View previous topic | View next topic

Shamima Begum case

Page 5 of 9
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next

filofax
1314250.  Thu Feb 21, 2019 2:58 am Reply with quote

Although in the American case, apparently there are videos of the lady burning an American passport - perhaps that can be construed as voluntarily renouncing citizenship?
Otherwise, I don't think he has a leg to stand on. If she was born in the US, there must be records attesting to that fact. If she applied for and received a passport, it will be registered somewhere.

 
dr.bob
1314268.  Thu Feb 21, 2019 6:16 am Reply with quote

Jenny wrote:
I read on Facebook (not a great source...) that the Bangladeshis have said they will not allow her to claim Bangladeshi citizenship, which must surely put a spanner in the works of the British government, as she would be stateless.


It's a bit of a weird one. There's a good article on the BBC website which covers some of the legal implications. The first thing to notice is that it currently seems unclear if Ms Begum is indeed entitled to Bangladeshi citizenship. The BBC simply state that "she was born to a mother believed to be Bangladeshi." (my emphasis)

Assuming her mother is Bangladeshi, the law states that Ms Begum would automatically qualify for Bangladeshi citizenship, even without having visited the country. However, the weird complication is that this citizenship vanishes when Ms Begum reaches the age of 21 unless she takes active steps to preserve it.

I guess if Mr Javid had succeeded in removing her British citizenship by that point, the Bangladeshi government would be prevented from rendering Ms Begum stateless. However, if the legal wrangles drag on, as was suggested yesterday, for a couple of years, then her Bangladeshi citizenship may lapse before her British citizenship has been successfully removed.

 
Alexander Howard
1314385.  Fri Feb 22, 2019 7:45 am Reply with quote

Guido has found some strong statements by Labour's real leader, John McDonnell, to the effect that those going to fight for foreign armies in the Middle East should be stripped of their citizenship:

https://order-order.com/2019/02/22/mcdonnell-strip-brits-fight-israeli-state-citizenship/

 
Awitt
1316027.  Sat Mar 09, 2019 12:48 am Reply with quote

Just seen this in Australia's media where the latest baby has also died it seems.

https://www.theage.com.au/world/middle-east/baby-of-british-is-bride-shemima-begum-dies-in-syria-20190309-p512x6.html?fbclid=IwAR0pma5AkIkActarTOMX4bBdO9CZEavrJ0NpfWK1xYmYOd2J3ZVkvd_TdZk

 
Alexander Howard
1316030.  Sat Mar 09, 2019 3:36 am Reply with quote

There are things which must not be expressed in grand statements, praise or judgment on abstract principles, ideology and rhetoric cast over the heads of a cowed audience. There are things which cannot be expressed upon, and must be met in silence, and one is this: a mother weeping over her silent child.

 
Jenny
1316078.  Sat Mar 09, 2019 2:42 pm Reply with quote

Yes. However one feels about Ms Begum, it's a sad thing for a young mother to lose even one baby, let alone three.

 
dr.bob
1316230.  Mon Mar 11, 2019 10:11 am Reply with quote

Here's an illuminating, and rather alarming, report on what's left of the IS caliphate from the BBC's Quentin Sommerville:

https://twitter.com/sommervilletv/status/1104874002605051904

 
dr.bob
1327974.  Mon Aug 05, 2019 9:42 am Reply with quote

Maybe this should go in the "upcoming programmes" thread elsewhere, but I figured it might spark more discussion.

On wednesday at 8pm, Radio 4 will be broadcasting the latest episode of the series "Unreliable Evidence" hosted by Clive Anderson. The show will be covering the pros and cons of depriving someone of their citizenship, with a particular focus on the case of Shamima Begum. Arguing the case will be Lord Carlile, described as a "former independent reviewer of terrorism legislation", and immigration lawyer Fahad Ansari.

If you can't listen to the show as it's broadcast, it'll be available afterwards here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0007bx1

 
Jenny
1327992.  Mon Aug 05, 2019 11:34 am Reply with quote

Thanks dr.bob - that might well be interesting.

 
dr.bob
1328293.  Tue Aug 13, 2019 10:41 am Reply with quote

If you've got 42 minutes to kill, you could do worse than listen to it. As well as the two participants mentioned above, the programme also features Karen Doyle, a campaigner from Movement For Justice which is an organisation bringing cases trying to expand the Windrush scheme, and Professor Thom Brooks from Durham Law School.

The aforementioned Fahad Ansari is described as an Irish citizen of Pakistani descent living in the UK. Ms Doyle is also an Irish citizen living in the UK. Prof Brooks has dual US/UK nationality. Lord Carlile's nationality isn't mentioned, so I guess he must be 100% British.

The discussion is interesting, raises a lot of points, and airs different views without specifically deciding that one view is more right than the other. That's left very much for the listener to decide.

Mr Ansari at one point claims that the citizenship rules are by design and by application racist. Lord Carlile made a good rebuke that, by design, they're not racist as he points out there are plenty of black and asian British people with full British citizenship who have the same unalienable right to UK citizenship as white Britons. However, he concedes that the application may well be racist, particularly given the case of Jack Letts.

Mr Letts is dual national British/Canadian citizen. Like Shamima Begum, he grew up in the UK. Like Shamima Begum, he travelled to Syria to join ISIS and now wants to come back to the UK. Unlike Shamima Begum, he actually joined ISIS as a fighter (though he claims he never killed anyone). Unlike Shamima Begum, he's white. Shamima Begum had her UK citizenship revoked. Jack Letts didn't.

Interestingly, everyone on the panel are pretty convinced that the Home Secretary acted too rashly in the Shamima Begum case and that the decision will ultimately be overturned in the courts.

There's a lot of discussion about whether citizenship is a right or a privilege. The panel splits much as you might expect, though good points are made on both sides.

They also discuss the Windrush scandal and how this was a combination of both incompetence on behalf of successive governments who should've seen it coming, and malicious intent from the Home Office as part of the intentionally hostile environment for immigrants.

There's a discussion about the "Life in the UK" test and how unrealistic the test is. Clive Anderson suggests that people should simply be asked to explain why the phrase "Don't tell him Pike!" is funny and, if they can, they should be let in :) A few people also make the point that the citizenship process is overly expensive, which is discriminatory against poor people.

All in all, well worth a listen.

 
Strawberry
1353445.  Thu Jul 16, 2020 12:55 pm Reply with quote

Shamima Begum can return to UK

 
PDR
1353479.  Fri Jul 17, 2020 2:54 am Reply with quote

dr.bob wrote:

Mr Ansari at one point claims that the citizenship rules are by design and by application racist. Lord Carlile made a good rebuke that, by design, they're not racist as he points out there are plenty of black and asian British people with full British citizenship who have the same unalienable right to UK citizenship as white Britons. However, he concedes that the application may well be racist, particularly given the case of Jack Letts.

Mr Letts is dual national British/Canadian citizen. Like Shamima Begum, he grew up in the UK. Like Shamima Begum, he travelled to Syria to join ISIS and now wants to come back to the UK. Unlike Shamima Begum, he actually joined ISIS as a fighter (though he claims he never killed anyone). Unlike Shamima Begum, he's white. Shamima Begum had her UK citizenship revoked. Jack Letts didn't.


I must have missed this last year. Mr Letts was indeed stripped of his citizenship (source), but his case is different because he was not rendered stateless in the process.

I'm very uncomfortable about this case because we appear to be taking extreme measures to hold a rather silly girl respinsible for the actions she took (possibly after beeing groomed) as a rather naive 15-year-old schoolgirl. My cynical view is that the government want to prevent her coming to a british court because the british legal system will take a simi;lar view, and won't convict her of anything much more than playing truant from school.

PDR

 
dr.bob
1353489.  Fri Jul 17, 2020 4:17 am Reply with quote

PDR wrote:
I must have missed this last year. Mr Letts was indeed stripped of his citizenship (source), but his case is different because he was not rendered stateless in the process.


I'm a little confused by the reporting of this case. Some outlets describe Mr Letts as having dual nationality, while others claim he has the right to claim Canadian citizenship through his father.

Either way, if someone was born and raised in the UK I think it's perfectly correct to describe them as British whether or not they have a legal right to citizenship of a country they've never lived in.

I note that the cases of Mr Letts and Ms Begum are different in another way. Both gave interviews to the British media around the same time: Ms Begum on 13 Feb 2019, Mr Letts on 22 Feb 2019. Despite this, Ms Begum had her citizenship removed within days whilst, as the source you posted above makes clear, Mr Letts remained a British citizen for another 6 months before the Home Secretary chose to act.

I wonder why the process was so different.

PDR wrote:
My cynical view is that the government want to prevent her coming to a british court because the british legal system will take a simi;lar view, and won't convict her of anything much more than playing truant from school.


That sounds pretty much spot on to me.

A government minister tweeted the standard government line yesterday about being "disappointed by the court's decision". A QC replied saying that he was basically telling the world that he was "disappointed" that a woman was being allowed access to due process, which was telling.

 
Jenny
1353539.  Fri Jul 17, 2020 10:50 am Reply with quote

One of the reports on the Shamima Begum case say she has a claim to Bangladeshi citizenship through her mother, thus would not be stateless. However, I agree with PDR that it seems wrong to do something so very drastic to someone because of a stupid decision she made at the age of 15. Her life in a war zone hasn't been a bed of roses either, given that she has given birth to three children over the last five years, all of whom have died. Can't we have some compassion?

 
PDR
1353573.  Fri Jul 17, 2020 4:19 pm Reply with quote

According to the Bangladeshi government her heritage allowed her to claim citizenship untill she was (I think) 21. After that the right was no longer automatic, and they were not likely to grant it.

It's also worth considering that Bangladesh isn't particularly noted for its strongly objective adherence to any system of laws. I suppose that's something they have in common with our own current government...

PDR

 

Page 5 of 9
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next

All times are GMT - 5 Hours


Display posts from previous:   

Search Search Forums

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group