It's just about the right size for a Battle Royale map, isnt it.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
UK Supreme Court: Shamima Begum should not be allowed to return to the UK to pursue an appeal against the removal of her British citizenship
- Thread starter Deleted member 16516
- Start date
This was a lot politer than what I had to say about this decision. Truly monstrous ruling from the Supreme Court, the Government flashes a bit of 'muh national security' at them and suddenly they're all in favour of allowing the Government to strip us of fundamental rights.
A court ruling that the government is able to remove the citizenship rights to someone unilaterally is disgusting and dangerous. A citizenship should be something only a citizen can choose to give away (and evem then some situations such as Japan forcing you to choose citizenship are bad).
The fact that this also makes someone stateless just is the cherry on top of the giant turd.
There are more dangerous ex ISIL people on the UK and they decided to draw the line on a brown woman that was a minor when she left.
The fact that this also makes someone stateless just is the cherry on top of the giant turd.
There are more dangerous ex ISIL people on the UK and they decided to draw the line on a brown woman that was a minor when she left.
Yup, if a country can do this to any group is disagrees with ....what if the ruling class is so corrupt and begins to weaponize this power to get rid of its enemies wow
Been a while since I looked up the details but she was:
(1) Born here
(2) Educated here
(3) Radicalised while a minor
(4) Left while a minor (along with two other girls)
(5) All three of her children died as infants
(6) Lost her British citizenship despite not having citizenship to another country
(7) Can possibly get citinzeship in Bangladesh, but has never been there
She has allegedly done some pretty awful things and obviously joined an awful organisation, but there is literally nothing she could have done that would justify us disowning her. She is quite clearly our responsibility.
same country where the government in charge will never be held accountable for the 200,000+ deaths of UK citizens via austerity and covid cronyism.
I didn't think any court would uphold something like this.
I guess I was wrong.
This is so fucked up. She was literally a child who was radicalized. Even if she wasn't a child when she left, this is an awful precedent to set against your own citizens who were BORN IN YOUR COUNTRY. I'm sorry, I'm so angry at this I am not great with putting my thoughts into words.
Gross. She was a child who was clearly groomed and brainwashed into their cult. If this was her going to some sex trafficking ring and being convinced to help them then she would be labelled a victim. But because she's a Muslim suddenly it's ok to just throw her out and let it be someone elses problem.
What if she can help security forces stop at least one more person being groomed due to her having gone through it.
Even if she would be arrested immediately when on UK soil, she should receive a fair trial.
None of this sits right with me and the amount of racism I've seen around it today is unsettling.
What if she can help security forces stop at least one more person being groomed due to her having gone through it.
Even if she would be arrested immediately when on UK soil, she should receive a fair trial.
None of this sits right with me and the amount of racism I've seen around it today is unsettling.
The Bangladeshi government pretty much said this in response - how would it feel if another country left a foreign terrorism suspect on your doorstep and smugly told you it was your problem now and you had to let them in.
...and that's before even getting into the neo-colonial optics of "dumping" our own problems on a country in the global south, when they had nothing to do with it.
Yup, thanks to this wonderful government, even if you're a second/third generation Briton, you've not got that super-deluxe platinum-tier citizenship because the government can just strip it away on a whim if they vaguely think you can apply for another passport.
Last edited:
I think what went against her in the decision was that interview she did in 2019. She said she wasn't fazed by seeing beheaded heads in bins and she doesn't regret her decision.
Makes you wonder if she was white, you think they would take her citizenship away even if born in the country? Don't get me wrong, she joined ISIS(although she was groomed) and didn't really have good answers when they questioned her, but it's pretty telling IMO.
Disgusting reading the local rag (paper for those non UK) paper comments today, most of them pretty much hate anyone not white so shouldn't be shocked. She should return as stated and face the consequences via the legal system if that is what she chooses.
It has actually happened:
Jack Letts - Wikipedia
Although in that instance, the individual did certainly have another nationality (Canadian).
"On 18 August 2019 it was reported that the British government had revoked Letts' British citizenship. However, the Home Office declined to comment on the case. In response, Canadian Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale described the move as a "unilateral action to off-load [the UK's consular] responsibilities," leaving Canada responsible for further diplomatic assistance for Letts."
I'm so bothered by this decision.
It's easy to expect a government to push this agenda as an appeal to the populism. The Supreme Court should've been "Nah, you had your fun."
This decision undermines the basic foundation of a nation's duty and rights to its citizens replacing this sovereignty with something based on convenience and cosmetics. They devalued their own citizenship. One of the consequences of racism is that all values become skindeep.
It's easy to expect a government to push this agenda as an appeal to the populism. The Supreme Court should've been "Nah, you had your fun."
This decision undermines the basic foundation of a nation's duty and rights to its citizens replacing this sovereignty with something based on convenience and cosmetics. They devalued their own citizenship. One of the consequences of racism is that all values become skindeep.
It's almost as if having a EU court on human rights would stop the tories doing a lot of fucked up things and judges allowing them to break international law to do so. The claim that she can get citizenship to another country means jack shit because she doesn't have that and right now she is stateless unless that other place agrees to it, and as far as I know they also have said she wouldn't be able to have it. So this is the case of the UK breaking International law and nothing being done about it. Once again International law doesn't mean much when a well off connected nation decides to break it, but if a bunch of other poorer countries decided to remove citizenship of everyone currently awaiting deportation from the UK then suddenly there would be a huge issue about it. This ruling is fucking disgusting.
It doesn't make sense because let's say she managed to find herself in another country who do people think would be responsible for her at that point? She's not Syrian.
stripping away the circumstances surrounding this case do we just dump people in other countries because we don't like them now.
Bangladesh said they wouldn't take her either, so she'd have to apply somewhere for citizenship if our government still says no. The problem is, who'd take a woman that has willingly engaged in terrorist activity and sewn bomb vests on people so they could never remove them?
I'm not even sure if she ever renounced or even apologised what she did. It's a bit of a hard sell, taking on a woman that still hates your country and believes it should burn to the ground and that every man, woman and child that doesn't convert to Islam must die.
I can't really blame my government for not wanting her back but I would prefer she was brought here, sentenced and charged appropriately for her crimes. I still think she's our responsibility.
I think this is the key. She is UK responsibility. That may mean jailing her for the rest of her life, if that's what the laws require, but to strip her of something like a citizenship when she is absolutely a naturally born brit is crazy towns to me, wow.
I get were you're coming from, but the truth is that so many ppl hate their country, and many more are willing to do radical things to prove their point (see Capitol riot) but you cannot tell someone, because you're willing to do crazy things or have done crazy things we abdicate responsibility and remove rights that should be guaranteed at birth. Why? Because if the wrong groups of ppl come into power, what is to stop them from doing this to their "enemies"? Anyway, what do I know, I'm not even a UK citizen.
It's my understanding that the woman was a 15 year old girl when she originally left to join, am I mixing her up with someone else?
Like I said, I still believe they should bring her back regardless of how much I can see why they won't. She's our responsibility and the government failed her when they didn't take appropriate steps to prevent the radicalisation of teenagers. Wiping their hands of her achieves nothing and benefits nobody.
I'm sure it feels better to not let her back in but doing the right thing is more important than that. I'm not saying she deserves a second chance or that we should feel sympathy for her, but a parent doesn't throw their kid out because they're a disappointment. Well, they do but they shouldn't.
I'd rather she spent the rest of her life in a prison here than the rest of her life as a drifter in a foreign country.
They tried something similar in the US with the 'American Taliban' dude
www.politico.com
Trump officials pushing to strip convicted terrorists of citizenship
Critics fear a dangerous new front in how the legal system treats naturalized U.S. citizens convicted of terrorism offenses.
www.politico.com
I suppose by this logic they can strip Prince Andrew of his citizenship and trundle him off to Germany?
Google the figure for Julian Assanges Police surveillance something like £15Million.
It's a very poor decision in my eyes - she was groomed as a child in the UK so it's their responsibility
I couldn't agree more. No home secretary should have the right to strip a natural born citizen of their nationality, and our attempt to wash our hands of her is both a dangerous precedent and a huge abdication of responsibility
This is my view on the matter too. Bring her home and throw the book at her.
The more I think about this judgement the angrier I get about it. There's a level of deference to executive decision making that frankly abdicates the entire judiciary's role in protecting us from executive overreach.
The original judgement of SIAC was that Begum could play no reasonable part in her appeal against the decision to deprive her of her citizenship, meaning she couldn't possibly have a fair trial. SIAC suggested a stay in proceedings until Begum could play a part, but the Court of Appeal rightly (in my view) rejected that argument as essentially preventing her from appealing for an indefinite period of time, as who knows when public safety concerns about her presence in the UK would lessen. The Court of Appeal also rightly (in my view) said that any national security concerns raised by her presence in the UK could be dealt with, either by her being arrested or a TPIM order placing restrictions on her movements and contacts. You know, basically balancing the right to a fair trial against the public safety concerns. It's a court presenting a solution to a knotty problem.
The Supreme Court today decided that, nah, a stay in proceedings was fine, and Begum would just have to wait. It's not only defeatist in it's attitude to the problem the Court of Appeal solved, but says the courts shouldn't even attempt to balance those issues, but should rather just accept the executive's decision and views on the face of it. It then goes even worse, and says that SIAC shouldn't even take a full look at the original decision to deprive Begum of her citizenship, as the Court of Appeal wants, but should only ask if it was 'unreasonable' of the Home Secretary to make the decision. That there is the Wednesbury unreasonableness provision coming back into fashion, namely the idea that an administrative decision can only be corrected if it was 'So outrageous in its defiance of logic or accepted moral standards that no sensible person who had applied his mind to the question to be decided could have arrived at it.' This gives the Home Secretary incredible latitude when deciding to deprive anyone of citizenship.
Regrettably, because this decision was unanimous, we don't even have a Lord Atkin dissent. Here's what he said during WW2 in a famous case about executive overreach. 'It has always been one of the pillars of freedom, one of the principles of liberty for which on recent authority we are now fighting, that the judges are no respecters of persons, and stand between the subject and any attempted encroachments on his liberty by the executive, alert to see that any coercive action is justified in law.'
There, as we have now, the courts deferred entirely to the executive the moment 'national security' got mentioned. It's a shamefully illiberal decision and one I hope is viewed as grossly misguided in future.
The original judgement of SIAC was that Begum could play no reasonable part in her appeal against the decision to deprive her of her citizenship, meaning she couldn't possibly have a fair trial. SIAC suggested a stay in proceedings until Begum could play a part, but the Court of Appeal rightly (in my view) rejected that argument as essentially preventing her from appealing for an indefinite period of time, as who knows when public safety concerns about her presence in the UK would lessen. The Court of Appeal also rightly (in my view) said that any national security concerns raised by her presence in the UK could be dealt with, either by her being arrested or a TPIM order placing restrictions on her movements and contacts. You know, basically balancing the right to a fair trial against the public safety concerns. It's a court presenting a solution to a knotty problem.
The Supreme Court today decided that, nah, a stay in proceedings was fine, and Begum would just have to wait. It's not only defeatist in it's attitude to the problem the Court of Appeal solved, but says the courts shouldn't even attempt to balance those issues, but should rather just accept the executive's decision and views on the face of it. It then goes even worse, and says that SIAC shouldn't even take a full look at the original decision to deprive Begum of her citizenship, as the Court of Appeal wants, but should only ask if it was 'unreasonable' of the Home Secretary to make the decision. That there is the Wednesbury unreasonableness provision coming back into fashion, namely the idea that an administrative decision can only be corrected if it was 'So outrageous in its defiance of logic or accepted moral standards that no sensible person who had applied his mind to the question to be decided could have arrived at it.' This gives the Home Secretary incredible latitude when deciding to deprive anyone of citizenship.
Regrettably, because this decision was unanimous, we don't even have a Lord Atkin dissent. Here's what he said during WW2 in a famous case about executive overreach. 'It has always been one of the pillars of freedom, one of the principles of liberty for which on recent authority we are now fighting, that the judges are no respecters of persons, and stand between the subject and any attempted encroachments on his liberty by the executive, alert to see that any coercive action is justified in law.'
There, as we have now, the courts deferred entirely to the executive the moment 'national security' got mentioned. It's a shamefully illiberal decision and one I hope is viewed as grossly misguided in future.
The British throwing their hands up after causing chaos around the world and not taking responsibility for its citizens ? Well color me surprised.
Fuck the British government, the racist public(an awful lot people agree with this decision) and fuck this imperialist mindset. You can't just throw your mess to other countries and wash your fucking hands dipshits.
Fuck the British government, the racist public(an awful lot people agree with this decision) and fuck this imperialist mindset. You can't just throw your mess to other countries and wash your fucking hands dipshits.
A ridiculous ruling delivered under the typically opaque and unexplained justification of "national security reasons".
That is simply not good enough!!!!
That is simply not good enough!!!!
I don't have much sympathy for Shamima Begum. She can rot in jail for a bit and then live her remaining life under constant surveillance and restriction for all I care. They should NOT take away her citizenship. Let her back in and arrest her immediately, then let the legal process play out.
Out of curiosity, if Begum was an American citizen how do y'all think the US would handle it?
Out of curiosity, if Begum was an American citizen how do y'all think the US would handle it?
I for one am slightly worried that a single girl in her early twenties is so terrifyingly overpowered that the United Kingdom does not have the military might to hold her in check should she enter the country. Prisons can not hold her, the police and army can not prevent her from using her evil Muslamic powers.
At some point the terrorists are going to weaponise a hen night and we'll all be doomed. :(
At some point the terrorists are going to weaponise a hen night and we'll all be doomed. :(
These laws are absolutely bullshit and against international laws in reguards to leaving people stateless.
If I was the leader of a country where this was used against me; I'd absolutely blow this the fuck up and smuggle the people back into their home country if I had to. I'd even leave them a handwritten note with a middle finger on it. Because it's absolutely bullshit.
If I was the leader of a country where this was used against me; I'd absolutely blow this the fuck up and smuggle the people back into their home country if I had to. I'd even leave them a handwritten note with a middle finger on it. Because it's absolutely bullshit.
Last edited:
We probably would have bombed her or sent her to Gitmo.
But it'd probably depend on the administration and political climate for us. We killed a US citizen abroad and it was really only the opposing party and the left who even took offense but I can just as easily see Republicans happily revoking citizenship in the future.
I don't know in her particular case but the GOP would have no issues in doing it for sure, democrats I don't know. For why I say the GOP would, they under trump tried and maybe even actually did remove citizenship from people. There was a whole time where the trump administration argued that a bunch of people who were born in the usa based on their birth certificates weren't born in the usa. They claimed that their birth certificates weren't legitimate because of something like suspecting the workers who documented the births lied decades ago. Basically tried to claim that a bunch of people born near the border of the usa and Mexico but on the usa side weren't born in the usa and weren't citizens due to that.
Don't know if it actually got through and didn't get stopped but they sure as shit tried and that was to people who weren't joining terror groups but were just not white enough for the GOP to be American.
In germany that was a common thing to do under the 3rd Reich. Now the constitution says a german citizenship, once attained, cannot be stripped away.
