Bangladesh says no entry to the tezza

Well fancy that!

Thread seems incomplete. It says Bangladesh bans dual nationality (which is correct), but I believe (read elsewhere) that you are actually allowed to have dual nationality until the age of 21, by which point you need to decide. 

This woman is 19 and therefore still a dual national, so probably justified in stripping her British citizenship.

Someone ought to point out their obligations under international law. Gun boat stationed off Dhaka. Or even in it.

In her latest interview she sounds like an arsy teenager who’s been grounded. 

"Well fancy that!"

 

you've done worse geeza

heh @ arsey teenager

 

well she is a teenager despite being a mother to 3(?) kids

The thing I find chilling, and why basically I’d throw her in a nice jail, is her attitude is ‘yeah wotevs, like, isis do bad stuff, I ran away to join them, I seen the heads in bins, didn’t bovver me, but I’m British innit and you should help me out, I can’t understand why you lol hate me’

Dont even know where to start. 

stru - the 21 thing is specifically cited in the case that twitter thread links to as the point at which dual nationality is lost.

The Twitter-er clearly didn’t read the actual case / appreciate the difference in ages...

​​​​​​diane abbott quoting international law about noone being arbitrarily stripped of their citizenship.

well Diane it isnt arbitrary is it it is with good reason

Has she actually committed any crimes? Or do you believe saying some nasty things about western civilisation and spending some time in the Middle East is now a criminal offence.

Does the law actually make the dostinction of eligibility vs actual dual citizenship?

One might argue that due to Bangladesh's strong anti terrorism laws, she forfeited her eligibility to become a Bangladesh national and therefore having never taken up dual citizenship our Home Sec has just rendered someone stateless in direct contravention of about a billion international laws.

Tbf Diane is unlikely to feature in a list of all time greatest jurisprudes.

“The thing I find chilling, and why basically I’d throw her in a nice jail, is her attitude is ‘yeah wotevs, like, isis do bad stuff”

i find the idea of throwing people in jail for an opinion to be far more chilling 

Welly you appear to be languishing lately in that soma spot between acquiring a moral compass and learning how to use it. Are you enjoying growing up in public? 

HEH! 

A definite winner for comment of the month and a potential future contender for comment of the year.  I managed to spill my drink when I burst out laughing, thanks cookster, bloody leather sofa now sticky with cherries and berries squash.

So where do we stand on the question of whether it actually matters that this woman has not actually been convicted of a crime?

While we're talking about moral compasses and all... 

Welly is merely filling a laz shaped vacuum.  He will shortly start thinking about becoming a barrister-sports journo-tech start-upper

It's a weird and scary decision and feels like a massive lurch to the populist right. 

Since when did we start stripping British nationals who were born and brought up in Britain of their nationality? Windrush, i guess... 

So where do we stand on the question of whether it actually matters that this woman has not actually been convicted of a crime?

My favourite arguments in favour are the ones along the lines of "we could really struggle to find the evidence to convict her if she came back so we should do this instead".

I am uncomfortable shall we say with the idea of this at all.  Doing it if we don't think we have enough evidence to convict her of an actual crime is a whole other level of wrongness.

While we are stripping nationality from people who might potentially cause harm to Great Britain, can we see if Bangladesh would take Jacob Rees-Mogg?

Interesting to compare and contrast with the case of Hoda Muthana, who has been banned from returning to the US by Trump.

Here, the US is saying that she does not hold a US passport (which is true - she had a US passport which she used to travel to Turkey and was then photographed burning said US passport on social media), is not entitled to a US passport (probably not true), and has never been a US citizen because despite having been born in New Jersey, her father was a Yemeni diplomat at the time (contested by her family).

So we see Trump is attempting to deny her re-entry to the US by claiming that she was never a US citizen in the first place, which may not be true, but is at least a figleaf of a respectable argument.

By contrast, the UK admits that she was born a UK citizen in the UK, lived all her life in the UK until the day when, as a child, she decided to get on that flight to Turkey, and was a UK citizen from the day she was born until the day they decided to strip her citizenship from her. They did so on a tenuous argument that she would not be made stateless by the decision because she has Bangladeshi citizenship, a fact which is disputed by the Bangladeshi government, and which, if true, appears only to be true due to her age.

They are inflicting a punishment on her which they could not inflict on any person who did not have any claim to citizenship of another country, and which they can only inflict on her due to the fact that she is under 21 years of age. If she had been over the age of 18 when she left, she would be over 21 now and would therefore have no claim to Bangladeshi citizenship.

They are therefore using the fact that she was a child when she made the decision to travel to Syria to inflict a worse punishment on her (and her newborn son), when the fact that she was a child should be a mitigating rather than an aggravating factor.

In all seriousness, what is the difference between the harm that this woman could cause and the harm that Brexit could cause?

Why are we singling out her political views and giving others with equally abhorrent views a free ride?

We don't even need to go to Brexit. What is the difference between her political views and those of George Galloway? Is it that we think she may be violent? If so, why don't we strip the citizenship of anyone convicted of murder?

Don't get me wrong, I have no sympathy for this woman, but the arbitrary (yes, arbitrary) stripping of citizenship for political views should be abhorrent to everyone.

It's not necessarily a crime either though, Minkie. 

If she has committed a crime then let's charge her and and put her in front of a jury. We can do that with all kinds of really really nasty characters who have done far worse than she could ever potentially do.

If we say that we can't because: terrorism, then we are making it political. 

David Cameron has caused far more harm to Britain than Shamima has, but no one (apart from Danny Dyer maybe) is even considering stripping him of his citizenship. Same goes for Farage, and climate change deniers like Lawson and Delingpole. As far as I am concerned we shouldn't be looking to strip her citizenship until we have first considered stripping theirs.

it probably is Anna, but not one for which she has not been tried or convicted, i think that is the issue.

 

i simply took issue with supes' final sentence in his 10.03, it does not reflect what has happened.

Should we also be stripping the citizenship of those who went to fight in Syria against IS/Assad?

Quite, Minkie. 

How is "she probably has committed a crime of some sort but not been tried or convicted" a good enough justification for stripping someone of their citizenship and effectively making them stateless (given that Bangladesh don't seem to be recognising her as one of theirs)? 

Particularly when the incredibly flimsy legal justification for doing so effectively relies on the fact that they were a child at the time. 

These are two different tests.  She isn't allowed into the UK because that isn't in the UK's interests.  It's not required that she be convicted of a terrorist offence to establish this.  Her views alone, her conduct,  the cost of monitoring her, the risk of involvement with future crime make it obvious that letting her back into the UK isn't in the UK's interests.

And what of her family?  She is clear she loves her husband, he appears to be a jihadi fighter of Dutch origin.  Nothing to say he is any more repentant than her.  if you then look at the rights of the family to be whole, do you then have to let him in?  Better for him to come here than face prosecution in Holland.

She and her husband don't just hold views... they act on them.  Reasonably though, she's only going to be convicted on her own testimony.  If she comes back and says "I just lived in the house, had babies and looked at heads in bins", the offences she's convicted of will be minor.... Which means we get this woman, possibly her husband, who hate our values, see us as infidels and think our system shows our weakness.... for ever to police... oh joy.

Whereas, provided she isn't stateless, there is clear evidence that it isn't in our best interests to have her back... it may be in hers... but it ain't in ours.

 

 She isn't allowed into the UK because that isn't in the UK's interests.

What the fuck were parliament thinking when they passed that legislation?

Allowing Nigel Farage into the country is not in our best interests either and guess what, he has a German passport.

Whereas, provided she isn't stateless, there is clear evidence that it isn't in our best interests to have her back... it may be in hers... but it ain't in ours.

She is effectively stateless if the country we are saying she is a citizen of is denying that she is a citizen.

No, she is stateless if she isn't a citizen of another state... her issue is then with them, not with us. Bangladesh doesn't want her any more than we do, but if their law says she has citizenship until 21... her beef is with them.
The test isn't "it's hard for her to obtain confirmation of her existing citizen rights", it's "she is a citizen"... She isn't "effectively stateless". She is a citizen, they just deny it. I wonder if they have similar legislation to ours and didn't get in first?

Lady P, would you then be happy if we just adopted consistency and excluded Farage?  I'd be golden with that.

This is basic stuff, Parliament enacted the boundaries, law interprets whether those boundaries have been followed.

If you don't like the boundaries, lobby.  It doesn't make it unlawful just because you don't like it.

 

Particularly when the incredibly flimsy legal justification for doing so effectively relies on the fact that they were a child at the time. 

A rather biased way of expressing it.

The legal justification is that it is against the public interest to have her back. 

If she were not a citizen of any other country then she could claim undue hardship as a result (and the law provides for that).

But we aren't unduly punishing her for being a child - we just let some people off (regardless of age) where they do not have a valid claim to citizenship elsewhere.

I would be quite happy with pushing Farage off a cliff, to be perfectly honest with you, but no, I don't think it is right to strip someone of their citizenship in circumstances where (a) they have not actually been convicted of a crime, and (b) we can only inflict this punishment on some citizens, not others.

If a 30 year old man who only held British citizenship went to Syria to join ISIS and was filmed, say, beheading a journalist, he could not be stripped of his citizenship. But a young woman who travelled to Syria at the age of 15 and who appears not to have really done anything except marrying a jihadi, having a few babies and making some nasty comments about heads in dustbins, has been stripped of her citizenship purely because she has a tenuous and contested right to Bangladeshi citizenship, and apparently only because of her young age. If Bangladesh won't let her in (and you can see their point, given that she has never visited Bangladesh and was entirely unknown to them before the UK decided to try to foist her on them), then she has de facto been made stateless by this decision.

It's wrong on all kinds of levels.

A rather biased way of expressing it.

The legal justification is that it is against the public interest to have her back. 

If she were not a citizen of any other country then she could claim undue hardship as a result (and the law provides for that).

But we aren't unduly punishing her for being a child - we just let some people off (regardless of age) where they do not have a valid claim to citizenship elsewhere.

No.

If I have understood correctly, the legal analysis that she is entitled to Bangladeshi citizenship is based on her age. If she had reached the age of 21 without making any attempt to retain her Bangladeshi citizenship, she would have no claim to it. The UK would therefore not be able to argue that she is entitled to another citizenship and that they can therefore strip her of her British citizenship. But because she is only 19, they have decided that she's fair game.

Her young age is therefore counting against her when normally it would be a mitigating factor.

Lady P. Pretty much everyone who has their citizenship stripped hasn't been tried in a british court never mind convicted. Partly this is because it is usually for something they have done in another country. The remaining members of the ISIS Beatles are an example of this as they also had other citizenships. The reason it can only be carried out in respect of some citizen and not others is not through british choice, but a requirement of international law. She is being stripped of citizenship because of what she has done not because of her Bangladeshi citizenship (that just enables it to happen and the fact that she only has it because of her age is irrelevant). She has been made stateless by Bangladesh's decision not that of the UK. Just their problem for not being quicker. May sound unfair but that is the way it is. So I am not concerned about the procedure that has been followed without criminal charges. I don't know enough of the detail of her case (and frankly neither do any of you unless you worked on it at the Home Office) to know whether the decision was justified and will stand up to scrutiny. Doubtless there will be an appeal or JR as appropriate.

The US case mentioned above regarding the daughter of a former Yemeni diplomat is actually interesting. Most people think the rule in the US is that you were born in the US you are a citizen, but the detail of their law is that you are a citizen if you were born subject to US jurisdiction, which the child of a diplomat would not be, so Trump does have a point. Having previously held a US diplomatic visa and having friends who did I know this.

We are also far from the only country doing this.

Tom, a couple of points:

In the American case the family is saying that her father was no longer a Yemeni diplomat at the time she was born in the US so she was a US citizen. The fact that she previously held a US passport would seem to support this.

I'm not saying the legal analysis is wrong, I'm saying I believe the decision is morally wrong. We are supposed to be a civilised, mature democracy which respects the rule of law and due process (sad heh). We shouldn't be doing things on the basis that other countries do them. A lot of these other countries don't hold themselves out as having an excellent human rights record, as we do.

As for saying that Bangladesh should have got in there quicker... WTF? They didn't even know she existed until the UK said, "hey, we're stripping you of your British citizenship so I guess you're Bangladesh's problem now!"

I didn't know that the father wasn't a diplomat at the time which would make a difference. That she had a passport previously really only makes a difference if she was properly entitled to it in the first place which from the sound of it she might have been.

Actually a lot of those other countries do hold themselves out as civilized, mature, democracies, with decent human rights records. Why do you think there is such a fuss from the Americans about European countries not taking back people who were involved in ISIS. I'm looking at France, Spain, Belgium, Germany etc, but also throw in Australia and Canada for good measure. Pretty much nobody wants these people back in circumstances where no regret or contrition has been shown by the individual. 

I suspect the politics of this reflects also the practicalities of the whole situation. Not just Begum, who has come to our attention because a journo bumped into her and published, there are lots of women and children in the camp, many might be British nationals, I reckon the Home Sec wants ( needs) to draw the line.

BUT if this turns out to be the case then it will be multiple musical chairs and hey guess what all these women and children will end up being Syria’s problem which I definitely think is not right at all.

i dont know what the answer is, no one wants them.

also, re Begum, i had understood she is not (yet) a Bangladeshi national, she is simply eligible. And presumably they have some say over an individual’s application for citizenship regardless of eligibility. Eligible to applY, not a dead cert acceptance.

i dont know what the answer is

Me neither.  And working it out is no more a priority than wondering whether I should now eat the yoghurt in my fridge which goes out of date tomorrow.

Just a natural Greek one.  I've got some nuts and stuff I can sprinkle on it though.

I’d be amazed if Bangladesh didn’t have a discretion to deny citizenship by descent based on some kind of fit & proper person criteria - most countries do

i feel very uncomfortable denying citizenship to someone based on a decision they made as a child. Doesn’t seem right to me. 

@Marlborough 20:16

"Has she actually committed any crimes? Or do you believe saying some nasty things about western civilisation and spending some time in the Middle East is now a criminal offence."

Obviously we won't know for sure unless and until she is charged and tried and the Jury reaches a verdict.  BUT a good place to look for potential crimes would be Chapter 1 of the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019, amending the Terrorism Act 2000:

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/3/contents/enacted  

S. (1) Deals with expressions of support for a proscribed organisation and I think ISIS is proscribed.  

S. (4) Deals with entering a designated area and I think a large part of Syria is so designated.  

S. (5) Deals with encouraging terrorism.  

On the evidence of her various recent utterances, some of them aired on national TV, she is not going to find it easy to get acquitted on those charges.  

 

Continuing on the crimes, there's a transcript of an interview with her in the Mirror:-

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/shamima-begum-full-transcript-int…

I particularly like this bit:

"Did you know what Islamic State were doing when you left for Syria? Because they had beheaded people. There were executions.

Yeah, I knew about those things and I was okay with it. Because, you know, I started becoming religious just before I left.

From what I heard, Islamically that is all allowed. So I was okay with it."   

There is also a long passage where she dwells not on the fact that she did not DO bad things but on the fact that the UK cannot PROVE she did them.  In my view this is a dead giveaway.  

Whatever the legal rights and wrongs we are just pouring oil onto the flames of IS persuading impressionable converts that muslims are clearly persecuted and discriminated against.

Fear not, The Sun has already tried and convicted her on the basis of her body language. Phew.

The UK made her, the UK should have to deal with her.

Bangladesh should revoke her citizenship (or pass legislation making her ineligible for citizenship). If she's stateless, guess which country's decision to revoke her citizenship will be challenged?