Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

Shamima Begum.. IS Teenage Defector wants to return

245 posts in this topic

3 hours ago, MadAxeMurderer said:

 

Well personally I would prefer to see "monsters" locked up in a nice secure jail (paid for by Brexit profits ;) 

 

I would hope they serve their sentence before being deported.  

 

If a country is willing to give a person nationality then I'm of the opinion they should be willing to deal with the mess. I have no problem with Somalia or Bangladesh (the countries you and gman mentioned) stripping the people in question of their citizenship, but if they dont then I can't see why they shouldn't expect to deal with them. 

Same as the UK, if we allow them to remain British then they should  retain the right to stay and everything else that goes with it.

 

Quite why anyone is defending the rights of terrorists to have dual nationality is beyond me.  

4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, zwiebelfisch said:

 

Quite why anyone is defending the rights of terrorists to have dual nationality is beyond me.  


See, here is the problem. You defend the rights of people because they are rights. The less you like them, the more you need to put grit into your defense of their rights. Rights mean nothing if they can be taken away from people you don't like. Denaturalization/stripping of citizenship is a deep denial of responsibility to maintain the rule of law in the very cases you need to maintain the rule of law for, which is precisely the cases you abhor.  In this case, it's also a transparent attempt to dump a British problem on someone else.

 

It's nearly effortless to speak up for the rights of people most people like or feel sympathy for, etc, etc.  The rights that matter are of those whom you hate. And yes, that goes for Nazis and white supremacists too.  Anders Breivik murdered, what, 80 people or more?  Something like that.  But he deserves to be treated humanely in jail, and yes, even to sue in court for better video games or whatever unsuccessful stunt he recently pulled.

8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-47312207

 

Bangladesh washes its hands.  It does not see her as a citizen, and by the way, it is not party to the convention against statelessness.  This is entirely logical -- the arrogance of thinking that Bangladesh would, for some reason, agree to be the dumping ground for a British (and possibly Dutch) problem that ended up in Syria.

4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Far right white UK patriots, "We need to do something about these Asian grooming gangs"

"What you mean like what ISIS did to Shamima Begum?"

Far right white UK patriots, "No, that's not the type we meant".

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Eupathic Impulse said:

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-47312207

 

Bangladesh washes its hands.  It does not see her as a citizen, and by the way, it is not party to the convention against statelessness.  This is entirely logical -- the arrogance of thinking that Bangladesh would, for some reason, agree to be the dumping ground for a British (and possibly Dutch) problem that ended up in Syria.

 

That's what I thought:

 

I highly suspect the Netherlands will also wash their hands of allowing citizenship for her through her Dutch husband. I don't feel sympathy for her as she thinks the British public should feel for her. Even if she was a naive schoolgirl when she made the decision to join ISIS, she made her bed and now has to lie in it. She says she made a mistake, but it's also perceivable that if ISIS had turned out to be successful in their endeavour to establish ruling the whole Islamic world, she would still be one of those supporting them and I doubt she would feel sympathy for the victims of ISIS oppression, probably never did while ISIS was on the upswing in Syria. 

 

I suspect Britain will have to revoke their revocation of her British citizenship as bitter as it is. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, zwiebelfisch said:

I would hope they serve their sentence before being deported.  

 

If a country is willing to give a person nationality then I'm of the opinion they should be willing to deal with the mess. I have no problem with Somalia or Bangladesh (the countries you and gman mentioned) stripping the people in question of their citizenship, but if they dont then I can't see why they shouldn't expect to deal with them. 

Same as the UK, if we allow them to remain British then they should  retain the right to stay and everything else that goes with it.

 

Quite why anyone is defending the rights of terrorists to have dual nationality is beyond me.  

 

EI pretty much covered it already. But the fact is that there is a 100% born and raised British citizen in a Syrian refugee camp right now.

Would you agree it is not fair on Syria for her to stay there?

So if not there, then she needs to go somewhere else. She is British (fact). She may technically be Bangladeshi, although she has never been there and they have never heard of her. She may also have a claim to Dutch citizenship via her husband.

 

So the options are:

1) Syrias problem

2) Britains problem

3) Bangladesh problem

4) Dutch problem

 

Which one is the fairest?

 

That's it, that's what we are talking about here. I don't like it, but that's the facts. Even regardless of defending rights (see EI's comments on that), there is a problem to be solved and the facts lead me to think it's fairest that Britain is the one to solve it..

4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Netherlands can probably avoid giving citizenship to her, but the child likely has entitlement to Dutch citizenship via his father, assuming that the Netherlands recognizes her husband's paternity.  Her husband may even be dead now (picked up by SDF, but is precisely the sort of person they'd take to the firing squad), but I don't know what happens when there is a plausibly Dutch child whose probable father is not alive to attest.

 

The larger issue is the dark attractiveness of violent, intolerant movements of various stripes to (some) young people in developed countries.  There's an underlying psychological yearning for the "Authentic" Life that Western (and other) societies do not easily address, that is not addressed by planting trees or saving the whales or helping the homeless or whatnot.

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ironically, if things had turned out differently and she were living comfortably enough while keeping heads in the dustbin, the mood in the UK would be for bringing her back to face justice.

 

 

4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, theGman said:

 

EI pretty much covered it already. But the fact is that there is a 100% born and raised British citizen in a Syrian refugee camp right now.

Would you agree it is not fair on Syria for her to stay there?

So if not there, then she needs to go somewhere else. She is British (fact). She may technically be Bangladeshi, although she has never been there and they have never heard of her. She may also have a claim to Dutch citizenship via her husband.

 

So the options are:

1) Syrias problem

2) Britains problem

3) Bangladesh problem

4) Dutch problem

 

Which one is the fairest?

 

That's it, that's what we are talking about here. I don't like it, but that's the facts. Even regardless of defending rights (see EI's comments on that), there is a problem to be solved and the facts lead me to think it's fairest that Britain is the one to solve it..

 

The UK/British Empire can screwed up the middle east so much in the past and their actions have lead to so many wars in the region, that another screw up in this area is minor!!

 

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, just to be clear, I'm not sympathetic to her. I think she's scum.

 

Now imagine your neigbour had a dog that liked to bite children. And it was illegal to kill this endangered breed of dog.

 

Would you prefer if he kept the dog chained in his yard (in prison in the UK) or let it free in the woods (in Syria).

 

I'm not saying bring her back to UK out of compassion but out of responsibility.

6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, MadAxeMurderer said:

I'm not saying bring her back to UK out of compassion but out of responsibility.

 

This. That's all it is.

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Eupathic Impulse said:

The Netherlands can probably avoid giving citizenship to her, but the child likely has entitlement to Dutch citizenship via his father, assuming that the Netherlands recognizes her husband's paternity.  Her husband may even be dead now (picked up by SDF, but is precisely the sort of person they'd take to the firing squad), but I don't know what happens when there is a plausibly Dutch child whose probable father is not alive to attest.

 

 

I had a look:

 

If the child had a Dutch father and non-dutch mother than the child has to be acknowledged to the Dutch authorities before birth.  There is also a process for doing this afterwards, but it of course takes longer.  I assume that they would also accept DNA evidence in the event of death, but that of course might be difficult to do and is not stated!

 

 

But it seems that you can only get Dutch nationality via marriage if you have been married for at least 3 years and been resident in the Netherlands ( Aruba, Curaçao or Sint Maarten )  for at least 15 years uninterrupted!

 

 

 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, dj_jay_smith said:

 

I had a look:

 

If the child had a Dutch father and non-dutch mother than the child has to be acknowledged to the Dutch authorities before birth.  There is also a process for doing this afterwards, but it of course takes longer.  I assume that they would also accept DNA evidence in the event of death, but that of course might be difficult to do and is not stated!

 

But it seems that you can only get Dutch nationality via marriage if you have been married for at least 3 years and been resident in the Netherlands ( Aruba, Curaçao or Sint Maarten )  for at least 15 years uninterrupted!

 

My link here says you need to have been married for 3 years to apply and don't even need to have lived in the Netherlands during that time.  If you lived in the Netherlands, you may also count time that you lived together before you were married.  However, I am not sure if they were married for 3 years or if time in marriage counts if she was underage.  It may be very difficult to apply for citizenship based on marriage if the husband is not available to support her application, let alone if he has possibly died, as well as criminality and having been a member of a terrorist group would likely prevent her from being granted citizenship there anyway. 

 

The 15 years you refer to seem to be if someone wants to apply for an "option" rather than "naturalization".  I guess the option is a quicker or easier way to acquire citizenship.

 

According to what I have read, UK decision to revoke her citizenship may have been a bit dubious as she is a born citizen and does not have Bangladesh citizenship or passport although she may have the right to apply for it.  If she were to apply for it, Bangladesh authorities have officially said that they wouldn't grant it.  So it's a question of if she could force it if she really wanted it.  I do not know if Bangladesh citizenship law has a clause to stop citizenship being granted to children due to criminality or terrorism but in any case, if she must apply for it and doesn't, she will lose that chance in 2 years and become stateless.  As far as I can see, she can not just be sent there currently because she is not a citizen.  Still, amazing to see her change of opinion over the past couple of days going from that she doesn't regret anything to admitting that she made a big mistake.

 

As for the baby, if he was born before her UK citizenship was revoked, he would likely be a UK citizen.

 

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LeonG said:

 

My link here says you need to have been married for 3 years to apply and don't even need to have lived in the Netherlands during that time.  If you lived in the Netherlands, you may also count time that you lived together before you were married.  However, I am not sure if they were married for 3 years or if time in marriage counts if she was underage.  It may be very difficult to apply for citizenship based on marriage if the husband is not available to support her application, let alone if he has possibly died, as well as criminality and having been a member of a terrorist group would likely prevent her from being granted citizenship there anyway. 

 

The 15 years you refer to seem to be if someone wants to apply for an "option" rather than "naturalization".  I guess the option is a quicker or easier way to acquire citizenship.

 

 

 

Yes I see what you mean.  I did not find these exceptions when I looked it up.  

This would reduce the amount of time needed to live in NL.  But she would still have to meet the other conditions which means speaking, reading and writing Dutch, taking the exam, having a valid Dutch residency permit (so she has to already be living in NL).

And importantly have not been convicted or sentenced to a conditional discharge in the Netherlands or abroad for a crime within 5 years before applying.  This looks unlikely to be the case (although is is not yet!).

 

 

 

1 hour ago, LeonG said:

 

... as she is a born citizen and does not have Bangladesh citizenship or passport although she may have the right to apply for it.  ...

 

 

 

As I said before, under Bangladeshi citizenship law she already has Bangladeshi citizenship because at least one of her parents was Bangladeshi.  So she does not have to apply for anything, she had it since birth through her parents.  She probably however does not have a Bangladeshi passport.

 

So the UK could renounce her UK citizenship because she is a dual national.  And then in theory the Bangladeshi authorities could renounce her Bangladeshi citizenship, because they don't care about making her stateless.  But if the Bangladeshi authorities did this first, then the UK can't renounce her UK citizenship because the UK signed up to the UN(?) agreement about not making people stateless.

 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This cannot be the first time someone has "come back" from IS.  What did we do with the rest of them?  Are they all in Gitmo?  (honestly I have no idea what happened to them).

 

Is there any reason that whatever we did with them shouldnt apply to everyone else, including Shamima?

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, dj_jay_smith said:

 

So the UK could renounce her UK citizenship because she is a dual national.  And then in theory the Bangladeshi authorities could renounce her Bangladeshi citizenship, because they don't care about making her stateless.  But if the Bangladeshi authorities did this first, then the UK can't renounce her UK citizenship because the UK signed up to the UN(?) agreement about not making people stateless.

 

Bangladesh, as I understand it, does not agree that she ever had Bangladeshi citizenship.  If she has a legal right to it, she may have to sue in a Bangladeshi court. Until then, she would be stateless.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Eupathic Impulse said:

 

Bangladesh, as I understand it, does not agree that she ever had Bangladeshi citizenship.  If she has a legal right to it, she may have to sue in a Bangladeshi court. Until then, she would be stateless.

 

Ah, selective application of the law!  

Then they would have to change their law, or as you said she would have to sue to enforce it.

 

Jus sanguinis

Bangladeshi citizenship is provided primarily jus sanguinis, or through bloodline, irrespectively of the place or legitimacy of the birth.[2] Therefore, any person born to a Bangladeshi woman [even] illegitimately outside Bangladeshi soil would still be a Bangladeshi citizen, whereas a person born to two non-nationals in Bangladesh would not.

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a couple of things before a Dutch scenario can be considered.

 

Has the marriage between her and her husband has to be recognized? Marriages performed by a caliphate not recognized as a state? Not likely.
If yes, the child is his and therefore Dutch. Paperwork has to be filed, should have been filed by now, but can probably still be filed.

If no, the father has to claim parenthood in paperwork. Doing this now will be a significantly longer journey. 

Is the father still Dutch? They've been revoking citizenship of people that have traveled to Syria. The husband is currently on the terrorist watchlist.

 

Anyway, this is for her child to be Dutch.

Asylum based on family re-unification requires the non-child applicant to be 21 years old.

 

So . . . . couple of steps away from the Dutch having to deal with the mother. And separating mother/daughter isn't really something that's high on anyone's list of desirable outcome.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, zwiebelfisch said:

This cannot be the first time someone has "come back" from IS.  What did we do with the rest of them?  Are they all in Gitmo?  (honestly I have no idea what happened to them).

 

Is there any reason that whatever we did with them shouldnt apply to everyone else, including Shamima?

 

You're right, it's not the first time, according to Home office reports approximately 400 have returned.

 

Quote

 

Most of the individuals who have returned to the UK have been interviewed by the security services to establish what they experienced, the risk they may pose and the prospects for a safe resettlement.

Where an individual has not committed an offence - or there is not a public interest to prosecute - they may be put into a deradicalisation programme, which can include intensive mentoring and support from psychologists.

 

The Home Office told the BBC that around 400 had come back. Source

 

 

Personal opinions aside, this isn't solely about Shamima Begun this is about the political future of Sajid Javid.

 

The Gaurdian newspaper just about sums it up.
 

Quote

 

One of the things that sets Britain apart from a terrorist organisation like Isis is that we are a liberal democracy and subscribe to the rule of law. We understand that we have not just legal, but moral, international obligations. What signal does it send, not just to Isis sympathisers but to other unsavoury regimes around the world, that Britain is prepared to dump its values when it suits a cabinet minister who has the premiership in sight? What does it say about us that we are prepared see an innocent baby who is a British citizen by descent suffer for the crimes his mother may have committed?

 

It’s a depressing state of affairs. A Conservative party – that holds itself up as the party of law and order – weakening national security because it suits the political ambitions of one of its most senior MPs. Sajid Javid 1, liberal democracy 0. Shame on him for putting himself on the wrong side of the fight.

 

 

 

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, bramble said:

I suspect Britain will have to revoke their revocation of her British citizenship as bitter as it is. 

 

 Why is it bitter? She is a UK problem, and the UK should have to deal with her. Whether she wants to or not, that is what should happen.

 

3 hours ago, MadAxeMurderer said:

I'm not saying bring her back to UK out of compassion but out of responsibility.

This.

 

It only becomes bitter if she ends up not being convicted of anything, and not going to jail. That would indeed be a bitter pill. We have to trust, hard though that is, that the UK courts will see justice done.  It has to be fair and just, that really is crucial. Hopefully that includes a prison sentence for her, and that the baby will not be brought up by her, but that part is for the courts to decide, rightly.

 

Why people think she should be left where she is to get away with what she has done is beyond me. Simply living miserably in a refugee camp is not justice being done. The vast majority of people living like that have done nothing wrong at all, and their misery should not be seen as a just sentence for crimes.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0