- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 18,479
- Reaction score
- 2,791
- Country
You seem happy to accept the Supreme' courts ruling on some aspects but not others. Are you saying the Supreme Court and both legal teams are wrong?
Shamima was smuggled in by WESTERN inteligence!
- Thread starter gasbusters
- Start date
- Status
Sponsored Links
Sorry, your comment doesn't make much sense.
I'm saying the Supreme Court's ruling was based on the incorrect interpretation of another country's laws.
It might be right according to UK law, but from an international perspective it's obviously flawed, and resulted in UK making someone stateless.
Both legal teams will obviously make their own cases. In the case of the government's team they relied on Sajid Javid's secret information to judge what was a national security issue, but that secret information has not been made available to the court. The court merely decided that both Shamima and Sajid Javid had equal arguments, but the information held by Sajid Javid has never been tested
If an argument based on section 6 of the Human Rights Act would have been successful, but Shamima's legal team never used that argument, then it suggests an error of judgement of that team.
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 18,479
- Reaction score
- 2,791
- Country
For the avoidance of doubt the Supreme Court and Begum's legal team accept that the removal of her British Citizenship did not make her stateless. Are you saying they aren't saying this or that they are and they are wrong?
Perhaps you would be good enough to point out where her legal team accepted that the removal of her citizenship did not make her stateless.
As I understand it, that judgment has not been made by the Supreme Court, and that judgement cannot be made until Shamima is allowed to enter UK and make her case, which of course UK is not allowing her to do so. So they are effectively refusing her a fair trial.
It is on this aspect that the Supreme Court has ruled that both Sajid Javid and Shamima claims have equal weight. But as we know, Sajid Javid's decision is based on secret information which the Court has not seen.
It was on this issue that the Supreme Court decided that under section 6 of the human Rights Act, a submission about her citizenship would have succeeded. So it's possible that her legal team, who you claim have conceded that the removal of her citizenship was legal, erred.
Sponsored Links
Can't you just decide to agree to disagree?
Going round and round this legal mulberry bush is getting nowhere.
Sure, no problem. As I said, the public and the legal fraternity are equally split on the fairness of the judgement.
The Human Rights fraternity are 100% against the judgement.
My apologies, having reread about a dozen times I can see the legal syntax does state what you are saying and I was wrong.
in the Begum case, the first paragragh applies only.
I do find legal text confusing, it’s structured rather like logic gates.
Shamima was entitled to UK citizenship, (She didn't actually hold a passport, that was just another way of expressing the issue)
That citizenship and entitlement was revoked by UK government.
At the time of her having a UK citizenship she was not entitled to Bangladesh citizenship because Bangladesh does not allow dual citizenship.
Just as UK revoked Shamima's entitlement to citizenship which she already held, Bangladesh has equal, if not more justification, to remove that entitlement to citizenship which she did not hold.
Yes it does. You have admitted it yourself. Stop saying it.
I believe that is actually incorrect.
from memory it doesn’t apply because she was under 21….I can’t remember which section of the law applies but it is the case.
Bangladeshi citizenship rules are confusing because there are 5 different acts which apply.
As I understand it, the ban on dual citizenship is a de facto ruling. If you can find the Bangladesh law that overrules that de facto ruling for minors, I will accept that you are correct.
It would appear that even minors have to apply for dual citizenship:
Consulate General of the People's Republic of Bangladesh, Los Angeles, California
Consulate General of Bangladesh, Los Angeles, CA, bangladesh weather, immigration, lawyers, doctors, real estate, auto, employment, bangladesh, consulate, california and more.
www.bangladeshconsulatela.com
That’s very gracious of you.
Stop being pedantic, it suits you.
They only allow dual nationality at their discretion. Therefore you have to apply. It is at their discretion. It is not automatic.
In your application you have to explain what you've been doing for the last five years.
And please stop repeating the same old comment:
I'm trying to set a standard of behaviour for you to follow.
Evidently I'm not having much luck.
- Joined
- 22 Jan 2007
- Messages
- 17,571
- Reaction score
- 2,413
- Country
When she was born she became a Bangladeshi citizen automatically.
"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:"
She is not yet 21 so can have dual nationality.
"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."
- Status
Sponsored Links