Shamima Begum refused return to UK

It is a difficult situation, yes looking at it cold and from a distance you can see why people feel revulsion towards her and what she joined.

However these situations are often more complex, if she has been radicalised, is that not similar to how people are coercist by other forms of abuse?

Would we blame a victim of domestic abuse as being the problem because they stay in the relationship were they have been coercist and controlled? I don't know if she has been in this case but I suspect it is very likely their has been coercision alongside radicalisation.

Terrorism is another difficult situation as the saying goes, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, think about it.

We seem to think it is fine and acceptable that we can go and invade foriegn lands and kill hundreds and thousands of innocent people often from miles away with long range rocket's. How dare they attack us, we class them as insurgents in their own land but that's alright we are in the right, a life is a life their value is equal.

The people who authorise this or carry it out, are seen as just as much a terrorist in the eyes of the other side, as we see them, but we return home as heroes.

These are complex situations and their are no easy answers but if it is only ever viewed in black or white terms with each side believing they are good and the other is evil there will never be understanding and appreciation of diversity or a lasting peace for the benefit of all.
 
Corco65 said:
It is a difficult situation, yes looking at it cold and from a distance you can see why people feel revulsion towards her and what she joined.

However these situations are often more complex, if she has been radicalised, is that not similar to how people are coercist by other forms of abuse?

Would we blame a victim of domestic abuse as being the problem because they stay in the relationship were they have been coercist and controlled? I don't know if she has been in this case but I suspect it is very likely their has been coercision alongside radicalisation.

Terrorism is another difficult situation as the saying goes, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, think about it.

We seem to think it is fine and acceptable that we can go and invade foriegn lands and kill hundreds and thousands of innocent people often from miles away with long range rocket's. How dare they attack us, we class them as insurgents in their own land but that's alright we are in the right, a life is a life their value is equal.

The people who authorise this or carry it out, are seen as just as much a terrorist in the eyes of the other side, as we see them, but we return home as heroes.

These are complex situations and their are no easy answers but if it is only ever viewed in black or white terms with each side believing they are good and the other is evil there will never be understanding and appreciation of diversity or a lasting peace for the benefit of all.
Click to expand...
All excellent points, unfortunately nothing to do with the legality of the home office arbitrarily revoking citizenship for someone born here. No o need should be defending the young woman's actions and they are not. Equally no one should be defending the home offices actions. They are illeagal.
 
Laughing said:
All excellent points, unfortunately nothing to do with the legality of the home office arbitrarily revoking citizenship for someone born here. No o need should be defending the young woman's actions and they are not. Equally no one should be defending the home offices actions. They are illeagal.
Click to expand...
I would say along the line it is all connected.
 
Laughing said:
All excellent points, unfortunately nothing to do with the legality of the home office arbitrarily revoking citizenship for someone born here. No o need should be defending the young woman's actions and they are not. Equally no one should be defending the home offices actions. They are illeagal.
Click to expand...
I think it's only illegal by the Home Office if she doesn't have dual nationality. This appears the be the crux of the issue.

This excerpt from the Guardian puts across both sides of the argument quite succinctly

"Experts with knowledge of the British and Bangladeshi legal systems are divided on whether the Home Office’s action is legal. Fahad Ansari, a lawyer who acted for two men in a similar case, has said the UK-born children of Bangladeshi parents are automatically dual citizens at birth, but that right lapses at the age of 21. The government lost that case, but only because the two men were over 21, which would not apply to Begum, who is 19."

"But Najrul Khasru, a British-Bangladeshi barrister and part-time tribunal judge who has reviewed Bangladesh’s citizenship laws, told the Guardian he believed Begum was not a Bangladeshi citizen unless, at the time of her birth, her parents had registered her at the High Commission, which he said was very uncommon within the British-Bangladeshi community."
 
Londons_Moggie said:
I think it's only illegal by the Home Office if she doesn't have dual nationality. This appears the be the crux of the issue.

This excerpt from the Guardian puts across both sides of the argument quite succinctly

"Experts with knowledge of the British and Bangladeshi legal systems are divided on whether the Home Office’s action is legal. Fahad Ansari, a lawyer who acted for two men in a similar case, has said the UK-born children of Bangladeshi parents are automatically dual citizens at birth, but that right lapses at the age of 21. The government lost that case, but only because the two men were over 21, which would not apply to Begum, who is 19."

"But Najrul Khasru, a British-Bangladeshi barrister and part-time tribunal judge who has reviewed Bangladesh’s citizenship laws, told the Guardian he believed Begum was not a Bangladeshi citizen unless, at the time of her birth, her parents had registered her at the High Commission, which he said was very uncommon within the British-Bangladeshi community."
Click to expand...
So the Bangladeshi expert says she is not, I think I rest my case right there, but I do take your point.

A larger, more salient point, is that she was born here. Morally and legally she is our problem.
 
Laughing said:
So the Bangladeshi expert says she is not, I think I rest my case right there, but I do take your point.

A larger, more salient point, is that she was born here. Morally and legally she is our problem.
Click to expand...
Possibly, but the first lawyer states a precedent in which he was involved. The latter says "it was very uncommon" for families to register at the High Commission. It's therefore not impossible.

So it sounds as if she may need to disprove her Bangladeshi nationality in order for it to be illegal by the Home Office. She may not have a leg to stand on otherwise, if the the Home Office refuse to budge.

I suspect a level of condemnation may alter the Home Office's stance. We shall see
 
Last edited:
Londons_Moggie said:
Possibly, but the first lawyer states a precedent in which he was involved. The latter says "it was very uncommon" for families to register at the High Commission. It's therefore not impossible.

So it sounds as if she may need to disprove her Bangladeshi nationality in order for it to be illegal by the Home Office. She may not have a leg to strand on otherwise, if the the Home Office refuse to budge.

I suspect a level of condemnation may alter the Home Office's stance. We shall see
Click to expand...
Point of order.

If the Home Office are relying on her Bangladeshi citizenship it is for them to prove, not for her to disprove.
 
Primus84 said:
Point of order.

If the Home Office are relying on her Bangladeshi citizenship it is for them to prove, not for her to disprove.
Click to expand...
Then her lawyers need to set the wheels in motion. Seems obvious but she either is dual nationality or isn’t. It shouldn’t be too difficult to prove either way. But with lawyers involved who knows how protracted it could become.
 
Londons_Moggie said:
Then her lawyers need to set the wheels in motion. Seems obvious but she either is dual nationality or isn’t. It shouldn’t be too difficult to prove either way. But with lawyers involved who knows how protracted it could become.
Click to expand...
I'm sure they will but that's not what this case was about.
 
Londons_Moggie said:
"Experts with knowledge of the British and Bangladeshi legal systems are divided on whether the Home Office’s action is legal. Fahad Ansari, a lawyer who acted for two men in a similar case, has said the UK-born children of Bangladeshi parents are automatically dual citizens at birth, but that right lapses at the age of 21. The government lost that case, but only because the two men were over 21, which would not apply to Begum, who is 19."
Click to expand...
I'd argue that any law that automatically punishes someone for being a child while allowing someone as an adult an easier ride is bunk
 
BoroMart said:
I'd argue that any law that automatically punishes someone for being a child while allowing someone as an adult an easier ride is bunk
Click to expand...
Sometimes the law is an ass. It is however still the law. It will be interesting how this plays out. It could set a huge precedent
 

Jus sanguinisEdit​

According to the Citizenship Act 1951, one method of acquiring Bangladeshi nationality is via jus sanguinis (Citizenship by right of blood). This means one may acquire citizenship regardless of whether they were born on Bangladeshi sovereign territory or not. Bangladeshi citizenship is provided primarily jus sanguinis, or through bloodline, irrespective of the place or the legitimacy of the birth.[2]Therefore, any child born to a Bangladeshi woman illegitimately outside Bangladeshi soil would still be a Bangladeshi citizen,

and:

Nationality can be revoked only if it was conferred upon a person by naturalisation, unless the person wilfully surrenders citizenship

It seems from this that a) she has Bangladeshi citizenship based upon her mother and b) the current law does not allow for that to be revoked.

maybe her lawyers may want to test the case against the Bangladeshi government, could be an option if all else fails.
 
Last edited:
Londons_Moggie said:
Sometimes the law is an ass. It is however still the law. It will be interesting how this plays out. It could set a huge precedent
Click to expand...
I'd argue this is more a malipulation of the law as it stands and unintentional consequence, rather than the intended purpose of the law.
 
FatCat said:
It seems from this that a) she has Bangladeshi citizenship based upon her mother and b) the current law does not allow for that to be revoked.
Click to expand...
If a Bangladeshi citizen committed crimes against our country would we push for extradition and try them in a British court?
 
It’s a tricky one - she left to join a death cult but as far as I am aware, didn’t kill anybody. The courts have decided that she can’t come back.

then we have actual terrorists with similar backgrounds to her, who have committed mass murder on our streets and they have every right to remain here, albeit in prison
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top