Wife of ISIS fighter wants to return to the UK
Comments
-
The point is they don't need to argue that to anyone. The HS just needs to believe that it is conducive to the public good. The person concerned may contest that decision, and if successful have their citizenship reinstated but almost by definition that is going to be difficult for them to do. Putting this one person to one side, the case has pretty much told the thousands of people who have dual nationality that their citizenship is only provisional.ballysmate said:
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who a Secretary of State can argue to the Supreme Court poses a threat to this country can have their UK citizenship withdrawn?rjsterry said: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.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Yes provisional
Provisional on not conducted him or herself in a manner which is seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the United Kingdom, any of the Islands, or any British overseas territory and the Secretary of State has reasonable grounds for believing that the person is able, under the law of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom, to become a national of such a country or territory.0 -
Btw that phrase 'reasonable grounds' crops up quite a bit in legislation and the 'grounds' have to be shown to the satisfaction of a court to be 'reasonable'.0
-
I don't think that has yet been challenged in the courts. This ruling was about her being able to return to the UK in order to be able to realistically mount an appeal.ballysmate said:Btw that phrase 'reasonable grounds' crops up quite a bit in legislation and the 'grounds' have to be shown to the satisfaction of a court to be 'reasonable'.
0 -
This. She is allowed to appeal this because she has not had fair representation as she has not been able to go to court herself and has not been able to speak to her own lawyers.kingstongraham said:
I don't think that has yet been challenged in the courts. This ruling was about her being able to return to the UK in order to be able to realistically mount an appeal.ballysmate said:Btw that phrase 'reasonable grounds' crops up quite a bit in legislation and the 'grounds' have to be shown to the satisfaction of a court to be 'reasonable'.
However, she may never get to get the opportunity to actually do this because she can't get back to the UK. It's a catch 22.
0 -
I don't get the 'not been able to speak to her own lawyers' bit.
It is known where she is, she is able to communicate regularly with the press, give off the record interviews, so why is she unable to speak with her lawyers?
I'm sure she has access to a laptop / phone and Zoom or Googlemeets or something equivalent.0 -
You do realise where she is?Dorset_Boy said:I don't get the 'not been able to speak to her own lawyers' bit.
It is known where she is, she is able to communicate regularly with the press, give off the record interviews, so why is she unable to speak with her lawyers?
I'm sure she has access to a laptop / phone and Zoom or Googlemeets or something equivalent.0 -
As well as the physical constraints, she's also apparently been told she'd be murdered in the camp if she spoke to her legal reps.kingstongraham said:
You do realise where she is?Dorset_Boy said:I don't get the 'not been able to speak to her own lawyers' bit.
It is known where she is, she is able to communicate regularly with the press, give off the record interviews, so why is she unable to speak with her lawyers?
I'm sure she has access to a laptop / phone and Zoom or Googlemeets or something equivalent.0 -
Maybe not relevant to that particular bunch, but certainly relevant to the Shamina Begum case: I don't suppose you remember Jack Letts do you?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.
If you can't be bothered to follow the link, the TLDR is that he is British/Canadian, went to Syria and might have joined ISIS, but clearly had mental health problems, which all amounts to less of a case against him than there is against Begum - he had his citizenship revoked.0 -
Yes. What difference does that make?kingstongraham said:
You do realise where she is?Dorset_Boy said:I don't get the 'not been able to speak to her own lawyers' bit.
It is known where she is, she is able to communicate regularly with the press, give off the record interviews, so why is she unable to speak with her lawyers?
I'm sure she has access to a laptop / phone and Zoom or Googlemeets or something equivalent.0 -
Interesting, any idea who by and why that threat is being made?elbowloh said:
As well as the physical constraints, she's also apparently been told she'd be murdered in the camp if she spoke to her legal reps.kingstongraham said:
You do realise where she is?Dorset_Boy said:I don't get the 'not been able to speak to her own lawyers' bit.
It is known where she is, she is able to communicate regularly with the press, give off the record interviews, so why is she unable to speak with her lawyers?
I'm sure she has access to a laptop / phone and Zoom or Googlemeets or something equivalent.0 -
Err, ISIS members I'd hazard to guess.Dorset_Boy said:
Interesting, any idea who by and why that threat is being made?elbowloh said:
As well as the physical constraints, she's also apparently been told she'd be murdered in the camp if she spoke to her legal reps.kingstongraham said:
You do realise where she is?Dorset_Boy said:I don't get the 'not been able to speak to her own lawyers' bit.
It is known where she is, she is able to communicate regularly with the press, give off the record interviews, so why is she unable to speak with her lawyers?
I'm sure she has access to a laptop / phone and Zoom or Googlemeets or something equivalent.0 -
Canada didn't agree with this action "in response, Canadian Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale described the move as a "unilateral action to off-load [the UK's consular] responsibilities,"bompington said:
Maybe not relevant to that particular bunch, but certainly relevant to the Shamina Begum case: I don't suppose you remember Jack Letts do you?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.
If you can't be bothered to follow the link, the TLDR is that he is British/Canadian, went to Syria and might have joined ISIS, but clearly had mental health problems, which all amounts to less of a case against him than there is against Begum - he had his citizenship revoked.0 -
From a legal standpoint do you really think that is the end of the matter?ballysmate said:
By all means grumble about, cheer about it, it doesn't matter. The SC have given a ruling and it is now case law.elbowloh said:
I hadn't realised that SC rulings meant the issue can't be debated in an internet forum. They really do have wide sweeping powers.Stevo_666 said:
That's not how I read your post, so express yourself better next time.surrey_commuter said:
FFS keep up at the back we are discussing if she should have had her British citizenship revoked on the grounds she was not a proper British citizen.Stevo_666 said:
As she has had her British citizenship revoked, she is not British so it is pretty easy to answer that. Nothing to do with colour or religion, it's a legal fact.surrey_commuter said:Some people do not consider her to be very British and others suspect that is due to her colour and religion. Would it help if we drew up a list of people she is more or less British than?
Bradley Wiggins?
Chris Froome?
Daniel Hannan?
Boris Johnson?
Winston Churchill
On what grounds do you consider her to not be a proper British citizen?
Pointless question anyway, as it has already been revoked.
But Stevo is correct, there is nothing left to debate, the legal position is a fact.
It is a judgement on a very narrow legal point and that this will rumble on for years0 -
Surely this ruling was specifically about whether she is allowed back to fight her caseelbowloh said: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 -
I am glad you wrote this as I was starting to doubt my sanity.kingstongraham said:
I don't think that has yet been challenged in the courts. This ruling was about her being able to return to the UK in order to be able to realistically mount an appeal.ballysmate said:Btw that phrase 'reasonable grounds' crops up quite a bit in legislation and the 'grounds' have to be shown to the satisfaction of a court to be 'reasonable'.
It is truly staggering (and informative) to understand how few people read past the headline.
It is also amazing how often the headline not only does not represent the article.0 -
Dorset_Boy said:
Yes. What difference does that make?kingstongraham said:
You do realise where she is?Dorset_Boy said:I don't get the 'not been able to speak to her own lawyers' bit.
It is known where she is, she is able to communicate regularly with the press, give off the record interviews, so why is she unable to speak with her lawyers?
I'm sure she has access to a laptop / phone and Zoom or Googlemeets or something equivalent.
Whilst it is not commonly written about it surely does not take too much thought to figure out the likely facilities where she lives?
If they do not have the basic medical facilities to keep a baby alive what provision do you think they have for an office suite with good broadband?0 -
But much of the judgement was based on whether the HS had the power to revoke her citizenship. The appeal court basically said his assessment was wrong and the SC disagreed and that the HS was the one discharged by parliament to make such decisions.surrey_commuter said:
Surely this ruling was specifically about whether she is allowed back to fight her caseelbowloh said: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.
Edit. You're talking about what's on the docket, I'm taking about the implications of the ruling.0 -
Bearing in mind that the SC will rule on the technicalities of the law, they have deemed that the HS is empowered to remove citizenship.
However, is there still a question within international law that she can’t be rendered stateless?
I genuinely don’t know but I can see a scenario whereby the two both come into play.
Ruling the HS is empowered to remove citizenship may be legally correct but only a usable power where dual citizenship exists.
I don’t for one second think this is over. When eventually somebody wants to remove her from Syria and sends her back here, the HS actions may be superseded by international law.0 -
We are quite clearly in the wrong but I would be very happy to see us string it out at minimal cost to keep her in a dangerous sh1thole for as long as possible.morstar said:Bearing in mind that the SC will rule on the technicalities of the law, they have deemed that the HS is empowered to remove citizenship.
However, is there still a question within international law that she can’t be rendered stateless?
I genuinely don’t know but I can see a scenario whereby the two both come into play.
Ruling the HS is empowered to remove citizenship may be legally correct but only a usable power where dual citizenship exists.
I don’t for one second think this is over. When eventually somebody wants to remove her from Syria and sends her back here, the HS actions may be superseded by international law.
As she grew up in Bethnal Green it might not seem so bad0 -
She's not been convicted of anything as far as I'm aware. She's just had her citizenship removed because she's a terrorist danger. A self confessed terrorist I should add. And an unrepentant one that thinks the Manchester Arena bombing was fair game.pangolin said:
Yes heaven forbid we couldn't convict her for things we don't have evidence happened.john80 said:When she was in the caliphate and it was all going well. When I mean well I mean when they were killing with impunity and sexually abusing the yazidis. Her husband was leaving for work in the morning with a gun and killing people randomly if their imaginary person was not as convincing as his. Came home at night maybe even with a slave wife to abuse. Stellar guy that Dutchman.and a credit to his nation.
When the trial comes round in the UK as a lot of you seem to want it would seem to me the only thing we can pin on her is joining a terrorist organisation. Unless you guys can magic up some witness statements from a chaotic environment with many displaced people. A year or two in jail should discharge that liability and then she can come and live next to you. I don't think I have much in common with her so would pass on inviting her round for tea. Get her on the local school PTA she will fit right in.
She is entitled to appeal against the removal of her citizenship, just not from within Britain.
0 -
Nope Im not bothered by that at all. After all she could have been a legitimate target for liquidation by drone previously.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 -
well she chose to live in that society. if that's the norm there let her get on with it.elbowloh said:
As well as the physical constraints, she's also apparently been told she'd be murdered in the camp if she spoke to her legal reps.kingstongraham said:
You do realise where she is?Dorset_Boy said:I don't get the 'not been able to speak to her own lawyers' bit.
It is known where she is, she is able to communicate regularly with the press, give off the record interviews, so why is she unable to speak with her lawyers?
I'm sure she has access to a laptop / phone and Zoom or Googlemeets or something equivalent.0 -
Just so we're clear, you are quite happy with there being two classes of citizen? Those who by lack of another nationality cannot have it removed regardless of their actions, and those that can.ballysmate said:Yes provisional
Provisional on not conducted him or herself in a manner which is seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the United Kingdom, any of the Islands, or any British overseas territory and the Secretary of State has reasonable grounds for believing that the person is able, under the law of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom, to become a national of such a country or territory.
Secondly the HS is not required to satisfy a court that the grounds for removal are reasonable. They just need to send a written notice to the last known address. The decision *may* be challenged in court. That has still not happened in this case. The court's finding was that Begum was not allowed back into the country to attempt such an appeal.
While there might be little doubt that joining ISIS qualifies as prejudicial to the interests of the UK, it seems quite a low threshold when the only judicial oversight requires the individual in question to bring a case after their citizenship has been removed.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
rjsterry said:
Just so we're clear, you are quite happy with there being two classes of citizen? Those who by lack of another nationality cannot have it removed regardless of their actions, and those that can.ballysmate said:Yes provisional
Provisional on not conducted him or herself in a manner which is seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the United Kingdom, any of the Islands, or any British overseas territory and the Secretary of State has reasonable grounds for believing that the person is able, under the law of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom, to become a national of such a country or territory.
So that we are clear, yep.
If we have two people who are equally as dangerous, I would be glad to be rid of one rather than have to keep the pair. It baffles me why you would want to keep someone who was so dangerous when you have the means to be rid of them.
Secondly the HS is not required to satisfy a court that the grounds for removal are reasonable. They just need to send a written notice to the last known address. The decision *may* be challenged in court. That has still not happened in this case. The court's finding was that Begum was not allowed back into the country to attempt such an appeal.
I quoted section 40(5) of the British Nationality Act 1981and so if the HS must have a reasonable grounds to believe that they can become a national of another country. If this belief is held to be unreasonable, the action would be deemed unlawful. Reasonable or not is determined by the court
While there might be little doubt that joining ISIS qualifies as prejudicial to the interests of the UK, it seems quite a low threshold when the only judicial oversight requires the individual in question to bring a case after their citizenship has been removed.1 -
you should add no critical thinking and indoctrinated to the point of no independant thought to your taglinerjsterry said:
Just so we're clear, you are quite happy with there being two classes of citizen? Those who by lack of another nationality cannot have it removed regardless of their actions, and those that can.ballysmate said:Yes provisional
Provisional on not conducted him or herself in a manner which is seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the United Kingdom, any of the Islands, or any British overseas territory and the Secretary of State has reasonable grounds for believing that the person is able, under the law of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom, to become a national of such a country or territory.
Secondly the HS is not required to satisfy a court that the grounds for removal are reasonable. They just need to send a written notice to the last known address. The decision *may* be challenged in court. That has still not happened in this case. The court's finding was that Begum was not allowed back into the country to attempt such an appeal.
While there might be little doubt that joining ISIS qualifies as prejudicial to the interests of the UK, it seems quite a low threshold when the only judicial oversight requires the individual in question to bring a case after their citizenship has been removed.0 -
Fair point. She's definitely got a better deal than 'Jihadi John' or whatever his name was. You could argue he had his citizenship stripped in a way that allowed absolutely no right of appeal, but I'm not sure many (even in Cake Stop) are keen to fight his corner after the event.david37 said:
Nope Im not bothered by that at all. After all she could have been a legitimate target for liquidation by drone previously.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?
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]2 -
On the first point, if they really are that dangerous, surely knowing where they are and what they are doing is better than them being at large with no idea what they are doing. '... Keep your enemies closer' is broadly the approach other countries have taken. Aside from that, being based in Syria doesn't seem to have been much of a hindrance for the likes of ISIS in mounting their attacks around the world, nor in recruiting people like Begum in the first place.ballysmate said:rjsterry said:
Just so we're clear, you are quite happy with there being two classes of citizen? Those who by lack of another nationality cannot have it removed regardless of their actions, and those that can.ballysmate said:Yes provisional
Provisional on not conducted him or herself in a manner which is seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the United Kingdom, any of the Islands, or any British overseas territory and the Secretary of State has reasonable grounds for believing that the person is able, under the law of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom, to become a national of such a country or territory.
So that we are clear, yep.
If we have two people who are equally as dangerous, I would be glad to be rid of one rather than have to keep the pair. It baffles me why you would want to keep someone who was so dangerous when you have the means to be rid of them.
Secondly the HS is not required to satisfy a court that the grounds for removal are reasonable. They just need to send a written notice to the last known address. The decision *may* be challenged in court. That has still not happened in this case. The court's finding was that Begum was not allowed back into the country to attempt such an appeal.
I quoted section 40(5) of the British Nationality Act 1981and so if the HS must have a reasonable grounds to believe that they can become a national of another country. If this belief is held to be unreasonable, the action would be deemed unlawful. Reasonable or not is determined by the court
While there might be little doubt that joining ISIS qualifies as prejudicial to the interests of the UK, it seems quite a low threshold when the only judicial oversight requires the individual in question to bring a case after their citizenship has been removed.
On the second point, yes the removal may later be found to be unlawful if the person in question is able to bring a case. That's quite a big if.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
An article on the BBC website suggests she is automatically a Bangladeshi citizen until 21 when such citizenship lapses unless it is reapplied for. Who knows - one for the lawyers to argue over.pblakeney said:
See my post made last night with a quote from their citizenship law.DeVlaeminck said:
The point about dual citizenship was just that if a country allows it they can't really turn round and deny that person is a citizen when it doesn't suit them - in this case that would apply to both the UK and Bangladesh.
As her father was given right to stay in Britain she cannot be given Bangladeshi citizenship, unless she applies for it.[Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]0 -
She was filmed walking around in normal clothes the other day and begging for forgiveness from the UK. Not sure your claims are true.elbowloh said:
As well as the physical constraints, she's also apparently been told she'd be murdered in the camp if she spoke to her legal reps.kingstongraham said:
You do realise where she is?Dorset_Boy said:I don't get the 'not been able to speak to her own lawyers' bit.
It is known where she is, she is able to communicate regularly with the press, give off the record interviews, so why is she unable to speak with her lawyers?
I'm sure she has access to a laptop / phone and Zoom or Googlemeets or something equivalent.0
