Shamima was smuggled in by WESTERN inteligence!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Pat ex said:
Bangladesh does not allow dual nationality,
Click to expand...
That is factually wrong again,

"14. (l) Subject to the provisions of this section if any person is a citizen of Bangladesh under the provisions of this Act, and is at the same time a citizen or national of any other country, he shall, unless he makes a declaration according to the laws of that other country renouncing his status as citizen or national thereof, cease to be a citizen of Bangladesh.

(1A) Nothing in sub-section (1) applies to a person who has not attained twenty-one years of his age."

Did you read the court judgment? All of this has been gone into in great detail.

"As she was under 21, and by virtue of section 14( 1 A) of the 1951 Act, her Bangladeshi citizenship was not affected by section 14(1) of the 1951 Act"
 
Sponsored Links
Pat ex said:
Not so. According to UK courts, she was entitled to citizenship elsewhere.
Click to expand...
No, she had it.

"Our conclusion, based on the evidence which we have accepted, is that article 2B(1) of the BCTP Order does not override section 14(1 A) of the 1951 Act. When Decision 1 was made, A was a citizen of Bangladesh by descent, by virtue of section 5 of the 1951 Act. She held that citizenship as of right."

Pat ex said:
Therefore she is effectively stateless.
Click to expand...
By dint of the Bangladesh decision, yes.
 
Notch7 said:
No, What I quoted was section 5 of The Citizen Act 1951.

The Citizenship Act, 1951 | 5. Citizenship by descent

bdlaws.minlaw.gov.bd bdlaws.minlaw.gov.bd
Click to expand...
Yes and I believe you misunderstood it.

Provided that if the 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...[rest unimportant]

Since her parents were citizens by birth, this clauses does not apply to SB.
 
Sponsored Links
denso13 said:
That is factually wrong again,

"14. (l) Subject to the provisions of this section if any person is a citizen of Bangladesh under the provisions of this Act, and is at the same time a citizen or national of any other country, he shall, unless he makes a declaration according to the laws of that other country renouncing his status as citizen or national thereof, cease to be a citizen of Bangladesh.

(1A) Nothing in sub-section (1) applies to a person who has not attained twenty-one years of his age."

Did you read the court judgment? All of this has been gone into in great detail.

"As she was under 21, and by virtue of section 14( 1 A) of the 1951 Act, her Bangladeshi citizenship was not affected by section 14(1) of the 1951 Act"
Click to expand...
According to UK's interpretation of another country's laws.
Only Bangladesh can be the ultimate arbiter of their own laws.
 
motorbiking said:
Yes and I believe you misunderstood it.

Provided that if the 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...[rest unimportant]

Since her parents were citizens by birth, this clauses does not apply to SB.
Click to expand...
At about the same time that Sajid Javid revoked her citizenship, Bangladesh stated that she did not have citizenship of Bangladesh, and that if she went there she would face the death penalty.
So at the end of the day, it's down to an interpretation of Bangladeshi law, and each country must be the arbiter of their own laws.
 
Pat ex said:
At about the same time that Sajid Javid revoked her citizenship, Bangladesh stated that she did not have citizenship of Bangladesh, and that if she went there she would face the death penalty.
So at the end of the day, it's down to an interpretation of Bangladeshi law, and each country must be the arbiter of their own laws.
Click to expand...
Does Bangladesh execute people just for entering the Country? You, and she, claim she has done nothing wrong. Why would she face the death penalty?

PS. she was automatically a Bangladesh citizen. The right expires when reaching the age of 21 - which she was not.
 
denso13 said:
It's all covered in the judgement, in great detail. Have a read if you are so inclined.

What you say was argued by the defence. They lost.
Click to expand...
Any decision on her right to appeal is stayed until such time as she can attend such an appeal, and make her case.
Even the Supreme court, in its ruling had no 'secret' evidence available to it, for the court to decide on the grounds of 'national security', but it allowed the government's appeal, on the grounds of national security.
Shamima Begum's appeal would have succeeded if she had appealed under the Human Rights Act, she did not, and the Supreme Court did not fairly consider it.
 
jeds said:
Does Bangladesh execute people just for entering the Country? You, and she, claim she has done nothing wrong. Why would she face the death penalty?

PS. she was automatically a Bangladesh citizen. The right expires when reaching the age of 21 - which she was not.
Click to expand...
If she was charged with terrorism, and found guilty she would be executed. UK government were aware of this at the time, and they were convinced that she was a threat to national security. This it follows that she would face the death penalty in Bangladesh if she was found guilty. And UK were sufficiently convinced that she would be found guilty, hence the decision to revoke her citizenship on the grounds of national security.

The Laws made by Bangladesh Parliament are not sacrosanct, and the Bangladesh courts can interpret them as they wish:
Bangladesh s Supreme Court has the power to not only interpret laws made by the Parliament, but to also declare them null and void and to enforce fundamental rights of the citizens.
Click to expand...
Therefore an Act of Bangladeshi parliament cannot be relied upon to hold true.
 
Pat ex said:
Shamima Begum's appeal would have succeeded if she had appealed under the Human Rights Act, she did not, and the Supreme Court did not fairly consider it.
Click to expand...
What rotten luck she didn’t have you representing her. Still, I suppose you were too busy posting on the internet to represent her in court ………….
 
Mottie said:
What rotten luck she didn’t have you representing her. I suppose you were busy on the internet though…..
Click to expand...
No sensible contribution to make as usual, so you resort to your normal trolling.
 
Pat ex said:
Therefore an Act of Bangladeshi parliament cannot be relied upon to hold true.
Click to expand...
Irrelevant. Their decision does not impact ours.

Well, it would have done if it had acted sooner.
 
denso13 said:
Irrelevant. Their decision does not impact ours.

Well, it would have done if it had acted sooner.
Click to expand...
It didn't need to. She was not a Bangladeshi citizen. Even children cannot hold dual citizenship. She would have to revoke her UK citizenship to be a Bangladeshi citizen.

And it is relevant, Sajid Javid filed to take into account all available issues.
 
Pat ex said:
No sensible contribution to make as usual, so you resort to your normal trolling.
Click to expand...
Unlike you who appears to be an expert in international law. It’s a wonder you have time to post on here, your case load must be enormous!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Sponsored Links
Back
Top