The Student Room Group

Scroll to see replies

Original post by stoyfan
Quite honestly I am worried for the prescendence that this carries. All we did was deport her, revoke her citizenship and told bangladesh that it is her problem now.

It can easily happen to the UK.

She has not been deported, and she is Syria's problem mainly at the moment.
i thought she spent her time knitting cuddly toys for the Daesh kiddies

:rolleyes:
Original post by BenK64
Your assuming that if her parents weren’t immigrants she would’ve been let back in the UK, but on what basis? She committed treason. She lost her citizenship under the 1981 British nationality act- not because ‘her parents were immigrants’.

The reason Sajid gave for illegally making her stateless was that she can claim Bangladeshi citizenship because her parents are immigrants.

His actions go against several articles in the Declaration of Human Rights. Which other human rights is he willing to break?
Original post by Good bloke
She has not been deported, and she is Syria's problem mainly at the moment.

The expectation is for her to get a bangladeshi passport.
Original post by Good bloke
I am all in favour of having a 'radical Islam' channel at all ports and airports, where those espousing Islamism or the implementation of Sharia law in the western democracies give up their passports and renounce their citizenship. The state should take any and every opportunity to keep these dangerous people from our shores.


I completely agree, but any actions taken must be within the law and not breaching human rights.
Original post by Decahedron
I completely agree, but any actions taken must be within the law and not breaching human rights.


Which human rights do you maintain have been breached in this case?
Funny how she was perfectly happy to be a supporter of ISIS when they were winning....
Original post by AJ126
Well she isn't British and it's clear she never thought of herself as such so why should we?Its not about where you come from but about the values you hold.Subjugation of women, homophobia, antisemitism and blind faith are not really values which belong here.With native Britain's we don't really get a choice they are already here.When it comes to first generation immigrants and their children it is surely our right to choose who lives here.As I say it's not about race I'm sure there are probably hundreds of refugees who are far more deserving than Shamina Begum.Only this morning I read about some nice Syrian refugees who have been waiting for years to get asylum.By all accounts they didn't feel the need to stitch suicide vests onto isis fighters.Its not about her race but her actions.


She is British under both British and International Law.
Original post by Decahedron
She is British under both British and International Law.


Not any more.
Reply 49
Original post by Decahedron
She is British under both British and International Law.


Do you believe a state should be allowed to remove citizenship under any circumstances?
Original post by Good bloke
Which human rights do you maintain have been breached in this case?


Article 15 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the right of nationality.
Original post by Good bloke
Not any more.

I will wait to see what our judges have to say.
Original post by BenK64
Do you believe a state should be allowed to remove citizenship under any circumstances?

No, only when it does not make that person stateless as per the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Original post by Decahedron
Article 15 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the right of nationality.


Nope. At the time her nationality was revoked she was entitled to Bangladeshi citizenship (and probably still is despite what Bangladeshi ministers have said). The courts have already ruled that such a situation is fair game.
As an Iraqi, I think justice for the Arab people who lost their families and livelihoods is important. All the isis members should be punished. In Syria, terrorists get the death penalty so I don’t see why she’s still alive never mind her citizenship.
why are we still talking about her lmao
She should face British justice as someone supporting a terrorist organisation whose supporters have killed people on British soil.
Original post by Good bloke
Nope. At the time her nationality was revoked she was entitled to Bangladeshi citizenship (and probably still is despite what Bangladeshi ministers have said). The courts have already ruled that such a situation is fair game.


By virtue of her membership of an internationally recognised terror group she will void eligibility to any nationality.

Which courts have ruled on it?
Original post by BLACKPINKK
why are we still talking about her lmao

Well we be paying for her court case now.
E3FBB7BC-83F1-4D07-84D7-9B86A88C49B2.jpeg
Original post by Vikingninja
Well we be paying for her court case now.


who’s “we”
Original post by barnetlad
She should face British justice as someone supporting a terrorist organisation whose supporters have killed people on British soil.


She should face Syrian justice actually. Because she joined a terrorist group in Syria. This crime is punishable by death in Syria.

Latest

Trending

Trending