UK-born Islamic State recruit can return from Syria to challenge citizenship removal

[stevenl]

2 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

This raises a very important issue, dealt with in magna carta:

 

The removal of citizenship and banishment of an individual for views/actions that are deemed unacceptable by the crown/executive.

 

I make no defense of her actions, but stripping people of their nationality and banishment was  frequently used prior to magna carta and for hundreds of years England and the UK had no use of stripping people of citizenship and banishment, relying rather on criminal justice before juries of the accused’s peer.

 

Now think of the hundreds of years to come, how British society might change and what ideas or actions might warrant stripping an individual of their citizenship and bannishment?!

 

This young woman should be subjected to the process of criminal justice, and should not be used as a precedent for stripping people of their most basic rights.

 

If left standing this precedent will be used against people fighting for the very rights and values Britain is founded on.

This judgement is not against her right to British citizenship, but against her right to appeal the decision to revoke that citizenship in country.

 

IMO a sensible decision. I think she has a right to British citizenship, but her presence in country for the appeal against the decision is not necessary.

Edited February 26, 2021 by stevenl

[polpott]

3 hours ago, Morch said:

 

I'm not versed in historical precedent. Are there many such cases of people aligning themselves with an enemy, change of heart when things don't go as planned, than ask to be taken into the fold once more? Also, as far as I understand, the issue decided was with regard to her returning to the UK to fight her case, not the matter of her revoked citizenship itself. She can still pursue legal action, but from abroad.

Which is exactly what is happening now. Made no sense for her to return before her right to citizenship was decided. However there was no legal justification to remove her citizenship in the first place.

[kingdong]

48 minutes ago, polpott said:

Which is exactly what is happening now. Made no sense for her to return before her right to citizenship was decided. However there was no legal justification to remove her citizenship in the first place.

She lost her citizenship due to legisation passed by the british government to protect british citizens( the law abiding variety) its just came through on the news the decision has been upheld,perhaps it,ll serve as a lesson to any other aspiring terrorist.

[kingdong]

6 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

This raises a very important issue, dealt with in magna carta:

 

The removal of citizenship and banishment of an individual for views/actions that are deemed unacceptable by the crown/executive.

 

I make no defense of her actions, but stripping people of their nationality and banishment was  frequently used prior to magna carta and for hundreds of years England and the UK had no use of stripping people of citizenship and banishment, relying rather on criminal justice before juries of the accused’s peer.

 

Now think of the hundreds of years to come, how British society might change and what ideas or actions might warrant stripping an individual of their citizenship and bannishment?!

 

This young woman should be subjected to the process of criminal justice, and should not be used as a precedent for stripping people of their most basic rights.

 

If left standing this precedent will be used against people fighting for the very rights and values Britain is founded on.

Were not the british convicts transported to botany bay revoked of their british.residency and consequent citenizenship?,she lost her   "basic rights" by not adhering to the laws of the land

[kingdong]

Don,t know about the legal side of this but would she have had more rights of appeal if U.K. Had still been members of the eu?

[Scott]

Troll post removed.   This is a discussion forum.

 

[simple1]

27 minutes ago, kingdong said:

Don,t know about the legal side of this but would she have had more rights of appeal if U.K. Had still been members of the eu?

 

She could have appealed to an EU Court, whether they would have accepted her appeal is a separate question. In any case precedent has been established by a number of EU countries cancelling citizenship of people joining IS. Some would have the view cancelling citizenship is rejecting legal responsibility by the home country and palming off to a foreign State which likely will have the death penalty contrary to UK law. IMO a degree of hypocrisy, if a UK citizen had committed murder in the US, HMG would not extradite unless death sentence is waived. 

[adammike]

30 minutes ago, kingdong said:

Don,t know about the legal side of this but would she have had more rights of appeal if U.K. Had still been members of the eu?

The European courts of justice is the supreme court for members of the EU.As she's not actually a citizen of the EU? Would she even get there? (She has the right to Bangladesh citizenship) If she did get to the ECJ it's not a given that they would come down on her side. The European courts of human rights also exists and the UK is signed up to that,it's not a EU institution.They both get a bad rap in the UK press because they are slow and the lawyers tie cases up for years with appeals and technicalities,usually about extraditions.

[kingdong]

23 minutes ago, adammike said:

The European courts of justice is the supreme court for members of the EU.As she's not actually a citizen of the EU? Would she even get there? (She has the right to Bangladesh citizenship) If she did get to the ECJ it's not a given that they would come down on her side. The European courts of human rights also exists and the UK is signed up to that,it's not a EU institution.They both get a bad rap in the UK press because they are slow and the lawyers tie cases up for years with appeals and technicalities,usually about extraditions.

Think she applied for bangladeshi citizenship and got the spanish archer,as for your first comment re european courts of justice,if uk had still been members of the eu could the european court of justice have overuled the british court decision?

[Farma]

The silly cow should have been lined up against a wall and shot as a traitor years ago.

 

But then again all the lefty lawyers wouldn't have made millions from taxpayer money defending her.

[adammike]

57 minutes ago, kingdong said:

Think she applied for bangladeshi citizenship and got the spanish archer,as for your first comment re european courts of justice,if uk had still been members of the eu could the european court of justice have overuled the british court decision?

Not sure,but the lawyers could tie it up for years.In the mean time she could be in jail,or on benefits.In some cases especially on citizens rights the ECJ reign supreme.

[kingdong]

3 minutes ago, adammike said:

Not sure,but the lawyers could tie it up for years.In the mean time she could be in jail,or on benefits.In some cases especially on citizens rights the ECJ reign supreme.

Sounds expensive,still we,re out the eu now,so can make our own decisions and laws.

[Chomper Higgot]

2 hours ago, kingdong said:

Don,t know about the legal side of this but would she have had more rights of appeal if U.K. Had still been members of the eu?

No.

 

 

[kingdong]

24 minutes ago, Farma said:

The silly cow should have been lined up against a wall and shot as a traitor years ago.

 

But then again all the lefty lawyers wouldn't have made millions from taxpayer money defending her.

Put up against a wall and shot?bit harsh,an obe would have sufficed.

[Chomper Higgot]

3 minutes ago, kingdong said:

Sounds expensive,still we,re out the eu now,so can make our own decisions and laws.

Her case has absolutely nothing to do with EU membership.

 

She retains the right to appeal to the European Court of Human Rights and almost certainly will do.

[kingdong]

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Her case has absolutely nothing to do with EU membership.

 

She retains the right to appeal to the European Court of Human Rights and almost certainly will do.

Well we,re out the eu,might as well leave the european court of human rights if they want to start interfering in the uks affairs and justice system not worth a carrot to law abiding people.

[Chomper Higgot]

17 minutes ago, kingdong said:

Well we,re out the eu,might as well leave the european court of human rights if they want to start interfering in the uks affairs and justice system not worth a carrot to law abiding people.

The UK is not a member of ‘The European Court of Human Rights’ it is a member of the Council of Europe (of which the UK is a founding member) and through this a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights. The European Court of Human Rights sits in judgement on compliance of signatory nations to the Convention.

 

It might be an idea to seek some knowledge on the ECHR before advocating leaving the Convention, rather than being triggered by the term ‘European’.

 

I suspect Churchill would spin in his grave at such blind ignorance of an institution he made so much effort in founding.

 

 

Edited February 27, 2021 by Chomper Higgot

[Scott]

Off-topic, troll posts removed.  Continue and face a suspension.  

 

[Nout]

No she can't. 

https://www.spiked-online.com/2021/02/26/lets-get-real-shamima-begum-is-a-traitor/

[Nout]

On 7/17/2020 at 5:54 AM, tribalfusion001 said:

Disgusting, should be shot, ISIS traitor.

https://www.spiked-online.com/2021/02/26/lets-get-real-shamima-begum-is-a-traitor/

Today the UK Supreme Court made a just decision. 

[Mavideol]

8 hours ago, kingdong said:

Don,t know about the legal side of this but would she have had more rights of appeal if U.K. Had still been members of the eu?

the answer is No .... you are mixing apples and oranges

[stevenl]

6 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Her case has absolutely nothing to do with EU membership.

 

She retains the right to appeal to the European Court of Human Rights and almost certainly will do.

Maybe in the future, but first her case about British citizenship has to be decided by the British court.

[xylophone]

38 minutes ago, Nout said:

https://www.spiked-online.com/2021/02/26/lets-get-real-shamima-begum-is-a-traitor/

Today the UK Supreme Court made a just decision. 

Absolutely agree with this para from the above link........

 

Ms Begum will remain stuck in her camp in Syria. Many will think she is getting what she deserves, and getting off far more lightly than the uncountable victims of the barbaric movement she joined and celebrated. Closer to home, our politics will remain stuck in the idiocy and immorality of identitarianism unless we shake things up. An honest discussion about what Ms Begum represents, and about the broader threat posed by hateful, regressive radical Islamists, might be a good place to start.

 

[Chomper Higgot]

44 minutes ago, Nout said:

https://www.spiked-online.com/2021/02/26/lets-get-real-shamima-begum-is-a-traitor/

Today the UK Supreme Court made a just decision. 

It’s difficult to argue the decision was ‘just’.

 

Begum has an inalienable right to a fair hearing before the courts which includes meaningful access to legal counsel.

 

This ruling raises a barrier to her being able access legal counsel, it diminishes her ability to obtain a fair hearing before the court.

 

I expect this will be central to the challenge she will raise against the process of her case.

 

 

 

[Sujo]

8 hours ago, kingdong said:

Well we,re out the eu,might as well leave the european court of human rights if they want to start interfering in the uks affairs and justice system not worth a carrot to law abiding people.

That sounds about as ignorant of the process as a 15 year old girl deciding to go live in syria.

[Morch]

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

It’s difficult to argue the decision was ‘just’.

 

Begum has an inalienable right to a fair hearing before the courts which includes meaningful access to legal counsel.

 

This ruling raises a barrier to her being able access legal counsel, it diminishes her ability to obtain a fair hearing before the court.

 

I expect this will be central to the challenge she will raise against the process of her case.

 

 

 

 

I'm pretty sure she'll get decent representation. Enough media buzz for some names to take this pro-bono, and no doubt an NGO or two will chip in, if they haven't already. Since the Coronavirus became a thing, there are more and more legal and procedural issues carried out using various video conference software. This does run the risk of having to explain one is not a cat.

[xylophone]

13 hours ago, polpott said:

However there was no legal justification to remove her citizenship in the first place.

So being a traitor to one's own country and going to fight for the enemy, who had executed British citizens, is okay?

 

And for her to say that the Manchester bombing which killed 22 people was "justified retaliation" for Syria air strikes, and then to go on to say that she was a "poster girl" for ISIS recruitment, and that she wanted her first son to become a terrorist, is abhorrent.

 

She should not be allowed back into the country, and indeed if she was, it should be to face a life sentence in jail – – and that's too good for her.

[polpott]

1 hour ago, xylophone said:

So being a traitor to one's own country and going to fight for the enemy, who had executed British citizens, is okay?

 

And for her to say that the Manchester bombing which killed 22 people was "justified retaliation" for Syria air strikes, and then to go on to say that she was a "poster girl" for ISIS recruitment, and that she wanted her first son to become a terrorist, is abhorrent.

 

She should not be allowed back into the country, and indeed if she was, it should be to face a life sentence in jail – – and that's too good for her.

If she were white British she would be allowed back. Highly likely to face a long jail sentence if she does come back.

 

 It should never have been allowed to go to a British court. Should have been resolved in Syria. Its been done before with considerable success.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabra_and_Shatila_massacre

 

Ring the camp with allied troups and send in the local militia guards on the promise of a few AR15s. Sorted.

 

Rinse and repeat with the camps containing the male ISIS fighters.

Edited February 27, 2021 by polpott

[Kwasaki]

Why is outdated thread still here, make's no sense to me.

[polpott]

1 minute ago, Kwasaki said:

Why is outdated thread still here, make's no sense to me.

Because the court case is current. Besides its a fun thread that allows the alt right racists vent their spleens.