She did not have Bangladeshi citizenship. Bangladesh did not need to revoke it, it was never granted in the first place.
Shamima was smuggled in by WESTERN inteligence!
- Thread starter gasbusters
- Start date
- Status
Sponsored Links
The UK did, on the basis that she might be entitled to another passport.
The UK revoked her passport when she had no other.
- Joined
- 22 Jan 2007
- Messages
- 17,577
- Reaction score
- 2,413
- Country
She got it automatically when she was born, no granting was required. All as per Bangladeshi law and the UK Courts.
Sponsored Links
*munching popcorn and wondering if Denso will deploy crayons to explain this more clearly...*
But she never applied, she never took advantage of the offer, and when/if she had wanted to, it had been withdrawn.
That left her stateless.
If I'm in a hospital, and I get chucked out, on the premise that I can always go to another hospital for treatment. But by the time I get there, they've heard about me and deny me entry, telling me to go back to the first one for treatment.
Now was I denied medical treatment at the first hospital. or the second?
In my mind, I was denied treatment at the first hospital, and denied entry at the second.
According to the UK interpretation of Bangladeshi law.
But Bangladesh has the right and the power, just like UK does, to interpret and apply their law as they think fit.
You claim that Bangladesh automatically grants citizenship to children born to Bangladesh citizens, but it has the power to withdraw that right, as and hen it feels like it.
Actually they did.Shamima Bagum was groomed and sexually exploited, yet people think she should be punished.
but nobody is saying girls in Rotherham who were groomed, should be punished
Shamima Begum: What does the perfect victim look like?
Following a Times article that describes Shamima Begum as “bloodthirsty and fanatical” sexual violence trainer and campaigner Sara Amanda asks why is grooming and vulnerability no…mediadiversified.org
Rochdale victim: ‘I was groomed at 14, then the courts came for my children’ | Sacpa
Her evidence helped put abusers behind bars, yet ‘Amber’ was vilified by the authorities and says her torment will never end Between 2008 and 2010, a child abuse ring that came to be known as part of the “grooming gang” phenomenon operated in Rochdale, Greater Manchester. Girls aged between 13...
www.sacpa.org.uk
There's obvious parallels.
Or for other parallels look at how we treat child soldiers. Those are people who've often actually killed people and participated in war crimes.
- Joined
- 22 Jan 2007
- Messages
- 17,577
- Reaction score
- 2,413
- Country
Why do you keep saying this? There is no need to apply!!
Bangladeshi law says, "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:"
And thy have the right and power to withdraw that right any time they think fit.
Shamima has a right to a UK passport, but that right has been revoked.
If UK can withdraw that right so can Bangladesh.
You can argue that UK did it first, but Shamima never had a Bangladesh passport, therefore it wasn't revoked, merely the right to it has been rescinded.
The passport is a red herring. Just because you don't have a passport that doesn't mean you're not a citizen/subject.
You don't need a passport to travel back to the UK of you're a subject, it just makes it a lot easier.
She wouldn't be allowed in at all, except maybe as an asylum seeker. After all she's a stateless person now.
- Joined
- 22 Jan 2007
- Messages
- 17,577
- Reaction score
- 2,413
- Country
Yes, I agree with the court explanation/decision.
Even her defence aren't arguing she was made stateless any more, only you it seems.
"121. 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 [removing UK citizenship] 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. That citizenship was not in the gift of the Government, and could not be denied by the Government in any circumstances. 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) ofthe 1951 Act."
"128. For those reasons, we conclude that Decision 1 A did not make A stateless."
Hmm...
"Before you leave for the UK
Check what documents you’ll need to enter the UK.
You’re a British citizen
You can enter the UK with one of the following identity documents:
a passport
a Gibraltar identity card"
Which one does she have?
- Joined
- 22 Jan 2007
- Messages
- 17,577
- Reaction score
- 2,413
- Country
None, she isn't a British citizen.
- Joined
- 22 Jan 2007
- Messages
- 17,577
- Reaction score
- 2,413
- Country
No she wasn't.
It's a UK's court interpretation of another country's laws.
UK has no jurisdiction over other countries.
- Status
Sponsored Links