Shamima Begum, IS teen wants to come back to the UK

[africanspur]

No it's not a case that it 'bothers me that much,' it's that the way you phrased your original response made it appear that, in no uncertain terms, she was being mistreated based on her skin colour. Which is why I didn't attack you, but said rather innocently that I didn't understand.

Broadly speaking I feel we agree. I'm not sure if you read my edited post before replying (I mangled by thumb in a hand blender a few days ago so my posts are just a bit of a mess and I press reply before I mean to ) but I elaborate a bit more in there.

Shamana said skin colour or ethnicity. I think we can all agree, despite everything else, that Shamima is being treated differently because of her ethnicity than a white British person would be, despite being born here and despite our enlightened laws pretending that we treat migrants and their kids in the same way.

Apologies about your thumb and I hadn't seen the edit.

I'm a 1st generation immigrant and therefore understand that there will be some people who may accept my presence but will probably feel that I'm somehow being done a favour by being given citizenship and if I somehow err, it is not my right but a privilege which can be taken away from me. Fine.

My kids were born here though and yes, while this is a particularly extreme situation, I don't like the precedent that they are somehow different from their white British equivalents, despite certain people falling over themselves to tell us how this country and its laws are colour (or immigrant if you'd prefer I said that) blind.

 

[ivaldo]

Shamana said skin colour or ethnicity. I think we can all agree, despite everything else, that Shamima is being treated differently because of her ethnicity than a white British person would be, despite being born here and despite our enlightened laws pretending that we treat migrants and their kids in the same way.

Apologies about your thumb and I hadn't seen the edit.

I'm a 1st generation immigrant and therefore understand that there will be some people who may accept my presence but will probably feel that I'm somehow being done a favour by being given citizenship and if I somehow err, it is not my right but a privilege which can be taken away from me. Fine.

My kids were born here though and yes, while this is a particularly extreme situation, I don't like the precedent that they are somehow different from their white British equivalents, despite certain people falling over themselves to tell us how this country and its laws are colour (or immigrant if you'd prefer I said that) blind.

Oh none needed. It was all my own doing. I've still got it so I'll call that a victory!

I can understand that. I don't think anything can be taken from their decision in this particular instance, but the ramifications of it further down the line could be great, and I have every sympathy for people like you and your family who rightly worry about how it'll affect you. As I said before, I feel the Home Office has only tried to make that distinction in order to prevent her from returning, rather than preventing her from returning because of that distinction, but decisions like this one often cast a shadow.

 

[sun_tzu]

I don't understand how the Home Secretary and the Supreme Court can break the law,

Bangladesh have said she is not eligible for Bangladeshi Citizenship, therefore Shamina has been illegally made Stateless.

I see. So they've set a precedent that can be used now by the Home Secretary to make people Stateless.

Actually I think what you don't seem to understand is that the court has ruled she has not been made stateless and therefor the home secretary has not broke the law nor has a precedent been set that they can make people stateless

Shamima Begum is a citizen of Bangladesh and so would not be made stateless by being stripped of her British citizenship, the Special Immigration Appeals Commission has held. The main SIAC judgment is Shamima Begum (Preliminary Issue : Substansive) [2020] UKSIAC SC_163_2019, while there is also a brief High Court judgment refusing a linked application for judicial review: [2020] EWHC 74 (Admin).

https://www.freemovement.org.uk/sha...ess-argument-against-citizenship-deprivation/

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

You might disagree with their interpretation of the law but I think they are probably in a better position to make this judgement than you or I

 

[Widow]

I see. So they've set a precedent that can be used now by the Home Secretary to make people Stateless. The Government can now get away with this because the ECHR is no longer a recourse?

Even those people who feel Shamina shouldn't be allowed back can see issues with this for the future?

They haven't ruled on the European Convention On Human Rights (ECHR)

They ruled on points of Law made by the ruling in the Court of Appeal.

This means she has the right to appeal exil but that she doesn't need to do it from residing in the UK.

The Supreme Court doesn't look at the evidence as a traditional court would. They are to make a judgement on the Court of Appeals ruling, not necessarily the individual case.

As for breaching the ECHR, it could be argued that to allow her back into the UK would be in violation of those same rules if we consider protecting every other citizen.

It's a deep issue with many twists and turns

 

[oates]

Actually I think what you don't seem to understand is that the court has ruled she has not been made stateless and therefor the home secretary has not broke the law nor has a precedent been set that they can make people stateless

I was of the understanding that Bangladesh have stated she is NOT a citizen of theirs.

edit - Liberty said although the government had claimed Begum was eligible for Bangladeshi citizenship, she was born in the UK and had never held a Bangladeshi passport. In 2019, Bangladesh's foreign minister told Al Jazeerat there was “no question of [Begum] being a Bangladeshi citizen as she never visited the country” - 3hrs ago

They haven't ruled on the European Convention On Human Rights (HCHR)

They ruled on points of Law made by the ruling in the Court of Appeal.

This means she has the right to appeal exil but that she doesn't need to do it from residing in the UK.

The Supreme Court doesn't look at evidence as a traditional court would. The are to make a judgement on the Court of Appeals ruling, not necessarily the individual case.

As for breaching the ECHR, it could be argued that to allow her back into the UK would be in violation of those same rules if we consider protecting every other citizen.

It's a deep issue with many twists and turns

Hasn't Brexit meant that Britain is not obliged to accept any ruling from the ECHR?

 

[sun_tzu]

I was of the understanding that Bangladesh have stated she is NOT a citizen of theirs.

Saying automatic citizenship rights do not apply to somebody is a statement... its not the law ... the law is anybody born to a Bangladeshi parent outside the country is automatically a citizen... they loose that citizenship if they don't take steps to formalise it by their 21st birthday

Therefore when stripping her of British citizenship as a 19 year old that did not make her stateless... if she does not take steps to formalise her citizenship by her 21st birthday she is defacto making herself stateless.

 

[Widow]

Hasn't Brexit meant that Britain is not obliged to accept any ruling from the ECHR?

No bud.

Brexit means we are no longer bound by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU).

Remember, the EU is a financial institution for the main. The ECHR and the Universal Declaration on Human Rights (UDHR) are International Treaties.

The UK made legislation, the Human Rights Act (HRA) 1998 to insure the rights have to be considered when a court makes a ruling.

 

[oates]

Saying automatic citizenship rights do not apply to somebody is a statement... its not the law ... the law is anybody born to a Bangladeshi parent outside the country is automatically a citizen... they loose that citizenship if they don't take steps to formalise it by their 21st birthday

Therefore when stripping her of British citizenship as a 19 year old that did not make her stateless... if she does not take steps to formalise her citizenship by her 21st birthday she is defacto making herself stateless.

The Home Office is using British Law (the British Nationality Act 1981) to state that she is a citizen of Bangladesh. Bangladesh surely are not bound by British Law in accepting a person into citizenship.

Two expert witnesses gave opposing views and the court picked the one that suited it best however Bangladesh is not signed up to the British Act is it?

 

[oates]

No bud.

Brexit means we are no longer bound by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU).

Remember, the EU is a financial institution for the main. The ECHR and the Universal Declaration on Human Rights (UDHR) are International Treaties.

The UK made legislation, the Human Rights Act (HRA) 1998 to insure the rights have to be considered when a court makes a ruling.

Thank you for clearing that up dude

My confusion on initials.

 

[Widow]

Thank you for clearing that up dude

My confusion on initials.

No problem mate. I'm a couple of years into a Law Degree and the courts' systems have been covered many times.

I do find it very interesting though and it's also good to apply some of my tutors' teachings in a real-life case.

 

[sun_tzu]

The Home Office is using British Law (the British Nationality Act 1981) to state that she is a citizen of Bangladesh. Bangladesh surely are not bound by British Law in accepting a person into citizenship.

Two expert witnesses gave opposing views and the court picked the one that suited it best however Bangladesh is not signed up to the British Act is it?

No they are using the Bangladesh Citizenship Act 1951

Jus sanguinis
According to the Citizenship Act 1951, one method of acquiring Bangladeshi nationality is via jus sanguinis (Citizenship by right of blood). This means one may acquire citizenship regardless of whether they were born on Bangladeshi sovereign territory or not. Bangladeshi citizenship is provided primarily jus sanguinis, or through bloodline, irrespective of the place or the legitimacy of the birth.[2] Therefore, any child born to a Bangladeshi woman illegitimately outside Bangladeshi soil would still be a Bangladeshi citizen, whereas a child born to two non-nationals in Bangladesh would not. This method is restricted if the child's parents also acquired their nationality through naturalisation or by descent.

Note, however that the Act states that for this to be the case, if the parent from whom the citizenship is to be inherited obtained their Bangladeshi citizenship by descent (rather than birth, for example) then the birth must be registered at the nearest Bangladeshi Embassy or Mission.[3]

 

[Arruda]

I dont understand what you mean. Being white is not unique to Britain. If Tim was eligible for Dutch citizenship, I have no doubt the same card would be played. She wasn't disowned because of her asian ancestry, but because she championed and assisted in terrorism. I doubt they see 2nd generation immigrant terrorists different to 7th generation British terrorists, they just used whatever means they could to block her return to Britain.

Don't countries usually work diplomatically to get their criminals extradited back? Why does the UK want to do the opposite here? Does this ever happen with other crimes? I suppose if ISIS had won and created a state you could argue she's now their citizen, but this way you're just forcing other country to host her.

It looks childishly amateur at best that this was even considered, let alone enacting it. Even of you feel zero empathy for her this isn't normal. If she was an object it wouldn't make sense, like leaving your trash on the door of the neighbour.

 

[dumbo]

I don't understand how someone born and raised in this land can just be discarded like that.

Firstly there should be a duty of care given by the country of birth, to ensure her human rights are protected. Secondly if there is the possibility that the person in question has been radicalised by a terrorist group who have a history of targeting the home country, wouldn't you want to ensure that you kept a close eye on them, and were in charge of their likely detention?

 

[utdalltheway]

Saying automatic citizenship rights do not apply to somebody is a statement... its not the law ... the law is anybody born to a Bangladeshi parent outside the country is automatically a citizen... they loose that citizenship if they don't take steps to formalise it by their 21st birthday

Therefore when stripping her of British citizenship as a 19 year old that did not make her stateless... if she does not take steps to formalise her citizenship by her 21st birthday she is defacto making herself stateless.

I hadn’t heard that one.
It looks like because the British acted 1st they got to push her on to Bangladesh?

 

[oates]

No they are using the Bangladesh Citizenship Act 1951

Ms Begum’s expert, the anonymised Witness A, disputed this analysis. His argument was partly based on a technical analysis of how the legislation is drafted and partly based on the contention that the Supreme Court of Bangladesh is so politicised that it would be likely to back the Bangladeshi government in any legal action designed to deny her citizenship of that country. Witness A

Apparently it is complicated however Bangladesh had already stated that she was denied citizenship after the Home Office first stated that she was aligned with ISIL and as a prisoner of the Kurds was denied that remedy and then attempted to foist her on Bangladesh.

What the UK court admitted was that despite the court accepting that conditions in the Al Roj camp would amount to a breach of her right to protection against torture, inhuman or degrading treatment — if she could rely directly on the European Convention on Human Rights, which she cannot.

 

[oates]

I don't understand how someone born and raised in this land can just be discarded like that.

Firstly there should be a duty of care given by the country of birth, to ensure her human rights are protected. Secondly if there is the possibility that the person in question has been radicalised by a terrorist group who have a history of targeting the home country, wouldn't you want to ensure that you kept a close eye on them, and were in charge of their likely detention?

You're not the only one.

Some others can however but are ignoring the fact that Bangladesh have denied her citizenship.

 

[ivaldo]

Don't countries usually work diplomatically to get their criminals extradited back? Why does the UK want to do the opposite here? Does this ever happen with other crimes? I suppose if ISIS had won and created a state you could argue she's now their citizen, but this way you're just forcing other country to host her.

It looks childishly amateur at best that this was even considered, let alone enacting it. Even of you feel zero empathy for her this isn't normal. If she was an object it wouldn't make sense, like leaving your trash on the door of the neighbour.

I don't disagree with any of that.

 

[Widow]

Apparently it is complicated however Bangladesh had already stated that she was denied citizenship after the Home Office first stated that she was aligned with ISIL and as a prisoner of the Kurds was denied that remedy and then attempted to foist her on Bangladesh.

The Citizenship Act 1951 in Bangladesh S3 b states 'it is expedient to make provision for citizenship of Bangladesh; It is hereby enacted as follows'... who or any of whose parents or grandparents was born in the territories included in India on the thirty-first day of March 1937.

So this, I imagine, it why the UK are saying she is a Bangladesh Citizen by right.

 

[RedTiger]

No they are using the Bangladesh Citizenship Act 1951

I haven't really followed the case closely, the Act says a person gains Bangladeshi citizenship if either of the parents were Bangladeshi citizens at the time of the birth, were her parents Bangladeshi citizens at the time of shamimas birth? I thought shamima was a 3rd generation?

 

[oates]

The Citizenship Act 1951 in Bangladesh S3 b states 'it is expedient to make provision for citizenship of Bangladesh; It is hereby enacted as follows'... who or any of whose parents or grandparents was born in the territories included in India on the thirty-first day of March 1937.

So this, I imagine, it why the UK are saying she is a Bangladesh Citizen by right.

Yes... however this amounts to:-

British Home Office "(stamps feet).. she's yours'

Bangladesh "We already said she's not"

 

[oates]

I haven't really followed the case closely, the Act says a person gains Bangladeshi citizenship if either of the parents were Bangladeshi citizens at the time of the birth, were her parents Bangladeshi citizens at the time of shamimas birth? I thought shamima was a 3rd generation?

Bangladesh have also stated that they do not accept Dual Nationality citizens. So, someone being a British Citizen cannot also claim Bangladeshi Nationality.

 

[Widow]

Yes... however this amounts to:-

British Home Office "(stamps feet).. she's yours'

Bangladesh "We already said she's not"

Very true!

I will upset people by saying that she made her bed, now lie in it!

 

[Norman Brownbutter]

Its hard to look at the case of Begum and feel any sympathy for her. But then I ask how did this happen to her? How did a young girl go from school, to fleeing the country to be a terrorist? What good is being done here to not admit her back? Im sure her case is a limited one, in that she asked to come home and has a path to citizenship elsewhere. Just dont ask, and youll get back in no problems. But that doesnt really address the issue of how this was allowed to happen in the first place. Yes, shes become a horrible human being. But maybe be taking her back, by trying her, we can get more insight into how she came to be this horrible human being and maybe we can better arm ourselves against it happening in the future?

Then theres a case to be made for setting an example to others. What if we have someone here we wish to deport, but cant because their home nation has revoked their citizenship?

Its real easy to look at just this girl, see what shes done and say "feck her, she made her bed.", as Im sure a lot of people are. But theres always more going on. Why dont we want her back here to charge her? Because its so public and makes the mob happier to see her punished this way rather than soaking up tax payer money in prison? I dont really get why we want other criminals back to charge them, but not this one?

 

[oates]

I will upset people by saying that she made her bed, now lie in it!

Which I'm afraid amounts to a breach of her right to protection against torture, inhuman or degrading treatment.

 

[UweBein]

Its hard to look at the case of Begum and feel any sympathy for her. ....

Come on... a 15 year old kid doing something stupid...something very, very stupid...
I feel sorry for her.

 

[Widow]

Its hard to look at the case of Begum and feel any sympathy for her. But then I ask how did this happen to her? How did a young girl go from school, to fleeing the country to be a terrorist? What good is being done here to not admit her back? Im sure her case is a limited one, in that she asked to come home and has a path to citizenship elsewhere. Just dont ask, and youll get back in no problems. But that doesnt really address the issue of how this was allowed to happen in the first place. Yes, shes become a horrible human being. But maybe be taking her back, by trying her, we can get more insight into how she came to be this horrible human being and maybe we can better arm ourselves against it happening in the future?

Then theres a case to be made for setting an example to others. What if we have someone here we wish to deport, but cant because their home nation has revoked their citizenship?

Its real easy to look at just this girl, see what shes done and say "feck her, she made her bed.", as Im sure a lot of people are. But theres always more going on. Why dont we want her back here to charge her? Because its so public and makes the mob happier to see her punished this way rather than soaking up tax payer money in prison? I dont really get why we want other criminals back to charge them, but not this one?

Precedent, that's why.

If she is allowed to return, it will open the gates for others to follow, opening our borders to some very bad people. Terrorists could exploit this.

As for 'how did this happen'? Radicalization! This is no excuse though. Would we excuse a suicide bomber? I imagine the same principles applied when she was 'mind controlled' into going to join Isis.

Which I'm afraid amounts to a breach of her right to protection against torture, inhuman or degrading treatment.

I never said the bed was a horrible one...she seems to have enjoyed it for the most part

 

[Widow]

Come on... a 15 year old kid doing something stupid...something very, very stupid...
I feel sorry for her.

That is a massive understatement!

Women in Isis kill too. I dread to think of the atrocities she and her husband committed!

 

[sun_tzu]

Bangladesh have also stated that they do not accept Dual Nationality citizens. So, someone being a British Citizen cannot also claim Bangladeshi Nationality.

yet the Bangladeshi citizenship act of 1951 makes provision for it

Dual citizenship[edit]
Dual citizenship is permitted under certain circumstances where the person is not a citizen of a SAARC country.[4] Such dual citizens of Bangladesh can apply for a Dual Nationality Certificate which makes it legal to use a foreign passport however, people are not prosecuted for not applying for such certificate. It is also possible to enter Bangladesh as a person of Bangladeshi origin, or a spouse or child of a person of Bangladeshi origin via a No Visa Required (NVR) seal, stamp or sticker on their foreign passports. An eligible person can apply for the NVR stamp/sticker at any Bangladeshi mission overseas. NVR exceptions include citizens of SAARC countries.

Bangladesh clearly don't want her - neither do we ... nor does anybody else ... legally speaking so far it looks like the UK courts seem to agree with the home office as to the legality of their action - its a complex legal case so best to leave it to the experts i guess.

I assume she will continue the appeal and appear by video at the trial?

 

[oates]

I never said the bed was a horrible one...she seems to have enjoyed it for the most part

I don't know. How would you feel if you lost three children and were imprisoned in a pig sty? Enjoyment potential? Nil.

 

[Widow]

I don't know. How would you feel if you lost three children and were imprisoned in a pig sty? Enjoyment potential? Nil.

I'd be very careful about believing everything we read in the press.

For example, I haven't read about the numbers killed by her and/or husband. I'd feel sorry for their familys

 

[oates]

yet the Bangladeshi citizenship act of 1951 makes provision for it

Yes, you've referred to the 1951 Act already however Bangladesh have denied her having a right to citizenship. They don't have to abide by a British court decision or be dictated which of their laws apply just because Britain wants to wash their hands of their own problem.

She was born in the UK, she is, well was British, and Britain knowing full well the Bangladesh position have made her Stateless in a British court.

 

[Adam-Utd]

Tough one isn't it?

at 15 shes young and dumb enough to be tricked into thinking she was doing the right thing, England is evil etc.

But then at the same time those feelings probably haven't just gone away, she needs to be evaluated as to why she left, what is her opinion now etc.

She might have genuinely reformed, or she might be lying through her teeth to save her own skin.

I doubt she would have returned if IS was still running rampant.

 

[oates]

I'd be very careful about believing everything we read in the press.

For example, I haven't read about the numbers killed by her and/or husband.

I haven't read that she's killed or injured anyone but I have read that she has had three children die. Would you be happier if it was just one child, two?

 

[Pexbo]

Tough one isn't it?

at 15 shes young and dumb enough to be tricked into thinking she was doing the right thing, England is evil etc.

But then at the same time those feelings probably haven't just gone away, she needs to be evaluated as to why she left, what is her opinion now etc.

She might have genuinely reformed, or she might be lying through her teeth to save her own skin.

I doubt she would have returned if IS was still running rampant.

It’s not a tough one at all. She was still a child when the government failed to protect her from radicalisation and failed to stop her leaving the country.

 

[Widow]

I haven't read that she's killed or injured anyone but I have read that she has had three children die. Would you be happier if it was just one child, two?

Don't twist my words to make me look bad.

You are choosing to believe parts of the media you wish to believe. Very naive to think they don't have blood on their hands.

I respect your opinions but I'm happy with the Courts ruling.

Good day Sir

 

[oates]

Don't twist my words to make me look bad.

You are choosing to believe parts of the media you wish to believe. Very naive to think they don't have blood on their hands.

I respect your opinions but I'm happy the Courts ruling.

Good day Sir

Not twisted your words, I've asked you a question or two.

I said I had read about one, not another which you said you hadn't read about killings.

You did say that she had apparently enjoyed her bed and I doubted that very much because of what I have read.

Don't go getting all sensitive, either answer the question or admit we don't have a clue over her enjoyment of the bed.

 

[Jippy]

I assumed the Supreme Court would be sensible and reverse Javid's political decision to remove her citizenship. I don't see how anyone can agree that dumping our problem citizens on the rest of the world and saying 'you deal with it' is acceptable. If Bangladesh or wherever did the same to us, for example, Tories would be apoplectic.

Britain slumping further into a friendless, Trumpian abyss under this government.

 

[Adam-Utd]

It’s not a tough one at all. She was still a child when the government failed to protect her from radicalisation and failed to stop her leaving the country.

In that sense true - but at the same time she has potentially been manipulated by terrorists and could be dangerous.

People better qualified than you or I need to monitor her and see if she can live in our society again. Imagine she came back and was involved in a terrorist act in the country?

 

[Jippy]

In that sense true - but at the same time she has potentially been manipulated by terrorists and could be dangerous.

People better qualified than you or I need to monitor her and see if she can live in our society again. Imagine she came back and was involved in a terrorist act in the country?

Fine, then bring her back and lock her up, don't just expect other countries to have to look after her cos we want to shirk that responsibility.

 

[Sparky_Hughes]

Come on... a 15 year old kid doing something stupid...something very, very stupid...
I feel sorry for her.

Getting pissed and knocked up at 15 is very stupid, leaving the country to join a terrorist organisation is something else entirely.

It’s not a tough one at all. She was still a child when the government failed to protect her from radicalisation and failed to stop her leaving the country.

Just out of curiosity how should the government have protected her from radicalisation?