ISI Fighter Shamima Begum Not allowed to return to the UK

Odhinn

biko wrote: »

The left - she was only 15, she didn't understand what she was doing.
...............

18 is the age of majority. The fact is she was 15 at the time and is being treated as is she were an adult.

biko

She was 15 when she left. She then stayed with ISIS for years until she was captured.
She is 20/21 now.

Begum was an "enforcer" in ISIL's "morality police", and tried to recruit other young women to join the jihadist group.

I think she's better off outside British soil, and the UK Supreme Court agrees with me.

FTA69

Why should the Syrian Kurds be lumped with every jihadi headbanger from London, Amsterdam and Paris? They gave everything in their fight against ISIS, losing thousands and doing the wider world a favour. They shouldn’t have to now worry about the expense and hassle of European citizens.

Secondly, Begum is British and a British problem. The idea you can strip citizenship off someone on the basis that their parent or parents come from elsewhere is the very definition of “second class citizen”.

Begum is repugnant, but she should be brought back and processed to the full extent of the law, not dumped on the Kurds who are trying to rebuild their country.

Gatling

FTA69 wrote: »

Begum is British and a British problem. The idea you can strip citizenship off someone on the basis that their parent or parents come from elsewhere is the very definition of “second class citizen”.

Second class nah she's now a non citizen let her live out whats left of her life in the desert or shoot her and the many like her ,
What about the number of Isis fighters with multiple citizenships including Irish gained through various scams should we be forced to allow foreign fighters come here

FTA69

Gatling wrote: »

Second class nah she's now a non citizen let her live out whats left of her life in the desert or shoot her and the many like her ,
What about the number of Isis fighters with multiple citizenships including Irish gained through various scams should we be forced to allow foreign fighters come here

The precedent of stripping people’s citizenship because their parent or parents are from a different country is making that point exactly - the idea you will be punished in a way that’s different to other citizens on the basis of your heritage.

Shamima Begum wasn’t travelling on a false passport or any of that craic. She’s British and therefore she is a British problem. Why should the Kurds have to be landed with these people?

wicklowstevo

FTA69 wrote: »

Why should the Syrian Kurds be lumped with every jihadi headbanger from London, Amsterdam and Paris? They gave everything in their fight against ISIS, losing thousands and doing the wider world a favour. They shouldn’t have to now worry about the expense and hassle of European citizens.

Secondly, Begum is British and a British problem. The idea you can strip citizenship off someone on the basis that their parent or parents come from elsewhere is the very definition of “second class citizen”.

Begum is repugnant, but she should be brought back and processed to the full extent of the law, not dumped on the Kurds who are trying to rebuild their country.

because they will do what the British or other western countries will not and can not do .

over there her best possible future is being left in the desert camp to fester and eventually die ,
or be shot some day soon

its handy that western governments wont have to get their hands dirty but if you join the other side during a war this is the result

FTA69

wicklowstevo wrote: »

because they will do what the British or other western countries will not and can not do .

over there her best possible future is being left in the desert camp to fester and eventually die ,
or be shot some day soon

its handy that western governments wont have to get their hands dirty but if you join the other side during a war this is the result

They’ve already said they don’t want responsibility for European jihadis and they aren’t bloodthirsty maniacs who are going to act out revenge fantasies for people here. As I said, they made huge sacrifices doing the world a favour and doing a lot of the heavy lifting against ISIS. The least countries like Britain can do is take back their scumbags and deal with them.

The likes of Britain have been backing states sponsoring this jihadi stuff (Turkey and Saudi Arabia) so they can step up for this occasion.

Rodney Bathgate

“ Sharmeena Begum was born to Shahnaz Begum and Mohammad Uddin. She was raised by her mother until her father joined them in the UK in 2007.”

She may have been born in the UK but she wasn’t conceived there. Whatever her passport may say, she was never really ‘British’.

Danzy

FTA69 wrote: »

The precedent of stripping people’s citizenship because their parent or parents are from a different country is making that point exactly - the idea you will be punished in a way that’s different to other citizens on the basis of your heritage.

Shamima Begum wasn’t travelling on a false passport or any of that craic. She’s British and therefore she is a British problem. Why should the Kurds have to be landed with these people?

If she is left back in she will be out in a few years, she remains committed to the Islamic State and its methods, she will radicalise others in jail and be a rallying point in Britain.

That will have the effect of more dead Kurds and Syrians etc.

Jack Letts had the same thing happen to him and his parents were jailed as well for helping him financially.

Not a peep about it from the bourgeoisie Left. Now that Begum, who can only be compared in views, actions amd outlook to the Bitc5 of Belsen and there is a steady stream of complaint.

Her crimes were in Kurdish and Syrian territory. Let her be tried and shot there and let the Kurds know that aid depends on that happening.

Isis hope she comes back to Britain.

end of the road

biko wrote: »

She was 15 when she left. She then stayed with ISIS for years until she was captured.
She is 20/21 now.

Begum was an "enforcer" in ISIL's "morality police", and tried to recruit other young women to join the jihadist group.

I think she's better off outside British soil, and the UK Supreme Court agrees with me.

well no, they don't agree with you that she is better off being out side british soil, they state that it is not for them to decide who is and isn't a national security risk, but that it's for the home secretry to decide.
they also decided that her right to a fair hearing doesn't trump national security, which is the problematic part as the national security concerns can easily be addressed by funding the authorities properly, and because the fact she cannot meet the conditions which would allow her case to be heard, her case is in effect blocked from potentially ever being heard, which is quite a dangerous ruling, but that is british law.

Gatling wrote: »

Second class nah she's now a non citizen let her live out whats left of her life in the desert or shoot her and the many like her ,
What about the number of Isis fighters with multiple citizenships including Irish gained through various scams should we be forced to allow foreign fighters come here

incorrect she is a british citizen.
your last sentence is exactly the issue, we could in effect be forced to take on foreign isis fighters or even british isis fighters who happen to have irish citizenship, if there are any.
you don't want that, neither do i, yet you support britain setting this precedent.

wicklowstevo wrote: »

because they will do what the British or other western countries will not and can not do .

over there her best possible future is being left in the desert camp to fester and eventually die ,
or be shot some day soon

its handy that western governments wont have to get their hands dirty but if you join the other side during a war this is the result

the kurds are going to do absolutely nothing with these people, they want nothing to do with them and have stated that clearly.
western governments will have to get their hands dirty when the foreign isis fighters are thrown out of syria, which eventually they are likely to be.
none of the powers there have any incentive to hold european isis fighters, kurdish, the west doesn't recognise them and their ethnicity.
russia, sending isis fighters back to europe would help with their own aim to destableise it, syria, well the west originally supported isis and other rebel groups, so assad certainly has no wish to help them.

end of the road

Rodney Bathgate wrote: »

“ Sharmeena Begum was born to Shahnaz Begum and Mohammad Uddin. She was raised by her mother until her father joined them in the UK in 2007.”

She may have been born in the UK but she wasn’t conceived there. Whatever her passport may say, she was never really ‘British’.

nope, still british.
she was born in britain and is british.
i know people like you would like it that brown people would never be truely of the nationality of the country they were born in, but i'm afraid thankfully that's not the way the world works.
where she was concieved is immaterial.

Danzy wrote: »

If she is left back in she will be out in a few years, she remains committed to the Islamic State and its methods, she will radicalise others in jail and be a rallying point in Britain.

That will have the effect of more dead Kurds and Syrians etc.

Jack Letts had the same thing happen to him and his parents were jailed as well for helping him financially.

Not a peep about it from the bourgeoisie Left. Now that Begum, who can only be compared in views, actions amd outlook to the Bitc5 of Belsen and there is a steady stream of complaint.

Her crimes were in Kurdish and Syrian territory. Let her be tried and shot there and let the Kurds know that aid depends on that happening.

Isis hope she comes back to Britain.

she will only be out in a few years if that is what is decided.
she went on a false passport which is a criminal offence, she joined a terrorist group which is a criminal offence.
she also went to syria, which i believe at the time was itself a criminal offence unless done for legitimate reasons which she didn't go for legitimate reasons.
this is all very easily proved, and sentences can be increased for those offences insuring she spends a very very long time behind bars.
she will only be a rallying point in britain because a dum populist politician made her one, had they just took her back and mentioned nothing of it hardly anyone would know about her.
radicalisation in prisons happens because like everything in britain, the system doesn't do it's job properly and is deliberately underfunded.
the kurds and syrians are at way way more risk with these vermin in their country then they are if the vermin are deported back to where they belong.
the kurds don't want her, your suggestion of letting them know that aid to them depends on them dealing with european isis trash is bullying and ultimately racist and a form of exceptionalism.
you are effectively saying that britain and other western countries are to superior to have to deal with their issues, and that the kurds are such that they have to clean up the wests mess and are not entitled to the same rights as the rest of us because they are lesser beings.
sorry but that is ultimately a repugnant view and has no place.
if the kurds say they don't want these people then that is the end of it, you or i or anyone else don't get to force european isis vermin on them.

Gatling

end of the road wrote: »

incorrect she is a british citizen.
your last sentence is exactly the issue, we could in effect be forced to take on foreign isis fighters or even british isis fighters who happen to have irish citizenship,

russia, sending isis fighters back to europe would help with their own aim to destableise it, syria, well the west originally supported isis and other rebel groups, so assad certainly has no wish to help them.

Former citizen ,this is nothing more than your anti British sentiment speaking,
Didn't we give asylum and citizenship to an Algerian terrorist who was charged with murder and terrorism but walked in here no questions asked apparently.

The west did not support Isis if it wasn't for the west Israel would be one of the few ME countries left standing,the Kurds heavily backed by Western special forces and 24/7 airstrikes done the damage to isis ,
Russia is still looking for Isis ....... Which they claimed they defeated in a week

Rodney Bathgate

Rodney Bathgate wrote: »

“ Sharmeena Begum was born to Shahnaz Begum and Mohammad Uddin. She was raised by her mother until her father joined them in the UK in 2007.”

She may have been born in the UK but she wasn’t conceived there. Whatever her passport may say, she was never really ‘British’.

Are you still filling the thread with your bloviating bollocks?

Shamima Begum is British.

It doesn't matter how many times or ways you, or your fellow clueless compadres, try to deny it, Shamima Begum is British.

Gatling

Deleted User wrote: »

Shamima Begum is British.

Not anymore no .

No amount of wishful posting will change that but ,but , but.

Rodney Bathgate

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Are you still filling the thread with your bloviating bollocks?

Shamima Begum is British.

It doesn't matter how many times or ways you, or your fellow clueless compadres, try to deny it, Shamima Begum is British.

Not anymore, mate. Did you miss the part where her British citizenship was revoked?

quintana76

Am just waiting for the Minister of Justice to invite her into Ireland and give a free house after four months.
As crazy as that may sound it not beyond the realms of possibility.

Rodney Bathgate

quintana76 wrote: »

Am just waiting for the Minister of Justice to invite her into Ireland and give a free house after four months.
As crazy as that may sound it not beyond the realms of possibility.

Probably already in the works.

end of the road

Gatling wrote: »

Former citizen ,this is nothing more than your anti British sentiment speaking,
Didn't we give asylum and citizenship to an Algerian terrorist who was charged with murder and terrorism but walked in here no questions asked apparently.

The west did not support Isis if it wasn't for the west Israel would be one of the few ME countries left standing,the Kurds heavily backed by Western special forces and 24/7 airstrikes done the damage to isis ,
Russia is still looking for Isis ....... Which they claimed they defeated in a week

it is not anti british to say britain must grow up and take responsibility for it's problems.
if we gave assylum to an algerian terrorist then that is a problem and should be relooked at.
the west funded, armed and trained isis until they found out exactly what they were really about, isis were the next big thing and the good guys at the start.

Rodney Bathgate wrote: »

Not anymore, mate. Did you miss the part where her British citizenship was revoked?

revoked in name only, she has no other citizenship or chance of gaining one thankfully so she remains british as it is illegal to make someone stateless or bully another country to take on someone else's citizen.

quintana76 wrote: »

Am just waiting for the Minister of Justice to invite her into Ireland and give a free house after four months.
As crazy as that may sound it not beyond the realms of possibility.

i would imagine you will be waiting, there would be no support for that what soever from anyone and she has no irish links.

Rodney Bathgate

end of the road wrote: »

it is not anti british to say britain must grow up and take responsibility for it's problems.
if we gave assylum to an algerian terrorist then that is a problem and should be relooked at.
the west funded, armed and trained isis until they found out exactly what they were really about, isis were the next big thing and the good guys at the start.







revoked in name only, she has no other citizenship or chance of gaining one thankfully so she remains british as it is illegal to make someone stateless or bully another country to take on someone else's citizen.







i would imagine you will be waiting, there would be no support for that what soever from anyone and she has no irish links.

Can you share the details of the law that you claim makes it ‘illegal’ please?

Danzy

end of the road wrote: »

.






she will only be out in a few years if that is what is decided.
she went on a false passport which is a criminal offence, she joined a terrorist group which is a criminal offence.
she also went to syria, which i believe at the time was itself a criminal offence unless done for legitimate reasons which she didn't go for legitimate reasons.
this is all very easily proved, and sentences can be increased for those offences insuring she spends a very very long time behind bars.
she will only be a rallying point in britain because a dum populist politician made her one, had they just took her back and mentioned nothing of it hardly anyone would know about her.
radicalisation in prisons happens because like everything in britain, the system doesn't do it's job properly and is deliberately underfunded.
the kurds and syrians are at way way more risk with these vermin in their country then they are if the vermin are deported back to where they belong.
the kurds don't want her, your suggestion of letting them know that aid to them depends on them dealing with european isis trash is bullying and ultimately racist and a form of exceptionalism.
you are effectively saying that britain and other western countries are to superior to have to deal with their issues, and that the kurds are such that they have to clean up the wests mess and are not entitled to the same rights as the rest of us because they are lesser beings.
sorry but that is ultimately a repugnant view and has no place.
if the kurds say they don't want these people then that is the end of it, you or i or anyone else don't get to force european isis vermin on them.

Fine we'll have your progressives approach but you should have to help clean up the dead Kurds from it's outcome. You should have to own your belief and you don't. I often got the crap beaten out of me in the 90s by Guards when I was canvassing or selling Easter Lillies. They knew I'd be back the following week at it again. I have no respect for holy Joe's like you who preach and castigate but never do the penance part and would run if you had to more than once. You can take a running jump with your repugnant views

I'll give you the binbag for collecting the parts.

I'm not going to entertain the racism, European exceptionalism stuff, that's just indulging your lordship and I am done with it. The Ross O'Carroll Kelly meets Arch Bishop McQuaid tendancy that has come to dominate the Left.

Your frankly insane rant about me wanting a woman who participated in a campaign which saw about 100k Kurds dead.

The Brits are under no legal obligation to take her back and that is to their benefit, it is also to the benefit of the Kurds as it limits the recruitment opportunity for ISIS.

Venting at you, to a degree, you probably don't deserve it and I have no problem with you but the modern Left can't be surprised someday when the working class not only do not vote for them but beat the tar out of them and would vote for the devil himself if it meant keeping the Left away from them.

Jeeze, that was therapeutic. Tks.

Rodney Bathgate

Rodney Bathgate wrote: »

Can you share the details of the law that you claim makes it ‘illegal’ please?

Article 15 of the UDHR.

UK Immigration Act 2014 (Section 40).


International Law and UK Law. Take your pick.

Gatling

Deleted User wrote: »

Article 15 of the UDHR.

UK Immigration Act 2014 (Section 40).


International Law and UK Law. Take your pick.

Her citizenship has been revoked but she has other options which makes it very much legal


The UDHR was adopted by the United Nations (UN) General Assembly in 1948, with Australia voting in favour. It affirms fundamental human rights, but is not a binding treaty.


40Prohibition on opening current accounts for disqualified persons. (b)at the time when the account is opened B is unable, because of circumstances that cannot reasonably be regarded as within its control, to carry out a status check in relation to P

Everyone has the right to a nationality. (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality

Rodney Bathgate

She hasn’t been ‘arbitrarily deprived’ of a nationality. It was a direct result of her actions and followed due process.

And she can claim Bangladeshi citizenship as her parents are / were both Bangladeshi, so she a right to a nationality.

Not seeing any issues there.

end of the road

Danzy wrote: »

Fine we'll have your progressives approach but you should have to help clean up the dead Kurds from it's outcome.

I'll give you the binbag for collecting the parts.

I'm not going to entertain the racism, European exceptionalism stuff, that's just indulging your lordship and I am done with people like you. The Ross O'Carroll Kelly meets Arch Bishop McQuaid tendancy that has come to dominate the Left.

Your frankly insane rant about me wanting a woman who participated in a campaign which saw about 100k Kurds dead.

The Brits are under no legal obligation to take her back and that is to their benefit, it is also to the benefit of the Kurds as it limits the recruitment opportunity for ISIS.

You can always send her money.

her being left where she is is an even bigger opportunity for her to recrute for isis and is an even bigger threat to the kurds and could lead to even more dead kurds.
given she is a terrorist and it's illegal (quite rightly) to send money to terrorists, i don't like her or specifically care about her, then i couldn't and wouldn't in a million years be sending her money under any circumstances.

end of the road

Gatling wrote: »

Her citizenship has been revoked but she has other options which makes it very much legal


The UDHR was adopted by the United Nations (UN) General Assembly in 1948, with Australia voting in favour. It affirms fundamental human rights, but is not a binding treaty.


40Prohibition on opening current accounts for disqualified persons. (b)at the time when the account is opened B is unable, because of circumstances that cannot reasonably be regarded as within its control, to carry out a status check in relation to P

Everyone has the right to a nationality. (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality

thankfully she has no other options so it would still remain illegal until an international body decides otherwise.
begum is being deprived of her nationality as she is a british national and is never going to be another national thankfully.

Rodney Bathgate wrote: »

She hasn’t been ‘arbitrarily deprived’ of a nationality. It was a direct result of her actions and followed due process.

And she can claim Bangladeshi citizenship as her parents are / were both Bangladeshi, so she a right to a nationality.

Not seeing any issues there.

she has been deprived of a nationality as she is not a national of any other country and the country britain has tried to palm her off on says she is not one of their nationals and is never going to be.
the deprivation of her nationality following due process in the country depriving her of her nationality doesn't change anything in the real world, because international law will trump domestic law on such a matter due to the huge risks and security concerns surrounding such a matter.
so it can be legal within britain to deprive someone of their nationality but realistically the fact it is illegal under international law to make someone stateless, and it is illegal to force another country to take on someone as a citizen who isn't and never was and never will be one of their citizens, then i'm afraid those points will outweigh british law.
she can't claim Bangladeshi citizenship as while her parents may be from there, that is not enough according to the Bangladeshis, who say she is not a citizen and is not going to be and cannot claim citizenship under their law.

Gatling

Gatling wrote: »

Her citizenship has been revoked but she has other options which makes it very much legal


The UDHR was adopted by the United Nations (UN) General Assembly in 1948, with Australia voting in favour. It affirms fundamental human rights, but is not a binding treaty.


40Prohibition on opening current accounts for disqualified persons. (b)at the time when the account is opened B is unable, because of circumstances that cannot reasonably be regarded as within its control, to carry out a status check in relation to P

Everyone has the right to a nationality. (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality

UK Immigration Act 2014.

She can only be made stateless if she satisfies all three of the following;

- Acquired citizenship through naturalisation - Fail (British born)

- "Seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the United Kingdom, any of the Islands, or any British overseas territory” - Pass

- Secretary of State has reasonable grounds to believe she can acquire citizenship elsewhere - Fail (Bangladesh has said they will not grant her citizenship and if she enters Bangladesh she will be executed)


1/3 is an overall FAIL.

Shamima remains a British citizen.

Rodney Bathgate

Rodney Bathgate wrote: »

She hasn’t been ‘arbitrarily deprived’ of a nationality. It was a direct result of her actions and followed due process.

And she can claim Bangladeshi citizenship as her parents are / were both Bangladeshi, so she a right to a nationality.

Not seeing any issues there.

Will you ever piss off and start doing some f*cking reading.

Rodney Bathgate

https://www.ejiltalk.org/shamima-begum-may-be-a-bangladeshi-citizen-after-all/

“Therefore, as of February 2019, Ms Begum is legally a Bangladeshi citizen. Consequently, the decision of the Home Office to deprive her of her British citizenship does not legally render her stateless. Hence, the measure is not unlawful insofar as the issue of statelessness is concerned. Although, it may very well be unlawful on other grounds, whether under British law or even international law.”

Not as cut and dry as you are pretending lads. Anyway, we’ll see how it pans out.

At least Eric Cartman had the good grace to know he was out of his depth and gracefully retreated from the discussion.

He's sticking to 'thanking'.

Rodney Bathgate

[Deleted User] wrote: »

At least Eric Cartman had the good grace to know he was out of his depth and gracefully retreated from the discussion.

He's sticking to 'thanking'.

End of the road is on your side of the discussion. It isn’t fair to mock him. Even if he does deserve it.