Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 161

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

  1. #1

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

    Still in thrall to his dreams of premiership, Sajid Javid is trying to prevent a British extremist from returning to the UK:

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...ed-citizenship

    Brief summary of the story so far: in 2013, shortly after her mother died of terminal lung cancer [EDIT: this actually pertains to another woman with a similar name], a then 15-y-o British-born girl with Bangladeshi parents was persuaded by Islamic extremists to leave the UK to join ISIS. She settled in Raqqa and was married to a Dutch ISIS fighter a year later, moving with him to ISIS's last stronghold which eventually fell (and where he died - retracted). She gave birth to two children who died, and has just a few days ago given birth to a third, in a camp in Syria. Her request for transport back to the UK for herself and her child has been denied, and the UK has now announced that she will be stripped of her citizenship.

    I think this case is interesting in several respects: it involves a person who was, at the time she joined ISIS, a minor, at an age where one is typically afforded leniency under the law; there was reasonably compelling evidence to suggest that she had been groomed by extremists prior to her departure--a case that appears to have been bungled by the police--and we are typically lenient with victims of grooming; to the best of our knowledge, she has not herself actively participated in acts of terrorism. At the same time, it is accurate to say that she joined a terrorist organization, and fair to say she likely represents a security threat--she has expressed no remorse for her decision to join ISIS, and continues to endorse their ideology.

    But I think all of that is moot, because a more important question is whether or not it's even legal for the UK to strip her of her citizenship. Based on what we know, she appears to be a British-born British citizen; she does not appear to hold a Bangladeshi citizenship, and this case is therefore different from other similar cases involving persons who have held dual citizenship. As a rule, it is not legal for a state to make a person stateless by revoking their citizenship. It would seem to be illegal for the UK to revoke her British citizenship, because Bangladesh does not recognize her as a citizen and does not intend to grant her citizenship: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...ted-says-javid

    Granted the German car-makers may be able to pressure Bangladesh into granting her citizenship if PM Javid talks to them sternly enough, but, barring that implausible scenario, what we know so far suggests that the decision to revoke her citizenship is blatantly illegal, and it is therefore puzzling to me what Javid hopes to gain from it other than some brownie points in anticipation of a future bid to lead the Tories over the cliff edge.

    Matters are further complicated by the high likelihood that her newborn son must be regarded as a British citizen, bolstering her case for being allowed to return to the UK in order to preserve his rights.

    Of all the cases involving returning extremists, I think this one is both the most straightforward and also the most stupidly managed. She and her child are British citizens, the UK is not permitted to make her stateless, they can and should be returned to the UK where she can be prosecuted and sentenced for her crimes, and the son placed in the care of a suitable family. Everyone involved in these citizenship-revocation shenanigans are just a bunch of grandstanding putzes.
    Last edited by Aimless; 02-21-2019 at 10:02 AM.
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  2. #2
    I have no idea what the laws in UK say about revoking citizenship. Is that a regular thing?

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Amsterdam/Istanbul
    Posts
    10,306
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    I have no idea what the laws in UK say about revoking citizenship. Is that a regular thing?
    UK law is less relevant than the international treaty Aimless refers to. However, the claim of the Bangladeshi government that this woman is not a citizen seems hardly less rash than the decision to strip her of her citizenship.

    But to be honest, I could care less about what happens to this woman. I've sort of had it also with the idea that liberal democracy is bound to respect all rights of those who want to destroy it.
    Greece shows us that there is a kind of politician worse than the ones that break their election promises; the ones that keep their election promises.

  4. #4
    She chose to leave and is it appears a dual citizen (she is allegedly Bangladeshi by birth sui generis) so good riddance. The Bangladeshis quite rightly probably don't want her but neither do we. And by acting first we haven't rendered her stateless.

    I'd have no objection to the innocent child coming here and being adopted blindly to a new family. If she does some how come back she should be charged with treason and locked up for life. Hopefully she never returns here though.
    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.

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
    She chose to leave and is it appears a dual citizen (she is allegedly Bangladeshi by birth sui generis) [...] And by acting first we haven't rendered her stateless.
    No. She only holds dual citizenship if she applied for and was granted dual citizenship. Bangladesh has until recently been very restrictive wrt granting dual citizenship to children born in (and citizens of) other countries. A Bangladeshi citizen automatically loses Bangladeshi citizenship upon acquisition of citizenship of a foreign state, and must therefore apply for dual citizenship. The claim here is that no such application was made in her case, and that she therefore does not hold a Bangladeshi citizenship. So, in effect, Bangladesh revoked her citizenship first--at birth.

    I'd have no objection to the innocent child coming here and being adopted blindly to a new family. If she does some how come back she should be charged with treason and locked up for life. Hopefully she never returns here though.
    It appears Sajid Javid is slightly more lenient and thoughtful than you are:

    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by Hazir View Post
    UK law is less relevant than the international treaty Aimless refers to. However, the claim of the Bangladeshi government that this woman is not a citizen seems hardly less rash than the decision to strip her of her citizenship.
    Under Bangladeshi nationality law, you automatically lose your Bangladeshi citizenship upon acquiring citizenship of a foreign state. You can apply to have your Bangladeshi citizenship restored, and they have become slightly more permissive wrt granting dual citizenship. There has been a slow shift from jus soli to jus sanguinis in recent years, but that only applies to whether or not you gain citizenship at birth--it doesn't change the law governing loss of citizenship.

    But to be honest, I could care less about what happens to this woman. I've sort of had it also with the idea that liberal democracy is bound to respect all rights of those who want to destroy it.
    Liberal democracy is obligated to respect those commitments that it has committed to respect under the belief that adherence to the rule of law is crucial to the existence of liberal democracy. Upholding human & civil rights clearly defined in international as well domestic law is a part of that set of commitments. The moment we start to pick and choose whose rights we get to violate based on arbitrary criteria, liberal democracy loses. In this case, the UK is seeking to violate both domestic and international law, and also trying to foist its responsibility off on another state. It's stupid and reprehensible on every level. In effect, the UK now seeks to distinguish between British-born British citizens based on heritage, granting greater protection to those who were born to the right parents. For example, this means ethnic English jihadis with British citizenship since birth enjoy greater protections than ethnic Sylheti jihadis with British citizenship since birth. This view is not compatible with the principles of a modern liberal society. It is plainly racist and would only be appropriate in a country that practices apartheid.
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Hazir View Post
    UK law is less relevant than the international treaty Aimless refers to.
    International law is pretty toothless. What body plans on forcing the UK to accept her back?

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Amsterdam/Istanbul
    Posts
    10,306
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    International law is pretty toothless. What body plans on forcing the UK to accept her back?
    A British judge could.
    Greece shows us that there is a kind of politician worse than the ones that break their election promises; the ones that keep their election promises.

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Amsterdam/Istanbul
    Posts
    10,306
    Quote Originally Posted by Aimless View Post
    Under Bangladeshi nationality law, you automatically lose your Bangladeshi citizenship upon acquiring citizenship of a foreign state. You can apply to have your Bangladeshi citizenship restored, and they have become slightly more permissive wrt granting dual citizenship. There has been a slow shift from jus soli to jus sanguinis in recent years, but that only applies to whether or not you gain citizenship at birth--it doesn't change the law governing loss of citizenship.



    Liberal democracy is obligated to respect those commitments that it has committed to respect under the belief that adherence to the rule of law is crucial to the existence of liberal democracy. Upholding human & civil rights clearly defined in international as well domestic law is a part of that set of commitments. The moment we start to pick and choose whose rights we get to violate based on arbitrary criteria, liberal democracy loses. In this case, the UK is seeking to violate both domestic and international law, and also trying to foist its responsibility off on another state. It's stupid and reprehensible on every level. In effect, the UK now seeks to distinguish between British-born British citizens based on heritage, granting greater protection to those who were born to the right parents. For example, this means ethnic English jihadis with British citizenship since birth enjoy greater protections than ethnic Sylheti jihadis with British citizenship since birth. This view is not compatible with the principles of a modern liberal society. It is plainly racist and would only be appropriate in a country that practices apartheid.
    Yeah well. I think we'd be better of with her somewhere in a ditch with a bullet through her head.

    The level of suffering that she and her ilk have inflicted upon the middle east merits her being ostracized. Especially because this particular piece of human refuse shows not the slightest bit of remorse.

    And thanks for the lecture on what's the rule; an overruling legal principle is that no agreement can be turned into a suicide pact.
    Greece shows us that there is a kind of politician worse than the ones that break their election promises; the ones that keep their election promises.

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by Hazir View Post
    Yeah well. I think we'd be better of with her somewhere in a ditch with a bullet through her head.
    I don't really care what coping mechanisms you choose to embrace in your flailing struggle to deal with difficult feelings about grooming victims. This may be a personal issue for you, but the discussion isn't about you and your subjective preferences.

    The level of suffering that she and her ilk have inflicted upon the middle east merits her being ostracized. Especially because this particular piece of human refuse shows not the slightest bit of remorse.
    That is simply irrelevant, because the question is not what she deserves but what the British govt. may or may not do. Many people deserve horrific fates, but, as a rule, our govts are prohibited from delivering such punishment. Placing such restrictions on govts is vital to the preservation of liberal democracy--much more important than trying to send a British jihadi to Bangladesh in order to score brownie-points with the public.

    And thanks for the lecture on what's the rule; an overruling legal principle is that no agreement can be turned into a suicide pact.
    This RBian objection is also irrelevant, because returning her to the UK in order to prosecute her and punish her does not constitute national suicide, any more than any other law protecting the rights of any other criminals is regarded as a suicide pact in modern western states. The British govt. agrees with my interpretation, and has therefore allowed many jihadis to return prior to this decision. If you disagree, you may as well permit the summary execution of people suspected of crimes ranging from petty theft onwards. The UK may not revoke the citizenship of a British citizen if doing so would make that individual stateless; suicide or not (it isn't), that is a pact it has made with itself as well as with its global peers, and it must uphold that agreement. No amount of hyperbole and histrionics about suicide pacts will change this.
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  11. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Amsterdam/Istanbul
    Posts
    10,306
    I have traumatized victims around me on a daily basis. Excuse me for not being overly sympathetic for the plight of the people who inflicted their suffering upon them.

    The remark about suicide pacts is a standing legal principle. It's to protect society from people who don't care where the fanatic application of a rule leads to.
    Greece shows us that there is a kind of politician worse than the ones that break their election promises; the ones that keep their election promises.

  12. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by Hazir View Post
    I have traumatized victims around me on a daily basis. Excuse me for not being overly sympathetic for the plight of the people who inflicted their suffering upon them.
    Be that as it may, sympathy is irrelevant to the discussion. I too have to work with traumatized people on a regular basis, and occasionally I have to work with those who have victimized others. My personal feelings about these individual cases have no bearing on what I believe the govt. should or should not be allowed to do. There are people who may deserve to have their balls stomped on repeatedly by large angry men in heavy boots, but that doesn't mean I can accept the govt. meting out that punishment, esp. not if it does so arbitrarily.

    The remark about suicide pacts is a standing legal principle. It's to protect society from people who don't care where the fanatic application of a rule leads to.
    It is however not relevant to the matter at hand. If being forced to prosecute and jail a British criminal in the UK is an illegitimate suicide pact, then the entire British criminal justice system--including life sentences without parole or review--constitutes a slow national suicide and must be scrapped. You cannot arbitrarily disregard the rule of law; either you have rule of law, or you do not. Just as society should be protected from those individuals who would exploit the law to do harm to others, it must also be protected from those governments who would seek to arbitrarily violate the law out of convenience. I am much more concerned by a govt. arbitrarily violating a natural-born citizen's rights as well as a core principle of international law than I am by a handful of extremists being jailed on the taxpayer's dime.
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  13. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Amsterdam/Istanbul
    Posts
    10,306
    The same reasoning keeps these people out of prison. Which means that you are turning liberty and the rule of law into a weapon against society. That's not the deal we made.

    As for this woman and her husband : I hope they die before they come back to Europe.
    Greece shows us that there is a kind of politician worse than the ones that break their election promises; the ones that keep their election promises.

  14. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by Hazir View Post
    The same reasoning keeps these people out of prison.
    There is no reason why a person cannot be jailed for joining a terrorist organization. Indeed, the UK has jailed such people.

    Which means that you are turning liberty and the rule of law into a weapon against society. That's not the deal we made.
    It is the deal you have not only made but reaffirmed every time you accept that a murderer or other violent criminal is released from prison. If you think that's a problem, then the appropriate remedy is to keep them in prison, if your laws permit it. Violating international law by making them stateless is not an acceptable remedy, esp. when you attempt to do so arbitrarily, on the basis of heritage.

    As for this woman and her husband : I hope they die before they come back to Europe.
    Again, it's not about you.
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  15. #15
    Bangladeshi law appears to state that she is a Bangladeshi citizen automatically, in which case there is zero legal reason we can't strip her citizenship. So tough shit.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47312207
    Is Shamima Begum entitled to Bangladeshi citizenship?

    By Clive Coleman, BBC legal correspondent

    Lawyers have told the BBC that under Bangladesh law, a UK national born to a Bangladeshi parent is automatically a Bangladeshi citizen - a dual national - but the Bangladeshi authorities assert that's not the case for Ms Begum.

    Under this "blood line" law, Bangladeshi nationality and citizenship lapse when a person reaches the age of 21, unless they make active efforts to retain it.

    So, it is Ms Begum's age, 19, that is likely - in part - to have given Home Office lawyers and the home secretary reassurance there was a legal basis for stripping her of her UK citizenship.

    In 2017, the government lost an appeal case brought by two British citizens of Bangladeshi origin who were stripped of their citizenship when they were abroad.

    The Special Immigration Appeals Commission ruled that E3 and N3 had not tried to retain their citizenship before they reached the age of 21, and so it had automatically lapsed.

    That meant that the decision to strip them of their UK citizenship had rendered them stateless.

    Ms Begum's case is different. Her Bangladeshi citizenship, if established, would remain intact until she reaches 21, even if she has never visited the country or made active efforts to retain her citizenship.
    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.

  16. #16
    Sorry, what's the reason, other than petty vindictiveness and/or a need to appease the perpetual outrage machine of the red-tops, that she shouldn't be allowed back into the country?
    Genie let out of the bottle, it is now the witching hour
    Murderers, you're murderers, we are not the same as you
    When the walls bend with your breathing
    They will suck you down to the other side, with the shadows blue and red
    Your alarm bells; they should be ringing
    This is the gloaming

  17. #17
    Bangladesh's nationality law specifically requires persons born abroad to Bangladeshi citizens to be registered at a BD consulate or mission in that country, otherwise they are not regarded as citizens under BD nationality law. The UK must prove first that her parents were Bangladeshi citizens at the time of her birth, and secondly that she had been registered for citizenship. The relevance of the cases of E3 and N3 is not immediately obvious; one was born to Bangladeshi citizens in Bangladesh, while there are no reports about whether or not the other was registered for citizenship as a minor.
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  18. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by Steely Glint View Post
    Sorry, what's the reason, other than petty vindictiveness and/or a need to appease the perpetual outrage machine of the red-tops, that she shouldn't be allowed back into the country?
    Because she's a threat who chose to leave the country.

    What's the reason to let her in?
    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.

  19. #19
    We have a similar issue in the US.

    https://www.npr.org/2019/02/21/69653..._campaign=news

    If she was born in Alabama, as her parents say, then she's a citizen, and she should be brought back to the US, and be tried for her crimes. Personally, I don't have any sympathy for her, but like Aimless, I recognize the rule of law is the most important thing here (by far). If this case motivates Congress to change the law so, in the future, people like her can be kept from returning to the US, then so be it. But that's not the law right now.

    Rule of law is the only thing stitching this place together, and it's already fraying under tremendous pressure from Trump. So no, check the anger, bring her home, and try her. I think that's a death penalty state, so maybe the good Christians of Alabama can find a way to kill her.

    EDIT: that girl the Brits want to keep out was *15 years old* when she left. Does that change anything?
    The Rules
    Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
    Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
    Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)

  20. #20
    No. Age of criminal responsibility is 10.

    She is a dual-national who fought for our enemies. She's no longer a citizen here as per the law​ but has a right to appeal through the courts. Which is fair enough.
    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.

  21. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by Aimless View Post
    Bangladesh's nationality law specifically requires persons born abroad to Bangladeshi citizens to be registered at a BD consulate or mission in that country, otherwise they are not regarded as citizens under BD nationality law. The UK must prove first that her parents were Bangladeshi citizens at the time of her birth, and secondly that she had been registered for citizenship. The relevance of the cases of E3 and N3 is not immediately obvious; one was born to Bangladeshi citizens in Bangladesh, while there are no reports about whether or not the other was registered for citizenship as a minor.
    No you're making that up, which is why the case history of E3 and N3 matters. Bangladeshi law is that if the parents are citizens then she is automatically a citizen until the age of 21. No need to be registered. Citizenship lapses at 21 if no active efforts are made to prevent it but since she's not 21 yet that hasn't happened.
    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.

  22. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
    No. Age of criminal responsibility is 10.
    No kidding... wow, do you put 10 year olds in prison?
    The Rules
    Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
    Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
    Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)

  23. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
    What's the reason to let her in?
    1) She's a British citizen
    2) She was born here
    3) She's a teenager, and has been brainwashed by a death-cult, you don't just wake up from that one day go "wow, that was total bullshit"
    4) She has a child
    5) She's our responsibility

    If she's truly a threat (though I do find it fascinating that Mr. Any Suggestion That Brexit Might Have Consequences is Project Fear is currently quaking in his boots over the thought of a 19 year old girl entering the country), then there are a number of remedies to that; prison, tagging, monitoring etc. There's no moral or legal justification for keeping her out.
    Genie let out of the bottle, it is now the witching hour
    Murderers, you're murderers, we are not the same as you
    When the walls bend with your breathing
    They will suck you down to the other side, with the shadows blue and red
    Your alarm bells; they should be ringing
    This is the gloaming

  24. #24
    She is a dual-national who fought for our enemies.
    Uh....
    Genie let out of the bottle, it is now the witching hour
    Murderers, you're murderers, we are not the same as you
    When the walls bend with your breathing
    They will suck you down to the other side, with the shadows blue and red
    Your alarm bells; they should be ringing
    This is the gloaming

  25. #25
    This Vicious Cabaret Unheard Of's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    388
    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
    She is a dual-national who fought for our enemies.
    I haven't seen any other suggestions that she fought for ISIS.

    For whatever it's worth, I think she should return to the UK and have her actions judged in court. She grew up here and has more of a connection here than anywhere else. I suspect the Home Secretary is trying to improve his credentials with those who espouse law & order when it fits their prejudices and find the actual law inconvenient.
    Greetings, citizen! THE COMPUTER has made you a protector of the underground city of ALPHA COMPLEX. You will have lots of fun rooting out Communist mutant traitors. The Computer says so.

  26. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by EyeKhan View Post
    No kidding... wow, do you put 10 year olds in prison?
    Yes, although more often young offenders institutes.
    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.

  27. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by Unheard Of View Post
    I haven't seen any other suggestions that she fought for ISIS.

    For whatever it's worth, I think she should return to the UK and have her actions judged in court. She grew up here and has more of a connection here than anywhere else. I suspect the Home Secretary is trying to improve his credentials with those who espouse law & order when it fits their prejudices and find the actual law inconvenient.
    She went to join the Jihadis to bake cookies I suppose?

    The law gives the Home Secretary the power to strip dual-nationals, which she is, of their citizenship in certain circumstances - which this case meets. I believe it is you who finds the actual law inconvenient.
    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.

  28. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
    No you're making that up, which is why the case history of E3 and N3 matters. Bangladeshi law is that if the parents are citizens then she is automatically a citizen until the age of 21. No need to be registered. Citizenship lapses at 21 if no active efforts are made to prevent it but since she's not 21 yet that hasn't happened.
    You may be right, although the law as it pertains to citizenship by descent is somewhat ambiguous, for which reason several of our natural-born Bangladeshi friends high Swedish citizenship have had to register their Swedish-born children. It's possible that this stems from them having to apply to restore citizenship after gaining Swedish citizenship.
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  29. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
    She went to join the Jihadis to bake cookies I suppose?
    Do you know what the S in IS stands for?
    Genie let out of the bottle, it is now the witching hour
    Murderers, you're murderers, we are not the same as you
    When the walls bend with your breathing
    They will suck you down to the other side, with the shadows blue and red
    Your alarm bells; they should be ringing
    This is the gloaming

  30. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
    She went to join the Jihadis to bake cookies I suppose?
    To live a life in accordance with a fundamentalist extremist interpretation of Islam, marry a Muslim man who leads a similar life (plus the terrorism and murders of course) and give birth to & raise children. It's not cookies, but it's not necessarily terrorism.
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

Posting Permissions

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