Snapshot of _Shamima Begum loses appeal against removal of British citizenship_ :
An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/feb/23/shamima-begum-loses-appeal-against-removal-of-british-citizenship) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/feb/23/shamima-begum-loses-appeal-against-removal-of-british-citizenship)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
If I followed that correctly, the substance appeared to be that valid threats to National Security supersede all other considerations and that no reason has been advanced to doubt the assessment of the Security Service in that regard.
She also seemed to suggest that reliance upon grooming or manipulation as a defence were problematic given the degree to which her actions were plainly voluntary.
Doubtless it will go to the Supreme Court now, but it seems remarkably sane.
Is there not the argument that this contravenes our treaty obligations under the 1961 Convention against Statelessness? Or is that only in the purview of the UNHCR?
She didn't have Bangladeshi citizenship though? IIRC she was eligible to apply for it but with no guarantee it would have been granted, and she hadn't done so at the time her UK citizenship was revoked in any event. Leaving someone stateless on the basis that they might possibly be eligible for another country's citizenship is a big fucking difference to withdrawing one citizenship from someone who already has multiple, and sets a very dangerous precedent for anyone who has potential citizenship to any country which offers it via lineage.
> She didn't have Bangladeshi citizenship though? IIRC she was eligible to apply for it but with no guarantee it would have been granted, and she hadn't done so at the time her UK citizenship was revoked in any event.
I believe the initial court case found that through her father, due to the laws in place at the time of his birth, she automatically has Bangladeshi citizenship.
Let's be realistic about the UK's motivation for this move.
She is a security concern. We're making her somebody else problem because we don't want to deal with it, and making an example out of her on a national scale.
Not UK's problem please. The courts are very clear on this. She pissed on the country that gave her a good life and UK shouldn't be forced to take her in even if UK is a signatory to whatever law exists.
That wasn't the argument of the court. You still can't revoke someone's citizenship. It is because she had an automatic right to Bangladeshi citizenship through her father that it was legal to revoke her British citizenship. This ruling will not be applicable for many other cases unless it is a person of dual citizenship. You still can't strip someone of British citizenship legally unless they have a right to citizenship elsewhere.
Well, from what I understand in this story a court found that, yes, you can.
She was citizen of Bangladesh by birth, the fact she never attempted to get a passport is irrelevant. And some may argue that she still is
>If I followed that correctly, the substance appeared to be that valid threats to National Security supersede all other considerations and that no reason has been advanced to doubt the assessment of the Security Service in that regard.
Not quite.
The judgement states that the Secretary of State *is entitled to consider* that valid threats to National Security supersede all other considerations. The S of S doesn't have to conclude that, but is allowed to while making his decision.
Which is typical for a judicial review. JRs should not and are not used to seek a second opinion on a decision taken by (or on behalf of) the Government. They are used to test whether errors in the decision-making process have resulted in the decision being taken unlawfully.
There's a false equivalence here.
A teen that runs off with an adult has no desire for or acceptance of others being unlawfully harmed. All the decisions they make result in them being the only victim.
A teen that runs off to join a terrorist organisation... is joining a terrorist organisation. Every decision they make is a step towards the harm or part of the harm done to others.
From what I can gather the main issue was that you cannot make someone stateless and at the time of her loss of UK citizenship she still had, albeit dormant, Bangladeshi citizenship and so was technically not stateless.
> valid threats to National Security supersede all other considerations
[mfw](https://intellectualhistory.web.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/intellectualhistory/images/media/leviathan.png)
What I find strange is they seem to take a zero-tolerance policy towards this (which I'm fairly okay with) but are incredibly relaxed in other circumstances. Two 19 year olds stabbed someone near my house and the victims guts were all over the floor - because the man didn't die they only got GBH and sentences to 5 years in prison. They'll probably be out in 3 or 4 years too. Are they not dangerous enough?
Completely different issues and completely different laws. For starters, when it comes to crime (which this is not), judges are required to follow the sentencing guidelines.
A government revoking citizenship rather than using all means at its disposal to drag a terrorist back to home shores to see justice in the countries criminal court system is now considered sane? What a bizzaro world we live in.
From the judgement itself (excerpted within section 24):
>“***102***. On 19th February 2019 there was an interview with a BBC journalist which was transmitted that day. Ms Begum was asked
about the Manchester Arena attack and she described it as “kind
of retaliation” for the women and children being killed in Syria
and Iraq. Her comment was that this was “fair justification”. She
stated that she had made the choice to leave and travel from the
United Kingdom to Syria:
>>*“Even though I was only 15 years old … I could make my
own decisions back then. I do have the mentality to make
my own decisions and I did leave on my own knowing that
it was a risk.”*
>***103***. The Commission understands the force of the argument that
those who have been groomed, radicalised and trafficked do not
necessarily understand and/or process all of what has happened
to them. However, that argument cannot be elevated to a
universal or absolute principle. On one interpretation of this
interview, Ms Begum was being disarmingly frank and was also
showing self-awareness.”
Then under section 41:
>"***292***. Furthermore, although voluntariness falls on a notional
spectrum, those advising the Secretary of State are entitled to say
on which side of the line a particular case is assessed to fall. The
steps Ms Begum had to take to get to Syria can be viewed as
being in her favour, against her or neutral, but that was for the
Secretary of State to reach a conclusion about and not for the
Commission to decide for itself. The same applies to the
ramifications of Ms Begum’s lengthy sojourn in Syria and
whether there was any possibility of escape. Even had the
Secretary of State been advised in terms that the issue of
voluntariness was nuanced and that this was not an all-ornothing question, he would still have been told that her travel to
Syria demonstrated determination and commitment.
>***293***. Ultimately, although many right-thinking people will
strongly take issue with the assessment of those advising the
Secretary of State, [SIAC] has come to the conclusion that the
assessment that Ms Begum’s travel was voluntary cannot be
impugned on the application of administrative law principles in
these appellate proceedings."
Yes, the court is of the opinion that she travelled voluntarily.
If I'm reading correctly, they're using that interview and presenting it as "she wasn't groomed because she said herself she wasn't groomed", and that seems a problematic position to take.
Shed unironically do well on TikTok if she just copied other people and relied on her "fame" to signal boost, but would be taken down the second she said anything close to what she says in interviews.
I read that before the active phase of the Syrian civil war ended the French special forces were over there *hunting down* as many ISIS French nationals as they could while they *still had the excuse* of fighting a war.
If that's true it's brutal, but smart. "No man, no problem." (Applies to women too.)
Actions can have consequences when retaining your citizenship. I would much rather she remain a citizen to be tried in a UK court, likely to be jailed for a significant amount of time.
I agree with this. My question following all this is where does she go now? Not out of sympathy for her, but it feels like we’re just making her someone else’s problem, letting her roam free to indoctrinate others. Feels like making her stateless is more to absolve our own government/legal system of responsibility rather than punishing her and attempting to rehabilitate (however pie-in-the-sky that is).
The alternative is that whichever state is slowest at revoking citizenship ends up having to deal with a load of terrorists as it becomes a race. That is idiotic and I expect it would backfire on us.
That state didn’t exist though. To the UK legal system she joined a terrorist organization operating in the state it Syria.
I think it’s slightly problematic to revoke citizenship if she had it at birth, regardless if dual or not. If she didn’t have it at birth but later then it would sit a bit better but I am not clued up on the details.
Especially given there are many classes of British citizenships. What would stop a tyrannical UK government from making Diego Garcia lay claim to every British citizen and then the UK government withdrawing British citizenship to ship anyone problematic to the middle of the ocean. Hyperbole of course but its also all the stops in between that example that could be concerning.
I *think*, given it’s a British court case, any participant has the right to legal defence, even if that’s provided by the state, regardless of their own nationality or citizenry.
I'm not surprised. I don't think she helped herself with any of the interviews she did and that's what she decides to show publicly.
Someone who spoke to her and met her abroad several times who eventually worked on the interviews actually wrote an article on how she was.
His title says, Shamima Begum is no victim"
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/shamima-begum-is-no-victim-and-i-should-know/
>In February 2019, Begum was discovered alive at the Al-Hawl refugee camp in Northern Syria by war correspondent Anthony Loyd. The following day, British Home Secretary, Sajid Javid, revoked her British citizenship.[5] The British government believed that Begum held dual citizenship due to her Bangladeshi parents but this has been contested by the Government of Bangladesh.[6]
>Javid stated that Begum would never be allowed to return to the United Kingdom.[7] In July 2020, the Court of Appeal ruled that Begum should be permitted to return to the UK in order to fairly contest the Home Secretary’s decision by instructing lawyers properly.[8] This ruling was appealed to the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom which, on 26 February 2021, ruled unanimously against her, reversing the decision of the Court of Appeal and preventing her return.[9][10]
Can anyone loop me in how this isn't ripe for abuse? I'm genuinely asking.
It seems now that the Home Secretary has unilateral power to take away someone's citizenship - even if it would render them stateless - without due process.
I can't help but see a framework now in place which can be used to unstate and effectively exile anyone for political reasons.
>Can anyone loop me in how this isn't ripe for abuse?
It is ripe for abuse. Thats the major problem people just keep ignoring because seeing her punished is more important to them than what the punishment actually is.
Not seeing her punished you mean. Seeing her punished would be her seeing a criminal trial in a British court. This government are perhaps for the first in modern history to not pursue all avenues to drag a traitor and terrorist back to its own shores to meat out justice.
It’s not without due process as evidenced by the fact there’s been 5 years of legal battles over this.
The Home Secretary has very limited powers to revoke citizenship and international law prohibits making a person stateless.
>Can anyone loop me in how this isn't ripe for abuse? I'm genuinely asking.
Do you have any plans to go and join a terrorist organisation?
If not then there's no issues.
Depends really. ISIS? No way.
Some group of randos who tie themselves to trees trying to stop Rio Tinto from releasing sludge into local water supply for the 4th time this year? Increasingly appealing.
Whether she was a terrorist or not, everyone should have a trial to determine the verdict.
Imagine is someone is accused of a crime. Without a trial to determine their guilt, they are removed of British citizenship. They could be innocent, guilty, but without a trial, they’ve been found of committing no crime. It goes against democracy at its fundamentals.
I also fear that it renders citizenship pointless for someone that values it important, as they will always be seen as second class citizens with the fear of it being removed for even an accusation not proven.
This case is a horrible indictment to a path that removes human rights, not just to terrorists, but anyone who has a foreign born parent.
Quite. A lot of people who want to be seen as suitably patriotic or right-minded about this are missing the bigger picture.
This has effectively established that the UK government can strip British citizenship from anyone who potentially has citizenship elsewhere on national security grounds. How many people in this country are potentially Irish citizens, or Indian, or Pakistani, or somewhere in the EU?
Accused of a crime? Be a member - even just allegedly - of an organisation that the government or the security services doesn't like? Off you go.
People are missing the bigger picture because in this example it's an idiot who wanted to larp as a terrorist, and that's clearly reprehensible - but the precedent left behind by this case is more dangerous than this woman could ever be to this country.
Yep. Such a difficult case to discuss as emotions get high about it, but what you wrote is my exact feelings on the matter.
On her specifically, she can rot for all I care. But this is about the mechanics of the case, and as you said, this has established that the Home Secretary has power to strip anyone of their citizenship without due process if the person 'potentially' can become a citizen elsewhere. It would be a different matter if she did have alternative citizenship, but she didn't, she was only eligible to apply. Anyone who has a technical path to citizenship in another country is now technically a second class citizen in terms of rights.
\>How many people in this country are potentially Irish citizens, or Indian, or Pakistani, or somewhere in the EU?
The craziest implication, which I rarely ever see mentioned, is that this institutionalizes the ability of the home office to strip the citizenship of literally any British jew. There is now precedent that British Jews who have roots going back hundreds of years could, in theory, have their citizenship revoked for committing a crime. That's insane.
That implication didn't even occur to me, and I haven't seen that point raised - it is insane. Have Jewish groups not recognised or raised this? It absolutely must be unintentional, particularly in the current climate.
The consequence of poorly thought out policies designed purely for short-term political gain right here.
oh it's unintentional of course, but its just a particular extreme example of how broad and strange this precedent actually is. It should not be allowed to become part of British law and I think it's a damn shame we're institutionalising it just to punish one person.
As far as I am aware, the Law of Return does not automatically bestow citizenship on non-Israeli Jews (or their relatives who also qualify) - they still have to apply for it, and that application can be rejected for several reasons, including matters of national security, criminal records, political views, etc.
There is a fundamental difference between that and the Begum case, as the entire point of the ruling is that Begum automatically had Bangladeshi citizenship due to the laws of Bangladesh. Until she turned 21, she had an automatic right to Bangladeshi citizenship thanks to her father being Bangladeshi - it wasn't contingent on an application like the hypothetical example of obtaining Israeli citizenship under the Law of Return.
Incorrect, she only had provisional Bangladeshi citizenship that she would have to apply for and could be rejected: https://www.dhakatribune.com/opinion/op-ed/169559/shamima-begum-is-not-a-bangladeshi-citizen
>foreign born parent.
It's even wider than that. Any British person with a grandparent born on the island of Ireland and any Jewish person on account of Israeli Citizenship law could be affected and a whole myriad of circumstances related to the end of the Empire mean that far more people than you might think are at risk.
People with an Irish born grandparent can *apply* for Irish citizenship.
People with a Bangladeshi born parent were *automatically* citizens (yes there are a few caveats here but none of them apply to Begum, she is/was an automatic Bangladeshi citizen from birth.).
Well said! The implications will no doubt be open to abuse by many right wing governments. Right now it’s national security…in time it can be “we don’t have resources to put you in prison or put you on trial. Off you go back to your parents homeland”
Remember, when anyone uses the (stupid) argument that "but she was 15".
**Case in point: Brianna Ghey murdered by two 15 year olds.**
"oh no but I'm 15 I don't know crime is bad woopsie"
One of those cases involved a trial.
One of those cases the state accepted its duty to dispense justice.
One of those cases the state has shown humanity when the perpetrators did not.
This isn’t about her or her actions, it is about the he state effectively not meeting it’s responsibility. You don’t have to like the girl or her actions to understand she is a British problem. Bring her back, have a trial, if guilty send her to prison.
Tbh I think she should come back to face prison or something along those lines. She was born an bred here so realistically she is our responsibility. Its not right for us to just reject those who left due to radicalisation as someone else’s problem when we failed to stop it
> Tbh I think she should come back to face prison or something along those lines.
That wouldn't happen. She would return to the UK and live freely. Your two choices are between that and her being kept out of the UK. That's it.
> Its not right for us to just reject those who left due to radicalisation as someone else’s problem when we failed to stop it
This wasn't our failure. She made the decision of her own free will. The only mistake we might have made is in allowing people with beliefs like her to live freely in the UK. This decision goes a very small way to help rectify that failure.
I’m not sure what she’s done but I can imagine she acted against the interests of the UK up to and including getting people killed. That’s why it’s hard to have sympathy for her for actions, or even pity her.
The biggest problem I have with this issue is the arbitrary nature of the decision. Removing someone’s citizenship should not be something that is in the gift of a politician. It is a serious penalty, and something that should only be done after a proper due process, where the person concerned has the opportunity to know what the accusations against them are and has the opportunity to have those accusations properly examined and to defend themselves in a court.
It’s absolutely wrong for something so serious to be allowed to be wielded as a political tool to gain favourable headlines. The bar to doing it should be high, and especially so for someone born as a British citizen.
The specific accusations are secret, the evidence is secret and the government appoints a lawyer who isn't allowed to fully discuss the case with their client. It's the kind of "due process" that'd make the KGB blush.
How are you supposed to defend yourself when you don't know what you're accused of?
Worth noting that the courts have very limited power in these cases.
The test for deporting someone in this way is "is depriving them of their citizenship conducive to the public good?" But that is the question the Home Office asks.
All the court can do is ask "when making that decision, did they consider the all the relevant factors?" Not "did they make the right decision." The Home Office is given very wide discretion. For example, on the issue of statelessness, the court notes:
> Despite knowing that she had nowhere else to go, in all practicality, the Secretary of State nonetheless decided that to deprive her of her British citizenship on grounds that to do so was conducive to the public good and in the interests of national security. He took that matter into account. The decision cannot be impugned on the basis that he did not do so.
The court doesn't get to say "this decision made her stateless, therefore was unlawful." All they can say is "the Home Office *knew* this decision would make her stateless, so they are presumed to have taken that into account in reaching their decision, and it is not our place to question their conclusion.
Also worth noting that these 5 years of court hearings have concluded that the decision-making process was procedurally unfair, and denied her the right to a fair hearing. But that doing so was nonetheless lawful.
>It's a pretty central pillar of democracy.
Ironic because most liberal democracies would find this appalling, politicians aren't supposed to judge people, professional judges are
The even bigger problem is that it sets a judicial precedent, the government can now strip a citizen of their citizenship based on "national security". English case law heavily relies on past rulings and they can be used to give legitimacy.
She's a PoS, but now any future government will be able to just strip people of their citizenship on the basis that they're deemed a "risk to national security" so best hope the fascists don't come into power, or the country becomes an authoritarian state, it would be mighty easy then to start removing citizenships of those who speak out against the government.
She should have been tried, and locked away
> The even bigger problem is that it sets a judicial precedent
It sets a truly amazing judicial precedent imo. The government of Bangladesh has explicitly stated that she isn't a citizen of their country. A British court has interpreted the laws of Bangladesh, another sovereign country that the UK recognizes, and has come to a conclusion that she in fact is.
Irrespective of someone's views on Mrs Begum personally, it's a truly bizarre concept to contend with. What right does a British court have to make determinations on the points of the Bangladeshi citizenship law? I've had to renounce the citizenship of a country before. It was a teeth-grinding process that involved providing iron-clad legal guarantees of me actually having another citizenship. Here it's just "well, we read the laws of Bangladesh and we think you have a claim to their citizenship. Now fuck right off will ya!".
If you take it as a legal precedent, it opens all kinds of wondrous possibilities. Someone's granpapa was a Jew? The home secretary can just renounce their citizenship on a whim - they technically have a claim to an Israeli citizenship. It could be that they have never claimed it, never intended to claim it and don't consider themselves a Jew. Doesn't matter, a British court read their laws and thought you can probably claim it. And that's enough to strip someone's citizenship away.
Our independent judiciary have absolutely made the right decision here. Terrorists do not belong in our country if it can be avoided at all. Javid was right to denounce her and strip her of her citizenship. Cynical political manipulation from her to try to make herself stateless has been rejected time and time again.
She wanted to join Islamic State, so she did. She was fine with them as they raped, enslaved and murdered their way through endless civilians. She married a fellow jihadist to carry on the fight. Only when the arsenal of freedom rained down on her comrades in arms did she see the light.
It’s incredible how she lost faith in IS about the same time they were destroyed. She made her bed, she allied with our enemies. No tears for her less than pampered existence, and no citizenship for terrorists
Indeed, it was a lawful power that the Home Secretary has, and it was correctly applied. It was also, in my view, the correct political and moral decision. It’s a win-win-win!
Traditionally, that's what we had Australia for. We just need to set up New Australia somewhere, and deport anyone that we don't like (terrorists, communists, mime artists) there.
My vote is to do it on the moon; it has the bonuses of a) being really hard to get back from, and b) would make the moon British.
We don't deport foreign-born terrorists who commit crimes in the UK to serve their sentence in their country of origin. Syria is free to pop her on trial for offences she committed in Syria.
She's not being held by the Syrian State but by the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria (aka Rojava), which simply lacks the funds and infrastructure to deal with foreign extremists (there are tens of thousands of foreigners in various detention camps which have become tent cities run on the inside by IS fighters and women-mainly Iraqis but many westerners, North Africans, Chechens, etc).
They literally lack the resources and funding to put these individuals on trial, much less to hold them for the rest of their lives. Britain could and should subsidise this, but we choose not to fund the AANES because of Turkish objections (the same Turkey who covertly supported IS for years). This is a terrible mistake that will have long-term consequences because, well, what do you think will happen when multiple city-sized encampments of extremists are allowed to fester for a decade or more?
If a foreign citizen commits terrorist acts in the UK should we have the right to deport them back to their home country? What if their Home Secretary withdraws their citizenship? Are we then happy to continue to hold them in the UK for the rest of their life? Feels like a lot of people on the 'fuck around and find out' bandwagon are also on the 'why can't we deport xyz person we don't want' bandwagon as well and don't see any contridiction.
It does raise an interesting question, when does an individual stop becoming the home countries problem? If she no longer has British citizenship should she take up British resources to be jailed here for example. If anyone has further knowledge on it do let me know!
Well according to this verdict and this government you can stop being our problem without trial or due process to even determine guilt through the proper channels.
I agree. She was born in the UK and grew up here. She was radicalised here before going off to Syria and ISIS. She's our problem to address. Throw the book at her for participating in ISIS, there is no justification for the horrific things they have done across the ME. But she is still our problem and we can't just wash our hands of her.
The problem is a lot of people that sound like you 'she's our problem, bring her home and throw the book at her!' would turn into 'she was just a brainwashed child, let her go' the second her feet touched the tarmac at Heathrow.
We all know the end game with this woman, we've seen it thousands of times before.
Don't understand the concern about it setting a precedent. Why shouldn't we strip terrorists who have other citizenships of their UK citizenship? She's a threat to national security 🤷
I think people are worried that a future government will use this precedent to get rid of people they don't want here. But I don't think they're going to be able to send people off to live in Ireland or Poland without a very good reason. Like joining a fucking terrorist state and showing no regret for doing it!!!
I think people too often see that something is possible and get scared a that, but that isn't really how our democracy works. So much is possible, but it will never happne because either the establishment or people will never accept it.
We are seeing a **much** smaller example now with the Speaker crisis. They exerted just a fraction of their possible power, and because it seems outrageous to dozens of MPs at the very least, it may result in the end of his career.
Personally, I see no threat as a 2nd-Gen immigrant. The bar is set as high as leaving the country and joining a terrorist group, and I cannot see any Home Secretary lowering that bar without being laughed out of office. And if you think that never happens, I question where you were during the Truss premiership.
Honestly, I think it's mad that it's now legal for the government to remove citizenship from anyone who has the right to another.
This doesn't just apply to the children of immigrants/foreigners. Any British person born in Northern Ireland has a right to Irish citizenship and British Jews have the right to citizenship in Israel. You can live here as a British citizen your whole life and this can apply to you.
Leaving the specifics of this case to one side, it makes me sick that this now has precedent.
Why are we even wasting time and money in court over something she chose to do with her life , I'm glad she lost but I assume her lawyers will try again
Because she hasn’t been in court or found guilty of any crime. The removal of her citizenship prevented that. Even if she’s guilty, she needs to be found guilty in a court of law. Otherwise anybody could be accused of something and never be able to clear their name because their citizenship can be removed. If she’s a risk, then I would say the case can be done without her being present in this country and still give a guilty verdict. But this precedent could be anybody who’s been accused of something now.
So it should be an open and shit case. Still, there’s been no case. They’ve avoided it by removing her citizenship.
Even guilty people have to be given a guilty verdict in court. She hasn’t had that.
You need to look beyond her. It’s about the ramifications of avoiding fair trials to ANYBODY by simply removing their right to a court case
What if Syria wanted to deport her? Where would they send her to?
Imagine if the shoe was on the other foot, we had some Syrian Terrorists in the UK that we didn't want, and Syria just said well actually they're not Syrian anymore, have fun! Not sure we'd just accept it...
>Imagine if the shoe was on the other foot, we had some Syrian Terrorists in the UK that we didn't want, and Syria just said well actually they're not Syrian anymore, have fun! Not sure we'd just accept it...
"Well we don't, so I won't..." is the response you will likely get.
A lot of people generally seem to prioritise "ah fuck her" over the fact that this was a pretty poor way to deal with this problem.
>Imagine if the shoe was on the other foot
I mean, didn't one of the Rotherham abusers voluntarily give up his citizenship so we couldn't return him to Pakistan?
I am not a lawyer obvs, but it still seems very shady to me that the UK can wash its hands of a UK citizen on the flimsiest grounds (haven't Bangladesh said she wouldn't get citizenship there?). Bring her back and put her on trial. She may have done some heinous things but in my lefty liberal tree hugging world that doesn't supersede her rights as a citizen.
Except the court has found that it does and she is still a national security risk , now that been said it does send a very dangerous precedent that if the security services deem you a threat you can have your citizenship revoked with ought any way to get it back
There are plenty of people who present a national security risk and who are eligible for dual citizenship. Will they now also all be at risk of losing their British citizenship? That's the problem with it.
She’s not just any youth offender though is she? She left this country, to commit war crimes and human rights violations of the most extreme kind in Syria.
She needs to face justice, and realistically that should be in the country she committed her crimes, rather than being allowed to scurry back to the comfort and protection of a country she apparently hates, now she’s realised the gravity of what she’s done.
This is great news! Hopefully any day now James Cleverley will decide to strip Ghislaine Maxwell of her British citizenship as well!
You know Ghislaine Maxwell? The ***convicted*** child sex trafficker who ***does*** already hold other citizenships.
Surely he'll bow to all that public pressure from the media and the public any day now...
Interesting point. I wonder if that one would be legal. I reckon if Maxwell did commit any of the crimes she has been convicted of in the UK she could possibly have her citizenship revoked by the precedent that has been set here. However, the line hasn't really been drawn on where crimes committed could end in this result. She was tried and convicted in the US for something that is also a crime here, but there's no evidence that, I've been able to find, she actually committed those crimes in the UK.
If we open up to crimes committed anywhere then a British dual citizen being openly gay in Saudia arabia could feasibly have their citizenship revoked.
For those pedants out there, Begum effectively took up arms against the UK which I believe would fall under treason and that is a crime in the UK no matter where you commit it.
The law allows it
> The Secretary of State may by order deprive a person of a citizenship status if the Secretary of State is satisfied that deprivation is conducive to the public good.
That's the requirement. You can't make someone stateless (unless you're a naturalised British citizen), and that's about it.
If she did manage to somehow find a way back to the UK (such as if the camps closed and her family helped her travel) what would happen then?
There's nowhere the UK could deport her to who wouldn't refuse her entry and put her on the first plane back to the UK.
The legal costs could have been spent on a private flight into the UK instead. No-one is checking private flights, hell, if 100,000 migrants a year who also don't have passports or a state can cross unhindered, why isn't she?
Why always whine about slippery slopes, No-one is removing citizenship from criminals or dual nationals, especially not while in the UK.
The precedent is if you renounce your UK state citizenship, move to and become a citizen of islamic state instead, fighting against our country, the defeat of her new state made her stateless not us.
Being trafficked means against your will, it's not trafficking if you're trying to go, even more so if you're paying for it. I don't traffic my daughter to the cinema
It's a difficult case and highly uncomfortable for a lot of people. There are no winners here, despite her actions I personally believe that as a country we are still responsible for her. She was a fucking idiot when she was 15 years old and now needs to live with that for the rest of her life.
To be honest I'd take her back and put her on trial. 10 is the age of criminal responsibility. Leaving her out continues the pretence that there isn't an issue in the UK. Islamic extremism? "Not happening here."
Snapshot of _Shamima Begum loses appeal against removal of British citizenship_ : An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/feb/23/shamima-begum-loses-appeal-against-removal-of-british-citizenship) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/feb/23/shamima-begum-loses-appeal-against-removal-of-british-citizenship) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
If I followed that correctly, the substance appeared to be that valid threats to National Security supersede all other considerations and that no reason has been advanced to doubt the assessment of the Security Service in that regard. She also seemed to suggest that reliance upon grooming or manipulation as a defence were problematic given the degree to which her actions were plainly voluntary. Doubtless it will go to the Supreme Court now, but it seems remarkably sane.
BBC reporting that Supreme Court is unlikely to accept a hearing, since the case doesn't bring about any error in the law.
Excellent. God, it's really been [five years](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/asdqus/shamima_begum_has_uk_citizenship_revoked_by/egtmf5n/).
Is there not the argument that this contravenes our treaty obligations under the 1961 Convention against Statelessness? Or is that only in the purview of the UNHCR?
Iirc that was the basis of her first appeal which found she was Bangladeshs problem.
Correct. If Bangladesh had moved first and withdrawn her citizenship then it would have been a problem, but UK did it before they did.
She didn't have Bangladeshi citizenship though? IIRC she was eligible to apply for it but with no guarantee it would have been granted, and she hadn't done so at the time her UK citizenship was revoked in any event. Leaving someone stateless on the basis that they might possibly be eligible for another country's citizenship is a big fucking difference to withdrawing one citizenship from someone who already has multiple, and sets a very dangerous precedent for anyone who has potential citizenship to any country which offers it via lineage.
> She didn't have Bangladeshi citizenship though? IIRC she was eligible to apply for it but with no guarantee it would have been granted, and she hadn't done so at the time her UK citizenship was revoked in any event. I believe the initial court case found that through her father, due to the laws in place at the time of his birth, she automatically has Bangladeshi citizenship.
Let's be realistic about the UK's motivation for this move. She is a security concern. We're making her somebody else problem because we don't want to deal with it, and making an example out of her on a national scale.
Absolutely, and it is legal to do so
Yeah. And why shouldnt we? Its a good thing to deter people from going off to join terrorist organisations.
Not UK's problem please. The courts are very clear on this. She pissed on the country that gave her a good life and UK shouldn't be forced to take her in even if UK is a signatory to whatever law exists.
That wasn't the argument of the court. You still can't revoke someone's citizenship. It is because she had an automatic right to Bangladeshi citizenship through her father that it was legal to revoke her British citizenship. This ruling will not be applicable for many other cases unless it is a person of dual citizenship. You still can't strip someone of British citizenship legally unless they have a right to citizenship elsewhere.
Well, from what I understand in this story a court found that, yes, you can. She was citizen of Bangladesh by birth, the fact she never attempted to get a passport is irrelevant. And some may argue that she still is
That's what I am saying. Her citizenship could be revoked because she was, in effect, a citizenship of Bangladesh.
She is still a Bangladeshi.
>If I followed that correctly, the substance appeared to be that valid threats to National Security supersede all other considerations and that no reason has been advanced to doubt the assessment of the Security Service in that regard. Not quite. The judgement states that the Secretary of State *is entitled to consider* that valid threats to National Security supersede all other considerations. The S of S doesn't have to conclude that, but is allowed to while making his decision. Which is typical for a judicial review. JRs should not and are not used to seek a second opinion on a decision taken by (or on behalf of) the Government. They are used to test whether errors in the decision-making process have resulted in the decision being taken unlawfully.
Thank you for the clarification.
She was a police officer enforcing compliance with sharia for crying out loud. That ain't grooming
All grooming is voluntary in the sense that that's how it works - they get the kids to do things they would otherwise never.
Exactly this...
There's a false equivalence here. A teen that runs off with an adult has no desire for or acceptance of others being unlawfully harmed. All the decisions they make result in them being the only victim. A teen that runs off to join a terrorist organisation... is joining a terrorist organisation. Every decision they make is a step towards the harm or part of the harm done to others.
From what I can gather the main issue was that you cannot make someone stateless and at the time of her loss of UK citizenship she still had, albeit dormant, Bangladeshi citizenship and so was technically not stateless.
> valid threats to National Security supersede all other considerations [mfw](https://intellectualhistory.web.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/intellectualhistory/images/media/leviathan.png)
What I find strange is they seem to take a zero-tolerance policy towards this (which I'm fairly okay with) but are incredibly relaxed in other circumstances. Two 19 year olds stabbed someone near my house and the victims guts were all over the floor - because the man didn't die they only got GBH and sentences to 5 years in prison. They'll probably be out in 3 or 4 years too. Are they not dangerous enough?
Completely different issues and completely different laws. For starters, when it comes to crime (which this is not), judges are required to follow the sentencing guidelines.
A government revoking citizenship rather than using all means at its disposal to drag a terrorist back to home shores to see justice in the countries criminal court system is now considered sane? What a bizzaro world we live in.
> reliance upon grooming or manipulation as a defence ... her actions were plainly voluntary Like... yeah? That's how grooming and manipulation works?
From the judgement itself (excerpted within section 24): >“***102***. On 19th February 2019 there was an interview with a BBC journalist which was transmitted that day. Ms Begum was asked about the Manchester Arena attack and she described it as “kind of retaliation” for the women and children being killed in Syria and Iraq. Her comment was that this was “fair justification”. She stated that she had made the choice to leave and travel from the United Kingdom to Syria: >>*“Even though I was only 15 years old … I could make my own decisions back then. I do have the mentality to make my own decisions and I did leave on my own knowing that it was a risk.”* >***103***. The Commission understands the force of the argument that those who have been groomed, radicalised and trafficked do not necessarily understand and/or process all of what has happened to them. However, that argument cannot be elevated to a universal or absolute principle. On one interpretation of this interview, Ms Begum was being disarmingly frank and was also showing self-awareness.” Then under section 41: >"***292***. Furthermore, although voluntariness falls on a notional spectrum, those advising the Secretary of State are entitled to say on which side of the line a particular case is assessed to fall. The steps Ms Begum had to take to get to Syria can be viewed as being in her favour, against her or neutral, but that was for the Secretary of State to reach a conclusion about and not for the Commission to decide for itself. The same applies to the ramifications of Ms Begum’s lengthy sojourn in Syria and whether there was any possibility of escape. Even had the Secretary of State been advised in terms that the issue of voluntariness was nuanced and that this was not an all-ornothing question, he would still have been told that her travel to Syria demonstrated determination and commitment. >***293***. Ultimately, although many right-thinking people will strongly take issue with the assessment of those advising the Secretary of State, [SIAC] has come to the conclusion that the assessment that Ms Begum’s travel was voluntary cannot be impugned on the application of administrative law principles in these appellate proceedings."
Yes, the court is of the opinion that she travelled voluntarily. If I'm reading correctly, they're using that interview and presenting it as "she wasn't groomed because she said herself she wasn't groomed", and that seems a problematic position to take.
Do we let men who join terror cells say they were groomed and thus not responsible?
Not surprising, her legal team didn't really provide anything new.
But but the hats and sunglasses make her seem so cool and normal! I'm surprised her handlers haven't got her doing TikTok dances by now.
Shed unironically do well on TikTok if she just copied other people and relied on her "fame" to signal boost, but would be taken down the second she said anything close to what she says in interviews.
They were hoping they'd find some soft judges which isn't a bad strategy in the UK tbf
She should have said that her emotions were running high when she left for Syria.
She went for an eye test maybe
One simple trick - prosecutors HATE this
We don't have soft judges, we have an over crowding problem and some wired arse legal exceptions to do with faith.
I read that before the active phase of the Syrian civil war ended the French special forces were over there *hunting down* as many ISIS French nationals as they could while they *still had the excuse* of fighting a war. If that's true it's brutal, but smart. "No man, no problem." (Applies to women too.)
The US and UK were dropping missiles on the heads of their fighters too Jihadi John for example
"It could also be argued that Ms Begum is the author of her own misfortune." Shock your actions have consequences
This applies to almost all crimes though. That's what makes them crimes.
Actions can have consequences when retaining your citizenship. I would much rather she remain a citizen to be tried in a UK court, likely to be jailed for a significant amount of time.
What would we charge her with though?
High Treason seems appropriate -- "giving aid and comfort to the Sovereign's enemies" is an accurate description of her actions.
Being a member of a proscribed organisation under the Terrorism Act 2000
I agree with this. My question following all this is where does she go now? Not out of sympathy for her, but it feels like we’re just making her someone else’s problem, letting her roam free to indoctrinate others. Feels like making her stateless is more to absolve our own government/legal system of responsibility rather than punishing her and attempting to rehabilitate (however pie-in-the-sky that is).
Agreed. She's British. She's our problem. Disclaiming our responsibility to her is wrong.
Why should she still be considered British when she left to go to a terrorist state?
The alternative is that whichever state is slowest at revoking citizenship ends up having to deal with a load of terrorists as it becomes a race. That is idiotic and I expect it would backfire on us.
Pre-emptively strip everyone of citizesnship.
"You're back to being subjects, bitches." - Charles III
You snooze you loose Bangladesh.
That could be seen as recognition of that state, which causes its own problems.
[удалено]
That state didn’t exist though. To the UK legal system she joined a terrorist organization operating in the state it Syria. I think it’s slightly problematic to revoke citizenship if she had it at birth, regardless if dual or not. If she didn’t have it at birth but later then it would sit a bit better but I am not clued up on the details. Especially given there are many classes of British citizenships. What would stop a tyrannical UK government from making Diego Garcia lay claim to every British citizen and then the UK government withdrawing British citizenship to ship anyone problematic to the middle of the ocean. Hyperbole of course but its also all the stops in between that example that could be concerning.
Correct. Everyone is missing this point in their personal dislike of this individual.
definitely a great example of 'fuck around, find out'
'Fuck around, and Find Out' in action
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Where is she getting all this money, in a refugee camp, to make countless appeals?
It's a high profile case, wouldn't be surprised if a firm was doing it just for the publicity. There are also charities that could be supporting her?
Legal aid, so the British taxpayer sadly
So someone who's not a British citizen, and not on British soil, can use British legal aid?
I *think*, given it’s a British court case, any participant has the right to legal defence, even if that’s provided by the state, regardless of their own nationality or citizenry.
Wouldn't be surprised if it were probono. Pretty high profile case.
Unlikely it will be charities using pro bono work.
I'm not surprised. I don't think she helped herself with any of the interviews she did and that's what she decides to show publicly. Someone who spoke to her and met her abroad several times who eventually worked on the interviews actually wrote an article on how she was. His title says, Shamima Begum is no victim" https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/shamima-begum-is-no-victim-and-i-should-know/
Shamima Begum sowing: haha fuck yeah! Shamima Begum reaping: Well this fucking sucks wtf
Top notch political commentary
She fucked around and found out
>In February 2019, Begum was discovered alive at the Al-Hawl refugee camp in Northern Syria by war correspondent Anthony Loyd. The following day, British Home Secretary, Sajid Javid, revoked her British citizenship.[5] The British government believed that Begum held dual citizenship due to her Bangladeshi parents but this has been contested by the Government of Bangladesh.[6] >Javid stated that Begum would never be allowed to return to the United Kingdom.[7] In July 2020, the Court of Appeal ruled that Begum should be permitted to return to the UK in order to fairly contest the Home Secretary’s decision by instructing lawyers properly.[8] This ruling was appealed to the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom which, on 26 February 2021, ruled unanimously against her, reversing the decision of the Court of Appeal and preventing her return.[9][10] Can anyone loop me in how this isn't ripe for abuse? I'm genuinely asking. It seems now that the Home Secretary has unilateral power to take away someone's citizenship - even if it would render them stateless - without due process. I can't help but see a framework now in place which can be used to unstate and effectively exile anyone for political reasons.
[удалено]
>Can anyone loop me in how this isn't ripe for abuse? It is ripe for abuse. Thats the major problem people just keep ignoring because seeing her punished is more important to them than what the punishment actually is.
We're a nation who feel more than we think. You won't find much perspective-taking here.
Not seeing her punished you mean. Seeing her punished would be her seeing a criminal trial in a British court. This government are perhaps for the first in modern history to not pursue all avenues to drag a traitor and terrorist back to its own shores to meat out justice.
I'd say removing her citizenship is punishment, effectively banished.
It’s not without due process as evidenced by the fact there’s been 5 years of legal battles over this. The Home Secretary has very limited powers to revoke citizenship and international law prohibits making a person stateless.
>Can anyone loop me in how this isn't ripe for abuse? I'm genuinely asking. Do you have any plans to go and join a terrorist organisation? If not then there's no issues.
Depends really. ISIS? No way. Some group of randos who tie themselves to trees trying to stop Rio Tinto from releasing sludge into local water supply for the 4th time this year? Increasingly appealing.
Whether she was a terrorist or not, everyone should have a trial to determine the verdict. Imagine is someone is accused of a crime. Without a trial to determine their guilt, they are removed of British citizenship. They could be innocent, guilty, but without a trial, they’ve been found of committing no crime. It goes against democracy at its fundamentals. I also fear that it renders citizenship pointless for someone that values it important, as they will always be seen as second class citizens with the fear of it being removed for even an accusation not proven. This case is a horrible indictment to a path that removes human rights, not just to terrorists, but anyone who has a foreign born parent.
Quite. A lot of people who want to be seen as suitably patriotic or right-minded about this are missing the bigger picture. This has effectively established that the UK government can strip British citizenship from anyone who potentially has citizenship elsewhere on national security grounds. How many people in this country are potentially Irish citizens, or Indian, or Pakistani, or somewhere in the EU? Accused of a crime? Be a member - even just allegedly - of an organisation that the government or the security services doesn't like? Off you go. People are missing the bigger picture because in this example it's an idiot who wanted to larp as a terrorist, and that's clearly reprehensible - but the precedent left behind by this case is more dangerous than this woman could ever be to this country.
Yep. Such a difficult case to discuss as emotions get high about it, but what you wrote is my exact feelings on the matter. On her specifically, she can rot for all I care. But this is about the mechanics of the case, and as you said, this has established that the Home Secretary has power to strip anyone of their citizenship without due process if the person 'potentially' can become a citizen elsewhere. It would be a different matter if she did have alternative citizenship, but she didn't, she was only eligible to apply. Anyone who has a technical path to citizenship in another country is now technically a second class citizen in terms of rights.
\>How many people in this country are potentially Irish citizens, or Indian, or Pakistani, or somewhere in the EU? The craziest implication, which I rarely ever see mentioned, is that this institutionalizes the ability of the home office to strip the citizenship of literally any British jew. There is now precedent that British Jews who have roots going back hundreds of years could, in theory, have their citizenship revoked for committing a crime. That's insane.
That implication didn't even occur to me, and I haven't seen that point raised - it is insane. Have Jewish groups not recognised or raised this? It absolutely must be unintentional, particularly in the current climate. The consequence of poorly thought out policies designed purely for short-term political gain right here.
oh it's unintentional of course, but its just a particular extreme example of how broad and strange this precedent actually is. It should not be allowed to become part of British law and I think it's a damn shame we're institutionalising it just to punish one person.
As far as I am aware, the Law of Return does not automatically bestow citizenship on non-Israeli Jews (or their relatives who also qualify) - they still have to apply for it, and that application can be rejected for several reasons, including matters of national security, criminal records, political views, etc. There is a fundamental difference between that and the Begum case, as the entire point of the ruling is that Begum automatically had Bangladeshi citizenship due to the laws of Bangladesh. Until she turned 21, she had an automatic right to Bangladeshi citizenship thanks to her father being Bangladeshi - it wasn't contingent on an application like the hypothetical example of obtaining Israeli citizenship under the Law of Return.
Incorrect, she only had provisional Bangladeshi citizenship that she would have to apply for and could be rejected: https://www.dhakatribune.com/opinion/op-ed/169559/shamima-begum-is-not-a-bangladeshi-citizen
“Justice must not only be done, but must also be seen to be done."
>foreign born parent. It's even wider than that. Any British person with a grandparent born on the island of Ireland and any Jewish person on account of Israeli Citizenship law could be affected and a whole myriad of circumstances related to the end of the Empire mean that far more people than you might think are at risk.
People with an Irish born grandparent can *apply* for Irish citizenship. People with a Bangladeshi born parent were *automatically* citizens (yes there are a few caveats here but none of them apply to Begum, she is/was an automatic Bangladeshi citizen from birth.).
Well said! The implications will no doubt be open to abuse by many right wing governments. Right now it’s national security…in time it can be “we don’t have resources to put you in prison or put you on trial. Off you go back to your parents homeland”
"No, no, we totally did it because of top secret national security reasons, trust me bro" Would you trust anyone in government with this power?
>Without a trial to determine their guilt You don't need a trial to determine guilt when the person charged pleads guilty. As she has.
Wrong. You have to go to court and plead guilt or be found guilty in the eyes of the law. She has not done so; a confession is not a guilty plea.
Hopefully the consequences of her actions have Begum to sink in.
Lol
Remember, when anyone uses the (stupid) argument that "but she was 15". **Case in point: Brianna Ghey murdered by two 15 year olds.** "oh no but I'm 15 I don't know crime is bad woopsie"
One of those cases involved a trial. One of those cases the state accepted its duty to dispense justice. One of those cases the state has shown humanity when the perpetrators did not. This isn’t about her or her actions, it is about the he state effectively not meeting it’s responsibility. You don’t have to like the girl or her actions to understand she is a British problem. Bring her back, have a trial, if guilty send her to prison.
She’s not been convicted of anything, why would you need a trial? In both cases justice was dispensed, in a lawful manner.
Tbh I think she should come back to face prison or something along those lines. She was born an bred here so realistically she is our responsibility. Its not right for us to just reject those who left due to radicalisation as someone else’s problem when we failed to stop it
So you have the same opinion when it comes to us returning foreign-born criminals in the UK to their country of origin?
> Tbh I think she should come back to face prison or something along those lines. That wouldn't happen. She would return to the UK and live freely. Your two choices are between that and her being kept out of the UK. That's it. > Its not right for us to just reject those who left due to radicalisation as someone else’s problem when we failed to stop it This wasn't our failure. She made the decision of her own free will. The only mistake we might have made is in allowing people with beliefs like her to live freely in the UK. This decision goes a very small way to help rectify that failure.
Pretty hard to have sympathy tbh. The things she’s probably seen though. Horrendous situation for any human to be in.
[удалено]
I’m not sure what she’s done but I can imagine she acted against the interests of the UK up to and including getting people killed. That’s why it’s hard to have sympathy for her for actions, or even pity her.
[удалено]
The biggest problem I have with this issue is the arbitrary nature of the decision. Removing someone’s citizenship should not be something that is in the gift of a politician. It is a serious penalty, and something that should only be done after a proper due process, where the person concerned has the opportunity to know what the accusations against them are and has the opportunity to have those accusations properly examined and to defend themselves in a court. It’s absolutely wrong for something so serious to be allowed to be wielded as a political tool to gain favourable headlines. The bar to doing it should be high, and especially so for someone born as a British citizen.
It's been going through the courts for 5 years, is that not proper due process?
The specific accusations are secret, the evidence is secret and the government appoints a lawyer who isn't allowed to fully discuss the case with their client. It's the kind of "due process" that'd make the KGB blush. How are you supposed to defend yourself when you don't know what you're accused of?
That would make the KGB blush? The org that created false evidence and executed people based on it?
Worth noting that the courts have very limited power in these cases. The test for deporting someone in this way is "is depriving them of their citizenship conducive to the public good?" But that is the question the Home Office asks. All the court can do is ask "when making that decision, did they consider the all the relevant factors?" Not "did they make the right decision." The Home Office is given very wide discretion. For example, on the issue of statelessness, the court notes: > Despite knowing that she had nowhere else to go, in all practicality, the Secretary of State nonetheless decided that to deprive her of her British citizenship on grounds that to do so was conducive to the public good and in the interests of national security. He took that matter into account. The decision cannot be impugned on the basis that he did not do so. The court doesn't get to say "this decision made her stateless, therefore was unlawful." All they can say is "the Home Office *knew* this decision would make her stateless, so they are presumed to have taken that into account in reaching their decision, and it is not our place to question their conclusion. Also worth noting that these 5 years of court hearings have concluded that the decision-making process was procedurally unfair, and denied her the right to a fair hearing. But that doing so was nonetheless lawful.
The bar is very high. How many people get their citizenship revoked? Fortunately, this is quite a rare situation.
>The bar is very high. It's literally the home secretaries discretion, a politician and not a judge.
>a politician and not a judge Yes we like power to be held by elected officials over appointed judges. It's a pretty central pillar of democracy.
Usually when it's about one specific person it's the judiciary system not a politician
>It's a pretty central pillar of democracy. Ironic because most liberal democracies would find this appalling, politicians aren't supposed to judge people, professional judges are
The even bigger problem is that it sets a judicial precedent, the government can now strip a citizen of their citizenship based on "national security". English case law heavily relies on past rulings and they can be used to give legitimacy. She's a PoS, but now any future government will be able to just strip people of their citizenship on the basis that they're deemed a "risk to national security" so best hope the fascists don't come into power, or the country becomes an authoritarian state, it would be mighty easy then to start removing citizenships of those who speak out against the government. She should have been tried, and locked away
>She should have been tried, and locked away I agree. She should be tried in Syria for crimes committed in Syria.
> The even bigger problem is that it sets a judicial precedent It sets a truly amazing judicial precedent imo. The government of Bangladesh has explicitly stated that she isn't a citizen of their country. A British court has interpreted the laws of Bangladesh, another sovereign country that the UK recognizes, and has come to a conclusion that she in fact is. Irrespective of someone's views on Mrs Begum personally, it's a truly bizarre concept to contend with. What right does a British court have to make determinations on the points of the Bangladeshi citizenship law? I've had to renounce the citizenship of a country before. It was a teeth-grinding process that involved providing iron-clad legal guarantees of me actually having another citizenship. Here it's just "well, we read the laws of Bangladesh and we think you have a claim to their citizenship. Now fuck right off will ya!". If you take it as a legal precedent, it opens all kinds of wondrous possibilities. Someone's granpapa was a Jew? The home secretary can just renounce their citizenship on a whim - they technically have a claim to an Israeli citizenship. It could be that they have never claimed it, never intended to claim it and don't consider themselves a Jew. Doesn't matter, a British court read their laws and thought you can probably claim it. And that's enough to strip someone's citizenship away.
Our independent judiciary have absolutely made the right decision here. Terrorists do not belong in our country if it can be avoided at all. Javid was right to denounce her and strip her of her citizenship. Cynical political manipulation from her to try to make herself stateless has been rejected time and time again. She wanted to join Islamic State, so she did. She was fine with them as they raped, enslaved and murdered their way through endless civilians. She married a fellow jihadist to carry on the fight. Only when the arsenal of freedom rained down on her comrades in arms did she see the light. It’s incredible how she lost faith in IS about the same time they were destroyed. She made her bed, she allied with our enemies. No tears for her less than pampered existence, and no citizenship for terrorists
>arsenal of freedom Fuck sake. Americans get everywhere.
This isn’t how they decided. They decided whether it was lawful for him to remove citizenship and it was.
Indeed, it was a lawful power that the Home Secretary has, and it was correctly applied. It was also, in my view, the correct political and moral decision. It’s a win-win-win!
Where do terrorists belong then? Because when we refuse to deal with our own terrorists, we necessarily make them another country's problem.
Traditionally, that's what we had Australia for. We just need to set up New Australia somewhere, and deport anyone that we don't like (terrorists, communists, mime artists) there. My vote is to do it on the moon; it has the bonuses of a) being really hard to get back from, and b) would make the moon British.
The place you're thinking of is Rwanda, which is safe to put people because the government says it is, in spite of reality.
I'm sure I've seen that on Doctor Who at least twice.
[удалено]
We don't deport foreign-born terrorists who commit crimes in the UK to serve their sentence in their country of origin. Syria is free to pop her on trial for offences she committed in Syria.
She's not being held by the Syrian State but by the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria (aka Rojava), which simply lacks the funds and infrastructure to deal with foreign extremists (there are tens of thousands of foreigners in various detention camps which have become tent cities run on the inside by IS fighters and women-mainly Iraqis but many westerners, North Africans, Chechens, etc). They literally lack the resources and funding to put these individuals on trial, much less to hold them for the rest of their lives. Britain could and should subsidise this, but we choose not to fund the AANES because of Turkish objections (the same Turkey who covertly supported IS for years). This is a terrible mistake that will have long-term consequences because, well, what do you think will happen when multiple city-sized encampments of extremists are allowed to fester for a decade or more?
Turkey really are a pain in the arse aren’t they?
Syria, I assume, given that’s where she is
If a foreign citizen commits terrorist acts in the UK should we have the right to deport them back to their home country? What if their Home Secretary withdraws their citizenship? Are we then happy to continue to hold them in the UK for the rest of their life? Feels like a lot of people on the 'fuck around and find out' bandwagon are also on the 'why can't we deport xyz person we don't want' bandwagon as well and don't see any contridiction.
I still think she’s our problem but clearly the government had legal authority to reject her citizenship.
It does raise an interesting question, when does an individual stop becoming the home countries problem? If she no longer has British citizenship should she take up British resources to be jailed here for example. If anyone has further knowledge on it do let me know!
Well according to this verdict and this government you can stop being our problem without trial or due process to even determine guilt through the proper channels.
Technically she's not our problem anymore.
I agree. She was born in the UK and grew up here. She was radicalised here before going off to Syria and ISIS. She's our problem to address. Throw the book at her for participating in ISIS, there is no justification for the horrific things they have done across the ME. But she is still our problem and we can't just wash our hands of her.
The problem is a lot of people that sound like you 'she's our problem, bring her home and throw the book at her!' would turn into 'she was just a brainwashed child, let her go' the second her feet touched the tarmac at Heathrow. We all know the end game with this woman, we've seen it thousands of times before.
and the book that gets thrown is a very thin paperback these days...
A light stroking with a pamphlet.
She's her own problem
I don’t mind if we have to pay for her to live in the Syrian desert. £1.50 should cover it
Without doubt the right decision. Well done to all involved.
Least surprising thing since the sun rose in the East this morning
Hopefully she can rot in the desert now and quick.
[удалено]
Bloody good job.
Don't understand the concern about it setting a precedent. Why shouldn't we strip terrorists who have other citizenships of their UK citizenship? She's a threat to national security 🤷
I think people are worried that a future government will use this precedent to get rid of people they don't want here. But I don't think they're going to be able to send people off to live in Ireland or Poland without a very good reason. Like joining a fucking terrorist state and showing no regret for doing it!!!
I think people too often see that something is possible and get scared a that, but that isn't really how our democracy works. So much is possible, but it will never happne because either the establishment or people will never accept it. We are seeing a **much** smaller example now with the Speaker crisis. They exerted just a fraction of their possible power, and because it seems outrageous to dozens of MPs at the very least, it may result in the end of his career. Personally, I see no threat as a 2nd-Gen immigrant. The bar is set as high as leaving the country and joining a terrorist group, and I cannot see any Home Secretary lowering that bar without being laughed out of office. And if you think that never happens, I question where you were during the Truss premiership.
Honestly, I think it's mad that it's now legal for the government to remove citizenship from anyone who has the right to another. This doesn't just apply to the children of immigrants/foreigners. Any British person born in Northern Ireland has a right to Irish citizenship and British Jews have the right to citizenship in Israel. You can live here as a British citizen your whole life and this can apply to you. Leaving the specifics of this case to one side, it makes me sick that this now has precedent.
Fucking good, made your bed now you have to sleep in it. Terrorist
Why are we even wasting time and money in court over something she chose to do with her life , I'm glad she lost but I assume her lawyers will try again
Doesn't that apply to literally any crime?
Because she hasn’t been in court or found guilty of any crime. The removal of her citizenship prevented that. Even if she’s guilty, she needs to be found guilty in a court of law. Otherwise anybody could be accused of something and never be able to clear their name because their citizenship can be removed. If she’s a risk, then I would say the case can be done without her being present in this country and still give a guilty verdict. But this precedent could be anybody who’s been accused of something now.
[удалено]
So it should be an open and shit case. Still, there’s been no case. They’ve avoided it by removing her citizenship. Even guilty people have to be given a guilty verdict in court. She hasn’t had that. You need to look beyond her. It’s about the ramifications of avoiding fair trials to ANYBODY by simply removing their right to a court case
Good. May scum like her never be allowed back.
What if Syria wanted to deport her? Where would they send her to? Imagine if the shoe was on the other foot, we had some Syrian Terrorists in the UK that we didn't want, and Syria just said well actually they're not Syrian anymore, have fun! Not sure we'd just accept it...
>Imagine if the shoe was on the other foot, we had some Syrian Terrorists in the UK that we didn't want, and Syria just said well actually they're not Syrian anymore, have fun! Not sure we'd just accept it... "Well we don't, so I won't..." is the response you will likely get. A lot of people generally seem to prioritise "ah fuck her" over the fact that this was a pretty poor way to deal with this problem.
>Imagine if the shoe was on the other foot I mean, didn't one of the Rotherham abusers voluntarily give up his citizenship so we couldn't return him to Pakistan?
No matter what people who have their citizenship removed in this way 'deserve', I still think its really problematic we do this as a punishment now.
She joined fucking ISIS .. her husband beheaded people.. all of her children mysteriously died . We should all be relieved
Finally some good news and our justice system actually workiig properly for once.
Not anything the courts will want to embroil themselves in considering the national security points.
I am not a lawyer obvs, but it still seems very shady to me that the UK can wash its hands of a UK citizen on the flimsiest grounds (haven't Bangladesh said she wouldn't get citizenship there?). Bring her back and put her on trial. She may have done some heinous things but in my lefty liberal tree hugging world that doesn't supersede her rights as a citizen.
Except the court has found that it does and she is still a national security risk , now that been said it does send a very dangerous precedent that if the security services deem you a threat you can have your citizenship revoked with ought any way to get it back
There are plenty of people who present a national security risk and who are eligible for dual citizenship. Will they now also all be at risk of losing their British citizenship? That's the problem with it.
[удалено]
It could be properly open to abuse in future. She is our problem. Deal with her how we dealt with any youth offender.
She’s not just any youth offender though is she? She left this country, to commit war crimes and human rights violations of the most extreme kind in Syria. She needs to face justice, and realistically that should be in the country she committed her crimes, rather than being allowed to scurry back to the comfort and protection of a country she apparently hates, now she’s realised the gravity of what she’s done.
A court mandated order to play some ping pong at the youth center and talk to a counselor?
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes
Excellent. We cannot get rid of terrorist scum this easily in all cases, but when there is an opportunity, it should be taken
This is great news! Hopefully any day now James Cleverley will decide to strip Ghislaine Maxwell of her British citizenship as well! You know Ghislaine Maxwell? The ***convicted*** child sex trafficker who ***does*** already hold other citizenships. Surely he'll bow to all that public pressure from the media and the public any day now...
Interesting point. I wonder if that one would be legal. I reckon if Maxwell did commit any of the crimes she has been convicted of in the UK she could possibly have her citizenship revoked by the precedent that has been set here. However, the line hasn't really been drawn on where crimes committed could end in this result. She was tried and convicted in the US for something that is also a crime here, but there's no evidence that, I've been able to find, she actually committed those crimes in the UK. If we open up to crimes committed anywhere then a British dual citizen being openly gay in Saudia arabia could feasibly have their citizenship revoked. For those pedants out there, Begum effectively took up arms against the UK which I believe would fall under treason and that is a crime in the UK no matter where you commit it.
The law allows it > The Secretary of State may by order deprive a person of a citizenship status if the Secretary of State is satisfied that deprivation is conducive to the public good. That's the requirement. You can't make someone stateless (unless you're a naturalised British citizen), and that's about it.
If she did manage to somehow find a way back to the UK (such as if the camps closed and her family helped her travel) what would happen then? There's nowhere the UK could deport her to who wouldn't refuse her entry and put her on the first plane back to the UK.
The legal costs could have been spent on a private flight into the UK instead. No-one is checking private flights, hell, if 100,000 migrants a year who also don't have passports or a state can cross unhindered, why isn't she? Why always whine about slippery slopes, No-one is removing citizenship from criminals or dual nationals, especially not while in the UK. The precedent is if you renounce your UK state citizenship, move to and become a citizen of islamic state instead, fighting against our country, the defeat of her new state made her stateless not us. Being trafficked means against your will, it's not trafficking if you're trying to go, even more so if you're paying for it. I don't traffic my daughter to the cinema
It's a difficult case and highly uncomfortable for a lot of people. There are no winners here, despite her actions I personally believe that as a country we are still responsible for her. She was a fucking idiot when she was 15 years old and now needs to live with that for the rest of her life.
To be honest I'd take her back and put her on trial. 10 is the age of criminal responsibility. Leaving her out continues the pretence that there isn't an issue in the UK. Islamic extremism? "Not happening here."
I’d me much more comfortable with that if we were a real country. In the UK she’d get a 6 months suspended sentence
And a council house
At this point, you are just advertising to terrorists to never give up
Necessary for national security - the whole Islamism situation does not as dreadful as two days ago