View previous topic | View next topic

Shamima Begum case

Page 4 of 5
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

dr.bob
1314151.  Wed Feb 20, 2019 5:49 am Reply with quote

Her family are, unsurprisingly, planning to mount a legal challenge to the Home Office's decision. The upshot of this, according to Lord Carlile this morning, is that Ms Begum will probably be stuck in the refugee camp for at least 2 years while the legal process plays out.

Personally I think it's fucking disgusting to suggest that a British woman who was born, raised, educated, and radicalised here in Britain is such a threat to life and limb that we should deport her to a country with a much bigger problem with IS terrorism and about one-tenth of the GDP per capita of the UK, despite her never having actually spent any time there. How can that decision possibly be morally justifiable?

Sorry to sound like a stuck record, but what if the boot were on the other foot? It turns out that there are up to 13 American women and their children currently stuck in similar circumstances to Ms Begum and at least 2 of them are actively trying to return home to the US. Imagine if the US found that they had some tenuous claim to British citizenship and decided to strip them of their US citizenship and force them to come and live here instead despite them having spent no time here in the past. I think we can all imagine the newspaper headlines.

In other news, for anyone with a bit of time to spare, this is an interesting interview with Anthony Loyd, the Times journalist who originally broke the story. He is clearly of the opinion that Ms Begum should be allowed to return to the UK.

 
cnb
1314154.  Wed Feb 20, 2019 5:58 am Reply with quote

Alexander Howard wrote:
The idea that someone born a British citizen can be stripped of citizenship involuntarily should be worrying.


Was she born British? She was born in Britain, according to her lawyer, but if neither of her parents were British citizens at the time she would not have been British at birth.

 
filofax
1314185.  Wed Feb 20, 2019 8:45 am Reply with quote

whether or not she was born British it irrelevant, to my mind. The fact is that she IS British.

To me this is akin to prosecuting for soliciting at age 19 a girl groomed for prostitution when underage. The girl was a minor when she left, so presumably can't be held 100% legally responsible for her decision. Surely this is comparable to kidnapping a minor, if grooming were involved?

And let's not forget Britain's responsibility to the rest of the world. We don't like this person, so we're just going to cut her loose for someone else to deal with. Let us assume the IS a threat. Well, she is a threat that is also a product of Britain, and Britain should deal with her.

There was some numpty on the news this morning saying that there was no point bringing her home to face charges, because we have no evidence that she actually committed any crimes. In that case, what justification do we have for stripping her of her citizenship?
If joining ISIS is illegal, charge her.
If joining ISIS simply makes her an undesirable person, well I still think she is an undesirable person who is the responsibility of Britain.

And what is going to become of that baby?

the whole story is extremely distasteful, to say the least.

 
Alfred E Neuman
1314186.  Wed Feb 20, 2019 8:52 am Reply with quote

filofax wrote:
the whole story is extremely distasteful, to say the least.

I couldn’t agree more. Setting aside the legalities, the total abscence of compassion for a child who was almost certainly brainwashed into making the worst decision of her life is staggering.

I wonder if the foreign secretary would have acted in the same way had she been a fundamentalist Christian and the organisation she joined been right wing, or if the child in question had been their daughter or niece.

 
PDR
1314187.  Wed Feb 20, 2019 9:19 am Reply with quote

Alfred E Neuman wrote:
filofax wrote:
the whole story is extremely distasteful, to say the least.

I couldn’t agree more. Setting aside the legalities, the total abscence of compassion for a child who was almost certainly brainwashed into making the worst decision of her life is staggering.


#Me2

I've heard people saying things like "we need to stop her coming back to the UK and lock her up in a place like Gitmo so that we don't have to worry about the lack of admissible evidence".

This makes me vomit, frankly. If there is no evidence then she is innocent and should be left to come home like any other Brit. We don't lower the standards of evidence just because it happens to be inconvenient - not in any country *I* want to live in, at any rate.

PDR

 
filofax
1314188.  Wed Feb 20, 2019 9:36 am Reply with quote

Quote:
If there is no evidence then she is innocent and should be left to come home like any other Brit.


Well I think we can go as far as to say that joining IS, whatever the circumstances, would make her a person of interest, and therefore should not necessarily treated 'like any other Brit'.
She should be allowed to come home and be interviewed, understood, monitored, helped and supported.

Her interviews in which she seems pretty callous to some have shown that she is unrepentant in her support of a terrorist organisation. I see it rather as her being a very damaged person.
But there is no way we will know which it is unless we let her into the country, at which point she can be dealt with according to British law.

IMHO.

 
PDR
1314189.  Wed Feb 20, 2019 9:44 am Reply with quote

filofax wrote:
Quote:
If there is no evidence then she is innocent and should be left to come home like any other Brit.


Well I think we can go as far as to say that joining IS, whatever the circumstances, would make her a person of interest, and therefore should not necessarily treated 'like any other Brit'.


I think what I meant was "she should be treated like any other brit - in the absence of evidence she's innocent, and if there is some evidence then she has a case to asnwer. In a court. Wih a lawyer. Not by innuendo, hearsay and fake fact in the daily fail.

PDR

 
Jenny
1314202.  Wed Feb 20, 2019 1:49 pm Reply with quote

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.

 
PDR
1314208.  Wed Feb 20, 2019 2:23 pm Reply with quote

I was reported on the PM programme (Radio 4) while I was driving to the hotel. The Bangladeshi government has issued a statement saying that she is not a Bangladeshi national, would be unlikley to obtain Bangladeshi nationality (ever), and she would not be permitted to enter the country. The statement also apparently intimated that they are livid with the British government for assuming she would get nationality without at least the courtesy of talking to them first.

PDR

 
PDR
1314209.  Wed Feb 20, 2019 2:27 pm Reply with quote

If you can, it might be worth skim-listening to that programme on the website - as well as the news reports it also had a lengthy interview with a specialist barrister (specialising in the special immigration courts which would be the stage on which this case would be heard) discussing the numerous aspects of this sorry tale which fall short of the ideal from a purely legal perspective.

PDR

 
suze
1314224.  Wed Feb 20, 2019 5:40 pm Reply with quote

Sundry lawyers have now spoken to sundry media outlets on this issue, and they nearly all say the same thing: that if Ms Begum takes this matter to a British court she will win and the government will lose.

The government does still have the nuclear option of intentionally making Ms Begum stateless. It has never been done and it runs contrary to several UN conventions, but Britain does assert that power under the Immigration Act 2014.

Should that be tried, one would imagine that the matter would end up before the European Court of Human Rights. Despite what some on Facebook appear to believe, Britain will not cease to be subject to that court in a month's time - and the government is probably 95% sure that it is 95% likely to lose if a case hinging on that nuclear power should make its way to the ECHR.

As I see it, the government now has two choices. It can cross its fingers and hope that Ms Begum goes away, and then blame everyone but itself when she doesn't go away and the government loses in court. Alternatively, it can claim that its statement of yesterday has been "misunderstood", and announce that Ms Begum's British citizenship has not been revoked.

The tabloids really aren't going to like the latter, but does the government actually have much choice?

 
Leith
1314230.  Wed Feb 20, 2019 7:00 pm Reply with quote

suze wrote:
As I see it, the government now has two choices. It can cross its fingers and hope that Ms Begum goes away, and then blame everyone but itself when she doesn't go away and the government loses in court. Alternatively, it can claim that its statement of yesterday has been "misunderstood", and announce that Ms Begum's British citizenship has not been revoked.

The tabloids really aren't going to like the latter, but does the government actually have much choice?


I suppose if the Government think there are votes in leaving the ECHR too, then they might see a benefit to seeing the case through, knowing that they will lose, but that plenty of anti-human rights sentiment will be whipped up in the process. And ultimately they can still blame the outcome on Europe.

I can't quite decide whether I'm being overly cynical or whether such a tactic would be entirely in keeping with their appalling behaviour to date in this case.

 
suze
1314231.  Wed Feb 20, 2019 7:13 pm Reply with quote

The ERG certainly wants to withdraw from the European Convention on (and hence the European Court of) Human Rights, and Mrs May used to say that so does she.

She knows that she can't get that through the present Parliament, just as Mr Cameron knew that he couldn't get it past the LibDems in the Coalition days. Furthermore, she seems to accept that being kicked out of the Council of Europe - as we necessarily would be - would be less than optimal. Having less concern for human rights than Russia does is hardly a ringing endorsement, and it's a charge that would surely be laid.

So it's on the backburner for now, and will remain there until there is a different leader. But as regards your last sentence, you are not being overly cynical.

 
GuyBarry
1314236.  Thu Feb 21, 2019 2:18 am Reply with quote

If the PM's Brexit deal goes through, we won't be able to leave the ECHR. The political declaration on the future relationship states:

"The future relationship should incorporate the United Kingdom's continued commitment to respect the framework of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), while the Union and its Member States will remain bound by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which reaffirms the rights as they result in particular from the ECHR."

 
PDR
1314240.  Thu Feb 21, 2019 2:36 am Reply with quote

Meanwhile Dirty Donald is jumping on the bandwagon, although I can't help thinking the far more robust US approach constitutional rights will just make this another case where he's thrown back into his box. I'm pretty sure that no US president can strip citizenship - if the power exists at all it must surely lie with a court, after due process with representation and respect for the citizen's rights.

PDR

 

Page 4 of 5
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are GMT - 5 Hours


Display posts from previous:   

Search Search Forums

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group