Shamima Begum – trafficked, or terrorist?

*they’re

How is one different from the other?

Because there are plethora of people who have not been born here or are the children of immigrants currently holding security clearances across government, the civil service, defence and the security services.

And the fact that security clearance system also excludes white british individuals based on their risk, of which I know quite a few individuals who have failed to gain higher levels or even lost theirs due to their actions.

How is one different from the other?

Easy. One is actually about national security, and has been carefully designed and thought through by intelligent adults, the other is a piece of populist ‘legislation’ that has been designed purely to appeal to racist tory voters.

Neither is racist by nature

The N+B Act is. We’ve settled this.

Dismissive, disparaging and vaguely accusatory. Standard. Anyway.

The N+B Act is. We’ve settled this.

Have we? Explain it to me. Explain why this act unfairly discriminates against a specific or several specified ethnic groups, but does not apply to another unmentioned individual or group? Surely, the act itself isn’t racist until someone targets it toward a particular group. Your earlier evidence showed that Muslims had a higher likelihood of being deprived shows correlation, but ignores context.

I don’t deny that the act is flawed and it has significant potential for abuse, but how is it racist? Genuinely curious.

Have we? Explain it to me

No point going over old ground. You can believe what you want, your choice. You’re not going to accept the same point of view as Amnesty International, Greenpeace, the Good Law project and many other significant organisations and individuals, and that’s up to you of course. And if it looks like a duck and quacks, you might think it’s a rabbit. I doubt I could convince you otherwise, so let’s leave it there.

Amnesty makes no mention of racism, inherent or otherwise, neither does the Law Society, nor does Greenpeace.

All of them, without exception, say that it “threatens the rights” of minorities as does almost every article you linked to on pages 17-19? None of them state that it is specifically targeting them, just that it could do.

It’s a bad bill, but again, is it racist?

I’m genuinely asking you, in your own words, to explain why it is.

I’m a scientist, I’m more than willing to be convinced I’m wrong and will happily accept it. I’m not tied to an opinion, I’m just seeking clarity as to why/what makes this racist? What language makes it so, which minorities does it specifically target?

I’m aware that like the groups above state, that it could be misused, but is that its intent?

WRT security clearance – there are blanket bans on nationals from certain nations for most defence projects and with ancestry (single generation, as it was at the time) for highly secure aspects such as nuclear deterrent.

“threatens the rights” of minorities

that right there is why it is racist. It effects minorities more – its racist. that does not prove intent but it shows outcomes are racist.

If the law, when applied to a caucasian or a ethnic minority person, results in the same outcome then it is in and of itself not racist.

The fact the law under discussion can equally be applied to a white christian American or to a muslim from Syria and can result in the same outcome for both suggests it’s not racist.

However, the application of the law by the Government de jour to predominantly only ethnic minorities can be, and likely is, racist.

No, it says “threatens” a threat is not an action. The implication is that it can be used against established Britons with ancestry from without the British isles and colonies. That would be anyone, right?

But, and this is my point here, is it inherently racist if it benefits no group and doesn’t disenfranchise any other group, but is applied only on a casss by case basis and is applied fairly.

If you can have laws that protect national interests over and above the rest of the world’s population (within reason) is this not an extension of those laws?

I don’t believe the law is intended to be levelled at generational brits of minority backgrounds, it’s intended to respond to immigration based threats such as radicalisation of recent arrivals, etc.

Perhaps I’m just too naive?

My dim memories of the employment law course that was was part of my university course 25ish years ago includes the concept of indirect discrimination.

IANAL and these are old memories but… Say an business chose to make redundancies, and decided to get rid of all of their part time staff before making any full time staff redundant. If it could be demonstrated that a greater proportion of their part time staff were women than the proportion of their full time staff that were women then that redundancy policy could count as indirect sexual discrimination. While it did not explicitly target women disproportionately, in effect it did affect women more than men.

Could this law be indirectly racist? While it applies to all British citizens that can potentially apply for citizenship of another country and does not explicitly target minorities. But if in reality it disproportionately applies to racial minorities then is it indirectly racist?

The possibility that there are actually a lot of white British citizens who are eligible for Irish citizenship may affect that calculation, but this would seem to be a way that a law that does not explicitly target minorities could still be racist.

Could this law be indirectly racist? While it applies to all British citizens that can potentially apply for citizenship of another country and does not explicitly target minorities. But if in reality it disproportionately applies to racial minorities then is it indirectly racist?

Thank the lord someone has figured it out!

Amnesty makes no mention of racism

On the actual page I linked to, at the very top of the article:

UK: Priti Patel’s racist Nationality and Borders Bill ‘drags the UK’s reputation through the mud

The Good Law Project also states:

The Nationality and Borders Bill is racist – we want Government to think again

——————————-

The Law Society and Greenpeace both state how it will negatively impact on minorities. So as tjagain says:

that right there is why it is racist. It effects minorities more – its racist. that does not prove intent but it shows outcomes are racist.

I’m genuinely asking you, in your own words, to explain why it is.

I already have, and used loads of other sources.

I’m a scientist

Perhaps you’re looking too hard for some sort of scientific proof. Which, as I’ve explained. You will not find because that’s not how things work in this instance. Racism is a philosophical construct, it does not follow scientific principles. Ergo, it can exist, and be proved to exist, even when there is no ‘evidence’ as you would expect in scientific terms. So what you are demanding, you will not find. You have to switch to a different, non-linear, non-binary way of thinking. As I’ve explained before; the legislation will have been written very carefully to ensure it does not transgress any legal boundaries. In this sense, it cannot be considered ‘racist’ on face value. But apply a deeper philosophical analysis, and it soon becomes clear just how racist it actually is.

WRT security clearance – there are blanket bans on nationals from certain nations for most defence projects and with ancestry (single generation, as it was at the time) for highly secure aspects such as nuclear deterrent

As a scientist, you’ll be happy to prove this, I’m sure.

I don’t believe the law is intended to be levelled at generational brits of minority backgrounds, it’s intended to respond to immigration based threats such as radicalisation of recent arrivals, etc.

Perhaps I’m just too naive?

Perhaps.

But if in reality it disproportionately applies to racial minorities then is it indirectly racist?

But does it though? Genuine question by the way.

I suspect there may be very large proportion of the population to which it could be applied that are or are the direct offspring of white europeans with either british residency or british citizenship that legitimately have or could claim dual nationality.

I don’t know what the breakdown of ethnicities is to which the law could be applied therefore I cannot form an opinion as to whether the law is inherently indirectly racist to ethnic minorities or not.

By the way I’m in no way saying it could not be applied in a way which is racist.

I would expect all nations to treat non nationals differently to nationals.

Begum was born here. Do you have a different definition of “national”?

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.

Again,

I don’t doubt that you’ve experienced racism and for that I’m sorry. I grew up in a largely Muslim neighbourhood, I’ve seen endemic racism first-hand albeit indirectly and it is horrific. But just because it exists doesn’t mean you get a free pass to make shit up, your “knowledge” is (wholly understandably) biased. My experience was that the Asian families were fantastic and it was the white ones who were problematic; but it would be foolish of me to extrapolate that experience beyond “people I met.”

‘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.

Sure it does. Evidence doesn’t have context. Something is demonstrable or it isn’t. Otherwise, what you’re describing there is conjecture.

Racism is a philosophical construct, it does not follow scientific principles.

Seriously?

Cougar

If it effects minorities more then its racist. I am astonished you are finding this a difficult conceot.

Its been explained many time in many words

“Evidence doesn’t have context. Something is demonstrable or it isn’t. Otherwise, what you’re describing there is conjecture.”

Show me a tachyon or a higgs boson particle.  Prove evolution, show me “dark matter”

If it effects minorities more then its racist

To ask again; does it though?

Has or can anyone provide a breakdown of ethnicities and their comparative proportions to show that this particular law applies to more of the population that are ethnic minorities with uk citizenship and access to dual nationality than whites with uk citizenship with access to dual nationality?

I had a quick look at the census to see if there was a dataset that could show this but couldn’t find a easy option or if there is a way to break out that data.

In my relatively small circle of acquaintances the number of ethic minority people and the number of white european people (whom since brexit have taken uk citizenship) who are immigrants that have taken citizenship or 1st generation uk born is roughly the same. I would be keen to understand if that is a trend that extends across the UK.

Show me a tachyon or a higgs boson particle.  Prove evolution, show me “dark matter”

There isn’t evidence, that’s why they are (accepted) theories and part of Theoretical Physics.

So there’s no evidence of evolution?

That Darwin was full of shite.

Thats my point Jonm81. these things are accepted as true withbout solid evidence
altho I think they actually found something that acted as a higgs boson would be expected to do

Not quite the point Ernie – cougar said “Evidence doesn’t have context. Something is demonstrable or it isn’t. Otherwise, what you’re describing there is conjecture.

We cannot demonstrate evolution nor prove it. Plenty of evidence for it but that evidence has context and is not demonstrable. You cannot run a double blind study showing evolution and certainly not for evolution in the past

Plenty of evidence for it

Well that’s a relief.

TJ, they are not accepted as “true”. They are accepted as a likely solution that has not been determined to be fact due to the lack of evidence.

Regarding evolution, humans have been studying and recording it long enough now to evidence that a good number of species have evolved across hundreds of generations to meet changing environmental conditions. It is not unreasonable to extrapolate that evidence to all organic species.

I do sympathise with brownperson as they cannot provide evidence that a white person in Bagums exact position would be treated the same as her. It hasn’t happened and you cannot prove a negative therefore they cannot prove her treatment is racist or not. Therefore, they are quite reasonably falling back on personal experience.

However evidencing that that law is (indirectly) racist should be possible. The law as written applies equally to all uk citizens that have access to dual nationality. The question is: Are there significantly more ethnic minority people in this group than white people. If answer is yes then it can be classed as indirectly racist, if not then it’s not.

I can’t find an answer to that question. Can anyone else?

Can anyone else?

Well I don’t think brownperson will be able to answer that question now. I believe that a mod has gone all Tory Home Secretary on him, stripped of his stw membership, and banned him from entering this thread again.

The question is do white middle-class punters get preferential treatment on here?

My answer would be no but since they dominate the forum anyway they really don’t need to.

The question is: Are there significantly more ethnic minority people in this group than white people. If answer is yes then it can be classed as indirectly racist, if not then it’s not.

No – the question is does it effect minorities more? to which the clear answer is yes so its racist

I find it hard to accept in this day and age that people here are being so obtuse about this and that a bunch of white guys are telling a brown person that something he sees as racist is not racist.

Quite disheartening. I thought we had moved beyond this blanket denials

TJ – that’s not what’s happening. People are asking “why?”

People are trying to understand how something which is intended to be applied in one context (new immigration and perceived threat regardless of skin colour, country of origin, etc) can be perceived as racist because it “could” be applied retroactively in another context to minority groups already here.

Brownperson tried to show with stats that this had already happened to Muslims in depravation of citizenship from 2005, but without context and during a period of high threat, it’s difficult to prove that this was religion or country based and not simply threat based.

Simply saying it affects minorities more isn’t helpful as everyone arriving in this country is technically a minority when considered in the context of the British population.

“TJ – that’s not what’s happening. People are asking “why?””

Which has been explained numerous times by several differnt people and those explanations ignored or denied

“Simply saying it affects minorities more isn’t helpful as everyone arriving in this country is technically a minority when considered in the context of the British population. ”

Correct.

Can’t find data by ethnic background, but this is interesting – especially the terrorist risk who had their citizenship reinstated after being made stateless!

You’d think someone would have done an FOI to get the data

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jan/21/hundreds-stripped-british-citizenship-last-15-years-study-finds

I must have missed the bit where it was fully explained. What I’ve seen was people referring to opinion pieces on various websites which state that the bill/act is racist because. But they all make assumptions on its use.

Any supporting evidence of misuse has lacked context or has been anecdotal and when asked for evidence has been dismissed.

When asked for anything which supports misuse, we’ve had “well, Tories, populist, infantile law, not thought out, etc” which is a glib dismissal of the vast backworkings of government departments that draft things like this.

There’re a lot of emotions on this thread, a lot of personal experience and a lot of bias, I’m just trying to get through all of that to what is the specific racist quality of the bill/act and is it intentionally racist, inherently racist or has the potential to be racist and how other laws stack up in this regard.

That’s it. I’m not telling people they’re wrong, I’m just seeking clarity.

I’m a firm believer in equality, but also acknowledge the need for nationally preferential laws especially in the case of security and welfare. Where does this act/bill sit on this line? I’m want a clear picture of where nationally discriminating laws (which are so by their nature) become racist. Is it language? Is it potential? Is it application?

the question is does it effect minorities more? to which the clear answer is yes so its racist

From what I can see the law, as written, doesn’t differentiate between minorities or whites. If applied to a white person or a minority person under the same circumstances will result in the same outcome. Ergo, it is not racist.

If it applies to a significantly greater proportion of the population that are an ethnic minority then it is indirectly racist.

A law that is not racist can be applied in a way that is racist by those which administer it which is fundamentally different from “that law is racist”

Take stop and search. As a law it is not racist in any way. It applies equally to the whole population regardless of race and will lead to the same outcome if the same offence is committed. The Police however stop far more middle eastern looking people and black male teens because they apply racial profiling in how they apply it. Taken with no context (i.e. treat analysis etc) the application is racist, not the law.

The law being discussed could be the same in which case there may be no problem with the law and we as a population need to focus on it’s incorrect application to make a fairer society for all. So far no one has presented a breakdown of the uk populations ethnicity to which this particular law applies determine whether it is indirectly racist or not.

It may come across as semantics but the correct use of language will build strength in the argument put forward and allow identification of the root cause of racism so it can be properly delt with.

If the law can be shown to be indirectly racist lets campaign to rework it so it’s not and if it is not but is being applied in a way which is racist lets campaign deal with that.

From what I can see the law, as written, doesn’t differentiate between minorities or whites.

Minorities can be white

If you are argueing from a false premise then any conclusions are false. You start your post above with a false premise

Minorities can be white

This is true.

But the bill/act as written could only, technically be applied to a single group – those that have the potential for other citizenship – right? That’s not AN ethnic group, it’s ALL ethnic groups and the only thing they have in common is that they have or can claim other citizenship.

So again, is it a national bill/act intended to provide future security or is it a racist bill/act intended to harm all immigrants?

I’m arguing that its intent is the former, but the perception, given the title of this thread and the government in office is the latter.

“So again, is it a national bill/act intended to provide future security

the aim of the bill is to appease the racists in the tory party and its voting cohort.

or is it a racist bill/act intended to harm all immigrants? “

No one has claimed that – the claim is that it disproportionately effects minorities which is clearly so as minorities are far more likely to have dual citizenship or the potential for doing so

the aim of the bill is to appease the racists in the tory party and its voting cohort.

How many voters have even heard of it? Did you know that the bill became the Nationality and Borders Act 2022?

We cannot demonstrate evolution nor prove it.

That’s incorrect, we have lab experiments demonstrating evolution in action.

As an aside, as a long-term resident in Spain I’m eligible for citizenship here. It’d be quite amusing to see the Mail’s reaction if this new Bill were to be applied to the “expat” community…

Thats my point Jonm81. these things are accepted as true withbout solid evidence

By that logic you’ve just proven god. Congratulations on your conversion.

If the question is: Would a white person have been treated differently? Then look at what happened to Shimima.

She travelled on her sister’s passport to get to Syria (at fifteen, she wouldn’t have got far on her own). Would a white fifteen year have been stopped at that point? I think its likely

She finds herself eventually at Al-Hawl camp, she tries to apply to get home. the HO say to her; as you have no means of identifying yourself, we need photo and fingerprints. This would’ve been the same for any-one, I don’t think a white woman who’s being detained as a member of ISIL would’ve been treated any differently at this point.

Obviously she can’t do that where is is, there’s no consular or diplomatic representation at the camp anyway. It’s at this point that Javid decides to deny her re-entry, his reasoning is pretty prosaic; she’s a member of ISIL. It’s the only chance he’ll get to act, if she travels back he can have her arrested at point of entry, but detention is at the court’s discretion and he has no control of that process and there’s a risk (however small) that if she has been radicalised, she may be an actual threat, that’s not a chance any H.Sec is likely to ponder for long. He may or may not think she’s an actual terrorist*, but if it goes to trial, there’s certainly a chance that the Govt would have to reveal the identity of the Canadian intelligence asset who trafficked her, and they likely weigh up the pros and cons of that, look at public opinion which is heavily in favour of leaving her where she is; and throw Shamimi to the wolves…easy choice.

As the supreme court point out, there’s no evidence that being a UK citizen or not has made any material difference to her situation as a displaced/detained person detained at a camp run by the SDF, becasue as far as they’re concerned; she’s a member of ISIL .

* that she was trafficked there is obviously undisputed, that she may subsequently actually be a terrorist threat is a different question.