Shamima Begum

[motorbiking]

As you say, it may be harsh, but it is the law…..although whether it would’ve got to that stage without the huge media coverage, I’m not so sure.


The point I was making earlier in this thread was really about whether she was truly an evil terrorist or a teenager that got brainwashed. I actually don’t know, but I don’t think it’s as simple as people believe.

Probably started out as the latter, became so exposed and hardened to the atrocities that she became the former and now either via some sort of epiphany, regret or the harshness of her current situation wants out. I think its slim that she is currently a terrorist risk, but probably would be. Either way, she will be a high risk/prized asset depending on which side of the fight you are on.

 

[AngleEyes]

I don't know if you choose not to understand, or simply don't understand. I invite you to prove your arguments, please quote references as you go.

Revoking someone's citizenship is not a recognised legal punishment. It's purely political.

The key arguments:
- UK acted unlawfully in revoking her citizenship

According to recent UK legislation, UK acted lawfully, but according to longstanding international and UN laws, they didn't, despite UK being a longstanding signatory to such laws.

- UK's motive was political not national security

As said, citizenship has become a political and hierarchical decision based on your ethnicity and the origin of your parents.
I believe I'm correct in stating that only Muslims and Black people have been deprived of citizenship. Therefore the revocation of citizenship is based on UK's colonial past, and its continued attitude towards second and subsequent generations.
It's also based on gender discrimination.

- Bangladesh has a lawful basis for rejecting her citizenship application had it been done in time.

You're still basing your arguments on the denial of another country's right to interpret its own laws.
Bangladesh have a right to determine its own decisions, not have them forced on them by UK, by being put in an invidious position.
Bangladesh stated at the time that Shamima was not a citizen, neve had been and would be denied that right if she applied. Moreover they stated that should she enter Bangladesh, she would be subject to the death penalty if convicted of terrorism.

You are aware that a person can renounce their citizenship and become stateless?

There is a vast difference between a voluntary act and the denial of someone's human rights.
Statelessness means denying someone their basic human rights:

Today, millions of people around the world are denied a nationality. As a result, they often aren’t allowed to go to school, see a doctor, get a job, open a bank account, buy a house or even get married.
https://www.unhcr.org/uk/ending-statelessness.html​

If someone voluntary chooses that status, that is a freedom of choice, which is vastly different to having statelessness thrust upon you against your will.

You're conveniently narrowing down the arguments to exclude the argument that revocation of UK citizenship is hierarchically based on one's ethnicity and gender.

 

[johnny2007]

I don't know if you choose not to understand, or simply don't understand. I invite you to prove your arguments, please quote references as you go.

The key arguments:
- UK acted unlawfully in revoking her citizenship
- UK's motive was political not national security
- Banladesh has a lawful basis for rejecting her citizenship application had it been done in time.

You are aware that a person can renounce their citizenship and become stateless?

Shut up!
You're making sense!
How dare you trying to reason with relevant questions and ask for nonsense to be proved.
Unbelievable!

 

[AngleEyes]

Sticks and stones etc etc

Rest assured, you're safe from any animal cruelty, at least from me.

 

[AngleEyes]

I think its slim that she is currently a terrorist risk, but probably would be.

If the UK can't keep tabs on such a 22 year old high profile person, what hope is there?

And we still don't know what the secret details of the basis for her exclusion are.
So your assumption is based on simple belief in UK government's political decisions being honourable.

 

[Notch7]

UK government's political decisions being honourable

track record would indicate thats not likely

 

[motorbiking]

Revoking someone's citizenship is not a recognised legal punishment. It's purely political.


According to recent UK legislation, UK acted lawfully, but according to longstanding international and UN laws, they didn't, despite UK being a longstanding signatory to such laws.


As said, citizenship has become a political and hierarchical decision based on your ethnicity and the origin of your parents.
I believe I'm correct in stating that only Muslims and Black people have been deprived of citizenship. Therefore the revocation of citizenship is based on UK's colonial past, and its continued attitude towards second and subsequent generations.
It's also based on gender discrimination.


You're still basing your arguments on the denial of another country's right to interpret its own laws.
Bangladesh have a right to determine its own decisions, not have them forced on them by UK, by being put in an invidious position.
Bangladesh stated at the time that Shamima was not a citizen, neve had been and would be denied that right if she applied. Moreover they stated that should she enter Bangladesh, she would be subject to the death penalty if convicted of terrorism.


There is a vast difference between a voluntary act and the denial of someone's human rights.
Statelessness means denying someone their basic human rights:

Today, millions of people around the world are denied a nationality. As a result, they often aren’t allowed to go to school, see a doctor, get a job, open a bank account, buy a house or even get married.
https://www.unhcr.org/uk/ending-statelessness.html​

If someone voluntary chooses that status, that is a freedom of choice, which is vastly different to having statelessness thrust upon you against your will.

You're conveniently narrowing down the arguments to exclude the argument that revocation of UK citizenship is hierarchically based on one's ethnicity and gender.

I don't see any references?
Here is where you should start https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1981/61/section/40

 

[transam]

Rest assured, you're safe from any animal cruelty, at least from me.

hmmm dare say those who tortured that 6 year old boy had a history of cruelty to animals ?

there is generally a link

 

[jeds]

I wonder what the status of Begum's Bangladeshi citizenship is now that she has turned 21? Under Bangladeshi law, citizenship lapses at 21 yrs unless you make an active effort to retain it, which she obviously didn't do. I presume this rule would only apply to dual citizens, which she wasn't at the time, otherwise it would render her stateless?

 

[motorbiking]

https://www.ejiltalk.org/shamima-begum-may-be-a-bangladeshi-citizen-after-all/

Therefore, as of February 2019, Ms Begum is legally a Bangladeshi citizen. Consequently, the decision of the Home Office to deprive her of her British citizenship does not legally render her stateless. Hence, the measure is not unlawful insofar as the issue of statelessness is concerned. Although, it may very well be unlawful on other grounds, whether under British law or even international law.

 

[AngleEyes]

According to recent UK legislation, UK acted lawfully, but according to longstanding international and UN laws, they didn't, despite UK being a longstanding signatory to such laws.

You've just provided the reference for what I'd said earlier. UK has recently changed its laws to allow it to violate the UN and International laws.

I don't see any references?
Here is where you should start https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1981/61/section/40

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.
The Secretary of State may not make an order under subsection (2) if he is satisfied that the order would make a person stateless.
​

If he is satisfied that someone is entitled to citizenship elsewhere is placing the onus on another country to adopt the person who has been deprived of UK citizenship. There is no obligation, in law, that requires the other country to accept that obligation.
UK is now officially a rogue state, in that it's own internal laws allow it to violate international laws, in certain circumstances, which it then keeps secret and does not allow those reasons to be appealed.
Yet amazingly, it still thinks it holds the moral high ground.

 

[johnny2007]

You've just provided the reference for what I'd said earlier. UK has recently changed its laws to allow it to violate the UN and International laws.

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.
The Secretary of State may not make an order under subsection (2) if he is satisfied that the order would make a person stateless.
​

If he is satisfied that someone is entitled to citizenship elsewhere is placing the onus on another country to adopt the person who has been deprived of UK citizenship. There is no obligation, in law, that requires the other country to accept that obligation.
UK is now officially a rogue state, in that it's own internal laws allow it to violate international laws, in certain circumstances, which it then keeps secret and does not allow those reasons to be appealed.
Yet amazingly, it still thinks it holds the moral high ground.

Read motorbiking link.
She is a bangladeshi citizen by birth, she doesn't need paperwork.
This is the crucial point:

"The application referred to in Rule 9 is merely an application to obtain proof or certificate of citizenship. It has no legal effect on the status of citizenship, which has been acquired at birth."

Now, write 15 pages of rubbish to dispute this.
Even better, get this post removed like my previous 6 or so.

 

[AngleEyes]

https://www.ejiltalk.org/shamima-begum-may-be-a-bangladeshi-citizen-after-all/

You've posted this blog already. It changes nothing, it is one person's opinion, a blog, a person (who is a Bangladesh Uni lecturer, educated in UK) who has no authority in UK political or legal circles, nor in Bangladeshi political or legal circles.
And it's dated, SB is now 22 years old, and the conditions outlined in that blog no longer apply.
Bangladesh, like any other country are not obliged to accept anyone's application for citizenship, and can deny an application on any grounds they think fit.
UK has no authority over Bangladesh to insist they accept any application for citizenship. You cannot abdicate your responsibility for citizenship on the grounds that someone is entitled to citizenship elsewhere.
Moreover, it unequally and unfairly affects the subsequent generations of immigrant's children. That has created a hierarchical class of citizenship which affords subsequent generations of immigrants reduced protection.

 

[transam]

What method do they use to execute people in Bangladesh ?

 

[AngleEyes]

She is a bangladeshi citizen by birth, she doesn't need paperwork.
This is the crucial point:

The crucial point is that Bangladesh are not obliged to grant citizenship to anyone.
They can equally deny citizenship to anyone, on any grounds they choose.
UK has created a perception that SB is a danger to UK society, but they refuse to disclose any evidence, (even to appeal judges), and they refuse to allow any discussion about such judgement.
In addition, revocation of citizenship is not a legal punishment, it's a political act.

UK cannot remove citizenship on the basis that the person is entitled to citizenship elsewhere. That creates a hierarchy of citizenship where indigenous white people cannot deprived of citizenship, but children of immigrants can have their citizenship revoked.
That's reverting back to Britain's colonial past.

And if you wan to revert to your usual pattern of insults and fallacious allegations, I refuse to engage in discussion with you.