name was Jemima Baker, not Shamima Begum, and she was from Bath not Bethnal Green, this whole sorry saga would have been very different from the start.

    IHN
    Full Member

    There is no way on earth we should be spending a penny of tax payers money, or risking anyone’s life to go and fish her out of a refugee camp – she made her way out there, she can make her own way back.

    I mean, fair enough, but I’m not aware anyone has suggested that anything like that should happen

    brownperson
    Free Member

    There is no way on earth we should be spending a penny of tax payers money, or risking anyone’s life to go and fish her out of a refugee camp – she made her way out there, she can make her own way back.

    A refugee camp the UK government have forced her into. Returning her so would cost a hell of a lot less than continuing the current disgraceful saga. If you’re that worried about ‘taxpayers money’ (some of which is mine too, actually, just thought I’d point that out). And following your own logic; if you are accused of a crime then surely you should fund your own legal case, and if you can’t, then it’s jail for you. Right? Thought not. So let’s try to protect and improve justice instead. And give everyone equal rights under law.

    pondo
    Full Member

    So let me get this straight – we now have a precedent for the government making child victims of online grooming stateless and condemning them in absentia to a life sentence in Syria, is that right? Go us.

    Despicable case, ruining someone’s life as some kind of half-arsed propaganda tool.

    freeagent
    Free Member

    I wasn’t aware she’d been accused of a crime?
    For clarity, i don’t agree with revoking her citizenship – as a supposedly sensible and affluent country i feel we’ve got a responsibility to deal with our own issues, and not dump our trash on other people.

    However, i also feel we’ve got no responsibility to go and ‘rescue’ her – I personally feel she should have her citizenship reinstated and if she wants to make her way to Dover or Gatwick the authorities can treat her as they would any other UK citizen who left the country to join a terrorist organisation, then decided to come home when it didn’t work out.

    nickc
    Full Member

    I think eventually it will be found that making her stateless was unlawful in the beginning

    The Supreme Court case was to determine that very thing, and they concluded that it was not.

    dissonance
    Full Member

    The Supreme Court case was to determine that very thing, and they concluded that it was not.

    I thought the supreme court case was about whether she could return to the UK to appeal against the removal of citizenship and didnt really look at whether it was valid.

    Otherwise this appeal case today wouldnt make sense if the top court had already said no.

    nickc
    Full Member

    Justice should be blind; here is proof that it is not.

    Justice should also pay attention to the case from both sides, and the case laid out by the government was watertight perfectly correct and has been heard 3 times now at all levels of the justice system. Shamina’s case has been heard, and heard again. She has not lacked access to the justice system in the UK.

    As other young folks from all sorts of backgrounds and from all over Europe who were trafficked to ISIS have returned (and there are hundreds of them) with no issues whatsoever, only a few (Shamina and her husband for instance) have had re-entry refused. I don’t think this case has overtones of racism, its a lazy slur.

    nickc
    Full Member

    and didnt really look at whether it was valid.

    Nope, in the judgement they covered this. They decided that its perfectly legal for the Home Sec to ignore whether the action to deny her re-entry will make her stateless, if there is grounds of National Security. It looked at whether Javid had done that, and concluded that yes: He’d taken advice from the very people that are qualified to give that advice, and acted upon their advice. He was in fact perfectly entitled to make her stateless. It’s literally in his (or any future Home Secs) job description.

    MoreCashThanDash
    Full Member

    The more I’ve read into about her situation, especially the the BBC podcast, the more I feel that the government has created a situation out of all proportion to the actions of a 15 year old girl.

    Groomed, trafficked with the assistance of a Canadian intelligence source, abused, seen her friends and kids die, now left stateless. Other countries are repatriating former Isis members and charging them where appropriate.

    But more worrying, this sets a precedent that could be used to apply to any number of UK nationals a government deems to be a risk. As a foreign born British citizen, that concerns me greatly.

    brownperson
    Free Member

    Justice should also pay attention to the case from both sides, and the case laid out by the government was watertight perfectly correct and has been heard 3 times now at all levels of the justice system. Shamina’s case has been heard, and heard again. She has not lacked access to the justice system in the UK.

    She hasn’t had proper access to the UK justice system. For a start, she’s been in a refugee camp for the last few years, with very limited access to anyone. She hasn’t had a single day inside a UK court. If you want to be an apologist for the government’s racism, that’s your choice, but don’t make stuff up.

    The miscarriage is happening because there has been no mechanism for any courts to consider the fact the government’s decision to render her stateless was based on a lie. And this needs correcting. The Nationality and Borders bill was introduced to reinforce the racism inherent in tory government policy. This needs reversing. There has to be transparency and accountability with decisions about citizenship. It should never come down to the whim of a politician.

    brownperson
    Free Member

    Nope, in the judgement they covered this. They decided that its perfectly legal for the Home Sec to ignore whether the action to deny her re-entry will make her stateless, if there is grounds of National Security. It looked at whether Javid had done that, and concluded that yes: He’d taken advice from the very people that are qualified to give that advice, and acted upon their advice. He was in fact perfectly entitled to make her stateless. It’s literally in his (or any future Home Secs) job description.

    Why are you so intent on defending this racist government’s immorality?

Viewing 40 posts - 561 through 600 (of 764 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

RAFFLE ENDS FRIDAY 8PM