Shamima was smuggled in by WESTERN inteligence!
- Thread starter gasbusters
- Start date
- Status
Sponsored Links
A person is not automatically given Bangladeshi citizenship by descent, the birth has to be registered at the Bangladeshi consulate at the country of birth.
But can Shamima Begum register her birth? it’s certainly questionable because A) she can’t register it herself and. B) would her application be allowed to be registered as she is not a British citizen.
Also Bangladesh has stated they would not allow Begum to enter the country, which is tantamount to say she cant be a citizen of Bangladesh.
It seems to me because Begum is in Syria, she can’t claim citizenship of Bangladesh, so effectively UK have rendered her stateless.
5. Subject to the provisions of section 3 a person born after the commencement of this Act, shall be a citizen of Bangladesh by descent if his 1[father or mother] is a citizen of Bangladesh at the time of his birth:
Provided that if the 2[father or mother] of such person is a citizen of Bangladesh by descent only, that person shall not be a citizen of Bangladesh by virtue of this section unless-
(a) that person's birth having occurred in a country outside Bangladesh the birth is registered at a Bangladesh Consulate or Mission in that country, or where there is no Bangladesh Consulate or Mission in that country at the prescribed Consulate or Mission or at a Bangladesh Consulate or Mission in the country nearest to that country; or
(b) that person's 3[father or mother] is, at the time of the birth, in the service of any Government in Bangladesh
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 18,479
- Reaction score
- 2,791
- Country
I don't think a twitter tweet is a test of her rights under the Bangladeshi legal system. If you read the Foreign Minister's tweet, he takes care to dodge the jus sanguinis element (sec 3) and does what some here would call whataboutary. Additionally section 14 of the Citizenship Act, 1951 states dual nationality is not permitted. So her British citizenship being revoked actually increased her right to claim Bangladeshi citizenship at that time.
Additionally, Governments are not able to interpret law, judges do. We have many cases in the UK of Judges telling the government the law, which often causes significant embarrassment and disappointment. The government, can always amend the law, but they are not free to cast their own rulings. We have a reasonably independent judiciary. That may not be the case for Bangladesh, something that Bagum's legal team unsuccessfully argued.
I believe you misunderstood the law.. The clause you refer to relates to the Father or mother, not the person. It would appear both her parents (mother deceased) were born in Bangladesh. There was no need to register SB. This was all covered in the Supreme Court ruling. There were two expert witnesses Dr Hoque and Witness A (one for each side). The government successfully argued the Bangladeshi law was in English, based on common law and did what it said on the tin. Witness A argued that their judiciary is not independent from the government and any Bangladeshi Supreme Court judge would likely do as he is told. Both arguments are likely to be correct. However, Hoque's evidence was sufficient to convince the UK Supreme Court. The Stateless argument is dead, her own team accept this.
Last edited:
I've eaten all my popcorn reading it, what am I going to do?
Sponsored Links
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 18,479
- Reaction score
- 2,791
- Country
With any luck, Notchy and Expats international, human rights and immigration legal expertise wont go to waste. I'm sure one of her legal team will read this thread and have an epiphany, drop them a private message and re-think their appeal. Maybe they should include Brexit as part of her argument.
No, What I quoted was section 5 of The Citizen Act 1951.
The Citizenship Act, 1951 | 5. Citizenship by descent
That is incorrect. The court ruling stated she “ held that citizenship as of right” - that’s not the same as saying she automatically acquired citizenship.
The reality is SB does not hold the automatic right to Bangladeshi citizenship, because she is not in the UK and thus not able to acquire citizenship.
by the way Bangladesh has said it won’t allow SB into Bangladesh - which they said before the ruling.
the UK govt have illegally rendered her stateless.
No more so than one country's interpretation of another country's laws.
The time line was, Shamima had only one citizenship. That was revoked, rendering her stateless.
The excuse for that was that she was entitled to citizenship elsewhere.
But that other country denied her access to their citizenship, which they have as much right to do, just as UK has as much right to revoke her citizenship.
So she was made stateless by UK, against all international and UN agreements.
Arguing that a UK court agrees with the UK government decision is pointless, of course they will, but they have no international nor UN authority..
Last edited:
- Joined
- 17 May 2012
- Messages
- 10,830
- Reaction score
- 865
- Country
At the end of the day, she was a child. It is very easy to manipulate children into believing something. It is also recognised that this is a bad thing, and to do so is a crime. And manipulating a child to join an organisation where she will be forced into a marriage and repeatedly raped is also a crime. Now, if she had committed a terrorist act, I'd see things differently, but as far as I am aware she just went there, then wanted to come home once she realised how crap it was?
- Joined
- 22 Jan 2007
- Messages
- 17,577
- Reaction score
- 2,413
- Country
You better get on to her defence then, they aren't claiming that at all.
- Joined
- 22 Jan 2007
- Messages
- 17,577
- Reaction score
- 2,413
- Country
Yes, they really are. Bangladeshi law is clear.
- Joined
- 22 Jan 2007
- Messages
- 17,577
- Reaction score
- 2,413
- Country
No, that she had citizenship elsewhere. That is our courts ruling, as a matter of fact.
Not so. According to UK courts, she was entitled to citizenship elsewhere.
That was UK's interpretation of Bangladeshi law.
Bangladesh does not allow dual nationality, therefore Shamima could not have had a Bangladeshi passport at the same time of having a UK passport.
Bangladesh, like any other country is entitled to deny anyone a passport, irrespective of what laws exist, just like UK is entitled to revoke someone's passport.
The problem is that when her UK citizenship was revoked, it left her stateless, albeit with UK's opinion that she was entitled to citizenship elsewhere.
If I'm riding my bicycle, and someone takes the wheels off, there are no wheels on my bicycle. It doesn't matter that I can go to another shop and buy some wheels. In the meantime I have no wheels, and I am stranded.
Shamima can only leave the detention camp if she has a passport. She doesn't have a valid UK passport, and Bangladesh has denied her a passport. Therefore she is effectively stateless.
Bangladesh may give citizenship to someone who is already a citizen of a European country.
Bangladesh - Dual Citizenship
Citizenship in Bangladesh is primarily acquired on the principle of ius sanguinis– subject to the Citizenship Act of 1951, a person born to at least one Bangladeshi parent shall be considered a Bangladeshi citizen. Upon marrying a Bangladeshi citizen, an...
www.dualcitizenshipreport.org
Last edited:
From the first line of the link above..."a person born to at least one Bangladeshi parent shall be considered a Bangladeshi citizen."
Then lower down, Its not legal to have dual citizenship, therefore she could not be British and Bangladeshi at the same time, unless she applied to Bangladesh for specific permission to hold dual citizenship.
This shows that the Bangladeshi government does not uphold the 'law' that qualifying people are automatically Bangladeshi.
- Status
Sponsored Links