Shamima Begum

[johnny2007]

If she's a terrorist she'll be tried in court for her past behaviour, and sentenced to imprisonment, she'll not be in any position to make money out of her predicament.
If she's a security risk, she'll be subject to strict controls.
She has been made into a 'Ned Kelly' by UK decision to strip her of any statehood.
In addition, I'm sure the courts have some power to ensure that any money she makes (if she makes any) is diverted to a worthy cause, like papering someone's flat.

More snowflake arguments

 

[transam]

It's not a recognised UK, nor international punishment.
Indeed, it's illegal to make someone stateless.

yep that’s the problem

the law needs to be changed so as to facilitate making people stateless

blimey it could solve a lot of issues
Repeat offenders etc kick em out the country

 

[AngleEyes]

yep that’s the problem

the law needs to be changed so as to facilitate making people stateless

blimey it could solve a lot of issues
Repeat offenders etc kick em out the country

Where to?
Shall we invade an island somewhere and restart transportation?
Let's go the whole way back to Victorian punishment and start hanging children for stealing food when they're hungry.

 

[AngleEyes]

More snowflake arguments

I see you've reverted to type in resorting to pointless right-wing bigoted tropes because your brain cannot cope with meaningful discussion.

 

[johnny2007]

I see you've reverted to type in resorting to pointless right-wing bigoted tropes because your brain cannot cope with meaningful discussion.

The only bigot here it's you.
A racist bigot in drags.

 

[motorbiking]

It's not a recognised UK, nor international punishment.
Indeed, it's illegal to make someone stateless.

Has there been any successful legal application that agrees with you?
Her only legal recourse is to appeal the removal of her citizenship on the basis set out. I'm not aware that any court has agreed with you that she was made stateless (or at least not any court, that hasn't had its ruling overturned).

She was entitled to claim Bangladeshi citizenship and there was no mechanism under Bangladeshi law to refuse her at the time.
SIAC confirmed she had Bangladeshi citizenship.

Let me summarise how its going for her legally:

1. Statelessness: Ms Begum lost before the Commission on this as a preliminary issue, and it was not before the Supreme Court.
2. No effective appeal against deprivation: Ms Begum lost on this as a preliminary issue before the Commission, brought a judicial review and lost in the Divisional Court. She appealed and lost before the Supreme Court.
3. Breach of extraterritorial human rights policy: Ms Begum lost on this as a preliminary issue before the Commission, brought a judicial review and won in the Divisional Court. The Secretary of State appealed to the Supreme Court, where Ms Begum lost.
4. Appeal against refusal of leave to enter: Ms Begum lost before the Commission and won before the Court of Appeal. The Secretary of State appealed and Ms Begum lost before the Supreme Court.
5. Judicial review of refusal of leave to enter: Ms Begum lost in the High Administrative Court and won before the Court of Appeal. The Secretary of State appealed and Ms Begum lost before the Supreme Court.

I reckon that probably cost the tax payer 1/2 a million+ so far.

 

[AngleEyes]

Has there been any successful legal application that agrees with you?
Her only legal recourse is to appeal the removal of her citizenship on the basis set out. I'm not aware that any court has agreed with you that she was made stateless (or at least not any court, that hasn't had its ruling overturned).

She was entitled to claim Bangladeshi citizenship and there was no mechanism under Bangladeshi law to refuse her at the time.
SIAC confirmed she had Bangladeshi citizenship.

Let me summarise how its going for her legally:

1. Statelessness: Ms Begum lost before the Commission on this as a preliminary issue, and it was not before the Supreme Court.
2. No effective appeal against deprivation: Ms Begum lost on this as a preliminary issue before the Commission, brought a judicial review and lost in the Divisional Court. She appealed and lost before the Supreme Court.
3. Breach of extraterritorial human rights policy: Ms Begum lost on this as a preliminary issue before the Commission, brought a judicial review and won in the Divisional Court. The Secretary of State appealed to the Supreme Court, where Ms Begum lost.
4. Appeal against refusal of leave to enter: Ms Begum lost before the Commission and won before the Court of Appeal. The Secretary of State appealed and Ms Begum lost before the Supreme Court.
5. Judicial review of refusal of leave to enter: Ms Begum lost in the High Administrative Court and won before the Court of Appeal. The Secretary of State appealed and Ms Begum lost before the Supreme Court.

I reckon that probably cost the tax payer 1/2 a million+ so far.

It's internationally illegal to intentionally make someone stateless. That is not disputed. You cannot make someone stateless on the assumption that they can apply for citizenship elsewhere. They haven't applied, they have no intention of applying and Bangladesh have consistently confirmed that, and said that her application would not be granted.
UK has no jurisdiction over Bangladesh's citizenship. It is fallacious to suggest it has. There was no mechanism for UK to remover her citizenship at the time, but they did it anyway, other than UK's interpretation of another country's laws.

The SIAC is a UK governmental organisation and their judgment on Bangladesh's laws is irrelevant and not impartial. It's like Sweden interpreting UK laws on migration, and making decisions that affect UK, based on their interpretation. It's nonsense to give credence to it.

Shamima wants to appeal the decision to strip her of British citizenship. She cannot do that from within the confines of the prison camp, and she cannot leave that camp without any citizenship. Bangladesh have confirmed that they will refuse her application, if she did apply. Just as UK have stripped her of British citizenship on National Security concerns, Bangladesh would be equally justified to refuse any application on National Security concerns.
The real issue, and the only issue is that Shamima already had British citizenship, she does not, never has, and would be denied if she applied for Bangladesh citizenship. Therefore she has been intentionally rendered stateless. An argument that she is entitled to citizenship of another country would be like arguing that asylum seekers must be accepted back in France because that was their most recent departure point. It's utter nonsense.

As far as the cost of justice is concerned, justice is priceless. But it would have been far cheaper to allow proper fair justice to take its course. The stripping of citizenship creates some disquiet about the potentially unfair treatment that Shamima has experienced at the hands of a media-led, governmental knee-jerk reaction.

 

[johnny2007]

It's internationally illegal to intentionally make someone stateless. That is not disputed. You cannot make someone stateless on the assumption that they can apply for citizenship elsewhere. They haven't applied, they have no intention of applying and Bangladesh have consistently confirmed that, and said that her application would not be granted.
UK has no jurisdiction over Bangladesh's citizenship. It is fallacious to suggest it has. There was no mechanism for UK to remover her citizenship at the time, but they did it anyway, other than UK's interpretation of another country's laws.

The SIAC is a UK governmental organisation and their judgment on Bangladesh's laws is irrelevant and not impartial. It's like Sweden interpreting UK laws on migration, and making decisions that affect UK, based on their interpretation. It's nonsense to give credence to it.

Shamima wants to appeal the decision to strip her of British citizenship. She cannot do that from within the confines of the prison camp, and she cannot leave that camp without any citizenship. Bangladesh have confirmed that they will refuse her application, if she did apply. Just as UK have stripped her of British citizenship on National Security concerns, Bangladesh would be equally justified to refuse any application on National Security concerns.
The real issue, and the only issue is that Shamima already had British citizenship, she does not, never has, and would be denied if she applied for Bangladesh citizenship. Therefore she has been intentionally rendered stateless. An argument that she is entitled to citizenship of another country would be like arguing that asylum seekers must be accepted back in France because that was their most recent departure point. It's utter nonsense.

As far as the cost of justice is concerned, justice is priceless. But it would have been far cheaper to allow proper fair justice to take its course. The stripping of citizenship creates some disquiet about the potentially unfair treatment that Shamima has experienced at the hands of a media-led, governmental knee-jerk reaction.

More snowflake boll@x...

 

[transam]

Where to?
Shall we invade an island somewhere and restart transportation?
Let's go the whole way back to Victorian punishment and start hanging children for stealing food when they're hungry.

why do you always have to tear the arris out of some thing

who said any thing about hanging children etc

as for where we deport them to
As I said
that’s the problem

dunno perhaps we could do a deal with that North Korean bloke

 

[AngleEyes]

why do you always have to tear the arris out of some thing

Because your proposals are invariably ill-thought out, bigoted, hateful, irresponsible and untenable.

Your proposal was an alternative for the death penalty.

the sentence of transportation with the royal prerogative of mercy had been granted as an alternative to a death sentence for a century
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transportation_Act_1717​

 

[AngleEyes]

More snowflake arguments

The only bigot here it's you.
A racist bigot in drags.

More snowflake boll@x...

Wonderful positive contribution to the discussion.

 

[transam]

Because your proposals are invariably ill-thought out, bigoted, hateful, irresponsible and untenable.

Your proposal was an alternative for the death penalty.

the sentence of transportation with the royal prerogative of mercy had been granted as an alternative to a death sentence for a century
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transportation_Act_1717​

nonsense

Transam gives a great deal of thought to his proposals

agreed I am an ideas person and the finer points / details can be sorted by others

 

[johnny2007]

Wonderful positive contribution to the discussion.

Surely more positively productive than your snowflake nonsense.

 

[motorbiking]

It's not very convincing to make an argument that someone has been treated illegally by the state and then reject all the substantial legal rulings on the matter because they don't support your argument.

Her legal team have pretty much tried every angle, they've got nowhere. It's not even as if you tried to represent herself in a clueless or halfwitted way. She's had top lawyers working her case.

 

[johnny2007]

It's not very convincing to make an argument that someone has been treated illegally by the state and then reject all the substantial legal rulings on the matter because they don't support your argument.

Her legal team have pretty much tried every angle, they've got nowhere. It's not even as if you tried to represent herself in a clueless or halfwitted way. She's had top lawyers working her case.

True, very true.
But she didn't have Himmy AngleEyes as her lawyer.
Unfair, very unfair...