Shamima Begum – trafficked, or terrorist?

The tories have only really succeeded in pushing the problem down the road

So mission accomplished. If at some point she does end up back in the Uk then they can say the government of the day is weak and supports terrorists and all the other political drama they can make.

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

No doubt I am being a bit thick but I am struggling to follow this thread – what Supreme Court case?

As far as I am aware she hasn’t yet appealed to the Supreme Court?

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

…and we’re done. If you’re just going to imply that I’m racist or immoral by association I think it’s pointless discussing it with you.

I actually thought the opposite. I thought that by asking you why you are apparently defending “this racist government’s immorality” he was suggesting that you are not yourself racist or immoral?

Anyway can you explain what “Supreme Court case”?

“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”

This.

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.

This is my understanding also.

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.

Speculation.

he was suggesting

How do you know the poster is a ‘he’?

“Anyway can you explain what “Supreme Court case”?”

This is the second series of cases she has already been to the Supreme Court once, may go again if she appeals the decision announced today and leave is given.

How do you know the poster is a ‘he’?

Because he is familiar with what the poster has said in the past.

If only she’d been a university chaplain and gone to Israel to spend her vacation murdering children.

This is the second series of cases she has already been to the Supreme Court once, may go again if she appeals the decision announced today and leave is given.

Thanks mefty, I confess that I hadn’t read the thread very diligently and wasn’t aware that Nick was referring to the previous Supreme Court case which as dissonance suggests it’s really relevant to this latest court case.

Speculation.

Reality. Unless you can prove this has also happened to any  white, British born people. The current legislation is racist.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/freylindsay/2022/02/08/uk-immigration-bill-threatens-millions-of-ethnic-minority-britons-citizenship-rights/?sh=456a712b182d

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Letts

JackLetts did have dual nationality, this is the key difference.

…and we’re done. If you’re just going to imply that I’m racist or immoral by association I think it’s pointless discussing it with you.

No, I wasn’t implying anything. Just asking why you’re intent on defending this government’s racist immorality? Nobody was arguing the ‘legality’ of the court’s decision. We fully understand why the court made its decision, I think that was inevitable anyway. We’re just discussing the morality of it.

Unless you can prove this has also happened to any white, British born people.

You do realise the fallacy of this argument, yes? You cannot claim “racism” on the grounds of it being 100% of one case, L’Oreal has better statistics than that.

I’ve tried, and failed, to find any stats revealing demographic data for people the UK has made stateless. Everything I have found has been behind a paywall. If you have data showing that we routinely make former British citizens stateless or not based on skin colour then I would – genuinely – like to see it cos I’ve got nothing I’m afraid.

We’re just discussing the morality of it.

Well, of course it’s immoral. I think we reached that consensus about ten pages back.

I don’t doubt that racism is playing a large part in UK politics. I rather suspect that the treatment of Begum is at least in part the Tories pandering to their racist voters.

But claiming that it wouldn’t have happened if she were white without any further evidence to back that up is on shaky ground.

Well at least the Daily Hail can congratulate itself. Meanwhile a vulnerable child is left without a state because she was groomed into an ideology, that ideology will have the chance to groom her against because of how she’ll be feeling.

Unless you can prove this has also happened to any white, British born people.

Unless you can prove white British born always get away with it, then no it’s not.

But claiming that it wouldn’t have happened if she were white without any further evidence to back that up is on shaky ground.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/freylindsay/2022/02/08/uk-immigration-bill-threatens-millions-of-ethnic-minority-britons-citizenship-rights/?sh=456a712b182d

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/feb/26/surge-in-number-of-britons-fighting-to-hold-on-to-their-citizenship

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2021/12/exclusive-british-citizenship-of-six-million-people-could-be-jeopardised-by-home-office-plans

“New Statesman analysis of data from the Office for National Statistics also finds that two in every five people from non-white ethnic minorities (41 per cent) are likely to be eligible for deprivation of citizenship, compared with just one in 20 people categorised as white (5 per cent).”

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/u-k-strips-citizenship-isis-members-other-children-immigrants-decry-n1260396

https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2021/9/24/for-britons-like-me-british-citizenship-comes-with-conditions

Of course, you could double down and claim I’m ‘wrong’ in asserting that the UK Nationality and Borders bill is racist, but as someone with 50+ years of suffering racism as a non-white British citizen, I’ll go with what I know to be fact. If it’s all the same.

Unless you can prove white British born always get away with it, then no it’s not.

Why do I have to prove anything? Are you saying that the government’s policies surrounding immigration and denying British citizens their right to citizenship isn’t racist?

I do understand why others may hold views different to mine. Personally, I feel this is down to lived experience. There are many times in my life where I know I have suffered racism, but can’t ‘prove it’, certainly not in a ‘legal’ sense. Doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. It’s not just a ‘feeling’. So when people say ‘oh well prove it’, I just feel tired. Tired of having to try to explain that sometimes, just because YOU don’t experience something yourself, or cannot see it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. Please try to take this on board.

Having read those links abive there is an awful lot of could, might and therotically and no actual fact. Only the guaridan one actually has some facts in it about the number of sucessful and unsucessful appeals but it provides no evidence or comment on the race or if any of those sucessful or not had a recognised dual nationality status so no conclusions can be drawn.

Why do I have to prove anything?

Because you made the claim.

Did you not read the rest of my post? Why not try to understand, instead of trying to be clever?

Yes I did.

You claimed that it the current legislation is racist bur have failed to provide any proof. Fact is there no real identical case that you can be provided, so unless there is then it’s not racist. Belgium is innocent, a child preyed upon because of her vulnerability, and has been discarded because of a ridiculous law.

Yes I did

Yet you still failed to understand.

Fact is there no real identical case that you can be provided, so unless there is then it’s not racist

Perhaps not identical, but there have been many:

https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN06820/SN06820.pdf

“The Home Office does not publish data on the demographics of people who

have been deprived of their citizenship.38

However, there are (statistically speaking) relatively few cases of citizenship

deprivation, and the background and/or identity of the person concerned is

sometimes in the public domain. This has allowed some commentators to

collate the known cases and draw conclusions about the characteristics of

people deprived of their citizenship, particularly on the ‘public good’ ground:

• In 2011, the barrister Amanda Weston identified nine people by

nationality and said “the common denominator is that by far the majority

if not all are Muslims”.39

• In 2014, the Bureau of Investigative Journalism reviewed 53 deprivation

cases, from which it identified 18 individuals. Of those 18, “at least five”

had been born in the UK.40

• In 2022, the Institute of Race Relations commented “the vast majority of

those deprived are Muslim men with south Asian or middle Eastern/

north African heritage”.41

You claimed that it the current legislation is racist bur have failed to provide any proof

So is the above ‘proof’ enough for you?

Let me ask you a question; what is your experience of racism as a non-white British citizen?

Belgium is innocent

Hmm. I rather think that nation’s colonial past would suggest otherwise…

Belgium is innocent, a child preyed upon because of her vulnerability, and has been discarded because of a ridiculous law.

In my opinion she has been “discarded” for political expediency.

I rather suspect that the treatment of Begum is at least in part the Tories pandering to their racist voters.

I suspect it’s wholly for that reason.

Fact is there no real identical case that you can be provided, so unless there is then it’s not racist.

Eh? You mean if I act out of racial prejudice in a way that hasn’t been done before, then it’s not actually racist?

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.

I’m not entirely sure about that. Does anybody remember Sally-Anne Jones? Samantha Lewthwaite? both of whom were given the unimaginative nickname of ‘white widow’. One with Al-Shabaab and one with IS. Both were it seems far more directly engaged in terrorism than Shamima Begum was, but I could imagine a situation where a home secretary might have deprived them of citizenship were not one of them dead and the other on the run in Africa. I’m sure there are others too.

I disagree with the decision and think she should be returned to UK, but I’m not sure claims her treatment is solely due to her skin colour stack up.

but I could imagine a situation where a home secretary might have deprived them of citizenship

I’m not sure that would be possible as neither has a second nationality, however tenuous or unrealistic, so depriving them of citizenshipship would definitely render them stateless

Yep true and lots of hypotheticals I know. However if they did have a second nationality, I don’t think the fact they were born white British would have stayed a HS’ hand in revoking Brit citizenship. A clumsy analogy admittedly.

• In 2014, the Bureau of Investigative Journalism reviewed 53 deprivation
cases, from which it identified 18 individuals. Of those 18, “at least five”
had been born in the UK.

So potentially 13 we’re not born in the U.K. that’s not even close to conclusive evidence. Of those how many had turned up in known terrorist camps and were broadcasting their pr

UK immigration and nationality legislation is racist to its very core
IMO you would have to be remarkably naive not to think that.

And it is certainly not unique to Tory governments. IMO Labour governments have a disgraceful history of being responsible for racist immigration and nationality legislation stretching back to the 1960s.

Although in their defence the UK was a significantly more racist society in the 1960s than it is today. And Labour did in the 1960s introduce the first legislation which made racism actually illegal.

Having said all that UK immigration and nationality legislation is no more racist than the average European country, and in many cases probably less so. Racism against black/brown people is widespread across Europe.

Although on the issue of nationals with former links with the isis caliphate I get the impression that all other European countries have taken their responsibilities far more seriously than the UK has.

Yet you still failed to understand.

No I didn’t. The link and data you provided doesn’t prove your point, it mentions a a majority are Asian or Muslims. What it doesn’t say is how that works as a percentile or take into account factors of why any of them may have ended up in these circumstances.

Eh? You mean if I act out of racial prejudice in a way that hasn’t been done before, then it’s not actually racist?

No, and you know that.

Second thread lock of the night?

Can we just agree that making someone stateless is a dick move regardless of alleged crimes. If shes as guilty as people think she is she should have come home to face the allegations in court.

“ UK immigration and nationality legislation is racist to its very core
IMO you would have to be remarkably naive not to think that.”

chrismac knows exactly what he’s doing, shit stirring

She has paid her due, suffered enough, let her come home.

Perhaps not identical, but there have been many:

You know nothing about the specifics of those cases. You’re suggesting causation, when what’s more likely is correlation.

What are the primary reasons for deprecation of citizenship? Danger to the public/terrorism/serious crime. Which group has statistically the highest rate of terrorism per percentage of the population?

Let me ask you a question; what is your experience of racism as a non-white British citizen?

This unfortunately leads to observer bias. Your personal history leads you to to look for racism and assume racist motives. It’s zebras and horses.

Whilst there undoubtedly is racism, be that conscious or otherwise, you constantly shout racism, when it’s often nationalism at the core. The two concepts do overlap (quite substantially) but are distinct.

When I see Conservative policies. I see nationalism (which I still see as a bad thing) whereas you, with your history see racism.

You see the name, skin colour and religion as the driving force behind what’s happening to SB, I don’t. I don’t think it matters to them who/what she is, it was what she did (rejecting Britain), showing no remorse, then expecting to be taken back…the Conservatives want to be seen as the protectors of Britain – they always have “strong on defence”. “British sovereignty”, “we will fight them…”, “no, no, no! This lady…”

Fact is there no real identical case that you can be provided, so unless there is then it’s not racist.

Thank you for making abundantly clear how utterly infantile your argument is.

No too cases are ever identical, so there is no racism. You must be very clever.

She has paid her due, suffered enough, let her come home.

Indeed, and not a political pawn.

But if she got into the country, say via a dingy across the channel, I dont think there would be any way of deporting her as she doesnt have a country of residence.

To be fair to Brownperson, him (I’m guessing him, apologies if that’s wrong) saying “this wouldn’t have happened if she was white” is not very different to my Jemima Baker from Bath analogy, and no-one jumped down my throat.

Can we just agree that making someone stateless is a dick move regardless of alleged crimes.

Even if it hadnt made her stateless it would still be dubious given I think she has spent at most a month or two in Bangladesh. So making her their problem seems somewhat dickish as well.

In terms of racism or not by the government. I think the key driving factor for them was simply the number of headlines dedicated to Begum (plus the other two before they died/disappeared).  Removing citizenship showed they were doing something.

Which group has statistically the highest rate of terrorism per percentage of the population?

Over the last 50 years? I’m guessing we haven’t been stripping their British citizenship.

Which group has statistically the highest rate of terrorism per percentage of the population?

Which group has statistically the highest rate of terrorism per percentage of the population?

I guess that depends on what you “group” people by. In a group of terrorists, it would be 100%…