[News] Shemima Begum- Should she be allowed to return to the UK?

[Whitechapel]

Have I used the wrong PC term? Asian or whatever - not white not black - in the middle? Not sure what you’re meant to say these days…

Didn’t mean to be all PC. Just wasn’t sure if I’d missed part of the story.

Mixed race just means from two different races though. Both her parents are the same race.

 

[CheeseRolls]

Like the Scottish referendum, have we reached a point in time where you can just keep appealing until - probably due to fatigue - you win? And should that decision be final if it comes about? Could that be appealed and appealed and appealed until overturned? How many bites at the cherry do people get these days, on just about everything they don’t like? Of course the obvious thing to avoid such trouble in this example is not to join a murderous blood thirsty cult of your own free will and marry one of the sick bastards too. Call me old fashioned…

but this is precisely how case precedent works and has worked for hundreds of years. This isn't some big modern woke conspiracy.

Sometimes grounds for appeal are upheld, many times they are not. What emerges after appeal is a stronger case precedent, which can then be used as the basis for ruling on future cases.

If it helps I entirely agree with @Nobby Cybergoat in the post above. Yet at the same time I really could not give a toss about her, she has to live with the consequences of her actions.

 

[Zeberdi]

Well put, it's just a mess of a case. Human aspect aside, it will be a great topic for future law students to debate in the future in terms of law and morality.

Indeed - full of moral complexities and legal conundrums

Not sure why people are still banging on about Bangladesh - that option was only a possibility in 2019 while she was under 21 as a child of someone with a Bangladeshi nationality (her Mother)- some of the comments on this thread are coming across as racist - she’s never lived in Bangladesh either and being ‘mixed race’ does not mean someone should be sent to the country of their parents origin - she wasn’t an illegal immigrant in the UK.

On the issue of alternative citizenship- interestingly they seemed to have left it open for further re-trial on the facts as whether the original decision did render her stateless.. (but accepted the impact of the Javid’s decision was to make her ‘de facto stateless)

Reading the Judgment of the case - the only issues I can see that came up based on points of law (not facts) about being stateless as an impact of Javiid’s decision, was whether the decision was ‘arbitrary’ and whether national security interests were outweighed by personal interests in this case:

1. The first point was dismissed on the basis that Art 3 ECHR (that had been invoked by her lawyers when the Bangladesh argument had been advanced in the lower courts) was deemed not to afford so much protection for someone like Begum who had her citizenship revoked whilst abroad (p57 para 297-306) and that Javid had been aware of the possibly but not proven risk to Begum if she had returned to Bangladesh in 2019.


2. Whether the Home Secretary, in believing that the risk she posed to British national security, and deciding that outweighed the personal interests of the individual was right to deprive her of her citizenship - most crucially, the Appeal concluded that while there is no dispute that Begum aligned with ISIS, there were also additional national security issues in CLOSED JUDGMENT which can not be revealed to the public, that were taken into consideration and therefore HS had not acted contrary to Public Law.

There will need to be an Appeal on substantive facts of whether the HS decision made her stateless because this was not fully considered at the time by all accounts and the Supreme Court have been very clear that they view revocation of citizenship draconian and leaving someone de facto homeless is not a settled or satisfactory outcome.

(Tbh - it would be simpler just for Suella Braverman to overturn Savid Javid’s 2019 decision and bring her home to be tried in the UK Courts (as I said earlier )

 

[GT49er]

I don't see how it is legal to make someone stateless and I don't see how it is the right thing to do.

She's seemingly committed a criminal offence. Let her come back if she chooses, or pursue extradition and then let her make her case in a court, just like every other person who commits a criminal offence.

I really don't see how she's different. Yes it was a terror group she joined, but we've had loads of people commit crimes.

Worse it sets a precedent that it's a politician not a judge who decides the fate of those suspected of criminal actions. Sorry but not many people trust politicians.

MakiIt was a cabinet minister who made te decison, not just an old politicianng someone stateless is yet another message that the UK doesn't intent to honour the law or honour it's obligations.

It was a cabinet minister, a member of the government, who made the decision, not just any random politician. As a membr of the executive it is in his job description to make executive decisions! this decision has now been examined by the judiciary and has been endorsed as a correct - and legal - decision. So the wretched woman's fate has been decided by a judge - or in this case, judges.

Another question - who is paying the enorously expensive legal teams launching these appeals? I really hope it's not the tax-payer - and if it turns out that it was, can we tax-payers please have a vote about it before we waste another penny in ths way?

 

[Sheebo]

Didn’t mean to be all PC. Just wasn’t sure if I’d missed part of the story.

Mixed race just means from two different races though. Both her parents are the same race.

Got ya - yeh I thought that’s what you meant. I use it for Asian or whatever it’s called - obviously wrongly

 

[Live by the sea]

I try and stay away from politics as much as possible on this site, but I wrote my thesis on her and it's a case that puts morality and justice against one other. Morally, it's reprehensible what she did and actions have consequences etc., legally, this is horrendous.


I don't think there is a 'right' answer, certainly not an answer that has or will ever satisfy everyone.


Facts aside, it sets worrying judicial precedent.

It sets the precedent that if you leave the UK to join a terrorist group that preaches violence and hatred & kills people then you wouldn’t be allowed back in . I’m not sure why that is worrying , I would say that is def the right thing to do & I must commend this govt for finally taking a stand .

 

[Cheshire Cat]

Another question - who is paying the enorously expensive legal teams launching these appeals? I really hope it's not the tax-payer - and if it turns out that it was, can we tax-payers please have a vote about it before we waste another penny in ths way?

No, no you can't.

 

[The Lemming Stomper]

I now think she should be allowed to return for a trail in the UK.

30 years hard orienteering ?

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

It sets the precedent that if you leave the UK to join a terrorist group that preaches violence and hatred & kills people then you wouldn’t be allowed back in . I’m not sure why that is worrying , I would say that is def the right thing to do & I must commend this govt for finally taking a stand .

I think the issue may be that she was a child when she left, and was certainly groomed and arguably trafficked*. The fact she was spouting a load of mad fascist Islama-nazi bollocks at the time is neither here nor there. The fact she carried on with it for a while, up to and beyond the age of 18 perhaps, is also neither here nor there, albeit this seems to make a massive difference in the minds of some.

All that said, I do find it a bit of a stretch to get too bothered about this. I'd need more than a small onion to work up a tear, I suspect. On the other hand if she is let in to go on trial I'm not sure I'd be bothered by that, either.

*Helped across borders by some European spooks in the hope of acquiring information somehow is how I remember reading it, but I wasn't paying much attention.

 

[Chicken Run]

I think the issue may be that she was a child when she left, and was certainly groomed and arguably trafficked*. The fact she was spouting a load of mad fascist Islama-nazi bollocks at the time is neither here nor there. The fact she carried on with it for a while, up to and beyond the age of 18 perhaps, is also neither here nor there, albeit this seems to make a massive difference in the minds of some.

All that said, I do find it a bit of a stretch to get too bothered about this. I'd need more than a small onion to work up a tear, I suspect. On the other hand if she is let in to go on trial I'm not sure I'd be bothered by that, either.

*Helped across borders by some European spooks in the hope of acquiring information somehow is how I remember reading it, but I wasn't paying much attention.

Canadian Spooks I think

Shamima Begum, who fled the UK and joined the Islamic State group, was smuggled into Syria by an intelligence agent for Canada.

 

[WATFORD zero]

I don't see how it is legal to make someone stateless and I don't see how it is the right thing to do.

She's seemingly committed a criminal offence. Let her come back if she chooses, or pursue extradition and then let her make her case in a court, just like every other person who commits a criminal offence.

I really don't see how she's different. Yes it was a terror group she joined, but we've had loads of people commit crimes.

Worse it sets a precedent that it's a politician not a judge who decides the fate of those suspected of criminal actions. Sorry but not many people trust politicians.

Making someone stateless is yet another message that the UK doesn't intent to honour the law or honour it's obligations.

So let's get rid of the courts and dump British Citizens on other countries who have nothing to do with them.

Jacob Rees-Mogg Says He’s AGAINST Revoking Shamima Begum’s Citizenship

Jacob Rees-Mogg told LBC listeners why he has “great worries” about Isis bride Shamima Begum’s UK citizenship being revoked by the Home Secretary.

www.lbc.co.uk

I totally agree.

Not for the first time, on this subject I find I am in agreement with @clapham_gull and @Nobby Cybergoat. For the first time ever, and far more worryingly, it appears I also agree with JRM

 

[Zeberdi]

Not for the first time, on this subject I find I am in agreement with @clapham_gull and @Nobby Cybergoat. For the first time ever, and far more worryingly, it appears I also agree with JRM

see my posts above

I agree she should be returned for trial here BUT the idea Judges are deciding on who should have their citizenship revoked or politicians are the ones making judicial decisions is just not the case (which @Nobby Cybergoat and @clapham_gull are suggesting).

anyway - this is NSC - who cares about the facts or the actual grounds of judicial rulings -

 

[zefarelly]

No, no you can't.

Already had our votes, look where that's got us.

 

[Zebedee]

..

 

[WATFORD zero]

see my posts above

I agree she should be returned for trial here BUT the idea Judges are deciding on who should have their citizenship revoked or politicians are the ones making judicial decisions is just not the case (which @Nobby Cybergoat and @clapham_gull are suggesting).

anyway - this is NSC - who cares about the facts or the actual grounds of judicial rulings -

If you really think politicians don't make senior level judicial decisions I would respectfully suggest that maybe you are the one who is mistaken

But, back to the point, it appears we are all in agreement that she is Britain's problem and we shouldn't and can't morally pass that off to another nation of our choosing, regardless of the legalities

But it is very 21st century to loudly shout how we all have a right to an opinion, but have no concept of the corresponding responsibility .

 

[Zebedee]

It's a big no from me. She can rot in hell for all I care and if it was up to me the taxpayer wouldn't be shelling out huge sums for her in legal aid to appeal the Government's decision. I can't imagine there would be many other countries who would be stupid enough to throw good money at such an obviously rotten apple, especially when we've already made it clear that we don't want her. Good riddance in my view

 

[vegster]

I think that there should always be a penalty to pay if you have committed a crime but after that a road to redemption. The Bulger killers had their time in court and served their sentences. .one of them has had minor relapses and has been jailed again I believe while the other one has changed for the better.

So, bring her home, put her on trial, if found guilty bang her up then start the road to rehabilitation. We all make mistakes and saying that a 23 year old girl is a security risk to the UK is frankly balls.

 

[GT49er]

No, no you can't.

Pity.

 

[WATFORD zero]

Another question - who is paying the enorously expensive legal teams launching these appeals? I really hope it's not the tax-payer - and if it turns out that it was, can we tax-payers please have a vote about it before we waste another penny in ths way?

No, no you can't.

Pity.

Well is it any bloody wonder after your last couple of attempts

 

[Weststander]

I think that there should always be a penalty to pay if you have committed a crime but after that a road to redemption. The Bulger killers had their time in court and served their sentences. .one of them has had minor relapses and has been jailed again I believe while the other one has changed for the better.

So, bring her home, put her on trial, if found guilty bang her up then start the road to rehabilitation. We all make mistakes and saying that a 23 year old girl is a security risk to the UK is frankly balls.

Possession of 1,200 images of child sexual abuse and possessing a child abuse manual.

Imprisonable up to 5 years.