Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 90 of 162

Thread: You can't always get what you want - the UK's grandstanding over ISIS sympathizers

  1. #61
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Amsterdam/Istanbul
    Posts
    12,312
    Quote Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro View Post
    Dude. Answer the question and don't try to weasel out with a counterquestion. Again, human rights: For or against? And if for, under all circumstances or only when convenient?

    I won't accept any answer which ends with a question mark. Those questions are easy enough to answer.

    And any attempt at qualifications will show what side you're actually on - and you've already incurred your first strike.
    I'm not going to be forced into any answer for the simple reason my ideas about human rights are not driven by guilt over what Hitler did to German Jews.

    Human rights as a legal concept have no meaning lacking a social contract.
    Congratulations America

  2. #62
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Amsterdam/Istanbul
    Posts
    12,312
    Quote Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro View Post
    Aha. So, a fair weather human rights believer then. Nice!
    Actually his answer addressed the fact that her British nationality is not a matter of human rights to start with. Seems to me that you are the one who's lacking in understanding of how they work.
    Congratulations America

  3. #63
    Quote Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro View Post
    Yeah, I'll need some proper sources for that.
    A source for what "that", it being counter-productive and unnecessary to prosecute everyone who has participated in crime socially? When was the last time you saw every participant in a riot prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law?
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  4. #64
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Amsterdam/Istanbul
    Posts
    12,312
    Quote Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy View Post
    A source for what "that", it being counter-productive and unnecessary to prosecute everyone who has participated in crime socially? When was the last time you saw every participant in a riot prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law?
    Or, does everyone who speeds get a ticket? What is the explanation for most people heeding the posted maximum speed?
    Congratulations America

  5. #65
    Let sleeping tigers lie Khendraja'aro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    In the forests of the night
    Posts
    6,238
    Quote Originally Posted by Hazir View Post
    I'm not going to be forced into any answer for the simple reason my ideas about human rights are not driven by guilt over what Hitler did to German Jews.

    Human rights as a legal concept have no meaning lacking a social contract.
    Fair weather human rights defender then. Nice!

    Ooooh, and a Godwin to boot. Doubly nice! You win the Asshat-Argumentor-Of-The-Day-Award, good sir!

    Seriously: A conditional citizenship is what falls under Bad Idea(tm). But who cares about the rule of law! Certainly not Hazir!

    ... you wouldn't happen to be related to a certain Erdoğan, by any chance?
    Last edited by Khendraja'aro; 02-23-2019 at 08:16 PM.
    When the stars threw down their spears
    And watered heaven with their tears:
    Did he smile his work to see?
    Did he who made the lamb make thee?

  6. #66
    Let sleeping tigers lie Khendraja'aro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    In the forests of the night
    Posts
    6,238
    Quote Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy View Post
    A source for what "that", it being counter-productive and unnecessary to prosecute everyone who has participated in crime socially? When was the last time you saw every participant in a riot prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law?
    Yeah. And how effective was that actually in preventing riots? Because you just pointed out the very big problem with riots: Not every perpetrator gets caught or prosecuted or even found guilty.

    As a result, anyone with a passing knowledge of the revelant portions of psychology will tell you that this won't work as a deterrent - it's lacking one of the three legs deterrence rests on.
    When the stars threw down their spears
    And watered heaven with their tears:
    Did he smile his work to see?
    Did he who made the lamb make thee?

  7. #67
    Let sleeping tigers lie Khendraja'aro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    In the forests of the night
    Posts
    6,238
    Quote Originally Posted by Hazir View Post
    What is the explanation for most people heeding the posted maximum speed?
    There being a lot of speeding traps which make it likely to be caught speeding. Come to Germany and you'll see firsthand what a lack of speeding traps will do to adherence to the speed limit. Whenever I'm driving on the Autobahn and actually following the speed limit (say, 120 km/h) - do you know the only vehicles which don't overtake me? Trucks.

    And that only because those simply cannot drive faster than 100 km/h.
    When the stars threw down their spears
    And watered heaven with their tears:
    Did he smile his work to see?
    Did he who made the lamb make thee?

  8. #68
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Amsterdam/Istanbul
    Posts
    12,312
    Yeah, you'll need some proper sources for that.
    Congratulations America

  9. #69
    Quote Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro View Post
    Fair weather human rights defender then. Nice!

    Ooooh, and a Godwin to boot. Doubly nice! You win the Asshat-Argumentor-Of-The-Day-Award, good sir!

    Seriously: A conditional citizenship is what falls under Bad Idea(tm). But who cares about the rule of law! Certainly not Hazir!

    ... you wouldn't happen to be related to a certain Erdoğan, by any chance?
    It's not fair weather just because you invent some idea as supposedly being against human rights.

    You tried to bring "the rule of law" into it so go on. What does the rule of law, both British and International, say about stripping traitors of their citizenship if you're not leaving them stateless.

    What do Human Rights Treaties say about it. Go on Mr Expert what is "the rule of law" here.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    ℬeing upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  10. #70
    Let sleeping tigers lie Khendraja'aro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    In the forests of the night
    Posts
    6,238
    Quote Originally Posted by Hazir View Post
    Yeah, you'll need some proper sources for that.
    Actually, it's LittleFuzzy who has to provide sources. That's a weird argumentative tactic you have there: Assert something to be true, when asked for sources become combattive and then ask for sources yourself. Nope. You guys go first.

    Only after that I'll bother to look this stuff up in my Psychology books...
    When the stars threw down their spears
    And watered heaven with their tears:
    Did he smile his work to see?
    Did he who made the lamb make thee?

  11. #71
    Let sleeping tigers lie Khendraja'aro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    In the forests of the night
    Posts
    6,238
    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
    It's not fair weather just because you invent some idea as supposedly being against human rights.

    You tried to bring "the rule of law" into it so go on. What does the rule of law, both British and International, say about stripping traitors of their citizenship if you're not leaving them stateless.

    What do Human Rights Treaties say about it. Go on Mr Expert what is "the rule of law" here.
    “Everyone has the right to a nationality. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.”
    Article 15. You'll note that it doesn't mention anything about dual-citizenship there.

    And, please, you're now in full holier-than-thou mode. What about the right to a fair trial?
    When the stars threw down their spears
    And watered heaven with their tears:
    Did he smile his work to see?
    Did he who made the lamb make thee?

  12. #72
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Amsterdam/Istanbul
    Posts
    12,312
    Haha. This is your rebuttal?
    Congratulations America

  13. #73
    Let sleeping tigers lie Khendraja'aro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    In the forests of the night
    Posts
    6,238
    Quote Originally Posted by Hazir View Post
    Haha. This is your rebuttal?
    I haven't even see you make a proper argument yet. It might interest you that Fuzzy's notion of "prominent examples of prosecution work!" is literally the same notion that Lewk has.

    However, actual research rather suggests that reliability of punishment is a much bigger driver for deterrence than the other two drivers (namely, celerity and severity); however you'll still need all three working in conjunction. Plus, there are several other factors coming into play which in turn may even completely negate any deterrent effect gained from reliability, celerity and severity.

    Here's a nice primer I found - it summarizes the concepts rather nicely:

    http://acrs.org.au/files/arsrpe/RS030055.pdf

    Here's one interesting part which directly relates to the problem at hand:

    Deterrence is concerned with severity and certainty of sanction. However, if deterrence has a moral effect then another dimension of deterrence is the perceived legitimacy of the laws or regulations. To expect a moral influence, the law and the machinery for enforcement of it must be looked upon as wielding legitimate authority. Examples of laws lacking authority might
    include euthanasia, marijuana and even low level speeding when detected by electronic devices!
    [...]
    Thus people are most open to being deterred by threat of punishment when they are not behaving morally, impulsively, compulsively, defiantly, despairing or optimistically
    When the stars threw down their spears
    And watered heaven with their tears:
    Did he smile his work to see?
    Did he who made the lamb make thee?

  14. #74
    Quote Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro View Post
    Article 15. You'll note that it doesn't mention anything about dual-citizenship there.

    And, please, you're now in full holier-than-thou mode. What about the right to a fair trial?
    Yes it does say something about dual citizenship there. Everyone has the right to "a" nationality. Since us removing our nationality from her doesn't render her stateless that condition is met.

    She is not arbitrarily being denied it. She's being denied it in accordance with the law following meeting the conditions laid down by the law. She also has the right to appeal the decision through the courts. So again condition met.

    Changing nationality is moot here.

    So there we go.

    As for fair trial she isn't being incarcerated or convicted.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    ℬeing upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  15. #75
    Quote Originally Posted by Hazir View Post
    Nice semantic trick you play there by implying she's more of a victim than a perpetrator.
    Swing and a miss. Contextual information about her radicalization, eg. that she was groomed by extremists, is relevant for determining a sentence, in part because it speaks towards level of culpability and thus towards reasons for leniency in sentencing. This isn't about you or your personal feelings; a 15-y-o is regarded as a child in most civilized nations, and grooming children for nefarious purposes can constitute a form of child abuse.

    She is not the innocent victim of human trafficking. Her being part of the colonization by a murderous group of terrorists was exactly what she got on a plane for in Gatwick for. She knowingly and willingly lived on the fruits of theft and extortion.
    How exactly have you been able to establish any of this wrt the child who was groomed by extremists and persuaded to leave her country for Syria, where she was given to an adult jihadi fighter as a bride? Do you have insights into the police investigation of this particular case that you haven't shared with us? Have you been involved in conducting a psychiatric evaluation? Anything? No.

    What little we know about juvenile "jihadi brides"--as well as children involved in other forms of violent extremism, eg. child soldiers--paints a more complex picture than the simplistic narrative you've constructed for yourself as a part of your personal coping strategy. Many/most of them are trafficked, at least after they leave their country of origin. Many/most are in fact sexually exploited. Many/most have in fact been groomed by extremists prior to their departure, and those extremists also facilitate their travel. Many/most do apparently change their minds once they see the reality of the situation. It's difficult to speak of "choice" for a girl stuck in the middle of an ISIS stronghold, who's been given to a man as a wife in order to birth children, and who now has to live under threat of abuse or death. Under those circumstances, many people will in fact tell themselves they're perfectly cool with what's happening, and, in time, come to believe it more strongly. Especially children. I don't think your personal feelings of anger and righteousness are informative, wrt this case in particular or this phenomenon in general.

    Even if that was all she did she is complicit. Whatever other crimes she has committed only comes on top. If Is would have been a recognized state what she did by going there would have been enough to warrant prosecution for war crimes and crimes against humanity.
    Welcome to the future, Hazir. Here, in the post-'90s utopia where the rest of us live, it is possible to prosecute non-state actors such as ISIS extremists for crimes against humanity. If she truly is guilty of crimes against humanity under standards that would apply to representatives of state actors, she can also in theory be guilty of crimes against humanity as a member of a violent non-state extremist organization. But, just like with other crimes, you have to establish her level of culpability in specific criminal acts. You say she is complicit, and it's a fair claim to make, but, under a system of law, you have to translate her specific level of complicity in specific crimes to a specific level of culpability and from there to a specific and proportional level of punishment.

    Anything else is contrary to the core principles of the very institutions you have previously purported to uphold. If you reject this, you implicitly accept the position of extremists and terrorists, who justify violence against civilians in western nations partly through a rationale that civilians are complicit in the violence committed by their govts & armed forces. It is a paradigm of justice embraced by those who speak of doing violence to race traitors and other interlopers. It is a rationale whereby every American is complicit in, and deserving of punishment for, every life taken by the US in each and every single one of its wars, a tally that far surpasses the performance of actual terrorists. By your reasoning, half of the world should be in prison, for complicity in horrific acts of violence. This kind of reasoning is as reprehensible as it is absurd, and it has no place in the justice system of a civilized European nation.

    Quote Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy View Post
    Not really. Even if they couldn't be nailed with one charge they can almost always be nailed with others, and things like conspiracy/accessory provide some fairly effective reach for doing so. The only reason we don't do that is because it's expensive, unnecessary, and potentially counter-productive. Prosecuting and jailing high-profile examples provides most of the same functionality as going after everyone, when crime has become a social activity, while minimizing the risks created by failed prosecutions. Social participation in crime is one of the few areas where Lewk's not completely wrong wrt deterrence via the justice system.
    The US perspective on the culpability of accessories and accomplices may differ somewhat from European perspectives. As a rule, indirect responsibility is believed to confer a lower level of culpability, and results in less severe sentences. It's certainly true that there's a pragmatic aspect when it comes to deciding how to deal with co-conspirators, accessories and accomplices, but I don't believe the differences between the US approach and European approaches--even in the UK--results from simple pragmatic concerns; those concerns should be similar all over the western world, and, yet, we are generally averse to things like felony murder statutes over here.

    Without taking a side in this particular discussion (I have no dog in this fight and frankly just do not care in the slightest) on what should be done with/to her, what is lacking here wrt your analogy are the other cases where the government is already making an example of similar people.
    I was addressing RB's endorsement of one of Hazir's positions. The British govt. is indeed making examples of similar people, but the British govt. is specifically steering clear of stating that indirect responsibility/complicity equates to full responsibility. For example, a woman who left the UK to join ISIS, was awarded a six year sentence and recently released after just three years (on conditions), afaict for joining the group and specifically for actively supporting them on social media. It is clear to me that the British judicial system does not subscribe to Hazir's views re. culpability for those indirectly complicit in acts of terror.

    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
    The idea that someone going to join a death cult, be content with beheading innocent people, think that the Manchester Arena Bombing which killed lots of people including schoolgirls was justified . . . is somehow equivalent to the folly of a teenager playing truant or maybe getting a tattoo?
    I dunno, do teenagers typically play hookie or get tattoos because they were groomed by extremists and then stuck in ISIS strongholds where they're given to adults for sex and baby-making?

    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
    I believe in Human Rights and Responsibilities.

    She has no rights here. She's a dual national, so she has not been rendered stateless, we're under no legal or ethical obligation to keep her citizenship and there's no international human rights agreement that says otherwise. I don't believe in bullshit of making up any old crap you're OK with and saying that it is a human right.

    There's no human right that says you can go support those who decapitate others, support bombing Manchester and then have a right to come to this country from Syria.
    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
    Yes it does say something about dual citizenship there. Everyone has the right to "a" nationality. Since us removing our nationality from her doesn't render her stateless that condition is met.

    She is not arbitrarily being denied it. She's being denied it in accordance with the law following meeting the conditions laid down by the law. She also has the right to appeal the decision through the courts. So again condition met.

    Changing nationality is moot here.

    So there we go.

    As for fair trial she isn't being incarcerated or convicted.
    Thank you for once again demonstrating your cargo-cult approach to human rights. Everyone has the right to "a" nationality, yes, but they also have the right to not be arbitrarily deprived of "a" nationality or exiled. For the purposes of this situation, that requires the decision to be possible to appeal, and, if it is appealed, for the effects of the decision to be suspended until the matter has been settled before the appropriate court[s]. There is no loophole for depriving a natural-born citizen of your country of that citizenship as punishment for a crime without a fair trial; to state otherwise would be equivalent to saying a person can be convicted of a crime and given a severe sentence without a fair trial. There are countries where citizenship matters are regarded as the exclusive purview of the executive, and unreviewable by the judiciary, but the UK is not quite as barbaric a country as you'd like for it to be.

    Further, on the matter of arbitrariness, it is clear that this punishment only applies to her for an arbitrary reason: the arbitrary fact of her birth to a parent who may have held dual citizenship.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hazir View Post
    I'm not going to be forced into any answer for the simple reason my ideas about human rights are not driven by guilt over what Hitler did to German Jews.

    Human rights as a legal concept have no meaning lacking a social contract.
    This is not as compelling an argument as you appear to believe it is. Most crimes and their punishments in most western nations can arguably be considered to be some form of social contract violation or other, depending on your view of what a legitimate social contract entails. There are those who believe that not killing murderers constitutes a violation of the social contract. In reality, almost all western nations endorse, in practice, the view that human rights exist, and that said rights are not automatically nullified just because most western govts prefer to jail murderers after a fair trial rather than summarily executing them. Bringing this woman back for prosecution and imprisonment does not necessarily constitute a violation of any view of the social contract that is consistent with western and specifically European views on justice. Some parts of the mob may, of course, disagree.
    "One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."

  16. #76
    Quote Originally Posted by Aimless View Post
    I was addressing RB's endorsement of one of Hazir's positions. The British govt. is indeed making examples of similar people, but the British govt. is specifically steering clear of stating that indirect responsibility/complicity equates to full responsibility. For example, a woman who left the UK to join ISIS, was awarded a six year sentence and recently released after just three years (on conditions), afaict for joining the group and specifically for actively supporting them on social media. It is clear to me that the British judicial system does not subscribe to Hazir's views re. culpability for those indirectly complicit in acts of terror.
    Not sure what point you're trying to make here. 6 years is quite a lengthy sentence as far as this country is concerned. As for being released on conditions after half that is standard procedure. It is quite exceptional for that not to happen.
    I dunno, do teenagers typically play hookie or get tattoos because they were groomed by extremists and then stuck in ISIS strongholds where they're given to adults for sex and baby-making?
    She was not stuck in an ISIS stronghold she went there voluntarily going to great lengths to get there.
    Thank you for once again demonstrating your cargo-cult approach to human rights. Everyone has the right to "a" nationality, yes, but they also have the right to not be arbitrarily deprived of "a" nationality or exiled. For the purposes of this situation, that requires the decision to be possible to appeal, and, if it is appealed, for the effects of the decision to be suspended until the matter has been settled before the appropriate court[s].
    You are making that up. She has a right to appeal but there is absolutely no legal obligation to suspend the decision until the matter has been settled. Please quote any Human Rights Treaty that says otherwise. Making up your own stuff and calling it human rights doesn't wash.
    There is no loophole for depriving a natural-born citizen of your country of that citizenship as punishment for a crime without a fair trial; to state otherwise would be equivalent to saying a person can be convicted of a crime and given a severe sentence without a fair trial. There are countries where citizenship matters are regarded as the exclusive purview of the executive, and unreviewable by the judiciary, but the UK is not quite as barbaric a country as you'd like for it to be.
    Wrong again. That is literally not the law.
    Further, on the matter of arbitrariness, it is clear that this punishment only applies to her for an arbitrary reason: the arbitrary fact of her birth to a parent who may have held dual citizenship.
    Wrong again!

    If that was the case why is this happening to her and not her siblings? There is nothing arbitrary it's quite clearly due to the specifics of this case.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    ℬeing upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  17. #77
    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
    Not sure what point you're trying to make here. 6 years is quite a lengthy sentence as far as this country is concerned.
    Is it a lengthy sentence by British standards for the commission of murder through acts of terror? Murderers in the UK are typically sentenced to life, and those who are released spend, on average, 16 years in prison. How many adult British murderers are sentenced to 6 years and released on license after 3? Clearly, UK courts do not equate membership of a terrorist organization with murder.

    She was not stuck in an ISIS stronghold she went there voluntarily going to great lengths to get there.
    This is a nonsensical statement. Deliberately going somewhere does not preclude you from getting stuck there once you're there. If I deliberately choose to go to a place and then change my mind about wanting to stay there, there is no reason why I can't be stuck there. You may argue that I am partly to blame for being stuck, by virtue of my decision to go there in the first place, but that is a different matter. I may be partly to blame for being stuck inside a cave because I made the decision to enter the cave, but, even if I were to change my mind, there may be other facts beyond my control that can keep me trapped there.

    You are making that up. She has a right to appeal but there is absolutely no legal obligation to suspend the decision until the matter has been settled. Please quote any Human Rights Treaty that says otherwise. Making up your own stuff and calling it human rights doesn't wash.
    You're conflating two separate things, namely legality in UK jurisdictions and human rights. English law, for example, does not in and of itself equate to human rights. Parliament can, by and large, pass any law it wishes; a law being passed does not automatically guarantee that it is compliant with the constitution or with international treaties & other sources of law. The UK changed its laws in 2005, following the Abu Hamza case, in order to permit the execution of a deprivation order and consequent measures even while it is being appealed. This is, however, a violation of due process rights under treaties safeguarding such rights, because it impairs the ability to muster an effective defense.

    If the state can unilaterally make a decision that deprives you of your citizenship and other rights, and then deport you, then your ability to appeal that decision--as provided for by the laws of your state--is severely impaired, which constitutes a violation of your right to due process under both international treaties and by the laws of the particular state that is the subject of the present discussion. The discussion about the 2005 change to the law did not adequately consider human rights implications of the change, because, well, England. Nevertheless, the conflict is obvious, as others have subsequently pointed out:

    https://academic.oup.com/ijrl/article/28/4/564/2548384

    https://www.ohchr.org/en/hrbodies/hr...c-25-28_en.doc (33)

    It is partly for this reason that the UK has been required to implement a suspensive right of appeal for refugees & other asylum seekers. It is also partly for this reason that the UK's "deport first, appeal later" suffered a spectacular defeat in court just a few years ago:

    https://www.law.ox.ac.uk/research-su...d-deport-first (decision)

    Executing a deprivation order while it can be or is appealed prevents her from entering the UK and thus prevents her from mustering an effective defense against the decision to deprive her of her British nationality, something British courts recognize as a violation of the UK's treaty obligations.

    Wrong again. That is literally not the law.
    It is literally the law. See above.

    Wrong again!

    If that was the case why is this happening to her and not her siblings? There is nothing arbitrary it's quite clearly due to the specifics of this case.
    Wrong again. Consider this: would a natural-born British citizen with no claim to dual citizenship be deprived of their British nationality? Would an ISIS member, born in England to English parents, be deprived of their British nationality? She is subject to this punishment for the arbitrary reason that she may have parents who may have, through no specific action on their own part, conferred an additional citizenship on her. Does this apply to fully English natural-born English jihadis? No, it does not. The distinction between her and another natural-born British citizen with no claim to dual citizenship is arbitrary on the basis of her birth.

    I understand this is of no concern to you, because you're fixating on the fact that this case involves a terrorist sympathizer. However, the implications of these decisions are wide-ranging, and collectively they mean that natural-born British citizens who happen to be born to certain foreign nationals are automatically subject to far harsher penalties than those who are born to British nationals who have no other nationality. Consider a future where the UK gives itself the right to deprive people of their British nationality for petty theft; a thief who happened to be born in the UK, to Bangladeshi parents, would then be subject to a far more severe punishment than another similar thief who was born in the UK to English parents. For any of an unlimited list of potential offenses that you can in theory deprive a person of their British nationality, natural-born British citizens of non-British heritage are now potentially subject to a far more severe punishment than eg. their English counterparts, across the board. We know you cannot trust the UK to not implement laws in such a discriminatory fashion, thanks to its conduct in recent cases involving Windrush residents.
    "One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."

  18. #78
    Senior Member Flixy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    6,435
    Out of curiosity, Randblade and Hazir, if she had only British nationality (as Bangladesh claims), what solution would you see then?
    Keep on keepin' the beat alive!

  19. #79
    Let sleeping tigers lie Khendraja'aro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    In the forests of the night
    Posts
    6,238
    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
    She is not arbitrarily being denied it. She's being denied it in accordance with the law following meeting the conditions laid down by the law. She also has the right to appeal the decision through the courts.
    Ah, I see. So someone can act as judge, jury and executioner all rolled into one and you deem that not to be "arbitrary". And with the racist ways of your home office, we already know what the outcome will be.
    When the stars threw down their spears
    And watered heaven with their tears:
    Did he smile his work to see?
    Did he who made the lamb make thee?

  20. #80
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Amsterdam/Istanbul
    Posts
    12,312
    Quote Originally Posted by Flixy View Post
    Out of curiosity, Randblade and Hazir, if she had only British nationality (as Bangladesh claims), what solution would you see then?
    Interesting that you ask a question that's based in the assumption of the Bangladeshi government not being bound by the same rules that bind the British government. The solution is not to lay the burden with the country that has the most scruples dealing with people claiming its citizenship.

    International laws merely puts an obligation on the last country that wants to strip her of her citizenship. The others are merely bound by their national rules.
    Congratulations America

  21. #81
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Amsterdam/Istanbul
    Posts
    12,312
    Quote Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro View Post
    Ah, I see. So someone can act as judge, jury and executioner all rolled into one and you deem that not to be "arbitrary". And with the racist ways of your home office, we already know what the outcome will be.
    if you are such a stickler for procedures why don't you obsess about Bangladesh summarily dismissing her citizenship?
    At least the Brits have applied a rule.
    Congratulations America

  22. #82
    Quote Originally Posted by Hazir View Post
    if you are such a stickler for procedures why don't you obsess about Bangladesh summarily dismissing her citizenship?
    Bangladesh's position was that she was not a Bangladeshi citizen to begin with; the statement was not made to deprive her of Bangladeshi citizenship. Whether or not BD is right is a question of fact that can be resolved by Bangladeshi courts, but it isn't Bangladesh's actions that risk depriving her of her due process rights, in the UK, wrt the UK depriving her of her British citizenship. International law does not guarantee a right to dual citizenship by descent.
    "One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."

  23. #83
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Amsterdam/Istanbul
    Posts
    12,312
    Quote Originally Posted by Aimless View Post
    Swing and a miss. Contextual information about her radicalization, eg. that she was groomed by extremists, is relevant for determining a sentence, in part because it speaks towards level of culpability and thus towards reasons for leniency in sentencing. This isn't about you or your personal feelings; a 15-y-o is regarded as a child in most civilized nations, and grooming children for nefarious purposes can constitute a form of child abuse.



    How exactly have you been able to establish any of this wrt the child who was groomed by extremists and persuaded to leave her country for Syria, where she was given to an adult jihadi fighter as a bride? Do you have insights into the police investigation of this particular case that you haven't shared with us? Have you been involved in conducting a psychiatric evaluation? Anything? No.

    What little we know about juvenile "jihadi brides"--as well as children involved in other forms of violent extremism, eg. child soldiers--paints a more complex picture than the simplistic narrative you've constructed for yourself as a part of your personal coping strategy. Many/most of them are trafficked, at least after they leave their country of origin. Many/most are in fact sexually exploited. Many/most have in fact been groomed by extremists prior to their departure, and those extremists also facilitate their travel. Many/most do apparently change their minds once they see the reality of the situation. It's difficult to speak of "choice" for a girl stuck in the middle of an ISIS stronghold, who's been given to a man as a wife in order to birth children, and who now has to live under threat of abuse or death. Under those circumstances, many people will in fact tell themselves they're perfectly cool with what's happening, and, in time, come to believe it more strongly. Especially children. I don't think your personal feelings of anger and righteousness are informative, wrt this case in particular or this phenomenon in general.



    Welcome to the future, Hazir. Here, in the post-'90s utopia where the rest of us live, it is possible to prosecute non-state actors such as ISIS extremists for crimes against humanity. If she truly is guilty of crimes against humanity under standards that would apply to representatives of state actors, she can also in theory be guilty of crimes against humanity as a member of a violent non-state extremist organization. But, just like with other crimes, you have to establish her level of culpability in specific criminal acts. You say she is complicit, and it's a fair claim to make, but, under a system of law, you have to translate her specific level of complicity in specific crimes to a specific level of culpability and from there to a specific and proportional level of punishment.

    Anything else is contrary to the core principles of the very institutions you have previously purported to uphold. If you reject this, you implicitly accept the position of extremists and terrorists, who justify violence against civilians in western nations partly through a rationale that civilians are complicit in the violence committed by their govts & armed forces. It is a paradigm of justice embraced by those who speak of doing violence to race traitors and other interlopers. It is a rationale whereby every American is complicit in, and deserving of punishment for, every life taken by the US in each and every single one of its wars, a tally that far surpasses the performance of actual terrorists. By your reasoning, half of the world should be in prison, for complicity in horrific acts of violence. This kind of reasoning is as reprehensible as it is absurd, and it has no place in the justice system of a civilized European nation.



    The US perspective on the culpability of accessories and accomplices may differ somewhat from European perspectives. As a rule, indirect responsibility is believed to confer a lower level of culpability, and results in less severe sentences. It's certainly true that there's a pragmatic aspect when it comes to deciding how to deal with co-conspirators, accessories and accomplices, but I don't believe the differences between the US approach and European approaches--even in the UK--results from simple pragmatic concerns; those concerns should be similar all over the western world, and, yet, we are generally averse to things like felony murder statutes over here.



    I was addressing RB's endorsement of one of Hazir's positions. The British govt. is indeed making examples of similar people, but the British govt. is specifically steering clear of stating that indirect responsibility/complicity equates to full responsibility. For example, a woman who left the UK to join ISIS, was awarded a six year sentence and recently released after just three years (on conditions), afaict for joining the group and specifically for actively supporting them on social media. It is clear to me that the British judicial system does not subscribe to Hazir's views re. culpability for those indirectly complicit in acts of terror.



    I dunno, do teenagers typically play hookie or get tattoos because they were groomed by extremists and then stuck in ISIS strongholds where they're given to adults for sex and baby-making?





    Thank you for once again demonstrating your cargo-cult approach to human rights. Everyone has the right to "a" nationality, yes, but they also have the right to not be arbitrarily deprived of "a" nationality or exiled. For the purposes of this situation, that requires the decision to be possible to appeal, and, if it is appealed, for the effects of the decision to be suspended until the matter has been settled before the appropriate court[s]. There is no loophole for depriving a natural-born citizen of your country of that citizenship as punishment for a crime without a fair trial; to state otherwise would be equivalent to saying a person can be convicted of a crime and given a severe sentence without a fair trial. There are countries where citizenship matters are regarded as the exclusive purview of the executive, and unreviewable by the judiciary, but the UK is not quite as barbaric a country as you'd like for it to be.

    Further, on the matter of arbitrariness, it is clear that this punishment only applies to her for an arbitrary reason: the arbitrary fact of her birth to a parent who may have held dual citizenship.



    This is not as compelling an argument as you appear to believe it is. Most crimes and their punishments in most western nations can arguably be considered to be some form of social contract violation or other, depending on your view of what a legitimate social contract entails. There are those who believe that not killing murderers constitutes a violation of the social contract. In reality, almost all western nations endorse, in practice, the view that human rights exist, and that said rights are not automatically nullified just because most western govts prefer to jail murderers after a fair trial rather than summarily executing them. Bringing this woman back for prosecution and imprisonment does not necessarily constitute a violation of any view of the social contract that is consistent with western and specifically European views on justice. Some parts of the mob may, of course, disagree.
    You conveniently leave out the fact that this woman made a choice not to be British long before the legality of her citizenship came into question. There is a difference between a member of society committing a crime within that society and a person removing herself from society.

    The underlying issue you try to address may be a real one. Yet to the people who feel affected; you should think what it means if what happens to the worst of people with a similar background is your yardstick for feeling accepted.
    Congratulations America

  24. #84
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Amsterdam/Istanbul
    Posts
    12,312
    Quote Originally Posted by Aimless View Post
    Bangladesh's position was that she was not a Bangladeshi citizen to begin with; the statement was not made to deprive her of Bangladeshi citizenship. Whether or not BD is right is a question of fact that can be resolved by Bangladeshi courts, but it isn't Bangladesh's actions that risk depriving her of her due process rights, in the UK, wrt the UK depriving her of her British citizenship. International law does not guarantee a right to dual citizenship by descent.
    So, despite everything pointing to her being a citizen merely stating that she isn't a citizen should be enough to force the UK's hand?
    Ever had a look at the way Australia deals with the presumption of not being the citizen of another country?

    I think her first task now is to prove that she's not a Bangladeshi citizen and just her word isn't going to cut it.
    Congratulations America

  25. #85
    Quote Originally Posted by Hazir View Post
    You conveniently leave out the fact that this woman made a choice not to be British long before the legality of her citizenship came into question.
    This is however not very relevant to the question of what the state may or may not do. The UK does indeed permit British citizens to renounce their British citizenship, but only if the individual seeking to renounce their citizenship is an adult over the age of 18, is of sound mind, and in possession of or entitled to citizenship of another nation. When she left the UK, she was a child; the fact of her grooming by extremists call into question whether or not she was of sound mind; her dual citizenship status is in doubt. For all three reasons, in addition to the due process concerns outlined earlier, it is not clear that the UK may deprive her of her British citizenship and deny her those rights she has by virtue of that citizenship.

    There is a difference between a member of society committing a crime within that society and a person removing herself from society.
    Certainly, but we typically do not permit minors to irreversibly remove themselves from society.

    The underlying issue you try to address may be a real one. Yet to the people who feel affected; you should think what it means if what happens to the worst of people with a similar background is your yardstick for feeling accepted.
    This has little bearing on what I said. It's not about feeling accepted--it's about how you are treated under the law. Your feelings are irrelevant to the question of whether or not the law treats a natural-born citizen as being different from other natural-born citizens by virtue of the arbitrary facts of their parentage. If I were to have children that would feel Swedish but that could be deprived of their citizenship and deported because I was born in Bangladesh, their feelings would be irrelevant to the question of whether or not the law, as it pertains to them, would be discriminatory.
    "One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."

  26. #86
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Amsterdam/Istanbul
    Posts
    12,312
    She was not a minor when she re-confirmed her commitment to the IS.

    As for the other issue: actually it does matter. Not breaking the ties with the country of origin is a choice. A choice which people are free to make. I would not be the one to limit that choice. Making that choice should not put a burden on others though. And just in case you were going to bring it up: even nationalities that can't be renounced can only be foisted upon the willing.
    Congratulations America

  27. #87
    Quote Originally Posted by Hazir View Post
    So, despite everything pointing to her being a citizen merely stating that she isn't a citizen should be enough to force the UK's hand?
    "Everything" does not point to her being a Bangladeshi citizen. The UK govt. has one opinion. Other jurists have other opinions.

    https://www.dhakatribune.com/opinion...adeshi-citizen

    The question of her Bangladeshi citizenship is unresolved. Her British nationality & citizenship were, however, clear at the time the order to deprive her of her British citizenship was given.

    Ever had a look at the way Australia deals with the presumption of not being the citizen of another country?
    Should I care? Is Australia to be regarded as a role model? Australia's violations of human rights, whether you consider children of refugees or eg. Said Imasi, are not compelling arguments. Australia is just a meaner, dumber England.

    I think her first task now is to prove that she's not a Bangladeshi citizen and just her word isn't going to cut it.
    This is an inane comment for several reasons. 1. Her first task is to appeal the HO's decision. 2. She doesn't have to prove that she isn't a Bangladeshi citizen; Bangladesh can, on its own, undertake to prove that she is not a citizen. 3. Nobody has implied that anything would be settled just on the basis of her or anyone else's word. 4. The appeal of the HO's decision has to run its course.
    "One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."

  28. #88
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Amsterdam/Istanbul
    Posts
    12,312
    Which legal process led to the conclusion that this child of a Bangladeshi citizen is not a citizen despite her fulfilling all requirements for (still) being a Bangladeshi citizen?

    You realize that this is an essential legal matter in any objection or appeal? Despite your attempts to make her out to be a victim there is little indication of the courts coming to the same conclusions. Maybe it won't be possible to get her convicted for actual crimes she committed, but her joining IS stands.

    And that means that her Bangladeshi citizenship status at the time of the British decision becomes central. The state will claim she is a citizen of Bangladesh. Lacking a decision based in the law of Bangladesh by the proper authorities that she is not a citizen means the judge can go both ways wrt the decision to strip her of her British citizenship.

    Oh, and Australia has the same legal system as the UK. So it is relevant how they do things there.
    Last edited by Hazir; 02-25-2019 at 07:44 PM.
    Congratulations America

  29. #89
    Senior Member Flixy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    6,435
    Quote Originally Posted by Hazir View Post
    Interesting that you ask a question that's based in the assumption of the Bangladeshi government not being bound by the same rules that bind the British government. The solution is not to lay the burden with the country that has the most scruples dealing with people claiming its citizenship.

    International laws merely puts an obligation on the last country that wants to strip her of her citizenship. The others are merely bound by their national rules.
    That's not what I meant. Let me rephrase: I am curious what you think should happen for a similar case where there's no question about citizenship and she'd have only British, or Dutch, nationality.
    Keep on keepin' the beat alive!

  30. #90
    Quote Originally Posted by Hazir View Post
    Which legal process led to the conclusion that this child of a Bangladeshi citizen is not a citizen despite her fulfilling all requirements for (still) being a Bangladeshi citizen?
    Determining whether or not she was Bangladeshi citizen in the first place is initially an administrative matter. It is essentially the same kind of legal process that led the HO to conclude she was a Bangladeshi citizen. The HO's decision has to meet a higher standard; it is more consequential (wrt her rights under both UK and international law), and pertains to a clearly established fact (the fact of her natural-born citizenship rights in the UK) rather than just a possibility (her possible dual Bangladeshi-British citizenship). The burden of proving her Bangladeshi citizenship is the UK's, because it is crucial to the legality of the HO's decision. If this goes to trial, it will be the govt's job to prove that she is in fact a Bangladeshi citizen, even though her parents never applied to have her registered as a citizen of Bangladesh. The truthfulness of the assertion that she fulfills "all the requirements for (still) being a Bangladeshi citizen" has not been determined, and the article I linked to provides an explanation for why Bangladesh does not believe she is a Bangladeshi citizen.
    "One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •