Shamima was smuggled in by WESTERN inteligence!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sponsored Links
Pat ex said:
Additionally, because she affirmed (by conduct) allegiance to another (hostile) state, she is disqualified from Bangladeshi citizenship.
Click to expand...
Doesn't apply to this case, "The Commission in G3 (para 63) has confirmed that, this provision is confined to persons who were alive during the commencement of the that Order in 1972"
 
Looks like Pat ex is losing on all counts. He should just stop digging, give up and admit defeat. :ROFLMAO:
 
denso13 said:
Clear enough to the courts. She lost.
Click to expand...
Clear enough according to the UK courts, but they're Bangladeshi laws. And only Bangladesh have the authority to interpret their own laws.

Consequently, one is forced to turn to the decisions of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) of the UK to extract the meaning and interpretations given to the relevant Bangladeshi laws and regulations on citizenship. This lack of clarity in Bangladeshi citizenship laws and regulations has been recognised by the SIAC.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Sponsored Links
Mottie said:
Looks like Pat ex is losing on all counts. He should just stop digging, give up and admit defeat. :ROFLMAO:
Click to expand...
Still amusing yourself with trolling, but nothing to add to the debate, as usual.
 
Pat ex said:
And only Bangladesh have the authority to interpret their own laws.
Click to expand...
Our courts had to look at all the evidence when coming to a judgement. Of course they had to look at Bangladeshi law in relation to citizenship to enable a conclusion to be made. They were only taking what was clearly written at face value.

This is gone into in great detail in the judgement. Have you read it yet?

 
denso13 said:
Our courts had to look at all the evidence when coming to a judgement. Of course they had to look at Bangladeshi law in relation to citizenship to enable a conclusion to be made. They were only taking what was clearly written at face value.

This is gone into in great detail in the judgement. Have you read it yet?

Click to expand...
It is still the interpretation of a UK court on the Bangladeshi laws of citizenship.
Only the issuing authority have the right to interpret their own laws.
Of course the UK will interpret those laws to suit themselves.

They're even making a meal of interpreting the NI Protocol. What makes you think they'll be unbiased in interpreting Bangladeshi laws?
Of course they won't they'll latch onto any potential loophole possible.
 
Pat ex said:
Only the issuing authority have the right to interpret their own laws.
Click to expand...
No they don't. Our courts decided that if Bangladeshi law says you become a citizen at birth, then that is what they meant. To say we can't interpret laws of other countries because only they know what they meant, and it may not be what written, is frankly ridiculous.
 
denso13 said:
No they don't. Our courts decided that if Bangladeshi law says you become a citizen at birth, then that is what they meant. To say we can't interpret laws of other countries because only they know what they meant, and it may not be what written, is frankly ridiculous.
Click to expand...
You think that UK have the authority to interpret other country's laws, especially when they differ from that country's own interpretation.
You're lost in the mists of time of British Imperialism.

The fundamental issue is the loss of a fair hearing to Shamima because the Supreme Court gave Sajid Javid's concern of caring for National Security greater than the right to a fair trial for individual citizens. Despite the fact that they had not seen the secret information held by Sajid Javid.

The Home Secretary, when depriving Shamima’s citizenship in 2019, stated that Shamima was a “British/Bangladeshi dual national” and so he is “satisfied that such an order will not make [her] stateless.” However, Bangladesh’s ministry of foreign affairs has said that the government was "deeply concerned" she had been "erroneously identified" as a Bangladeshi national.

The Bangladeshi authorities have stated unequivocally that Shamima is not a Bangladeshi citizen and there is "no question" of her being allowed into the country. Practically speaking, Shamima is de facto stateless. Shamima is not a British citizen nor is she a Bangladeshi citizen—she has no consular support from the Bangladeshi authorities nor can she avail herself to the protection of the country.
Click to expand...
www.humanrightspulse.com

Shamima Begum, “Britishness”, And Access To Justice / National Security Dichotomy — Human Rights Pulse

The UK Supreme Court has ruled that Shamima Begum cannot return to the UK to challenge the deprivation of her citizenship
www.humanrightspulse.com www.humanrightspulse.com
 
denso13 said:
Do you mean the government don't make laws or the courts don't interpret them?
Click to expand...
The government of Bangladesh make laws, but the courts are not obliged to adhere to them.
They can interpret them as they think fit, they can even ignore them if they wish.

UK granted itself powers higher then the Bangladeshi parliament and the Bangladeshi courts.
 
Pat ex said:
You think that UK have the authority to interpret other country's laws, especially when they differ from that country's own interpretation.
Click to expand...
This really is explained in the judgement, in detail.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Sponsored Links
Back
Top