Is that you quoting from the law?Not when UK law says you can strip someone of UK citizenship if they have / are eligible for another. Then it is very relevant to her case, hence the lawyers saying what they said.
'Something tells me you don’t have to worry about it unless you run off and marry a member of an enemy combatant terrorist group that’s mid-genocide.'
stripping someone’s citizenship removes their identity which is a fundamental human right. To say to someone oh it’s fine you can get another citizenship is meaningless because they may not identify with that citizenship at all and you’re forcing it on them + as Penna says the other nation can reject that too. Personally I don’t think we should be taking the avenue of exploiting peoples human rights because it gets tricky to navigate and then gives far more freedom to do so more often in the future.Not when UK law says you can strip someone of UK citizenship if they have / are eligible for another. Then it is very relevant to her case, hence the lawyers saying what they said.
Something tells me you don’t have to worry about it unless you run off and marry a member of an enemy combatant terrorist group that’s mid-genocide.
Quite early in the debate about her losing UK citizenship there were statements by Bangladeshi officials saying she wasn't entitled to citizenship in their country and that they didn't want her. It's not automatically granted, you still have to apply for it if you meet the eligibility criteria.Not when UK law says you can strip someone of UK citizenship if they have / are eligible for another. Then it is very relevant to her case, hence the lawyers saying what they said.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/feb/20/rights-of-shamima-begums-son-not-affected-says-javidShamima Begum is not a Bangladeshi citizen and there is “no question” of her being allowed into Bangladesh, the country’s ministry of foreign affairs has insisted, setting up a clash with the UK after Sajid Javid’s move to strip the teenager of her UK citizenship.
“The government of Bangladesh is deeply concerned that [Begum] has been erroneously identified as a holder of dual citizenship,” Shahriar Alam, the state minister of foreign affairs, said in a statement issued to the Guardian, adding that his government had learned of Britain’s intention to cancel her citizenship rights from media reports.
“Bangladesh asserts that Ms Shamima Begum is not a Bangladeshi citizen. She is a British citizen by birth and never applied for dual nationality with Bangladesh … There is no question of her being allowed to enter into Bangladesh.”
My wife and her friends were and as others have said, coming so hot on the heels of the Windrush scandal and the rise in racism post-Brexit. The whole climate for immigrants is steadily worsening and the idea that you can lose your citizenship at the behest of a populist government is scary.Is that you quoting from the law?
lots of people with foreign ancestry are actually very disturbed by this case. My dad who came from India in the 60s always said dont get too comfortable here, one day they'll turf you out no matter how well you do and how much you integrate. Hes going to be proven right sooner or later...
There are some incredibly cold people in this thread. I'm honestly not sure why I keep checking in here, it genuinely upsets me looking at some of the comments here.I’d offer the example where a white male who joined a white nationalist terror group was (originally) sentenced to ‘reading the classics’, then later given a prison sentence. At no point was it suggested that he have his citizenship revoked.
Three guesses to the difference between that white male in his twenties, and Begum, who was Groomed as a minor.
I’d also highlight the children that she’s lost, I believe two of whom were conceived via statutory rape…or doesn’t that count for her?
She didn't even chose to go! She was groomed as a minor and legally wouldn't be responsible for the decisions she made.so, @Carolina Red, just so i'm clear, given she chose to go to Syria, you're fine for this girl to be stripped of her nationality and be rendered stateless, be confined to a detention camp for life (or until she dies), and never receive a fair trial for her crimes, right? because this is essentially what she can expect, given Bangladesh has no requirement to give her citizenship.
Nah mate, I'm apparently the insane one...There are some incredibly cold people in this thread. I'm honestly not sure why I keep checking in here, it genuinely upsets me looking at some of the comments here.
Sorry, it’s just me looking at the reality of why the British government took the route they did.Is that you quoting from the law?
lots of people with foreign ancestry are actually very disturbed by this case. My dad who came from India in the 60s always said dont get too comfortable here, one day they'll turf you out no matter how well you do and how much you integrate. Hes going to be proven right sooner or later...
I’m well aware that many folks in the UK aren’t happy that her citizenship was stripped. What I’m pointing out is that legal experts determined that it was legal to take that step. I’ve seen many folks post “they can’t do that” and the reality seems to be quite the opposite.stripping someone’s citizenship removes their identity which is a fundamental human right. To say to someone oh it’s fine you can get another citizenship is meaningless because they may not identify with that citizenship at all and you’re forcing it on them + as Penna says the other nation can reject that too. Personally I don’t think we should be taking the avenue of exploiting peoples human rights because it gets tricky to navigate and then gives far more freedom to do so more often in the future.
The article I’ve quoted is from that time period in the debate, and shows legal experts refuting that claim even back then (2019). The UK Supreme Court seems to have sided with that argument as well (2021).Quite early in the debate about her losing UK citizenship there were statements by Bangladeshi officials saying she wasn't entitled to citizenship in their country and that they didn't want her. It's not automatically granted, you still have to apply for it if you meet the eligibility criteria.
I believe, looking at the facts, that it was legal. And no, I don’t feel sorry for her, just like I don’t feel sorry for anyone else who ran off to join ISIS and suffered consequences.so, @Carolina Red, just so i'm clear, given she chose to go to Syria, you're fine for this girl to be stripped of her nationality and be rendered stateless, be confined to a detention camp for life (or until she dies), and never receive a fair trial for her crimes, right? because this is essentially what she can expect, given Bangladesh has no requirement to give her citizenship.
The fact that the UK Government and Courts decided she could be a Bangladeshi citizen has no bearing on what Bangladesh's laws say. She didn't and never will have a Bangladeshi passport, therefore she was deliberately made stateless. Can you imagine if she had some putative right to be an American citizen, but hadn't actually applied for a passport before her offences were committed? The USA would laugh at the idea of her now getting that passport and coming to the States, and quite rightly so.The article I’ve quoted is from that time period in the debate, and shows legal experts refuting that claim even back then (2019). The UK Supreme Court seems to have sided with that argument as well (2021).
I believe, looking at the facts, that it was legal. And no, I don’t feel sorry for her, just like I don’t feel sorry for anyone else who ran off to join ISIS and suffered consequences.
you didn't answer the question. a yes or no will suffice.I believe, looking at the facts, that it was legal. And no, I don’t feel sorry for her, just like I don’t feel sorry for anyone else who ran off to join ISIS and suffered consequences.
Yes I did, I just expanded on the answer. I believe what the UK did was legal and I don’t feel sympathy for her. She can stay in that detention center and continue to reap what she’s sowed for herself.you didn't answer the question. a yes or no will suffice.
Christ you really are a horrible person.Yes I did, I just expanded on the answer. I believe what the UK did was legal and I don’t feel sympathy for her. She can stay in that detention center and continue to reap what she’s sowed for herself.
it's not a good thing when they start to erode protections and rights and set precedents that most people are firmly against, should it ever be applied to them or to people they know. there's plenty of things the government technically cannot do but is doing, like holding assange without any charge in maximum security prison, and none of them tend to be good. the law isn't a good place to hide because the law alters according to the whims of whichever ruling faction is in power. it isn't a test of morality but a codified set of rules.I’m well aware that many folks in the UK aren’t happy that her citizenship was stripped. What I’m pointing out is that legal experts determined that it was legal to take that step. I’ve seen many folks post “they can’t do that” and the reality seems to be quite the opposite.
To be fair, she was 15.I believe, looking at the facts, that it was legal. And no, I don’t feel sorry for her, just like I don’t feel sorry for anyone else who ran off to join ISIS and suffered consequences.
Unlike someone who was a part of a mass murdering terrorist organisation. Real perspective in here.Christ you really are a horrible person.
Have I excused her? I have consistently said she should be tried in the UK and punished for her actions. Pointless comment.Unlike someone who was a part of a mass murdering terrorist organisation. Real perspective in here.
Having any kind of sympathy for her is bad enough.Have I excused her? I have consistently said she should be tried in the UK and punished for her actions. Pointless comment.
If you think that’s bad, wait till I tell you how I feel about Nazis.Christ you really are a horrible person.
Jesus christ what a psycho you are. No sympathy for someone who was a part of isis!? Is there no decency in this world!?If you think that’s bad, wait till I tell you how I feel about Nazis.
I’m well aware.To be fair, she was 15.
When you learn anything about the human psyche, you will start to appreciate that nothing is black and white.Jesus christ what a psycho you are. No sympathy for someone who was a part of isis!? Is there no decency in this world!?
Please keep up with the conversation. This isn’t about sympathy, it’s about individuals being made stateless and never having the chance of a fair trial. Some people think a system of fundamental human rights is important in the world. Shocking, I know.Jesus christ what a psycho you are. No sympathy for someone who was a part of isis!? Is there no decency in this world!?
Give him time. He’s been here 3 years, so we can assume he’s at least 3 years old.When you learn anything about the human psyche, you will start to appreciate that nothing is black and white.
yes, terrorists are bad. Well done on that startling observationIf you think that’s bad, wait till I tell you how I feel about Nazis.
You just called @Carolina Red a horrible person for having no sympathy for Shamina being made stateless. Obviously sympathy is part of the conversation.Please keep up with the conversation. This isn’t about sympathy, it’s about individuals being made stateless and never having the chance of a fair trial. Some people think a system of fundamental human rights is important in the world. Shocking, I know.
He’s a horrible person because he is fine for someone to be stripped of their nationality, be rendered stateless, be confined to a detention centre for life, and never have access to a fair trial for their crimes. You can literally just scroll up this page to understand this, it isn’t difficult.You just called @Carolina Red a horrible person for having no sympathy for Shamina being made stateless. Obviously sympathy is part of the conversation.
He also made quite clear why he's okay with. in this particular case. Personally my own view is that she should be brought back to the UK, but I don't think people who believes he crossed a line and is reaping what she's sowing are horrible people.He’s a horrible person because he is fine for someone to be stripped of their nationality, be rendered stateless, be confined to a detention centre for life, and never have access to a fair trial for their crimes. You can literally just scroll up this page to understand this, it isn’t difficult.
You don’t have to be sympathetic to believe that everyone should have access to basic fundamental human rights.
It’s simple, when she made those decisions she was a child. A child who had been groomed.I really don't understand how people can come to the conclusion that she is a victim.
She grew up in priviledge. She was safe from famine, disease and violence. Once she was old enough to physically decide what she wanted to do she decided to aid a organisation that killed, mamed and terrrorized children, women and men who largely grew up without her priviledges. Once she had no more opportunity to be part of tyranny she decides she wants a return to her priveledge.
And you guys fall for it.
You seem confused by the concept of human rights. We judge the morality of actions not based on feeling sorry for the victim but whether it meets our own standards.You just called @Carolina Red a horrible person for having no sympathy for Shamina being made stateless. Obviously sympathy is part of the conversation.
It's not sympathy for Shamima that's the issue - no-one is denying she's odious. It's disgust at the British government dumping responsibility for its problem citizens on other countries like a feckless coward.You just called @Carolina Red a horrible person for having no sympathy for Shamina being made stateless. Obviously sympathy is part of the conversation.
Yeah, same here. It's not a particularly pleasant thread to read, and actually comes across as quite right orientated which is unusual for the Caf. I feel like there are some cultural differences to be fair, and probably because of relatively recent history with ISIS.There are some incredibly cold people in this thread. I'm honestly not sure why I keep checking in here, it genuinely upsets me looking at some of the comments here.
I've stated twice in this thread since it was updated that I think she should be brought home, but I can't blame a lot people for feeling differently.You seem confused by the concept of human rights. We judge the morality of actions not based on feeling sorry for the victim but whether it meets our own standards.
Unless you think rape, torture, murder against her would be fine because no one should have any sympathy for her?
It doesn't surprise me that our US based mods have a US centric view where human rights are fine to be ignored. It's a horrible part of US culture and political discourse that I really hope we don't import.
This is the key issue here (citizenship) as you indicate, not whether Shamima deserves sympathy or whatever.It's not sympathy for Shamima that's the issue - no-one is denying she's odious. It's disgust at the British government dumping responsibility for its problem citizens on other countries like a feckless coward.
yepIt's not sympathy for Shamima that's the issue - no-one is denying she's odious. It's disgust at the British government dumping responsibility for its problem citizens on other countries like a feckless coward.
Remind me… how many fair trials and human rights did ISIS grant to the people they butchered?Please keep up with the conversation. This isn’t about sympathy, it’s about individuals being made stateless and never having the chance of a fair trial. Some people think a system of fundamental human rights is important in the world. Shocking, I know.
Feck that. She was 15 not 6. She wasn't in love and did crazy things out of love. She went there and married anyone there, the only prerequsite being him being a fighter for isis. She specifally wanted one of those.It’s simple, when she made those decisions she was a child. A child who had been groomed.
In the same way that a child who runs away with their teacher who had groomed them wouldn’t be punished, neither should she (to the point where she’s proven to have actually aided in actions that hurt / killed people, in which case she should be brought back to face trial as a minor).
