Shamima Begum

[transam]

Dont let her back to the UK as punishment or on principle I am in favour of that

but saying that she presents a security risk

hmmmm cannot say I buy into that tbh ??

 

[motorbiking]

She would be a risk because of her high profile. Plenty of teens do stupid things with life changing consequences.

 

[AngleEyes]

She would be a risk because of her high profile. Plenty of teens do stupid things with life changing consequences.

But they're not punished by stripping them of their citizenship, denying them all legal protection of UK law, despite that being against international law, and left to rot, susceptible to abuse and radicalisation in some refugee camp somewhere.
I suspect her ethnicity played a major part in the UK's decision, the media campaign against her, and the general public's attitude towards her.

 

[motorbiking]

The Supreme Court disagrees. The legalities have been thoroughly explored at tax payers expense. She was not made stateless and the "public good" argument seems pretty clear.

 

[AngleEyes]

The Supreme Court disagrees. The legalities have been thoroughly explored at tax payers expense. She was not made stateless and the "public good" argument seems pretty clear.

You're misrepresenting the Supreme Court's decision.
The court agreed that the Home Secretary could prevent a UK citizen from returning to UK on national security grounds, that is all the Supreme Court decided upon. There has been no decision on Shamima's appeal about her citizenship because it cannot take place.
Shamima Begum cannot appeal the HS's decision without being in the UK, and without access to lawyers, which is currently denied to her.

She has been made stateless, and the Supreme Court has not made any ruling on that. Arguing that she is entitled to another passport, from another country is no argument. That other country have confirmed that no application has been made, or would be granted. The UK cannot legally strip someone of their only citizenship on the basis of an argument that they would be entitled to another in a different country if she applied. The uK has no jurisdiction over other country's passport applications.

The Supreme Court upheld the HS's decision to deny her right of return, while there is a risk to national security, and her case is therefore on hold until such time as a way can be found for her to appeal against the removal of her citizenship.

And so the highest court in the land says her entire case must now be paused until she can find some way of taking part.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-56209007​

 

[Brigade77]

I wonder why don't one of them tax payer funded legal firms don't sign her up, smuggle her to France & pop her in a dinghy?

If she ever lands on these shores again surely it will be a BIG payday for them?

 

[motorbiking]

You're misrepresenting the Supreme Court's decision.
The court agreed that the Home Secretary could prevent a UK citizen from returning to UK on national security grounds, that is all the Supreme Court decided upon. There has been no decision on Shamima's appeal about her citizenship because it cannot take place.
Shamima Begum cannot appeal the HS's decision without being in the UK, and without access to lawyers, which is currently denied to her.

She has been made stateless, and the Supreme Court has not made any ruling on that. Arguing that she is entitled to another passport, from another country is no argument. That other country have confirmed that no application has been made, or would be granted. The UK cannot legally strip someone of their only citizenship on the basis of an argument that they would be entitled to another in a different country if she applied. The uK has no jurisdiction over other country's passport applications.

The Supreme Court upheld the HS's decision to deny her right of return, while there is a risk to national security, and her case is therefore on hold until such time as a way can be found for her to appeal against the removal of her citizenship.

And so the highest court in the land says her entire case must now be paused until she can find some way of taking part.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-56209007​

Read the actual judgement. https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2020-0156-judgment.pdf.

 

[johnny2007]

susceptible to abuse and radicalisation in some refugee camp somewhere.

I agree.
She's at risk of radicalising other asylum seekers.

 

[Munroast]

take her out with a drone strike, it would save a lot of bother and expense - plus it would send a big high profile message out to all other wannabe traitors.

 

[johnny2007]

I predict another container of money wasted in legal fees.
Remember the "brother" Abu Hamza?

 

[AngleEyes]

Read the actual judgement. https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2020-0156-judgment.pdf.

The initial HS's decision was flawed to start with.

The reason for the decision is that you are a British/Bangladeshi dual national
from your link.​

That is simply not true. Shamima has never held Bangladeshi citizenship, nor has she ever made any application to do so. She has stated, I believe that she has no intention of doing so.
The judgement was based on the premise that she is entitled to Bangladeshi citizenship, if she did apply.
But Bangladesh have stated that they have no intention of granting her citizenship, if she did apply.
UK has no power to enforce another country to accept someone's application, irrespective of whether UK think they are entitled or not. Nor do UK have any power to insist that Bangladesh allow Shamima to enter Bangladesh.

Just as UK cannot simply deport someone to another country without the cooperation and specific agreement of that country, UK cannot process someone's application for citizenship for another country, nor can they insist that the application is granted.
Shamima had only one citizenship, and it was removed contrary to international law.
But by denying her a return to UK, she is also being denied an appeal against the HS's decision. That is not justice.

Additionally, the Supreme Court decision was solely on Shamima's application to return to UK to appeal against the HS's decision. That application was denied. It has no bearing on the decision to appeal against the HS's initial decision to deprive her of statehood. That is in limbo until such time as an appeal can be made. Which is exactly what I said.

The appropriate response to the problem in the present case is for the appeal to be stayed until Ms Begum is in a position to play an effective part in it without the safety of the public being compromised. That is not a perfect solution, as it is not known how long it may be before that is possible. But there is no perfect solution to a dilemma of the present kind.
From your link.​

 

[transam]

Well technically I have a spare room

obviously I would need certain criteria to be met

but Transam is humanitarian

 

[motorbiking]

@AngleEyes - The very fact that she has been able to appeal, apply for judicial review, cross appeal at the highest court, with dozens of legal challenges spanning some 46 pages means she has not been denied all legal protection from UK Law. In fact she has access to legal resources that the avg. UK Citizen could only dream of. If you read page 6 on (sub para 16) you'll see there was rather a lot of analysis on the legal position to back the deprivation order.

The fact she has changed her appearance significantly and presents herself in western clothing, may well be an attempt to address the concerns that have limited her ability to proceed with her legal challenge.

Not all robbers wear stripped pyjamas with a swag bag, therefore it is reasonable to assume not all religious terrorist wear burkas and visible suicide vests.

 

[AngleEyes]

@AngleEyes - The very fact that she has been able to appeal, apply for judicial review, cross appeal at the highest court, with dozens of legal challenges spanning some 46 pages means she has not been denied all legal protection from UK Law. In fact she has access to legal resources that the avg. UK Citizen could only dream of. If you read page 6 on (sub para 16) you'll see there was rather a lot of analysis on the legal position to back the deprivation order.

While she is stuck in the prison camp, which refuses access to lawyers, she cannot appeal the decision to remove her British citizenship. The Supreme Court supported the UK HS's decision to prevent her right of return to UK, (only on National Security grounds, not on her previous behaviour), which effectively prevents her appeal against that decision. No-one outside of government or the Supreme Court is aware of what constitutes that National Security concerns.
But it's pretty obvious that the original decision to deprive her of citizenship was based on her previous behaviour, not on National Security concerns.
The other processes have been pursued in her absence and without her ability to cooperate with that process.

The fact she has changed her appearance significantly and presents herself in western clothing, may well be an attempt to address the concerns that have limited her ability to proceed with her legal challenge.

Not all robbers wear stripped pyjamas with a swag bag, therefore it is reasonable to assume not all religious terrorist wear burkas and visible suicide vests.

Irrelevant waffle.

 

[Notch7]

As she is looking more attractive, I’d reconsider her application.