Shamina Begum Back In The UK.

[Seanm]

Sorry for spoiling things with facts.

The fact is that it's extremely contested, and that was not the case with Letts. The whole thing is, legally, highly contested, because legislation is moving fast and ministers are using powers that once were merely theoretical. Unless you're a legal absolutist this particular fact doesn't resolve matters.

 

[Seeker_UK]

The fact is that it's extremely contested, and that was not the case with Letts. The whole thing is, legally, highly contested, because legislation is moving fast and ministers are using powers that once were merely theoretical. Unless you're a legal absolutist this particular fact doesn't resolve matters.

It's got stuff all to do with fast moving legislation. It's contested because the Bangladeshi government chose to ignore their own Citizenship Act of 1951 for political reasons. There's politics at play here, and I know it doesn't fit your Weltanschauung, but it's not exclusively the UK at it.

 

[zarniwoop]

She was born and raised in the UK. She has never even visited Bangladesh. It's absurd to expect them to take responsibility for her.

 

[Seeker_UK]

She was born and raised in the UK. She has never even visited Bangladesh. It's absurd to expect them to take responsibility for her.

I agree. What I am taking issue with is the idea that she doesn't have Bangladeshi citizenship and that somehow the UK Government is making it up to get shot of her.

 

[Seanm]

It's got stuff all to do with fast moving legislation. It's contested because the Bangladeshi government chose to ignore their own Citizenship Act of 1951 for political reasons. There's politics at play here, and I know it doesn't fit your Weltanschauung, but it's not exclusively the UK at it.

Did I say it was? Your point here just seems to be “Well, you would say that!”

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

I agree. What I am taking issue with is the idea that she doesn't have Bangladeshi citizenship and that somehow the UK Government is making it up to get shot of her.

She may have it, in law, but if the Bangladeshi government won’t acknowledge it and honour it, then in the real world, she doesn’t. What then?

 

[Seeker_UK]

Did I say it was? Your point here just seems to be “Well, you would say that!”

Your replies suggest you have trouble accepting the conclusion of a UK court. It cuts across your dogma of 'UK Government evil / at fault'.

So yeah, you would say that.

 

[Seeker_UK]

She may have it, in law,

At least one person here acknowledges it (sorta).

but if the Bangladeshi government won’t acknowledge it and honour it, then in the real world, she doesn’t. What then?

What happens in any other case where a country takes a course of action that goes against international law? Genuine question - I can't imagine this is the first time it's happened.

For her, personally, she can appeal. Which, AIUI is exactly what's going on.

 

[Seanm]

Your replies suggest you have trouble accepting the conclusion of a UK court. It cuts across your dogma of 'UK Government evil / at fault'.

So yeah, you would say that.

I just don’t think of every legal judgment as absolute and final, and I don’t think they neutralise the politics that surround them.

But why is this about me? I’m not speculating about what’s driving your take on this.

 

[Seeker_UK]

I just don’t think of every legal judgment as absolute and final,

Nor do I but the judgement as it stands at the moment is quite clear.

and I don’t think they neutralise the politics that surround them.

Agreed, there is a lot of debate still around this complex issue. However, unless I misunderstand yours and Drood's POV (and sorry if I have), the decision on her nationality has been made free from political influence.

 

[droodzilla]

Nor do I but the judgement as it stands at the moment is quite clear.



Agreed, there is a lot of debate still around this complex issue. However, unless I misunderstand yours and Drood's POV (and sorry if I have), the decision on her nationality has been made free from political influence.

My main concern is the decision, taken by Sajid Javid, to deprive her of UK citizenship in the first place. It smacks of playing to the racist gallery (where there are plenty of votes) and sends a terrible message to any UK citizen with dual citizenship (or the option of citizenship elsewhere). If I were in that category, I'd feel very worried right now.

For me, the question of Bangladeshi citizenship (whether the Supreme Court made the correct decision or not) is largely secondary to this fundamental point which is about racism, and the potentially arbitrary exercise of power by the executive branch of government. It is another step on the UK's journey to becoming a far-right, authoritarian state.

 

[Seeker_UK]

My main concern is the decision, taken by Sajid Javid, to deprive her of UK citizenship in the first place. It smacks of playing to the racist gallery (where there are plenty of votes) and sends a terrible message to any UK citizen with dual citizenship (or the option of citizenship elsewhere). If I were in that category, I'd feel very worried right now.

For fear of getting into "if you've done nothing wrong, you've nothing to fear" territory, the one thing none of us know is the specifics of what the Home Secretary was told that made him decide on such an extreme course of action. So, yes, it might be for the reason you suggest but conversely, it may also be explained as a decision simply to prevent a current and future risk to the UK from ever coming back.

For me, the question of Bangladeshi citizenship (whether the Supreme Court made the correct decision or not) is largely secondary to this fundamental point which is about racism, and the potentially arbitrary exercise of power by the executive branch of government. It is another step on the UK's journey to becoming a far-right, authoritarian state.

But she can appeal the decision. Having an elected politician's actions challenged and subjected to the judiciary's testing is not the stuff that authoritarian states are made of.

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

But she can appeal the decision. Having an elected politician's actions challenged and subjected to the judiciary's testing is not the stuff that authoritarian states are made of.

She is alone, in a refugee camp with extremely limited facilities, thousands of miles away. How realistic is it that she manages a successful appeal, would you say?

Don't forget, this is the government that last week tried to out-spend the Good Law Project and force them to drop their judicial review into dodgy PPE procurement processes. You think they couldn't/wouldn't do the same in any appeal about her citizenship if the politics required it? Shen may be supported by a charity, I hope and believe she probably is but, as with all charities, they almost certainly have strictly limited resources. Easy to outgun them, if you're a government.

 

[Joe Hutch]

As someone once said 'The doors of justice, like the doors of the Ritz Hotel, are open to everyone'.

 

[White Zombie]

My main concern is the decision, taken by Sajid Javid, to deprive her of UK citizenship in the first place. It smacks of playing to the racist gallery (where there are plenty of votes) and sends a terrible message to any UK citizen with dual citizenship (or the option of citizenship elsewhere). If I were in that category, I'd feel very worried right now.

For me, the question of Bangladeshi citizenship (whether the Supreme Court made the correct decision or not) is largely secondary to this fundamental point which is about racism, and the potentially arbitrary exercise of power by the executive branch of government. It is another step on the UK's journey to becoming a far-right, authoritarian state.

It's not racism to not want someone who's passed their ISIS basic training course back into the country. Why is that so difficult to comprehend. Must everything be about racism that isn't there.

"sends a terrible message to ANY UK citizen with dual citizenship" Any UK Citizen? really? I'd say it sends a message to any UK citizen with dual citizenship who decides to book a holiday in a terrorist training camp. I think if they keep their holidays to maybe a week in Tenerife or taking the kids to Florida they'll be fine. I doubt any of these people are worried.

Of all those stripped of their citizenship I think their skin colour is irrelevant I think the most common denominator will be their penchant for serious crime and terrorism.

 

[Tony L]

<moderating>

Just a word of caution/clarification of the AUP: right-wing racists, xenophobes, ethnic nationalists etc are absolutely not welcome on this website. If you are such a bigot, please leave before the inevitable ban arrives.

pfm is an anti-racist/anti-fascist website and will always be moderated accordingly.

 

[stevec67]

I agree. What I am taking issue with is the idea that she doesn't have Bangladeshi citizenship and that somehow the UK Government is making it up to get shot of her.

She may have it, in law, but if the Bangladeshi government won’t acknowledge it and honour it, then in the real world, she doesn’t. What then?

She does not have Bangladeshi citizenship. She has the right to apply for it based on her family history. This is not the same thing.

 

[Seeker_UK]

She is alone, in a refugee camp with extremely limited facilities, thousands of miles away. How realistic is it that she manages a successful appeal, would you say?

I don't know, but I assume her appointed representation will be present in any UK appeal hearing.

Don't forget, this is the government that last week tried to out-spend the Good Law Project and force them to drop their judicial review into dodgy PPE procurement processes. You think they couldn't/wouldn't do the same in any appeal about her citizenship if the politics required it? Shen may be supported by a charity, I hope and believe she probably is but, as with all charities, they almost certainly have strictly limited resources. Easy to outgun them, if you're a government.

I think that she will get a lot of support when it matters. There is a lot riding on this case; it is an important one for both 'sides' to win.

 

[Cesare]

She may have it, in law, but if the Bangladeshi government won’t acknowledge it and honour it, then in the real world, she doesn’t. What then?

This is all a distortion. I think the implication is that she is eligible for Bandledeshi citizenship - she has to apply for it, not that she has dual citizenship which is what is being implied.

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

She does not have Bangladeshi citizenship. She has the right to apply for it based on her family history. This is not the same thing.

There's a good legal piece upthread. Apparently she 'does' have it, by right, and no need to apply. But the Bangladeshi government is apparently telling her to do one.