No smilies, no avatars, no flashing gifs. Just discuss the issues of the day, from last night's telly via football to science or philosophy.
Started by Agaliarept on Feb 26, 2021 11:20:50 AM
Shamima Begum cannot return to UK to fight for citizenship, court rules

Shamima Begum, who fled Britain as a schoolgirl to join Islamic State in Syria, has failed to restore her British citizenship after the supreme court ruled on Friday that she had lost her case.

The judgment from the UK’s highest court is a critical – and controversial – test case of the UK’s policy to strip the citizenship of Britons who went to join Isis and are being detained by Syrian Kurdish groups without trial.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/26/shamima-begum-cannot-return-to-uk-to-fight-for-citizenship-court-rules

Previous
|
Next
|
Top
|
Bottom
Agaliarept - 26 Feb 2021 11:21:57 (#1 of 721)

Lot of very happy wingnuts on the Twitter today.

I've set myself up in opposition so apologies for the spittle flecked jumper.

Dementor - 26 Feb 2021 11:26:59 (#2 of 721)

Not everyone who is ‘satisfied’ with judgement is a wing nut, though.

If she had the integrity of her convictions she wouldn’t want to come back - what she’s doing is continuing to fight for her cause by attempting to make the UK look weak (if she wins) or unprincipled (if she loses) - it’s standard asymmetric warfare / insurgency type tactics - aka “lawfare”.

Jacob_Richter - 26 Feb 2021 11:28:04 (#3 of 721)

Which is wing nuttery.

harryhaller - 26 Feb 2021 11:29:33 (#4 of 721)

Basically it means that our citizenship is subject to the whims of government, who can pass laws to remove citizenship at its convenience.

In truth, UK citizenshp isn't that. One is just a "subject". One "subjects" oneself.

First they took our EU citizenship, now they put our UK citizenship on their scales - which they can tilt at will.

Dementor - 26 Feb 2021 11:29:50 (#5 of 721)

#3: Yeah, of-course it is - asymmetric warfare isn’t a thing and the weaker side never ever ever do horrible contrived things for publicity.

Agaliarept - 26 Feb 2021 11:32:22 (#6 of 721)

Not everyone who is ‘satisfied’ with judgement is a wing nut, though.

Of course there are exceptions to everything but in the main, the sort of idiot who cheers that she shouldn't be allowed home also wants the UK to deport anyone swarthy looking who commits any offence back to their home.

dottie30 - 26 Feb 2021 11:32:31 (#7 of 721)

There's also the issue of fair trials and fair hearings. She clearly can't have her case heard properly while she's in a refugee camp being guarded on the one hand by Kurdish controllers who aren't exactly blemish free; and the other hand, ISIS spies.

Jacob_Richter - 26 Feb 2021 11:32:42 (#8 of 721)

#4

If I understand the judgement, the SC say that it is for the Home Sec/govt and not courts to decide what constitutes national security and therefore have the right to remove citizenship in the interests of national security.

guigal - 26 Feb 2021 11:32:45 (#9 of 721)

As a matter of principle, it's very questionable that a government should have the power to remove citizenship.

DonkeyOT - 26 Feb 2021 11:33:11 (#10 of 721)

It's probably more about deterring others from going on foolhardy crusades.

Jacob_Richter - 26 Feb 2021 11:33:37 (#11 of 721)

Not sure crusade is the term....

ChankNolen - 26 Feb 2021 11:34:35 (#12 of 721)

Hard cases make bad law and all that. Even so it is hard to see that this particular individual is a worthwhile hill to die on.

For all the crap about 'grooming' etc, this is clearly a hardcore, unrepentant jihadist and we are all better off is she is not physically allowed to return.

Dementor - 26 Feb 2021 11:36:01 (#13 of 721)

Loss of citizenship isn’t actually that remarkable - and it’s widely recognised that joining a foreign military can be grounds for such a loss.

It’s the being rendered stateless that’s the problem, but (technically) she isn’t as she’s a Bangladeshi citizen by blood - even if they are not keen to recognise that.

Agaliarept - 26 Feb 2021 11:36:04 (#14 of 721)

For all the crap about 'grooming' etc

Why is it crap chank?

Jacob_Richter - 26 Feb 2021 11:36:42 (#15 of 721)

it is hard to see that this particular individual is a worthwhile hill to die on.

It isn't the pleasantness of the individual that is the issue, nor the cause they espouse, but the universal liberal principles at stake.

ChankNolen - 26 Feb 2021 11:37:59 (#16 of 721)

'Why is it crap chank?'

Because it implies that she had (and continues to have) no personal agency, and hence no responsibility for her actions.

ChankNolen - 26 Feb 2021 11:39:02 (#17 of 721)

'the universal liberal principles at stake'

You don't believe in universal liberal principles Jakey. If you did you wouldn't constantly come up with pathetic excuses to defend the distinctly illiberal worldview of the Islamist nutcases.

Jacob_Richter - 26 Feb 2021 11:39:21 (#18 of 721)

Of course, whether Begum had agency or was groomed could have been tested in a fair trial.

SinnerBoy - 26 Feb 2021 11:40:06 (#19 of 721)

Where has he defended Islamic nut jobs?

Agaliarept - 26 Feb 2021 11:41:06 (#20 of 721)

Because it implies that she had (and continues to have) no personal agency, and hence no responsibility for her actions.

Who says she shouldn't have to take responsibility for her actions?

I don't think anyone arguing that she should come here doesn't see a boat load of gaol time in her future.

Previous
|
Next
|
Top
|
Bottom
Check Subscriptions
|
Home » UK News