Shamima Begum

[AngleEyes]

What method do they use to execute people in Bangladesh ?

Have you tried google?

The study demonstrates that the death penalty in Bangladesh is disproportionately used against vulnerable and marginalized sections of society, along the lines of economic status, social identity, and levels of educational attainment.
https://www.law.ox.ac.uk/research-a...ch-unit/blog/2021/07/death-penalty-bangladesh


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_Bangladesh

https://www.newagebd.net/article/141095/execution-on-rise-in-bangladesh-for-decades-study

https://www.amnesty.org.au/bangladesh-death-penalty-moratorium/​

 

[johnny2007]

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.

Wrong.
Citizenship by birth, like in many other countries, doesn't need paperwork.
The paperwork only serves the purpose of proving the citizenship.
You're talking boll@x as usual.

 

[AngleEyes]

boll@x as usual.

I didn't ask what is keeping your ears apart.

 

[transam]

Have you tried google?

The study demonstrates that the death penalty in Bangladesh is disproportionately used against vulnerable and marginalized sections of society, along the lines of economic status, social identity, and levels of educational attainment.
https://www.law.ox.ac.uk/research-a...ch-unit/blog/2021/07/death-penalty-bangladesh


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_Bangladesh

https://www.newagebd.net/article/141095/execution-on-rise-in-bangladesh-for-decades-study

https://www.amnesty.org.au/bangladesh-death-penalty-moratorium/​

no

 

[AngleEyes]

no

Is that because you are lazy, or don't know how, or are trying to make some other absurd point?
If you could answer it'll help me to better respond to your silly questions.

 

[motorbiking]

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.

This is not recent legislation. And the author of the article I linked is clearly knowledgeable and qualified. Do you even hold a law degree?

Bangladesh is not a signature to the convention, so they can revoke citizenship and make a person stateless. At the time SB had her british citizenship revoked, she was a duel national, so the HS acted lawfully.

 

[AngleEyes]

This is not recent legislation. And the author of the article I linked is clearly knowledgeable and qualified. Do you even hold a law degree?

Relatively recent, 1985, I believe, from memory, under MT leadership, I believe.

That opinion is so widespread, you found the need to post the same person's opinion twice. Their knowledge and qualification does not make them automatically right.
Red Robbo and Arthur Scargill (MT's era) were probably knowledgeable and qualified, it didn't make them right.

My legal qualifications are irrelevant. The decision was a political decision, not a legal one.
Revocation of citizenship is a political act, not a recognised legal punishment.

 

[jeds]

Ahh, seems there were parallel cases of Bangladeshis who were deprived of British citizenship around the same time as Begum but in fact were already over 21, which would mean their Bangladeshi status had lapsed and therefore the British action was unlawful due to leaving them stateless. Not so with Begum though, she was 19 so was still a Bangladeshi citizen - and still is on the basis that Bangladesh cannot leave her stateless.

Personally I'd prefer to see her tried in a court so her involvement in daesh, and her alleged role as an enforcer, can be properly scrutinised. Then she can pay her dues, if there are any, and move on. Not here though, maybe the USA or Holland. Or Bangladesh.

 

[AngleEyes]

Ahh, seems there were parallel cases of Bangladeshis who were deprived of British citizenship around the same time as Begum but in fact were already over 21, which would mean their Bangladeshi status had lapsed and therefore the British action was unlawful due to leaving them stateless. Not so with Begum though, she was 19 so was still a Bangladeshi citizen - and still is on the basis that Bangladesh cannot leave her stateless.

Personally I'd prefer to see her tried in a court so her involvement in daesh, and her alleged role as an enforcer, can be properly scrutinised. Then she can pay her dues, if there are any, and move on. Not here though, maybe the USA or Holland. Or Bangladesh.

You cannot deprive someone of something on the basis that they may be entitled to it from some other direction, if you don't have the authority to supply that which they may be entitled to.
UK had no authority to award SB Bangladeshi citizenship.
She had UK citizenship, she did not have any other citizenship at the time. It is a false argument to argue that she was entitled to something form somewhere else.
Otherwise, UK could legitimately deny asylum on the basis that they may be entitled to asylum from Turkey, Greece, Russia, etc. It's a nonsense argument.
In addition if SB sets foot in Bangladesh she will be subject to terrorism charges, and if found guilty will be subject to the death penalty.

Moreover, it is reinforcing the hierarchical nature of citizenship practised in UK. Children, born in UK, of immigrants have some lower status of citizenship, which can be revoked at will and without disclosing the reasons.

 

[transam]

Is that because you are lazy, or don't know how, or are trying to make some other absurd point?
If you could answer it'll help me to better respond to your silly questions.

your silly links do not answer my question

 

[JohnD]

At the time SB had her british citizenship revoked, she was a duel national

Why do you say that?

 

[securespark]

I don't think it is appropriate to post links to stuff like that on this forum.