Shamima Begum – trafficked, or terrorist?

I think it’s because you and a couple of others were saying you couldn’t see ‘proof’ that the N+B Act is racist. I suppose that could be viewed as ‘defending’ it, by not denouncing it.

Speaking from personal experience – having lived with racism personally, I think it is hard for people to understand, if they have never experienced it.

I had a difficult time, trying to let my wife know what it was like for me. It’s a bit like trying to understand what sexism is like, when you are a man.

People can and do empathise and be an effective ally, but never necessarily experience the fear or the aggression.

I think it’s because you and a couple of others were saying you couldn’t see ‘proof’ that the N+B Act is racist. I suppose that could be viewed as ‘defending’ it, by not denouncing it.

I still looking for proof. The link shared all give, no doubt well held, opinions on what the act may or may not do. However opinion is not fact and none of the links provide any evidence, based on current legislation, that deportation orders have been used in a racist way. If there is proof, as in court rulings, statistics, evidence that would st@nd up I court then plead share. Until then it’s just partial use of statistics or opinion.

I think it’s because you and a couple of others were saying you couldn’t see ‘proof’ that the N+B Act is racist. I suppose that could be viewed as ‘defending’ it, by not denouncing it.

Fair. But not my intention.

Rather my raison d’etre in these sorts of discussions is “show your working.” It’s easy to make emotive but baseless statements like, oh I don’t know, how illegal immigrants get free houses rather than the council spending the money to fill in potholes (an actual conversation I had yesterday).

It could be true. It could be bollocks. But if someone is presenting something – anything – as a fact without evidencing it then I’m going to call it out every time. The claim that you (or someone?) made and which I questioned was that none of this would have happened if Begum was white. That may well be the case, I don’t know, but you cannot just make such a statement and walk away without evidencing it.

It’s racist by design, as Rees-Mogg explained in simple terms. The law applies predominantly to those with foreign-born parents, who are mostly not white native british (though the law also applies to my white BiL as it happens, he is also at risk of having his nationality stripped if he doesn’t toe the line).

This is a paywall-dodging link to the Rees-Mogg quote.

https://archive.is/dgY1v

He says (gods help me, I’m quoting JRM):

… the decision to deprive Ms Begum of her citizenship is wrong because it attacks two linchpins of the constitution that safeguard us all. It is easy to defend constitutional principles in favour of good people, but it is more difficult to do so when it is acknowledged that someone has been involved with evil actions and organisations. Ms Begum, by her association with and strong support for Isis, falls into the second category, but the constitution ought not to be abandoned when it is inconvenient, because a fair process routinely benefits us all.

The first principle that is breached is the idea of equality of all British citizens before the law. The ability to deprive people, who have a claim to another citizenship, of their British passport, creates two categories of Briton. Those with no right to another nationality are in the first-class carriage. Whatever they do, they cannot be made an exile or outlaw and expelled from the country. On the other hand, those who themselves came to the UK or whose parents did so are in the second-class carriage. They may be stripped of their citizenship even if they have never claimed another foreign nationality or even visited the country. This is a fundamentally racist policy as it denies the absolute Britishness of all those who are either recent immigrants themselves or their children.

Lord, I’m agreeing with Rees-Mogg

The other thing there is he says,

The ability to deprive people, who have a claim to another citizenship,

I may be wrong, but to the best of my knowledge Begum has never had claim to another citizenship. So his “first-class carriage” (familiar as JRM will undoubtedly be with public transport) analogy should have applied to her also.

The argument repeatedly presented by the govt was that she had the right to claim Bangladeshi citizenship.

It was never tested of course. But that was the excuse they used to defend against the accusation that she was (illegally) being rendered stateless.

For a while I had the right to apply for Japanese citizenship too (living there for 5y). I would have failed the application, but that wouldn’t necessarily have stopped Javid from rendering me stateless and preventing me from returning.

I may be wrong, but to the best of my knowledge Begum has never had claim to another citizenship.

Shamima Begum had the right up to the age of 18 (or maybe 21) to apply for Bangladeshi nationality on the grounds of her parent’s nationality.

She never did and the Bangladeshi authorities have said that she will not be given Bangladeshi nationality.

They consider her to be the UK’s problem and not theirs as she was born, raised, and radicalised, in the UK.

I didn’t know that.

How old was she when we made her stateless?

How old was she when we made her stateless?

According to Wikipedia, born in 1999 and lost her British citizenship in 2019.

Our local town facebook group has stumbled into this topic, racism and islamaphobia are rampant. People clearly have no idea how the law should work and who it protects. Even JRM gets it (in this case at least), shame the GBP are so ignorant.

PS im only on the group because theres occaisional snippets of useful local information and to be blunt it reminds me I’m at the tolerant end of our population, the stated views of many are abhorent, no wonder the morally bankrupt Tories are weaponising it. For the first time Im seeing parrallels with Germany in the early 30s.

As ever with JRM – one has to question the timing and the motive. Not a peep from him when Bojo was in power and Javid was with him in the cabinet, but now that it’s Sunak and there’s a GE coming where the Tory leadership will likely change hands afterwards…suddenly he has something to say.

He’s not wrong, and the law is definitely discriminatory, but, it’s JRM…he’s a slippery fella.

EDIT – It’s also uniformly discriminatory – it doesn’t care what colour your skin is, nor where you came from, just that it’s from somewhere else.  You could be a white American and still face the same treatment under the law.

Well if by attacking what he claims is an inherently racist aspect of the policy JRM is trying to influence the direction of the party post general election then that should be welcomed.

Fat chance.

The law applies predominantly to those with foreign-born parents, who are mostly not white native british

Not sure about that unless Irish citizenship is excluded.

Given the automatic citizenship of any children of Irish parents and that their children are entitled to claim citizenship (then their kids as well if the parent claimed citizenship before their birth) then there are a lot of white native British with potential or actual dual citizenship (pre brexit I do wonder how many accidentally lied on forms about only being British citizenship. I know I did).

I remember the more or less episode where they looked at it post brexit and instead of the normal “this number in the news is rubbish because of these reasons” went “ermmm. actually it might be an underestimate”.

I’m not supporting JRM because he’s happened to say something correct for once. I’m supporting the correct thing he happens to have said.

He’s not wrong, and the law is definitely discriminatory, but, it’s JRM…he’s a slippery fella.

EDIT – It’s also uniformly discriminatory – it doesn’t care what colour your skin is, nor where you came from, just that it’s from somewhere else. You could be a white American and still face the same treatment under the law.

It’s also worth noting that similar such discriminatory such laws and policies already exist and have done for some time. There are quite a number of jobs/positions that non-native British ancestry will exclude you from and similarly, there a quite a number of positions that you could have held with a foreign company/country and then be denied entry to this country. These also discriminate (almost) uniformly.

There are quite a number of jobs/positions that non-native British ancestry will exclude you from

Id be amazed if that were true. You mean if you were born elsewhere possibly.

what does “stripping her of her nationality” even mean?
Where is she right now? shes effectively stateless, so does she spend the rest of her life living in airports getting passed around?
i dont want to give “the terrorists” any ideas, but that doesnt seem like the brightest of solutions.

“ EDIT – It’s also uniformly discriminatory – it doesn’t care what colour your skin is, nor where you came from, just that it’s from somewhere else. You could be a white American and still face the same treatment under the law.”

What’s the difference between uniformly discriminatory and equality? I would expect all nations to treat non nationals differently to nationals. In fact they do for access to healthcare to your legal status in the country.

Where is she right now? shes effectively stateless, so does she spend the rest of her life living in airports getting passed around?

She’s in a prison camp (of sorts) in Syria, I believe.

Also never imagined the day I’d be agreeing wholeheartedly with Rees-Mogg.

Yep. It’s now clear there is a tiered citizenship system. Citizenship should be one thing, and we should all be equal within it. But we aren’t. Which undermines society in the sense that we are not all equal under law. And that’s not something that I’m comfortable about.

Much better way of putting it and I agree with that. The issue was the previous wording was claiming solely that she’d be back here if she was white, with no real evidence. Yes, essentially the sane thing but you’ve put it much better.

Just read JRMs response. Sounds like he’s preparing to defend someone whose parents moved here and they are a female Tory MP. But as painful as it is to admit, he’s right.

what does “stripping her of her nationality” even mean?

It means she can’t travel to the UK without H.O permission.

Where is she right now?

The Al-Hawl displaced person camp in Northern Syria being detained by the SDF (Syrian Democratic Forces) Effectively a POW camp for ISIL members run by Kurdish-Syrian separatists

Id be amazed if that were true. You mean if you were born elsewhere possibly.

I don’t. I mean if you or your parents had other citizenship prior to becoming British. I’ve witnessed it firsthand when security classifications for projects have changed. There’s a cull and then a prohibition.

DaffyFull Member

Id be amazed if that were true. You mean if you were born elsewhere possibly.[//quote]

I don’t. I mean if you or your parents had other citizenship prior to becoming British. I’ve witnessed it firsthand when security classifications for projects have changed. There’s a cull and then a prohibition.

I just don’t believe people who are British citizens who have no other citizenship, who were born here and never lived anywhere else are told they can’t do a job because of their ancestry. There’d be a huge outcry if that were true – it’d be state approved racism. Unless I’m just incredibly naive. I’m sure it goes on unofficially, but Rishi Sunak, 2nd gen immigrant, is PM!

His parents were from British India as it was at the time.

But if someone is presenting something – anything – as a fact without evidencing it then I’m going to call it out every time. The claim that you (or someone?) made and which I questioned was that none of this would have happened if Begum was white. That may well be the case, I don’t know, but you cannot just make such a statement and walk away without evidencing it.

The issue was the previous wording was claiming solely that she’d be back here if she was white, with no real evidence.

The problem with you asking for ‘evidence’ in this context, is that you are failing to see experience and knowledge of racism as the ‘evidence’ needed to prove something like the N+B Act is inherently racist. ‘Evidence’ in this context isn’t the same as someone being caught on CCTV putting stolen items in their bag then walking out of a shop, it doesn’t work in that way. This is what I was trying to explain, but it seems you only started actually listening when I presented multiple examples of prominent organisations denouncing it.

Just read JRMs response. Sounds like he’s preparing to defend someone whose parents moved here and they are a female Tory MP. But as painful as it is to admit, he’s right.

But what evidence is he providing to prove he’s right?

It’s also worth noting that similar such discriminatory such laws and policies already exist and have done for some time. There are quite a number of jobs/positions that non-native British ancestry will exclude you from

I think in this case we really do need some evidence to back up this claim.

if you turn up at (say) GCHQ with (say) Iranian parents, having spent a few summers there, you can expect them to dig deep into your background. Depending on how that goes, they might say no clearance, sorry.

I was mildly worried about having this happenen when i worked on some SC cleared projects as a CAD technician on account of my NI parents background. My boss explained that this might be how it goes, but it didnt.

dakuanFree Member
if you turn up at (say) GCHQ with (say) Iranian parents, having spent a few summers there, you can expect them to dig deep into your background.

I would have though GCHQ would have snatched your hand off – they’re desperate for people who properly understand the places they’re monitoring! It must be possible to silo people in a place like that so they’re only know about the thing asked of them.

Again, naive, I expect.

if you turn up at (say) GCHQ with (say) Iranian parents, having spent a few summers there, you can expect them to dig deep into your background. Depending on how that goes, they might say no clearance, sorry.

That’s not the same as someone being deliberately excluded automatically on the basis of their ethnicity or culture. Because that would be illegal.

The swerve into security clearance is red herring. The whole process is based around assessing risk against a set criteria for you to be deemed suitable and safe to have access to certain data. Your heritage and familial connections are something that are assessed regardless of ethnicity.

A mate and I we were posted to a unit where we required DV got dropped because of his financial situation and as a result of his wife’s spending habits and debt. The reasons for rejection will be articulated very clearly and concisely and if there is any remedial action you can take.

I’d avoid this subject as a line of argument as it adds no value to this convo.

“ That’s not the same as someone being deliberately excluded automatically on the basis of their ethnicity or culture. Because that would be illegal.”

Again another emotive statement with no evidence to support it. Just because you keep saying something doesn’t make it true. In this case she is being excluded because she as an individual has spent years as a member of isis and publicly supported their attacks.

Again another emotive statement with no evidence to support it. Just because you keep saying something doesn’t make it true. In this case she is being excluded because she as an individual has spent years as a member of isis and publicly supported their attacks.

Publicly supported their attacks? Where? I am willing to be corrected but that claim sounds suspiciously like an emotive statement with no evidence to support it. Ironically.

A quick Google search doesn’t throw anything for me.

My boss explained that this might be how it goes, but it didnt.

My NI clearance took a stupidly long time. Either it got lost down the back of the filing cabinet for a bit or I have some dodgy relatives that the authorities wanted to make sure I didnt know.

Again another emotive statement with no evidence to support it

A few seconds Googling finds sufficient ‘evidence’:

https://www.parliament.uk/globalassets/mps-lords–offices/offices/pass-office/psd-national-security-vetting-booklet.pdf

https://www.gov.uk/discrimination-your-rights/discrimination-at-work

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/contents

There’s quite a bit to go through though, might take you longer than 5 seconds. Worth a read to be knowledgable about actual law regarding employment though.

So; it’s illegal for anyone to be discriminated against when applying for a job, on the grounds of ethnicity, religion or where their parents come from. Therefore the assertion that  “There are quite a number of jobs/positions that non-native British ancestry will exclude you from” is false. You cannot, legally, be excluded from any job based on your ancestry alone. In practice, an individual’s background will certainly be taken into account for certain roles, which may require special security clearance, and some individuals might be excluded from a particular role for reasons that the security services may not have to give, and I’m sure that there are instances where illegal discrimination does take place, but this is not within the legal framework of employment in the UK. Currently at least.

The swerve into security clearance is red herring. The whole process is based around assessing risk against a set criteria for you to be deemed suitable and safe to have access to certain data. Your heritage and familial connections are something that are assessed regardless of ethnicity.

Which sounds almost exactly like the law aimed to deprive dangerous and risky people of citizenship and thus remove the risk of their access to the general public. It was implied that the policy is racist, as certain groups seemed to have historically been more susceptible to its application, but the law is applied uniformly, this is also true (in theory) of security clearance.

How is one different from the other? They’re both applied based on risk, both applied uniformly, both result (in the words of JRM) in a two tier society of Britishness, its just one has more significant consequences than the other. Neither is racist by nature. Their both nationalist by nature, but again, based on perceived risk, not projected reward.