Wife of ISIS fighter wants to return to the UK
Comments
-
Aren't people concerned that this means it's ok to have your citizenship stripped from you, when you've not been convicted of a crime and not been able to speak to your legal representative?0
-
pblakeney said:
1st point, It was in my opinion.ballysmate said:
Are you saying the SC ruling was political?rick_chasey said:
Lol.ballysmate said:
This isn't a political matter but a legal one.Jezyboy said:
2nd point, my opinion is meaningless. Much like this forum, far less thread.
If you truly think that the Supreme Court is a tool for the government of the day, then can I assume you think it not fit for purpose and would wish it abolished?0 -
Jezyboy said:
Didn't realise the Surry Commuter had such powers.ballysmate said:
In which case the SC has ruled on a point of law, accept it and move on.elbowloh said:
It's not even about her, it's about rule of law.focuszing723 said:
Why are you wasting your valuable time trying to defend somebody who wouldn't p1$$ on you if you were on fire?elbowloh said:Some people also seem to conveniently forget she was 15 when she left.
🙃
Don't ever underestimate him.
0 -
The court ruling was really about whether the Home Secretary has the power to remove someone citizenship and it appears they do. They cannot and do not decide about whether that is right. That point is also open to debate.0
-
She would have set you on fire.focuszing723 said:
Why are you wasting your valuable time trying to defend somebody who wouldn't p1$$ on you if you were on fire?elbowloh said:Some people also seem to conveniently forget she was 15 when she left.
0 -
Have you any evidence that she personally harmed anyone?john80 said:
She would have set you on fire.focuszing723 said:
Why are you wasting your valuable time trying to defend somebody who wouldn't p1$$ on you if you were on fire?elbowloh said:Some people also seem to conveniently forget she was 15 when she left.
0 -
Out of interest did Blunt, MacLean, Philby, Burgess, Cairncross and all the other traitors whose actions cost British lives have their Citizenship revoked? I tried Google but couldn't find an answer. I guess not in the case of Blunt and Cairncross as they stayed in the UK and Blunt got immunity to prosecution.0
-
But their parents weren't from Bangladesh you see.Pross said:Out of interest did Blunt, MacLean, Philby, Burgess, Cairncross and all the other traitors whose actions cost British lives have their Citizenship revoked? I tried Google but couldn't find an answer. I guess not in the case of Blunt and Cairncross as they stayed in the UK and Blunt got immunity to prosecution.
1 -
I will start worrying when the bar drops below joining an illegal war on foreign soil where the side you join would happily wipe out western civilization.elbowloh said:Aren't people concerned that this means it's ok to have your citizenship stripped from you, when you've not been convicted of a crime and not been able to speak to your legal representative?
0 -
Any views on Edward VIII and his pro Nazi sympathies? Or is that ok coz a) 'royal' and b) not brown?
https://www.open.edu/openlearn/history-the-arts/history/world-history/former-king-wanted-england-bombed-and-anglo-german-alliance-archives-reveal?active-tab=review-tab&all-comment=10 -
As a logical conclusion, yes.ballysmate said:pblakeney said:
1st point, It was in my opinion.ballysmate said:
Are you saying the SC ruling was political?rick_chasey said:
Lol.ballysmate said:
This isn't a political matter but a legal one.Jezyboy said:
2nd point, my opinion is meaningless. Much like this forum, far less thread.
If you truly think that the Supreme Court is a tool for the government of the day, then can I assume you think it not fit for purpose and would wish it abolished?
I don't have an alternative though which is sad and depressing.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
What happened to Oswald Moseley's citizenship?0
-
I too wondered this and googled it. They were granted Soviet citizenship and the prospect of them applying to return to face the gallows was nil.Pross said:Out of interest did Blunt, MacLean, Philby, Burgess, Cairncross and all the other traitors whose actions cost British lives have their Citizenship revoked? I tried Google but couldn't find an answer. I guess not in the case of Blunt and Cairncross as they stayed in the UK and Blunt got immunity to prosecution.
From the ruling
https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2020-0156-judgment.pdf
“As the Secretary of State, I hereby give notice in accordance
with section 40(5) of the British Nationality Act 1981 that I
intend to have an order made to deprive you, Shamima Begum
of your British citizenship under section 40(2) of the Act. This
is because it would be conducive to the public good to do so.
The reason for the decision is that you are a
British/Bangladeshi dual national who it is assessed has
previously travelled to Syria and aligned with ISIL. It is
assessed that your return to the UK would present a risk to the
national security of the United Kingdom. In accord with section
40(4) of the British Nationality Act 1981, I am satisfied that
such an order will not make you stateless.”
I assume Burgess McLean etc would not have been a risk if they returned. That horse had long bolted.
0 -
How about when it finds against the government? Is that just to keep up the charade?pblakeney said:
As a logical conclusion, yes.ballysmate said:pblakeney said:
1st point, It was in my opinion.ballysmate said:
Are you saying the SC ruling was political?rick_chasey said:
Lol.ballysmate said:
This isn't a political matter but a legal one.Jezyboy said:
2nd point, my opinion is meaningless. Much like this forum, far less thread.
If you truly think that the Supreme Court is a tool for the government of the day, then can I assume you think it not fit for purpose and would wish it abolished?
I don't have an alternative though which is sad and depressing.
0 -
Was going to throw his name in too.orraloon said:Any views on Edward VIII and his pro Nazi sympathies? Or is that ok coz a) 'royal' and b) not brown?
https://www.open.edu/openlearn/history-the-arts/history/world-history/former-king-wanted-england-bombed-and-anglo-german-alliance-archives-reveal?active-tab=review-tab&all-comment=10 -
So Sajid Javed is anti Bangladeshi is he? Is that his Pakistani heritage or the British influence on him?elbowloh said:
But their parents weren't from Bangladesh you see.Pross said:Out of interest did Blunt, MacLean, Philby, Burgess, Cairncross and all the other traitors whose actions cost British lives have their Citizenship revoked? I tried Google but couldn't find an answer. I guess not in the case of Blunt and Cairncross as they stayed in the UK and Blunt got immunity to prosecution.
0 -
He abdicated 85 years ago. How much further back you going to go?orraloon said:Any views on Edward VIII and his pro Nazi sympathies? Or is that ok coz a) 'royal' and b) not brown?
https://www.open.edu/openlearn/history-the-arts/history/world-history/former-king-wanted-england-bombed-and-anglo-german-alliance-archives-reveal?active-tab=review-tab&all-comment=10 -
I think pressure was brought to bear in this instance. I'm thinking the Supreme Court and civil service are fairly close. The government and the civil service are not the same thing.ballysmate said:
How about when it finds against the government? Is that just to keep up the charade?pblakeney said:
As a logical conclusion, yes.ballysmate said:pblakeney said:
1st point, It was in my opinion.ballysmate said:
Are you saying the SC ruling was political?rick_chasey said:
Lol.ballysmate said:
This isn't a political matter but a legal one.Jezyboy said:
2nd point, my opinion is meaningless. Much like this forum, far less thread.
If you truly think that the Supreme Court is a tool for the government of the day, then can I assume you think it not fit for purpose and would wish it abolished?
I don't have an alternative though which is sad and depressing.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
I find the idea that the law isn’t political utter nonsense.ballysmate said:
Are you saying the SC ruling was political?rick_chasey said:
Lol.ballysmate said:
This isn't a political matter but a legal one.Jezyboy said:0 -
Javid's original decision to strip her citizenship was political.
The Tories would have been excoriated in the right wing press if he didn't do it.0 -
rick_chasey said:
I find the idea that the law isn’t political utter nonsense.ballysmate said:
Are you saying the SC ruling was political?rick_chasey said:
Lol.ballysmate said:
This isn't a political matter but a legal one.Jezyboy said:
In what way was this ruling political? And if you think as Blakey seems to that the SC is just an extension of the government, why not scrap it?0 -
pblakeney said:
I think pressure was brought to bear in this instance. I'm thinking the Supreme Court and civil service are fairly close. The government and the civil service are not the same thing.ballysmate said:
How about when it finds against the government? Is that just to keep up the charade?pblakeney said:
As a logical conclusion, yes.ballysmate said:pblakeney said:
1st point, It was in my opinion.ballysmate said:
Are you saying the SC ruling was political?rick_chasey said:
Lol.ballysmate said:
This isn't a political matter but a legal one.Jezyboy said:
2nd point, my opinion is meaningless. Much like this forum, far less thread.
If you truly think that the Supreme Court is a tool for the government of the day, then can I assume you think it not fit for purpose and would wish it abolished?
I don't have an alternative though which is sad and depressing.
Why can't the same pressure to be brought to bear in the instances when the SC finds against the government?0 -
The ruling might not be but the rule literally is politics. Politics is ultimately about deciding what is and isn’t law.ballysmate said:rick_chasey said:
I find the idea that the law isn’t political utter nonsense.ballysmate said:
Are you saying the SC ruling was political?rick_chasey said:
Lol.ballysmate said:
This isn't a political matter but a legal one.Jezyboy said:
In what way was this ruling political? And if you think as Blakey seems to that the SC is just an extension of the government, why not scrap it?
Come on don’t be so obtuse for the sake of point scoring.
This defence is so narrow it gets outflanked and surrounded by basic logic.
The criticism is obviously not of the SC and their ruling; they can only operate as the law is intended. The criticism is of the politics of the law itself.This should be obvious.
Fwiw the “she isn’t a British citizen” is another narrow take.
She isn’t British because British literally made her stateless.
So the argument “she’s Britain’s responsibility” is not ably countered by “she’s no longer a Brit” as that rather misses the critical point: that was the process by which Britain refused to accept responsibility for its own citizens, by disowning them.0 -
The court case is just confirming what has actually been the case since 1981: that there are two classes of citizen. Ones whose citizenship can be removed solely by ministerial decision - even when dual nationality is disputed - and those whose citizenship cannot be removed. Does that not bother you at all? I would think that, regardless of the intention, that sends a pretty chilling message to anyone who has gained British citizenship, that they can be thrown out without recourse.ballysmate said:
I too wondered this and googled it. They were granted Soviet citizenship and the prospect of them applying to return to face the gallows was nil.Pross said:Out of interest did Blunt, MacLean, Philby, Burgess, Cairncross and all the other traitors whose actions cost British lives have their Citizenship revoked? I tried Google but couldn't find an answer. I guess not in the case of Blunt and Cairncross as they stayed in the UK and Blunt got immunity to prosecution.
From the ruling
https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2020-0156-judgment.pdf
“As the Secretary of State, I hereby give notice in accordance
with section 40(5) of the British Nationality Act 1981 that I
intend to have an order made to deprive you, Shamima Begum
of your British citizenship under section 40(2) of the Act. This
is because it would be conducive to the public good to do so.
The reason for the decision is that you are a
British/Bangladeshi dual national who it is assessed has
previously travelled to Syria and aligned with ISIL. It is
assessed that your return to the UK would present a risk to the
national security of the United Kingdom. In accord with section
40(4) of the British Nationality Act 1981, I am satisfied that
such an order will not make you stateless.”
I assume Burgess McLean etc would not have been a risk if they returned. That horse had long bolted.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
As I said, the civil service is not the government.ballysmate said:pblakeney said:
I think pressure was brought to bear in this instance. I'm thinking the Supreme Court and civil service are fairly close. The government and the civil service are not the same thing.ballysmate said:
How about when it finds against the government? Is that just to keep up the charade?pblakeney said:
As a logical conclusion, yes.ballysmate said:pblakeney said:
1st point, It was in my opinion.ballysmate said:
Are you saying the SC ruling was political?rick_chasey said:
Lol.ballysmate said:
This isn't a political matter but a legal one.Jezyboy said:
2nd point, my opinion is meaningless. Much like this forum, far less thread.
If you truly think that the Supreme Court is a tool for the government of the day, then can I assume you think it not fit for purpose and would wish it abolished?
I don't have an alternative though which is sad and depressing.
Why can't the same pressure to be brought to bear in the instances when the SC finds against the government?
To take my point further, but we really shouldn't without starting a new thread.
Who really runs the country? I think it is the civil service with the elected party as figureheads.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Does it bother me that a person with dual nationality who a Secretary of State can argue to the Supreme Court poses a threat to this country can have their UK citizenship withdrawn?rjsterry said:
The court case is just confirming what has actually been the case since 1981. So the important point is that it is now confirmed that there are two classes of citizen. Ones whose citizenship can be removed solely by ministerial decision - even when dual nationality is disputed - and those whose citizenship cannot be removed. Does that not bother you at all? I would think that, regardless of the intention, that sends a pretty chilling message to anyone who has gained British citizenship, that they can be thrown out without recourse.ballysmate said:
I too wondered this and googled it. They were granted Soviet citizenship and the prospect of them applying to return to face the gallows was nil.Pross said:Out of interest did Blunt, MacLean, Philby, Burgess, Cairncross and all the other traitors whose actions cost British lives have their Citizenship revoked? I tried Google but couldn't find an answer. I guess not in the case of Blunt and Cairncross as they stayed in the UK and Blunt got immunity to prosecution.
From the ruling
https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2020-0156-judgment.pdf
“As the Secretary of State, I hereby give notice in accordance
with section 40(5) of the British Nationality Act 1981 that I
intend to have an order made to deprive you, Shamima Begum
of your British citizenship under section 40(2) of the Act. This
is because it would be conducive to the public good to do so.
The reason for the decision is that you are a
British/Bangladeshi dual national who it is assessed has
previously travelled to Syria and aligned with ISIL. It is
assessed that your return to the UK would present a risk to the
national security of the United Kingdom. In accord with section
40(4) of the British Nationality Act 1981, I am satisfied that
such an order will not make you stateless.”
I assume Burgess McLean etc would not have been a risk if they returned. That horse had long bolted.
Probably won't keep me awake tonight worrying about it.1 -
pblakeney said:
As I said, the civil service is not the government.ballysmate said:pblakeney said:
I think pressure was brought to bear in this instance. I'm thinking the Supreme Court and civil service are fairly close. The government and the civil service are not the same thing.ballysmate said:
How about when it finds against the government? Is that just to keep up the charade?pblakeney said:
As a logical conclusion, yes.ballysmate said:pblakeney said:
1st point, It was in my opinion.ballysmate said:
Are you saying the SC ruling was political?rick_chasey said:
Lol.ballysmate said:
This isn't a political matter but a legal one.Jezyboy said:
2nd point, my opinion is meaningless. Much like this forum, far less thread.
If you truly think that the Supreme Court is a tool for the government of the day, then can I assume you think it not fit for purpose and would wish it abolished?
I don't have an alternative though which is sad and depressing.
Why can't the same pressure to be brought to bear in the instances when the SC finds against the government?
To take my point further, but we really shouldn't without starting a new thread.
Who really runs the country? I think it is the civil service with the elected party as figureheads.
So, to get this right. You think the civil service wanted her citizenship withrawn and not the government and it was they who put pressure on the court?0 -
Government may have been involved, but pressure was brought to bear IMO.ballysmate said:pblakeney said:
As I said, the civil service is not the government.ballysmate said:pblakeney said:
I think pressure was brought to bear in this instance. I'm thinking the Supreme Court and civil service are fairly close. The government and the civil service are not the same thing.ballysmate said:
How about when it finds against the government? Is that just to keep up the charade?pblakeney said:
As a logical conclusion, yes.ballysmate said:pblakeney said:
1st point, It was in my opinion.ballysmate said:
Are you saying the SC ruling was political?rick_chasey said:
Lol.ballysmate said:
This isn't a political matter but a legal one.Jezyboy said:
2nd point, my opinion is meaningless. Much like this forum, far less thread.
If you truly think that the Supreme Court is a tool for the government of the day, then can I assume you think it not fit for purpose and would wish it abolished?
I don't have an alternative though which is sad and depressing.
Why can't the same pressure to be brought to bear in the instances when the SC finds against the government?
To take my point further, but we really shouldn't without starting a new thread.
Who really runs the country? I think it is the civil service with the elected party as figureheads.
So, to get this right. You think the civil service wanted her citizenship withrawn and not the government and it was they who put pressure on the court?
It's only my opinion. Quite chuffed that you think it's worth your time.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Even Fred West needs a wife. You need that supporting hand striving you on to great things.elbowloh said:
Have you any evidence that she personally harmed anyone?john80 said:
She would have set you on fire.focuszing723 said:
Why are you wasting your valuable time trying to defend somebody who wouldn't p1$$ on you if you were on fire?elbowloh said:Some people also seem to conveniently forget she was 15 when she left.
1 -
rick_chasey said:
The ruling might not be but the rule literally is politics. Politics is ultimately about deciding what is and isn’t law.ballysmate said:rick_chasey said:
I find the idea that the law isn’t political utter nonsense.ballysmate said:
Are you saying the SC ruling was political?rick_chasey said:
Lol.ballysmate said:
This isn't a political matter but a legal one.Jezyboy said:
In what way was this ruling political? And if you think as Blakey seems to that the SC is just an extension of the government, why not scrap it?
Come on don’t be so obtuse for the sake of point scoring.
This defence is so narrow it gets outflanked and surrounded by basic logic.
The criticism is obviously not of the SC and their ruling; they can only operate as the law is intended. The criticism is of the politics of the law itself.This should be obvious.
Fwiw the “she isn’t a British citizen” is another narrow take.
She isn’t British because British literally made her stateless.
So the argument “she’s Britain’s responsibility” is not ably countered by “she’s no longer a Brit” as that rather misses the critical point: that was the process by which Britain refused to accept responsibility for its own citizens, by disowning them.
Yep our elected politicians make the laws and the courts enforce and sometimes interpret them.
Not many laws get repealed every time the government changes political colour.
The court , it seems , accepted that she would not be stateless and accepted that she was a dual British/Bangladeshi.
My opinion of her hasn't changed much since page 7, 2 years ago, but there again, I am not copied into the security briefings.
I hadn't thought of her for the intervening 2 years until people started grumbling on here about the court ruling.
If we have a SC to rule on such matters, lets abide with their decisions. After all, they are just confirming what has been the case for 40 years.0
