No Shamima Begum Thread?

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.

icowden

Legendary Member
That's actually false, the reason she was able to be refused is that she had a other nationality,
She didn't that was a technicality which the British Government shamefully used. Begum is British. She was born in Britain and grew up in Britain. Her parents are Bangladeshi and moved to the UK where they became citizens. Shamina Begum has never been to Bangladesh, she does not speak Bangladeshi and the Government of Bangladesh stated that if she were to enter that country she would be executed as a terrorist.

However, part of the Bangladeshi nationality law confers citizenship upon any child of Bangladeshi parents irrespective of where the child is born. This is what was used by the British Government to argue that she had dual citizenship and that therefore they could remove her British Citizenship.

Legally, the Courts ruled that they were correct. Morally, the decision of the British Government to pursue this is appalling. She is left with citizenship of a country she has never been to, where she knows nobody and where, if she entered, she would be executed. The whole process was not about securing the safety of the country but about getting positive news headlines in the Daily Mail et al.

The end result is that we have left a young British woman in the hands of foreign terrorists and given her a really good reason to hate the British Government. What could go wrong?
 
D

Deleted member 159

Guest
Government of Bangladesh stated that if she were to enter that country she would be executed as a terrorist.
She got off lightly, compared to her cohorts
The end result is that we have left a young British woman in the hands of foreign terrorists and given her a really good reason to hate the British Government. What could go wrong
Nothing as long as she isn't allowed back into Great Britain
 
D

Deleted member 121

Guest
She got off lightly, compared to her cohorts

Nothing as long as she isn't allowed back into Great Britain


9233b79c9aed3eb95c09fc9ba46b8317.jpg
 
I am not aware of any "deprivation order" being applied.

Can you clarify what this deprivation order is and under what legislation it has been made and who by?

You're pinhead dancing again.

As as per last week's Appeal Court judgment Ms Begum was deprived of her British citizenship by a decision under s 40(2) of the British Nationality Act 1981.

Reasonable enough to call it a deprivation order whether or not that precise phrase is in the legislation.

To be honest you look like somebody trying to be a 'bit clever'; that's not a compliment.
 

glasgowcyclist

Über Member
You're pinhead dancing again.

As as per last week's Appeal Court judgment Ms Begum was deprived of her British citizenship by a decision under s 40(2) of the British Nationality Act 1981.

Reasonable enough to call it a deprivation order whether or not that precise phrase is in the legislation.

To be honest you look like somebody trying to be a 'bit clever'; that's not a compliment.

Both judgements, the Appeal Court’s and the SIAC’s, use the exact term ‘deprivation order’ in relation to the decision to deprive Ms Begum of UK citizenship. The term appears numerous times in each.

But Spen hasn’t read either one so is giving himself a bit of a showing up. Maybe he‘ll double down and write to the Lord and Lady Justices to ask them the same clarification question.

Appeal Court excerpt 👇

IMG_0424.jpeg


Special Immigration Appeals Commission excerpt 👇
IMG_0423.jpeg


Edit to add: The term is also used in the legislation itself (British Nationality Act 1981) 👇

IMG_0425.jpeg
 
Last edited:
I've got some degree of sympathy for the Netherlands not wanting theirs back.
Which is false, but i get your little racist joke very funny.. guess you have a whole collection about jews too right?
The then foreign minister of Bangladesh Abdul Momen said that she would face the death penalty if she were to enter Bangladesh and they still do not even agree that she has citizenship so they would refuse any grounds she has of application anyway, despite what is said here.
Yeah the death penalty is what her club gave to people who didn't believe in (their reading of) Islam so it sounds a bit like an eye for an eye doesn't it? Anyway why are we supposed to solve her mess? That is something she has to do herself for example by getting an refusal from Bangladeshi authorities on paper and then try to get her uk thing back again, but it could be a different procedure i don't know, i never joined a terrorist organisation said finding cut off head in bins and said it didn't faze me as it where just farking infidels, so i'm not the expert.
I just don't see why it is our problem just as the courts btw.
 
Legally, the Courts ruled that they were correct. Morally, the decision of the British Government to pursue this is appalling. She is left with citizenship of a country she has never been to, where she knows nobody and where, if she entered, she would be executed. The whole process was not about securing the safety of the country but about getting positive news headlines in the Daily Mail et al.
Bataclan, attacks in France, attacks in Zavemtem, Brussels, less published because largely failed attack in The Hague, Attack in Germany. all examples of Isis claimed terrorist attacks that could only have happened with either direct involvement or help with planning by terrorist coming from Syria, much like miss Begum. So i don't agree with your denial of the safety aspect.


The end result is that we have left a young British woman in the hands of foreign terrorists and given her a really good reason to hate the British Government. What could go wrong?
You think she would see us as lovely people of she was allowed in? You think she would have written beautiful poetry about the lovely government?
 
Last edited:

icowden

Legendary Member
You think she would see us as lovely people of she was allowed in? You think she would have written beautiful poetry about the lovely government?
No. I think we would know exactly where she is, what she is doing and who she is talking to. We could monitor her communications and try to turn her to make use of any insider knowledge and connections she might have etc etc.

We could both give her a second chance and make strong use of it for intel and anti-terrorism. Keep your friends close. Keep your enemies closer.
 

AndyRM

Elder Goth
No. I think we would know exactly where she is, what she is doing and who she is talking to. We could monitor her communications and try to turn her to make use of any insider knowledge and connections she might have etc etc.

We could both give her a second chance and make strong use of it for intel and anti-terrorism. Keep your friends close. Keep your enemies closer.

As insidious as that seems, it makes a fair bit of sense.
 
Rhianon Rudd was 14, autistic, sexually exploited, and never left the country. She took her own life at 16. She should never have been charged.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-63736944.amp

I think we should take Shamina Begum back but the 2 cases are different and it's not simply down to race.

The government has not, and isn't obliged to, present all the evidence it has against Begum so it's possible they have evidence that she took a more active role in terrorism than she claims. It might be withholding this info so it can be used to charge Begum if she returns.

There have been others stripped of citizenship who were white:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-49385376.amp
 
Top Bottom