This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
- Shamima Begum was made a scapegoat – we would welcome her back, say Bethnal Green res
- Five SAS soldiers arrested for alleged war crimes in Syria
- Jekyll and hyde
- Will I get prosecuted for fare evasion?
- How much do people actually revise for collections
- OCR A Level Law Paper 3
- Good pranks to play on friends on holiday
- Antifa activist murdered in NYC
- Will I get into trouble
- detective career path
- Witness Statement Penalty Fare
- year 12 /college work experience
- How do i do a literature review??
- Person vandalised my car
- OCR A-level Law Paper 3 (H418/03) - 12th June 2023 [Exam Chat]
- Tourists trouble in Bulgaria?
- I’ve been harassed on Snapchat, what do I do?
- I accidentally said something wrong to the police
- Shouldn't Euthanasia be made freely available to all sick old people now? because
- Cognitive Interview pros and cons
Shamima Begum was cruel enforcer in Isil's morality police, say Syrian witnesses
Scroll to see replies
Original post by BLACKPINKK
who’s “we”
who’s “we”
Taxpayers.
Original post by Decahedron
By virtue of her membership of an internationally recognised terror group she will void eligibility to any nationality.
Which courts have ruled on it?
Which courts have ruled on it?
Your first sentence is obvious nonsense. If it were true she would have no claim to British citizenship, and neither would IRA members, and thousands of ISIS members would be stateless already..
The ECHR has ruled thus:
The applicant, a naturalised British citizen, left the United Kingdom in breach of his bail conditions. While he was out of the country, the Secretary of State for the Home Department ordered that the applicant be deprived of his citizenship on the ground that such measure was conducive to the public good. The applicant was also excluded from the United Kingdom on the ground that he was involved in terrorism-related activities and had links to a number of Islamic extremists. The applicant complained that the measures had breached his right to respect for his family and private life. He also argued that he could not properly make his case from abroad, because of fears that his communications could be intercepted by Sudanese counter-terrorism authorities that would then harm him.
The Court declared the application inadmissible as being manifestly ill-founded. It firstly found that, although an arbitrary denial or revocation of citizenship might in some circumstances raise an issue under Article 8 of the Convention, because of its impact on the private life of an individual, no such issue arose in the present case. The Home Secretary at the time had acted swiftly and diligently, and in accordance with the law. The Court also noted that the applicant had had a statutory right to appeal and access to judicial review but the UK courts had rejected his claims after giving them a comprehensive and thorough examination. Lastly, though some of the case against the applicant had been kept secret for security reasons, his special advocate had had access to this information, and the nature of the case was broadly known to the applicant.
Moreover, the Court held that Article 8 of the Convention could not be interpreted so as to impose an obligation on States to facilitate the return of every person deprived of citizenship in order for them to pursue an appeal against that decision. The UK court had rejected the applicant’s claims about not being able to argue his case from abroad, and the Court did not consider itself in a positon to call into question that finding.
Furthermore, the UK court had adopted a cautious approach to the case given the absence of instructions from the applicant, but still found conclusive evidence that he had been engaged in terrorism-related activities. In any case, it was the applicant who had originally chosen to leave the country. Finally, the Court noted that the applicant would not be left stateless by the loss of UK citizenship (as he had Sudanese citizenship), and the interference to his private and family life caused by the deprivation of citizenship was limited.
https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/FS_Citizenship_Deprivation_ENG.pdf
As for whether she has Bangladeshi citizenship, which is key, see this:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47310206
The advice given to the government is clearly that she has, but only until she becomes 21.
Original post by the bear
i thought she spent her time knitting cuddly toys for the Daesh kiddies
Omitting to mention that explosives were sewn into them was an innocent oversight, guv. Honest.
Original post by Good bloke
Your first sentence is obvious nonsense. If it were true she would have no claim to British citizenship, and neither would IRA members, and thousands of ISIS members would be stateless already..
The ECHR has ruled thus:
The applicant, a naturalised British citizen, left the United Kingdom in breach of his bail conditions. While he was out of the country, the Secretary of State for the Home Department ordered that the applicant be deprived of his citizenship on the ground that such measure was conducive to the public good. The applicant was also excluded from the United Kingdom on the ground that he was involved in terrorism-related activities and had links to a number of Islamic extremists. The applicant complained that the measures had breached his right to respect for his family and private life. He also argued that he could not properly make his case from abroad, because of fears that his communications could be intercepted by Sudanese counter-terrorism authorities that would then harm him.
The Court declared the application inadmissible as being manifestly ill-founded. It firstly found that, although an arbitrary denial or revocation of citizenship might in some circumstances raise an issue under Article 8 of the Convention, because of its impact on the private life of an individual, no such issue arose in the present case. The Home Secretary at the time had acted swiftly and diligently, and in accordance with the law. The Court also noted that the applicant had had a statutory right to appeal and access to judicial review but the UK courts had rejected his claims after giving them a comprehensive and thorough examination. Lastly, though some of the case against the applicant had been kept secret for security reasons, his special advocate had had access to this information, and the nature of the case was broadly known to the applicant.
Moreover, the Court held that Article 8 of the Convention could not be interpreted so as to impose an obligation on States to facilitate the return of every person deprived of citizenship in order for them to pursue an appeal against that decision. The UK court had rejected the applicant’s claims about not being able to argue his case from abroad, and the Court did not consider itself in a positon to call into question that finding.
Furthermore, the UK court had adopted a cautious approach to the case given the absence of instructions from the applicant, but still found conclusive evidence that he had been engaged in terrorism-related activities. In any case, it was the applicant who had originally chosen to leave the country. Finally, the Court noted that the applicant would not be left stateless by the loss of UK citizenship (as he had Sudanese citizenship), and the interference to his private and family life caused by the deprivation of citizenship was limited.
https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/FS_Citizenship_Deprivation_ENG.pdf
As for whether she has Bangladeshi citizenship, which is key, see this:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47310206
The advice given to the government is clearly that she has, but only until she becomes 21.
The ECHR has ruled thus:
The applicant, a naturalised British citizen, left the United Kingdom in breach of his bail conditions. While he was out of the country, the Secretary of State for the Home Department ordered that the applicant be deprived of his citizenship on the ground that such measure was conducive to the public good. The applicant was also excluded from the United Kingdom on the ground that he was involved in terrorism-related activities and had links to a number of Islamic extremists. The applicant complained that the measures had breached his right to respect for his family and private life. He also argued that he could not properly make his case from abroad, because of fears that his communications could be intercepted by Sudanese counter-terrorism authorities that would then harm him.
The Court declared the application inadmissible as being manifestly ill-founded. It firstly found that, although an arbitrary denial or revocation of citizenship might in some circumstances raise an issue under Article 8 of the Convention, because of its impact on the private life of an individual, no such issue arose in the present case. The Home Secretary at the time had acted swiftly and diligently, and in accordance with the law. The Court also noted that the applicant had had a statutory right to appeal and access to judicial review but the UK courts had rejected his claims after giving them a comprehensive and thorough examination. Lastly, though some of the case against the applicant had been kept secret for security reasons, his special advocate had had access to this information, and the nature of the case was broadly known to the applicant.
Moreover, the Court held that Article 8 of the Convention could not be interpreted so as to impose an obligation on States to facilitate the return of every person deprived of citizenship in order for them to pursue an appeal against that decision. The UK court had rejected the applicant’s claims about not being able to argue his case from abroad, and the Court did not consider itself in a positon to call into question that finding.
Furthermore, the UK court had adopted a cautious approach to the case given the absence of instructions from the applicant, but still found conclusive evidence that he had been engaged in terrorism-related activities. In any case, it was the applicant who had originally chosen to leave the country. Finally, the Court noted that the applicant would not be left stateless by the loss of UK citizenship (as he had Sudanese citizenship), and the interference to his private and family life caused by the deprivation of citizenship was limited.
https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/FS_Citizenship_Deprivation_ENG.pdf
As for whether she has Bangladeshi citizenship, which is key, see this:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47310206
The advice given to the government is clearly that she has, but only until she becomes 21.
She doesn't need a claim to British citizenship as British citizen.
The case you cite contains one pretty significant difference;
"Finally, the Court noted that the applicant would not be left stateless by the loss of UK citizenship (as he had Sudanese citizenship)"
He was not left stateless.
With Bangladesh saying they will not take her it will leave her stateless.
Original post by Decahedron
With Bangladesh saying they will not take her it will leave her stateless.
No. You are missing the point that her Bangladeshi citizenship is automatic. The Bangladeshi minister cannot deprive her of her constitutional rights, much as they would obviously like to (and who can blame them?) and are posturing to appeal to the gullible. Until she is 21 she is Bangladeshi by right, if not desire. She has quite some time to obtain the documentation she will need to get out of Syria, if she uses it wisely, which I suspect she will not.
Her dilemma will lie in making sure she gets that application in before her twenty-first birthday so that she does not end up living in the desert she chose so foolishly. Her appeal to Britain could easily take a very long time to be resolved, with her in Syria throughout, and may leave little time to put plan B into action.
Original post by Good bloke
No. You are missing the point that her Bangladeshi citizenship is automatic. The Bangladeshi minister cannot deprive her of her constitutional rights, much as they would obviously like to (and who can blame them?) and are posturing to appeal to the gullible. Until she is 21 she is Bangladeshi by right, if not desire. She has quite some time to obtain the documentation she will need to get out of Syria, if she uses it wisely, which I suspect she will not.
Her dilemma will lie in making sure she gets that application in before her twenty-first birthday so that she does not end up living in the desert she chose so foolishly. Her appeal to Britain could easily take a very long time to be resolved, with her in Syria throughout, and may leave little time to put plan B into action.
Her dilemma will lie in making sure she gets that application in before her twenty-first birthday so that she does not end up living in the desert she chose so foolishly. Her appeal to Britain could easily take a very long time to be resolved, with her in Syria throughout, and may leave little time to put plan B into action.
If the British Government can deprive a citizen of their citizenship I see no reason that Bangladesh can't.
Original post by Decahedron
If the British Government can deprive a citizen of their citizenship I see no reason that Bangladesh can't.
I see two likely reasons: (a) they do not have the legal power to do so (and I do not know whether that is true or not), and (b) the UK has beaten them to the punch and she does not, any more, hold UK citizenship so they would be making her stateless if they tried. I bet Bangladesh does not offer legal aid, either.
Original post by Good bloke
I see two likely reasons: (a) they do not have the legal power to do so (and I do not know whether that is true or not), and (b) the UK has beaten them to the punch and she does not, any more, hold UK citizenship so they would be making her stateless if they tried. I bet Bangladesh does not offer legal aid, either.
Very good points. UK has made its decision to revoke her Uk Citizenship leaving her with Bangladeshi citizenship or perhaps a choice to go to Holland with her terrorist Dutch husband..that is if he is accepted back to Holland.
What I find unjustifiable is that she is no longer a UK Citizen, but has been awarded Public Funding. This is not available to many UK citizens and should not have been given to this Bangladeshi. Isis had vast resources. Where did all of these millions go? Perhaps she should be looking to Isis for money?
Original post by Good bloke
I see two likely reasons: (a) they do not have the legal power to do so (and I do not know whether that is true or not), and (b) the UK has beaten them to the punch and she does not, any more, hold UK citizenship so they would be making her stateless if they tried. I bet Bangladesh does not offer legal aid, either.
I shall leave it for the courts to decide, I'm no expert of either British or Bangladeshi citizenship laws. Whatever the courts decide I will accept. What I don't accept is the Government's actions without proper legal scrutiny.
Original post by TSR Undergrad
What I find unjustifiable is that she is no longer a UK Citizen, but has been awarded Public Funding. This is not available to many UK citizens
It isn't available to most UK citizens because the Government cut legal aid funding to the bone to stop people fighting them.
Original post by Decahedron
I shall leave it for the courts to decide, I'm no expert of either British or Bangladeshi citizenship laws. Whatever the courts decide I will accept. What I don't accept is the Government's actions without proper legal scrutiny.
Of course the courts will decide. But government actions go unscrutinised every day, and I'm sure other such cases have too.
Original post by Good bloke
Of course the courts will decide. But government actions go unscrutinised every day, and I'm sure other such cases have too.
And look what happens when the Government goes unscrutinised, it is a complete ****ing mess.
Original post by Decahedron
She is British under both British and International Law.
She's not ethnically British.If I move to China it doesn't make me or any children I might have Chinese because we have none of the characteristics associated with Chinese people.Tbh I don't really care what the law says about her.She is scum and should be treated as such.Does it say we have to take her back here? When you commit a crime in a foreign country does it make you immune if you hold british citizenship? She committed a crime in Syria so should go to prison there.If she gets out alive then we can talk about citizenship.
Original post by AJ126
She's not ethnically British.If I move to China it doesn't make me or any children I might have Chinese because we have none of the characteristics associated with Chinese people.Tbh I don't really care what the law says about her.She is scum and should be treated as such.Does it say we have to take her back here? When you commit a crime in a foreign country does it make you immune if you hold british citizenship? She committed a crime in Syria so should go to prison there.If she gets out alive then we can talk about citizenship.
Define ethnically British.
Original post by Decahedron
Sajid isn't an immigrant and nor is Shamima, neither of them chose to come to the UK to get a better life, they were born here.
Would you be in favour of creating a two tier system for British citizens were one group are afforded more legal protections because they are not the 2nd generation immigrants. How about 3rd generation? Should they get the same rights as "natives"?
If someone wants to give up their citizenship then that is their prerogative. It is not up to the state to tell citizens that they can no longer be as such because they have become undesirable.
Would you be in favour of creating a two tier system for British citizens were one group are afforded more legal protections because they are not the 2nd generation immigrants. How about 3rd generation? Should they get the same rights as "natives"?
If someone wants to give up their citizenship then that is their prerogative. It is not up to the state to tell citizens that they can no longer be as such because they have become undesirable.
Don’t become a terrorist then
Original post by paul514
Don’t become a terrorist then
Should we ignore Human Rights as and when it suits us?
What many seem to be forgetting is that there is only one principle to be applied - the rule of law.
If we only allow due process, fundamental rights, legal aid, etc to those who we like or whose actions we approve of, then society has failed its most basic test.
I don't care if a person is accused of terrorism or of manslaughter committed while defending an old lady from a mugger - the principle must be exactly the same. The statue of Justice isn't wearing a blindfold for nothing.
If we only allow due process, fundamental rights, legal aid, etc to those who we like or whose actions we approve of, then society has failed its most basic test.
I don't care if a person is accused of terrorism or of manslaughter committed while defending an old lady from a mugger - the principle must be exactly the same. The statue of Justice isn't wearing a blindfold for nothing.
Original post by Decahedron
Define ethnically British.
The same way I define ethnically Chinese.Looks like a person of English race.White, blue/ grey/ brown eyes, blond/ brown hair.
Technically she renounced her statehood and became a member of the Islamic state.That that state no longer exists is entirely her problem.She should have thought about that before.
Original post by QE2
The statue of Justice isn't wearing a blindfold for nothing.
Ahem! The statue atop the Central Criminal Court in London does not wear a blindfold at all.
https://www.google.com/search?q=statue+on+old+bailey&client=firefox-b-d&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=sQPgNRpRTIoG7M%253A%252CKFr7eFwnOT23OM%252C_&vet=1&usg=AI4_-kSflMSF2n70Hd25CFTbeNAO5rPzGw&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi-soeZp9LhAhW6AGMBHYq4BOMQ9QEwAHoECAwQBg#imgrc=sQPgNRpRTIoG7M:
(edited 5 years ago)
Original post by AJ126
The same way I define ethnically Chinese.Looks like a person of English race.White, blue/ grey/ brown eyes, blond/ brown hair.
How do you tell if someone is actually "ethnically German" rather than "ethnically British"?
And what if they have lived in Germany all their life and never been to Britain? Are they more or less "ethnically British" than someone whose great grandfather moved to Britain from China?
And why does that matter?
Technically she renounced her statehood and became a member of the Islamic state.That that state no longer exists is entirely her problem.She should have thought about that before.
There is a process for changing one's nationality. Simply moving to China and saying "I am now Chinese" isn't sufficient.
Related discussions
- Shamima Begum was made a scapegoat – we would welcome her back, say Bethnal Green res
- Five SAS soldiers arrested for alleged war crimes in Syria
- Jekyll and hyde
- Will I get prosecuted for fare evasion?
- How much do people actually revise for collections
- OCR A Level Law Paper 3
- Good pranks to play on friends on holiday
- Antifa activist murdered in NYC
- Will I get into trouble
- detective career path
- Witness Statement Penalty Fare
- year 12 /college work experience
- How do i do a literature review??
- Person vandalised my car
- OCR A-level Law Paper 3 (H418/03) - 12th June 2023 [Exam Chat]
- Tourists trouble in Bulgaria?
- I’ve been harassed on Snapchat, what do I do?
- I accidentally said something wrong to the police
- Shouldn't Euthanasia be made freely available to all sick old people now? because
- Cognitive Interview pros and cons
Latest
Last reply 2 minutes ago
Official London School of Economics and Political Science 2024 Applicant ThreadLast reply 2 minutes ago
JK Rowling in ‘arrest me’ challenge over hate crime lawLast reply 2 minutes ago
LSE International Social and Public Policy and Economics (LLK1) 2024 ThreadPosted 3 minutes ago
what happens if i dont meet the requirements for my degree apprenticeship?Last reply 5 minutes ago
Official University of Edinburgh Applicant Thread for 2024Last reply 5 minutes ago
Official: University of Bristol A100 2024 Entry ApplicantsLast reply 7 minutes ago
Official University of Warwick Offer Holders Thread for 2024 entryLast reply 7 minutes ago
Official University of Bath Offer Holders Thread for 2024 entryLast reply 8 minutes ago
Official UCL Offer Holders Thread for 2024 entryLast reply 9 minutes ago
Degree Apprenticeship at Accenture (assessment centre)Trending
Last reply 6 hours ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 9 hours ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 11 hours ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 4 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 6 hours ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 9 hours ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 11 hours ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 4 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
