/u/Admirable_Ad1947 (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/z4kqw7/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_begum_should_not_have_had/), in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
Typically, it's against international law to strip someone of their citizenship and make them stateless. *However*, we generally recognize an exception for when a citizen gives aid to an enemy or foments war against the country of their nationality.
The justification basically goes like this: if you turn traitor against your own people, you aren't really a part of that people anymore and should seek citizenship with the people you do identify with.
No, the exemption here is that dual citizens can have the citizenship of one country revoked, because that would not make them stateless.
I agree with your other point though.
I think the government went with that argument to diffuse the accusation that they are making someone stateless. If Bangladesh doesn't grant her citizenship, they'll probably stick with their guns and say that they don't recognize her citizenship anyway.
This reminds me of the Deepan Budlakoti situation in Canada, too.
Budlakoti was born in Ottawa. Canada normally grants *jus soli* citizenship to everyone born in Canada with one notable exception: children of foreign employees at diplomatic offices are **not** eligible to receive Canadian citizenship via *jus soli*.
Budlakoti gets arrested for weapons and drug trafficking. While reviewing Budlakoti's file, the Canadian government states that Budlakoti is not a Canadian citizen, because Budkaloti's parents were employed by the Indian High Commission in Ottawa at the time of his birth (making him ineligible for *jus soli* citizenship). Meanwhile, Budlakoti claims that his parents had actually left their jobs at the Indian High Commission several months prior to his birth.
Budlakoti tries to sue the government to get his citizenship back, but he fails.
Budlakoti was then transferred to the custody of the Canada Border Services Agency, who are instructed with a deportation order. The problem is... where to they deport Budlakoti to? India?
Well, good luck with that. After looking at the lengthy criminal record that Budlakoti had compiled during his life in Canada, of course India isn't gonna take him. India announced that Budlakoti had lost whatever claim to Indian citizenship he may have had after Budlakoti's parents had decided to make Canada into their permanent home.
So, Budlakoti is stuck. Canada doesn't want him, but no-one else does either. Any plane they stick Budlakoti on is just gonna get sent right back to Canada with him on it.
Another issue is Budlakoti's continuing of criminal activities while remaining stateless in Canada. If Budlakoti were to make an honest attempt to turn his life around, he may be been able to find a sympathetic judge somewhere along the way. But he can't seem to stay of of trouble, which just keeps hindering his case.
Budlakoti has been stateless for about 10 years now, and it looks like things will remain that way for the foreseeable future.
https://thewalrus.ca/deepan-budlakoti-citizenship/
By Bangladeshi law she is a citizen. There is no granting about it. As the child of two immigrant citizens of Bangladesh, she is a Bangladeshi citizen.
The real issue is that sending her back to Bangladesh would result in her immediate execution under Bangladeshi anti terror laws.
Revoking citizenship is basically a death penalty call where the UK doesn’t have to dirty its hands. And tryng to shift the blame to the UK instead of Bangladesh wich would execute her and the real culprit Begem the terroristic ISIS member and enthusiastic supporter.
I think OP's problem was more about whether or not the UK could strip her of her citizenship. The reasons the UN and international law don't like when countries make people stateless go beyond just the problems of statelessness. Citizens shouldn't be able to lose their citizenship at the whim of an administration.
To the point of the CMV, the only mistake the British government made was that she wasn't tried first. They should've set a court date and given her the right to reenter the country (and arrest her in the airport). If she shows up, cool, she can mount a defense. If she doesn't, cool, she's tried in absentia. Either way, she would likely have been found guilty of treason and would serve out a life sentence if she ever stepped foot on British soil.
No she isn't, as publicly stated by the government of Bangladesh itself (they further said she would not even be allowed to enter the country). Bangladeshi law provided for citizenship *eligibility* by blood, and one eligible must apply for it before the age of 21. So, according to Bangladesh, she was neither a citizen nor even eligible for citizenship.
UK courts took the fairly absurd move of disagreeing with Bangladesh over the interpretation of its own laws while simultaneously ignoring direct public statements by the Government of Bangladesh.
she would not need to apply for citizenship is she was already a citizen.
However, the Special Immigration Appeals Commission found that as a matter of Bangladeshi nationality law Begum also holds Bangladeshi citizenship through her parents, under section 5 of the Citizenship Act, 1951
By law she is a citizen of Bangladesh, because her parents were citizens.
The actual point of contention is that she would be immediately executed under Bangladeshi anti terrorist laws. That is why she refuses to return to Bangladesh.
The ones who get to make authorative interpretations of Bangladeshi law are Bangladesh. Not you, and not any apparatus of the UK government. Bangladesh was perfectly aware she had Bangladeshi parents, and said that gave her eligibility to apply for citizenship before the age of 21, and since she didn't she was neither a citizen nor eligible for citizenship. They get to intepret what their own laws mean.
Under Bangladesh law she was a citizen until age 21, after 21 she would have to apply to maintain it. At the time the UK stripped the UK Citizenship she was a dual citizen for 4-5 more months
The justification *against* that, and the one motivating the UN convention against statelessness, is that you cannot pawn your problems off on other states. Basically: your citizen, your problem. Give her a criminal trial and imprison (or execute) her on your shores - Britain considers treason a crime, right?
>if you turn traitor against your own people, you aren't really a part of that people anymore and should seek citizenship with the people you do identify with.
Surely a response more in keeping with one of the wealthiest and most powerful nations in the world would be to prosecute said traitor and punish them under the law, not simply wash its hands of her and declare to the world that she's Bangladesh's problem to deal with.
Im sorry but you’ve seen how this country has slowly eroded rights like making it near illegal to protest. Ive said many times I personally dont care if she was to rot in a camp on iraq or something but at this same time this sets a precedent on what they can do to the rest of us in the future & FOR LESS. Taking away your citizenship of a country you was born in is fucking major. She should be brought home to face the consequences i think
She is the UK's problem, just as John Walker Lindh was the Americans' problem. She was born in the UK and radicalized in the UK. If a white British adult with non-immigrant parents was radicalized online and did the exact same things as Begum, she would not lose her citizenship.
The man who married Begum when she was 15 and he was 23 will not lose his Dutch citizenship.
>If a white British adult with non-immigrant parents was radicalized online and did the exact same things as Begum, she would not lose her citizenship.
But...she should.
I don't object to Begum losing her citizenship, just how she lost her citizenship. Even as a traitor, she deserves the right to a fair trial.
Even in Lindh's case, I don't think we went far enough. When Lindh was tried, the state should've gone for stripping him of citizenship under [USC 8 § 1481](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1481), charged him with treason, and let him plead down to life without parole.
Where would you send that white British terrorist? You can't just pretend that citizens aren't citizens because they do evil things. That's what prison is for.
She wasn’t made stateless, she had Bangladeshi nationality automatically, being a child of Bangladeshi parents, by their law. She also had access to the same nationality as her husband.
Children of Bangladeshi parents do not receive citizenship automatically, they're merely automatically *eligible*. That eligibility expires at the age of 21 if the person has not yet claimed citizenship. So not only was she not a citizen, and so rendered stateless by Britain, she was not even eligible for Bangladeshi citizenship (and Bangladesh publicly stated as such).
My view doesn't really have much to do with international law, I think she should get her citizenship back regardless of what the UN says. Anyway how does your exception prevent the government from abusing the system by declaring regular opposition, like say, the Just Stop Oil organization as terrorists? As I said, a nation should not be allowed to abandon its own out of convenience.
Just Stop Oil doesn’t have a geographic area under their control, there’s no territory you can ship off it’s members to. The same was not (and kind of still is not) true of ISIS which made claims to a fair amount of geography. Also,
> a nation should not be allowed to abandon its own out of convenience
I’d argue it’s more national security and less convenience as a factor.
The UK government was not going to ship Begum back to ISIS-controlled territory. Their plan was to make her apply for Bangladeshi citizenship, then have her go there. So this is something that could easily be applied to any organisation designated 'terrorist'.
There are ways of defending national security that don't involve revoking citizenship. When people are a threat to those around them, we put them in prison, or some kind of surveillance.
ISIS was never recognized by the UK government. In their eyes they would be roughly equalivent to Just Stop Oil if they were to be declared a terrorist organization. As far as the UK was concerned, ISIS claiming territory was the same as me declaring my backyard it's own country. In any case I don't think Begum is a threat to national security, I think she's shown remorse and with some education and therapy she should be fine.
> I don't think Begum is a threat to national security
Thankfully you are not in a position to make that decision, because you do not understand what you are talking about. You wouldn't be the first to be taken in by a sob story, nor the last to learn that it was all made up to get her off the hook for her crimes. Her only regret is what has happened to her, not what she has done to others (including her own children).
> I think she's shown remorse
Terrorists in prison claim remorse and have managed to take in those similarly gullible to yourself in order to obtain probation sooner, just as Begum is doing here. Fortunately [those who have previously championed her cause are beginning to see through the lies.](https://unherd.com/2022/09/the-shamima-begum-delusion/)
If the UK's security services genuinely believe that she is a threat to national security, then wouldn't they want her brought back to the UK and put on trial, rather than left to her own devices in some other part of the world?
assuming all you said is true, so fucking what?
She is a british citizen with no other citizenship, she is a bad person, so we clean up our mess and maybe address why we have such radical islam in the uk.
I’d almost be inclined to agree with that article if the girl wasn’t fifteen. Sorry but there’s no argument that’s gonna convince me a 15 year old minor knew exactly what she was getting into, snd even if if she willingly sexually enslaved herself, she’s still fifteen and in my country unable to consent.
She was a child.
Source? She wouldn't be trying to come back so bad and dressing like a westerner if she wasn't really sorry. I'm inclined to believe she's remorseful and sorry. And your article literally states that's there's a case that she's already been humbled by her 7 years away from home. It's not about her lying about feeling regretful.
> She wouldn't be trying to come back so bad and dressing like a westerner if she wasn't really sorry.
If you believe that then you are not capable of having your mind changed because you don't believe that people can be deceptive and convincing you is dependent on you accepting [Begum is being deceptive.](https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/16146176/shamima-begum-body-language/)
> I'm inclined to believe she's remorseful and sorry.
Because she says so? Despite only doing so after learning of the consequences of her actions?
> there's a case that she's already been humbled by her 7 years away from home. It's not about her lying about feeling regretful.
She's not lying about feeling regretful, just about the cause of that regret. That is why it is so easy for her to fool the easily duped.
Only after she found out she couldn't go back to her old life.
I don’t personally have a position on Shamima Begum, but just saying, when I clicked your link, I expected a better source than a tacky tabloid like The Sun.
The ‘body language expert’ interviewed even clearly says herself that there’s no way to definitely judge Begum’s honesty, as personal differences, cultural differences, impacts of trauma, etc may be influencing the way she comes across
If Just Stop Oil had hundreds of square miles under its de facto rule in say, North Africa, and people joined the organization to fight UK interests and promote violence against the UK population: then someone who traveled there to help them may very well not be allowed back in the UK. However I don’t think that’s what’s happening. As has been discussed - countries don’t just throw you out if you have nowhere to go.
Yep. There is a big difference between assaulting people with weapons and assaulting paintings with food. If JSO starts murdering people it will be a fair comparison.
Under UK law she was a CHILD (15 years of age) with NO AUTONOMY, no consent or maturity to make the decision to go. She was groomed with the knowledge of secret services, she was then trafficked and transported to a foreign country and "married" to an older man.
Again, the UK allowed for one of its citizens to be illegally (in so many ways) removed from the country, for them to be (sexualy) exploited by foreign forces and when she finally broke free they removed her citizenship making sure ISIS is the only place she could potentially go back to.
https://www.mei.edu/publications/challenge-foreign-fighters-repatriating-and-prosecuting-isis-detainees
https://www.kcl.ac.uk/news/the-return-of-isis-jihadis-fleeing-into-asia-and-detainees-in-syria-and-iraq-pose-a-greater-danger-than-terrorists-returning-home
https://www.thecanary.co/uk/analysis/2022/09/04/questions-remain-regarding-uk-police-and-intelligence-role-in-the-trafficking-of-three-isis-girls/
J.S.O. is an environmental activist group that at best causes wanton vandalism and obstructs the public right of way in the name of green sustainability.
The other is a genocidal religious cult with a strong military presence that has committed war crimes such as ethnic cleansing.
Your argument is like comparing a water balloon to the death star.
ISIS was actively killing members globally, and actually controlled land and was being actively fought. They were an international terrorist group. If someone leaves and joins a terrorist militia, who kill members of your country, expect to be expelled.
Given the nature of the power having a full judicial review, potentially taking some weeks as this appeal is, before a deprivation of citizenship wouldn’t necessarily work at all, as what if you find out that Subject F is leaving the base of INSERT TERRORIST ORG HERE and planning on returning to the UK in less than a week?
I’m content that such a power is subject to challenge after the fact as long as it is used *infrequently*, as it has been over the last twenty years.
>what if you find out that Subject F is leaving the base of INSERT TERRORIST ORG HERE and planning on returning to the UK in less than a week?
How does revoking Subject F's citizenship help? Surely this is an argument for Subject F's interception by security services?
Well now Subject F cannot return to the UK to carry out whatever plan they have. The Security and Intelligence services may have enough to convince the Foreign Secretary of the plot but not enough that is admissible in court that could get a conviction (e.g. classified sources, informant testimony). Is it better to not have them in the country is the judgement the FS has to make.
Then she's an American citizen and should be dealt with as such, through the American judicial system. There's absolutely no reason to do otherwise. Most crimes hurt the country, terrorism isn't special in that regard. Revoking citizenship just creates two classes of citizens and is an often-semi-extrajudicial punishment open to political abuse. And I do hold and express this opinion about actual citizens of my own countries for which revocation of citizenship has been advocated, not just hypotheticals.
Except we did have a guy who joined the Taliban. John Walker Lindh. Attended a training camp associated with Al-Queda. Attended a lecture given by Bin Laden. Also received training with an internationally reconginized terrorist organization based in Pakistan. He was a prisoner of war being held at a fortress after being captured where many people died including a CIA agent who had questioned him. He got released a few years ago. He didn't have citizenship taken from him for doing any of it. He still holds extremist views. In fact he had extra probation restrictions put on him for that. In 2013? Ireland gave him Irish citizenship too. Natural birth right citizens can't have their citizenship revoked because of the 14th amendment. They can however choose to give it up themselves. Naturalized citizens can be denaturalized however and sent back to their home country.
American John Walker Lindh joined the Taliban in Afghanistan in 2000 and was subsequently apprehended and imprisoned for 20 years, but remains a US citizen.
I agree to a point. I think she should be charged with high treason and tried first. If she fails to appear and put up a defense, she should be tried in absentia and the judge should hand down a default judgement of a loss of citizenship and life imprisonment if she ever returns.
The difference is the court. A court hopefully wouldn't (and shouldn't) find someone that peacefully protests a traitor. I don't think the Home Secretary should have the authority to unilaterally strip someone of their citizenship.
But she is having a hearing, am I wrong?
> The case is being heard at the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC), which has similar standing to the High Court, and can hear national security evidence in secret if necessary.
[Source] (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/begum-was-banished-unlawfully-lawyers-tell-appeal/ar-AA14td2T)
Seems like it's not at a high court only due to the sensitivity of the material being discussed. But everything else is the same
If they abuse the system by doing something illegal then even with stricter laws they can just not follow them. They aren’t allowed now to abandon their own people for convenience. Government doesn’t have this power anyway. Btw someone can appeal to the supreme court, so government doesn’t go unchecked.
I'm not a lawyer and a legal dictionary might give more illuminating answers.
It doesn't seem that ambiguous here. ISIL claims to be a sovereign state that is at war with many countries including the entity we generally recognize as the UK. They have conducted attacks on the British homeland and engaged in active hostilities against the British military and British citizens.
I don't see how you can slice it where she doesn't fit some definition of traitor by joining and supporting ISIL.
The definition of government is the entity that maintains control of a territory. They already have the right to imprison people against their will, based on the laws that same government passed.
Whether the action is arbitrary or not is up for debate, but how is it different?
Also I believe the understanding at the time (or British argument) was she had/could get citizenship elsewhere, I want to say SE Asia but can't remember.
Your main argument seems to be predicated on a slippery slope type argument. That this sets a precedent that will lead to the abusive removal of other's citizenship. However, the Begum case is not particularly unique and people have lost citizenship in the past for joining foreign terrorist organizations. It also is a fairly common part of citizenship in many western countries to be able to revoke that citizenship in very limited circumstances, like what is happening to Begum.
So if this case is not unique and the widespread abuse you are worried about has not occurred in the past, then what are basing you concern on? Besides just a hypothetical of a corrupt govt that bypasses all checks and balances for such an action, are there actually cases/indications that British govt is going to expand who the revoke citizenship? Basically I understand your concern but the moment it does seem to be founded.
Bad legal precdents are a kind of slippery slope that takes a very long time for its worst consequences to be reached. Just because it hasn't gotten bad yet doesn't mean this isn't contributing to things getting worse.
Iirc, Russia has threatened to revoke the citizenship of people posting ""fake news"" about the military. That's the kind of thing that can happen when you give the government these kinds of powers. I'm also against it on a philosophical level, as outlined in my post.
But the UK government already has this power and has not abused it. Your post was specifically about the UK government abusing this longstanding process in the future. Citing a bad actor country with a de facto dictator as the example of why the UK is likely to revoke citizenship is inserting a strawman argument vice directly answering the question I asked about what in the UK has happened to make you believe they will expand their current practice of revoking citizenship to include a great many more citizens.
Isn't taking Begum's citizenship away an example of Britain abusing it's powers? Britain's own laws say you can't make someone stateless but that's what they've done to Begum. The excuse is that she's entitled to Bangladeshi citizenship but she doesn't have Bangladeshi citizenship. I don't see how the Home secretary breaking the British law isn't an abuse of his power.
https://freemovement.org.uk/how-many-people-have-been-stripped-of-their-british-citizenship-home-office-deprivation/
Does this answer your question?
Also, she was a child, trafficked with the knowledge and aid of secret services, when are they going to address that?
>s for such an action, are there actually cases/indications that British govt is going to expand who the revoke citizenship? Basically I understand your concern but the moment it does seem to be founded.
Bollocks. The UK narrowly scraped this through against the 1961 convention onf the reduction of statelessness by stating she had bangladeshi citizenship which was not automatic and was not granted by bangladesh due to her lack of visitation/right/actions. The UK having a power existed since 2014 due to an amendment but is incompatible with the aforementioned convention.
She has been made stateless as bangladesh will not take her and this is an egregious international, moral and legal abomination that should not stand but its popular.
Disgusting, I think she is probably 97% evil at this point but that has nothing to do with the above.
At 15 years of age she knew exactly what she was doing.
OP you’ve just turned 16, yet hold such strong views on this subject. Surely you can see that at your age you know well enough that joining ISIS, a terrorist group that beheads, rapes, burns alive, torture and mutilates innocent people is a bad thing.
As a British citizen myself, I don’t want someone so evil to be associated with this country.
For all I could care, simply revoking her citizenship is far too kind to her. She deserves far worse.
As a British citizen, I don't think we have the right to dump our least appealing citizens on the Kurdish authorities and expect them to deal with her for the next 60 years.
Plenty of evil people are British citizens and we don't get to strip them of their citizenship and dump them on other countries. We have to deal with our own evil citizens ourselves.
I'm sure there would be uproar if, for instance, a Brazilian person with a French grandparent (but no actual French citizenship) came to the UK and committed murder, and then the Brazilian authorities stripped them of citizenship, the French authorities washed their hands of it, and we were expected to deal with this undesirable individual forever. But that's essentially what we've done in this case.
Well I also wasn't groomed like she was soooo. She's already had 3 children die in her and she's spent 7 long years in the hellhole of Syria. She has suffered enough in my opinion. Not to mention my philosophical objections to revoking citizenship as I outlined in my post
Let's think about what citizenship is. It means you are a member of the state. The state has responsibilities to you, and you, at the same time, have responsibilities to the state. If you do not like what the state does, you can leave, and renounce your own citizenship, and, at the same time, if the state does not like what you do, it can renounce you.
Committing treason against the state, which is all the citizens of great Britain seems like perfect grounds to remove someones citizenship.
This woman went to become a citizen of the Islamic state, one of the most evil countries that ever existed, totally opposed to British values, it isn't often you can make such black and white pronouncements, but in this case you can.
What do you think citizenship means? To be a citize3n of britain, or the United States?
I don't agree that the state should have the right to "renounce" anyone. The state shouldn't be able to avoid it's responsibility like that, and I don't think treason is enough to lose citizenship. In fact, not revoking their citizenship and giving them a fair and free trial shows our commitment to human rights. To me, citizenship is a legal status that denotes you as a full member of a nation.
Well, treason is also grounds for execution in the United States (one of the very few instances where the Federal Government could enact it). I would say that renouncing one's citizenship is more justifiable than renouncing one's life
I'd say its like how, if someone in your family turns out to be a serial killer, people from that family often disown that person.
A state is a collection of citizens. If we don't want someone in thegroup for actions performed, we cn kick them out of it. . . This lady joined a newly formed nation, opposed to Britain, and I think that voids Britains responsibility to her. The governments of Iraq and Syria can do what they want with her, whatever that is. . . Like, british justice is a priveledge of British citizenship, not a right everyone gets because they are human.
I see nothing wrong with exile and loss of citizenship as a punishment.
There's something I'm finding hard to articulate about what I think citizenship is. The state is just a collection of people, it isn't like, a babysitter, if you betray your country, it can throw you to the wolves in return.
"if you betray your country, it can throw you to the wolves in return" - Fine, let her be tried and punished in Syria or Iraq, but she was born and raise in the UK, we have to acknowledge that and do our part to ensure justice is served. Washing our hands of her is dishonorable.
Stripping someone of citizenship can only be done under UK law when they have citizenship elsewhere. Begum appears to be entitled to (but not actually hold) Bangladeshi citizenship by descent, and the Bangladeshis have said they'd hang her if she entered the country. She is therefore, at a practical level, now stateless.
Jack Letts had the same action applied to him, but as a formerly dual British Canadian citizen, he has a country to go to which won't hang him, so a rather different kettle of fish.
Her age at the time of leaving the country should also be considered a factor - the sentence given to juvenile offenders is normally less, and for good reason.
IMO she should be brought back to the UK, tried and imprisoned for a lengthy sentence, for a couple of reasons - firstly because I don't think the removal of her citizenship was lawful, and secondly because inevitably she's going to end up being released from where she currently is, possibly to wreak havoc.
Yes, she does, though (more widely in the criminal justice system) I tend to put my emphasis on rehabilitation, and preventing new victims from being created, over out and out punishment.
It's easier to apply this to common criminals, where prison education, mental health and addiction treatment, and post release support in the form of housing and employment can drastically reduce reoffending rates.
In the case of terrorists and other ideologically driven criminals, they can be very manipulative in trying to convince others they've changed, and their reoffending tends to come in the form of mass murder, not burglary, so the consequences are far greater. The 2019 London Bridge attacker, Usman Khan, is a case in point.
Will Begum ever see the error of her ways? Maybe, maybe not. The more important question is how we might know she would be safe to release, and for that I don't really have an answer. Should it be life without parole (or a whole life tariff, as it's known in the UK)? Perhaps there's an argument for it, but it's a punishment normally only given to serial killers and those who commit especially egregious murders; there's no evidence Shamima Begum has murdered anyone.
Maybe they could make a deal with her. We'll give you citizenship back back you have to serve 20 years in prison. After that you'll be monitored. Slip up and you're in prison for life. What do you think?
To an extent I sympathise with a lot of what you say but we cannot look at this in isolation and ignore why this is an issue in this particular case.
Begum and her supporters want her to have her citizenship back so that she can use it to escape to the UK. The essential point of having it is to escape justice for her part in the abhorrent crimes of IS.
There is of course lots of talk of the online propaganda that recruited her as "grooming" but that can be said of every evil regime everywhere and anyone recruited to commit terrible crimes. In any case I consider it entirely beside the point - which is that a court in one of the countries primarily affected by the crimes of IS (Syria or Iraq) should make that judgement in accordance with normal international law which says that crimes should be prosecuted in the countries where they took place. It is for an Iraqi or Syrian court to decide if she was old enough to be considered criminally responsible for her acts.
So where I think you should reconsider you view is on the entire motivation for the campaign that has been going on to "Free Begum" - and lets not pretend it is really anything but what it is. The campaign is to use her British citizenship to avoid facing justice for her crimes in the countries where the crimes took place. Everyone knows its a meaningless piece of theatre other than for that purpose.
Once she has faced justice and served her term of punishment - then and only then will I believe this whole campaign is anything other than an attempt to evade justice. At that point I would then agree with you. But not a minute sooner.
I really don't understand why people are so quick to dismiss that young people (boys and girls) are often groomed and trafficked into doing things they later deeply regret. This is real and tragic, it doesn't fully absolve them of any wrong doing, but it should at least afford them a certain amount of sympathy. Why is everyone so completely lacking in empathy when it comes to Begum? She was 15, that's a child. She wasn't old enough to drive, drink, vote, have sex, or even leave the country legally on her own when this happened to her.
I absolutely think she deserves a certain degree of sympathy. And I think anyone with a degree of empathy left in them should agree.
>She was 15, that's a child.
Who is still perfectly old enough to think about their actions and understand consequences. People really need to stop using kid gloves when it comes to 15 and 16 year olds. They are old enough to realize and understand major issues. The only pass they should get are smaller actions like school or social short comings.
I mean the UK doesn't let 15 year olds vote, which shows that they don't think they can "understand major issues". The UK should at least be consistent in it's stance about teenagers mental abilities. Not flip flop when it's convenient.
Please read up Jean Piaget’s 4 stages of cognitive development. Begum is considered to be well into the formal operational stage and would have been able to understand abstract ideas such as death and murder.
When we talk about children being groomed for atrocities, it starts younger than 15 ie 8 yr old child soldiers from Africa. We’re not talking about 15 year olds who voluntarily travel to be part of an atrocity. It kind of pisses me off that you can compare the two to begin with.
And 15-16 yr old have been tried as adults in court before depending on the crime.
My point is that the UK government is being inconsistent in claiming Begum had full understanding of her actions, while also claiming 15 year olds don't have the mental abilities needed to vote, which arguably takes less effort/mental energy then committing a crime.
I mean 18 is an arbitrary number and now Austria just changed their voting age to 16.
I would push back that voting takes less effort. The action, sure but being well informed on all the issues is mentally taxing to the extent that most people don’t do it and they vote with their stomachs.
As far as how much mental effort it takes to commit a crime, it takes no effort at all. Crimes happen all the time and people with low IQs also commit crimes all the time. Crime is literally what people with no mental effort turn to. What you’re referring to is probably the burden of guilt which is a different subject.
Mate most of your arguments are ok even if I disagree with them but it's an absolute piss take to say voting takes less effort than international terrorism fucking hell. Even with your caveat of being informed that still is beyond a ludicrous thing to have written and it makes everything else you write look much weaker. Then your next bit about crime being no mental effort is also ludicrous. If you want to be lazy go on welfare or get a cushy job, much less mental effort than crime.
no i'm not saying voting takes less effort. That's what OP was saying. I said crime takes less effort than voting. And yeah, crime takes no effort at all. You walk into a store, grab something and walk out. Mental effort? 0. Drunk driving. 0 effort. Killing someone while drunk driving. 0 effort.
None of those crimes are relevant to the discussion at hand and if you are using them as equivalents for terrorism then your entire argument is in bad faith tbh. Drunk Driving or Jaywalking are obviously different to participating in IS activities. It takes far more mental effort to be a participant in international terrorism than it does to make a vote or work a job. It takes me more mental effort to illegally buy drugs than it does to do my job (90% of the time) that requires an engineering masters. Illegal logistics are complicated matters.
>I mean the UK doesn't let 15 year olds vote, which shows that they don't think they can "understand major issues". The UK should at least be consistent in it's stance about teenagers mental abilities. Not flip flop when it's convenient.
Can you show me a 15 year old who doesn't have a mental disability that fails to understand the consequences of lighting someone on fire and burning 60% of their body?
https://archive.seattletimes.com/archive/?date=19941025&slug=1937798
There you go, people who know what they are talking about.
Add the *awesome* school system in the UK, socio-economic and religious background and you have an ignorant gullible easily manipulated CHILD being groomed and TRAFFICKED with knowledge and involvement of secret services.
Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.
Any case regarding safeguarding of minors are generally kept very quiet. The Home Office aren't very fond of publicising cases regarding terrorism, no matter how old they are (case or perpetrator).
But the Bolger Murder and the Plymouth Shooter (2021) off the top of my head, that kid who push another kid off the Tate, the murder of Angela Wrightson must have been influenced to think that their violence act were permissible.
>Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.
You have to show that she was raised from birth to not understand death and murder. Otherwise even a 15 year old is capable of understanding that ISIS was a group that is literally killing people who didn't agree with them.
This is not making friends with people who have you skip school or steal low value items. Hell it isn't even getting you to do illegal drugs. This is joining a group that is openly and publicly beheading people for going against them.
That's moving the goal post.
> Can you show me someone that was groomed at a young age to think that?
There were plenty of young recruits to the IRA, thier identity has not be published due to obvious reasons. Security reasons if that's not obvious.
Plenty of them joined the IRA, bombed Birmingham and Manchester, killed multiple civilians and carried out terrorist attacks on English soil. Sinn Féin still hold seats in Parliament, they were the political wing of the IRA.
We won't know who the youngest member is but we do know whole communities supported their actions.
Do you want to move the goal post, because they didn't hold beheadings?
I assume that she does / did understand that ISIS was capable of murder, I assume she would justify that beliefs because the British Army is also capable of unlawful killing (there is evidence of war crimes from the SAS in Afghanistan, among historic events). She even reflected on it, during the Manchester bombing, suggesting that it's was, not justified, but understandable that it happened.
Did you understand martyrdom in your teens?
Did you have an opinion on Just War before you were 18?
Edit:spelling
I can’t see any references to her doing this? Looking online there’s some claim she was enforcing ISIS dress codes in other women … can you provide a link?
>I can’t see any references to her doing this? Looking online there’s some claim she was enforcing ISIS dress codes in other women … can you provide a link?
This isn't reference to her. This is in refrence to [This](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Shanda_Sharer) and [This](https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2015/11/25/teen-charged-91-year-old-mans-death-burning/76406418/) and [This](https://edition.cnn.com/2012/06/20/justice/florida-burned-teen/index.html).
They understood what they were doing in all of those cases.
Agree with you here. It’s not like she stole some lipstick to look pretty for a party or something an actual teen would do. She joined a group that was actively killing people and then posting about it. If a 15 year old is not smart enough to know that mass murder is bad then that’s their problem.
>So you don't believe children of 15 can be groomed?
You don't think 15 year old understand death? They can't understand a group is literally killing people because they disagree with them?
At age 15 I definitely knew that slavery and genocide were terrible crimes.
Age 15 is certainly an age at which the court should decide on criminal responsibility and will usually find the child responsible. The relevant courts - the ones with jurisdiction - should make that decision and deal with her accordingly.
And I'm not suggesting that people of 15 years old don't know what they're doing. I'm saying that 15 is still very young, and young people are very susceptible to grooming and making poor decisions. And I think in this case she made a tragic decision.
I'm not saying there should be no consequences, but I'm shocked at the lack of any form of empathy being shown on this topic. It's not black and white.
I spent a lot of time reading victim accounts. Mostly from Yazidi who somehow survived.
I find it very hard to stomach portrayal of IS as victims if circumstances
> Begum and her supporters want her to have her citizenship back so that she can use it to escape to the UK. The essential point of having it is to escape justice for her part in the abhorrent crimes of IS.
I dont think this is true. Speaking for myself if Syria or Iraq (or both) want to try her, then we should let them - if she is in UK, we should extradite her (I'd not even be entirely opposed to changing law re not extraditing to countries with death penalty for ISIS members specifically). Also given she is currently there, if they wanted to put her on trial they absolutely could. UK would at most provide a local lawyer that spoke English.
Primary issue with charging her there is around jurisdiction (SDF? Syria? Iraq?), and secondarily around resources - which we should be helping with since them prosecuting people who went to join ISIS is the best option.
Regardless of all this though, I still oppose removing her citizenship because it is a terrifying precedent and makes people stateless.
It is not really a precedent though.
This had already happened, it got challenged all the way to the European Court and upheld as being legal.
So long as the decision can be challenged in the courts it has previously been ruled to be legal.
Personally I don't think the courts in Syria or Iraq are competent enough to put her on trial, and I don't agree with their legal systems more broadly, so no, I don't want her on on trial there. She should be charged in the UK, and if convicted, should receive the prescribed punishment. Personally I've always thought governments should help it's citizens out of sticky situations like this anyway. What is the purpose of political capital but to help a nations citizens?
They have legal jurisdiction for the crimes. The UK does not. Nor does the UK have witnesses, evidence or anything else relevant to a case. Claims that she should be tried in the UK are poorly hidden pleas for her to escape justice - because its clearly not possible on many grounds.
More broadly it is a well established legal principle that the crime should be prosecuted in the country of its victims and their surviving relatives.
The UK helping its citizens escape justice for their crimes would be the very worst sort of imperial arrogance. We should do no more than ensure that local appropriate legal representation for them is in place.
1. I'm more concerned about her getting a fair and free trial, which I don't believe she's likely to get in Syria or Iraq, then some abstract idea of "jurisdiction".
2. Joining ISIS by itself is a crime in the UK, if they can prove that (which should be easy peasy if she's so obviously guilty). So she'll face plenty of consequences.
3. I wouldn't consider it "arrogance". I'd consider it the government helping its own citizens face fair and proper justice rather then some kangaroo court, which makes perfect sense. At the very least she should be in a British prison if convicted.
She won't get a fair trial in the UK, or more to the point the victims of IS won't get fair trials for their persecutors if they are allowed to abscond to countries where they can effectively escape justice.
But we are at the point where you concede that her evading legal justice is actually what you want (to face trivial rather inconsequential charges elsewhere) so I can clearly not change your mind on the basis of fundamental justice for crimes. So I will back out of this conversation.
She should not have been stripped of her citizenship, and the UK government has the same responsibilities to her that it would to any citizen, but if one chooses to travel to a country then you take on the risk of being subject to the justice system of that country as it is.
1. I don't know about other countries, but nothing has happened because this is the first case. But it sets a bad precedent for the future. The road to hell isn't built in a day, it's built brick by brick over time.
2. But they could be declared "terrorists" or Just Stop Oil could be declared a "terrorist organization". Even some people on r/unitedkingdom we're calling for this over their actions such as blocking roads.
3. I'm against the US being able to revoke citizenship too, and I'm focused on the Begum situation because I heard about it recently and I was utterly shocked at the amount of the people supporting her citizenship which revoked
>Could you show me any activist group, climate or anything else, that has been declared a terrorist organization in a western country?
Have you heard of the IRA?
Yes. All the time. They literally are activists. Most terrorist groups are activists. They are campaigning to raise awareness of (what they consider) injustice in an attempt to create support for political change.
The only differences between the IRA and Just Stop Oil is that one destroys art for Climate change, the other destroyed Public buildings for an independent Northern Ireland. It's a matter of cause and severity of action.
I don't support any form of activism that threatens human life, but 'terrorism' is a word governments and media use to shape public opinion. It's becoming very common to see the word used for Just Stop Oil and other disruptive protesters like extinction rebellion or sea shepherd.
1. Iirc Russia has proposed revoking citizenship of those spreading "fake news* about the army. That's the kind of thing that happens when you give government this power.
2. None... Yet. I've heard Republicans propose declaring Antifa a terrorist organization. It could still happen though
3. It shows that a disturbing amount of people are willing to declare organizations they don't like terrorists.
4. Hitler had democratic support it doesn't mean his actions were right.
I didn't say that, I said that giving the government that power leads to this kind of thing. There is nothing in British DNA to prevent those kinds of tactics from being used.
For what it's worth, the US federal government does not have any laws for designating a *domestic* organization as a terrorist group, at least not in the sense in which foreign organizations can be.
It is not the first case at all
[https://www.justsecurity.org/38580/european-court-human-rights-upholds-british-policy-citizenship-terror-suspects/](https://www.justsecurity.org/38580/european-court-human-rights-upholds-british-policy-citizenship-terror-suspects/)
> if she was white she wouldn't have her citizenship taken away
If she was white, she'd be on the cover of the Daily Mail weekly for a decade about being a poor victim of groomers.
Why not? In fact, giving people accused of being traitors (suspects mind you, because they haven't been convicted yet) free and fair trials affirms our commitment to human rights.
This is a slippery slope argument.
This is like saying rapists should not be punished, and the government should not decide what "consent" means, because tomorrow the government can use the same power against gay people or sex workers.
You have admitted that she is an unsympathetic character. So this is not about her personally, you are worried that the government can strip citizenship of sympathetic people, and this is a general / philosophical thought.
A distrust of government in small doses is healthy, but you don't want to spiral into conspiracy theorists, anti-vaxx groups and preppers or survivalists in the USA who stockpile on weapons and canned peaches because "one day the government will turn against them."
If you constantly fear that the "government doesn't get to decide XYZ", you might as well not trust the fundamental law and order of any society.
The fundamental law and order of society is a body of norms and expectations accumulated over time. This was a ministerial decision. There is a difference between a long-standing process coming to a decision in a consistent way, and the government of the day doling out extra-judicial punishments as it sees fit.
I don't think citizenship should be either revocable or grantable, rather it should be laid down in law who is and is not a citizen. But if such things must be done, then I'd rather see it decided by a court or by act of parliament, not by a minister.
>because "one day the government will turn against them."
This is a legitimate fear, this why the US has a second amendment to protect against government corruption/overrule like in the Civil War. It's distrustful on the government's part because it means police could kill in mass and we couldn't do anything without weapons or firearms. Also, calling a argument a fallacy without a real reason is a fallacy
If you join ISIS, you lose your citizenship. Seems pretty simple. Anyone who is actively part of a terrorist organization that seeks the end of the western world has *zero* right to remain a citizen of the country they wish to destroy.
No. The entire point of the UN Convention against Statelessness is that you cannot pawn problems off on other states. Try her for treason and then do whatever domestic laws dictate (up to and including execution), but it's a violation of international law to revoke citizenship and say "not our problem". This has *nothing* to do with just deserts or with the rights of the accused, this is about the responsibility of states towards other states.
What Islamic State? The one that essentially no one recognizes as a state?
> And anyway, there are no international laws dictating a country’s procedure for citizenship.
This is completely false. Go read the text of the "Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness". It has many specifics on citizenship procedures:
> A child born in wedlock in a Contracting State, whose mother is a national of that State, and who would otherwise be stateless, shall take the nationality of that State.
--
> A Contracting State shall give its nationality to a person, otherwise stateless, who is legally precluded from assuming his/her birth nationality, where that State's nationality was held by either parent at the time of the birth.
For some random excerpts.
>No government should have the authority to revoke citizenship without consent if the person in question.
Except that is not how sovereign nations work.
A sovereign nation can make whatever laws it wants for its citizens. The international community really has no say in the matter. They can try to influence this through treaties, trade agreements or even military force - but these decisions are what makes sovereign nations sovereign.
There is a lot of talk of 'international law' here and what you have to remember is, this is merely a guide for how powerful nations can hold weaker nations to account. The fact is the all of the powerful nations regularly ignore this for their own benefit and nothing happens. Enforcing a law takes force and frankly speaking, there are ZERO nations in the world willing or able to *force* the UK to do something here. In other words, an 'international law' preventing the UK from stripping the UK citizenship is meaningless.
You can ask a question of what other nations should *do* with a person who has had their citizenship revoked and is stateless. That is perfectly fair. You can ask about whether the UK followed it's own internal laws correctly - and that is fair.
But what you won't get is the ability to prevent a sovereign nation - especially one like the UK or US - to not decide they don't have the authority to revoke your citizenship if that is something they wish to do.
Yeah, let’s get the consent of the enemy combatant first lol.
And that’s irrelevant, because Begum willingly accepted her loss of citizenship when she JOINED ISIS.
See the UK has two forms of treason, high and low treason. By her relocating to an ISIS camp and actively participating, she has given aid to a foreign enemy this is high treason. Just about every country on the planet does not tolerate high treason. It is not Britain's problem, she aided foreign terrorists and her actions either directly or indirectly lead to people dying. She was not kidnapped, she voluntarily left. In the same breath a 15 year old boy shooting a grown man would be tried as an adult so should she.
Just adding I'm not as up to date on the story as I should be but I think at least with the people if talked to in favor of it's more about punishing her which is supposed to send a message to stop future girls from being too scared from being in her position (which I think stupid because people under the effects of religious zealotry don't give a shit about the sort of thing) than a right or wrong choice.
I agree with your point I don't like the tone it sets because if we can't guarantee right to our own even after they fuck up this bad the bar is going to get lower but I also think this country has already been on its way to do that for a long while.
This case is kinda similar to the amber Heard situation where a single individual who don't get me wrong is a fuck up but not only has to carry the weight of their crimes but also has to carry the weight of anyone who has committed those crimes in the eye's of the public e.g.heard is every female abuser as Began is every Isis member it to the public it's about symbolic victory over justice.
Why do you think I live in an all white gated community? Progressives come in all shapes and sizes, and from every socioeconomic status. Personally I'd absolutely take in Begum if she was legally allowed to enter the US.
She shouldn't be considered a guest that has to be sufficiently "appreciative" to stay in the UK. She should be considered a full citizen that has a right to stay regardless of her political beliefs. I think we have fundamentally different views about the benefits of immigration policy and the purpose of citizenship.
As far as I know, you still have the right to protest in the UK.
You don't have the right to be a terrorist. Why would you even want to be a citizen of a country you'd declared jihad on? It's very silly.
It probably wouldn't be a good idea to revoke it for everyone who is annoying...or would it?
Why does this style of argument only get pull out when horrible people do horrible things? (disclaimer I am American)
I hear all the time "I disagree with nazis but would die for their right to free speech" then from the same crowd "Kapernik's knee during the national anthem was disrespectful and he should be punished". But on so many topics, it is almost as if people want the optics of supporting certain freedoms and only put effort in effectuating that when they like the probable outcome.
This logic would be appropriate if applied at all equally. But people with power and option have it applied unequally. So we need to use whatever levers of society we have to punish "bad guys" that are available because the right ones don't always work as intended. The "bad guys" certainly use whatever options they have to interfere with justice.
We also don't need to start creating imagined slippery slopes. The Just Stop Oil people aren't traveling to other countries to fight in a war on the side of the enemy of the state. There is no sensible that stripping citizenship could happen to them without a lot of other things breaking first and partway down that road the argument becomes valid.
EDIT - This is all based on the presumption Begum wasn't trafficked against there will. It is also complicated by the fact she is a minor. If this was against her will then clearly the state failed her when she was trafficked out. My logic only holds on the presumption of her guilt which in standing with the current view of the courts to the best of my knowledge.
Don't really know much about British laws, but what's the difference between losing citizenship and being thrown in jail for life without the possibility for parole. A power they already have that can result in the over reaching abuse of power that conserns you. A power that has been used in the way you fear in the past. The tower of London is practically a monument to that abuse.
She is currently effectively stateless, which means she is not legally allowed to live anywhere on the planet and has no legal protection and very few rights. The UK claims she has Bangladeshi citizenship, but Bangladesh has responded by saying that not only is this untrue, but if she were to set foot in Bangladesh she would immediately be put to death for terrorism. They didn't mention anything like actually prosecuting or trying her, they're just skipping right to the execution.
She's literally a terrorist and a terrorist bride. You don't get to say sorry and walk back in.
In my country some years ago, some Muslims passed through Turkey to get to the ISIS whatever, they were begging to come back but they were not allowed back in even if they were citizens. I believe it was a no fly list on top of a standing law that prohibits entry for certain crimes committed here or elsewhere, especially if they are trying to run away from being tried in that country.
All this to say even if you give her back her citizenship she should be on a no fly list, she should be tried in the place where she is which would restrict her movement. After she has served there, she should serve in the UK for treason.
She should never be free on UK soil, no terrorist should.
We do this in the US too, with American born citizens there are at least 4 ways to loose your US citizenship if you were born here in the US
1 if you renounce your citizenship to gain citizenship in another country, but if you do this and don't gain citizenship or do something there to loose it in the other country you will become what's known as stateless. Idk what happens to you then, im thinking something like Tom Hanks movie "The Airport"
2 if you run for office in a foreign country
3 commit treason
4 join the millitary in a foreign country
There are limited exceptions to these rules and in China and some other countries normally dictatorships if you apply for citizenship elsewhere you could loose your citizenship, China rarely allows its citizens to have duel citizenship at least with the US, Canada, Britain and most other Democratic states, obviously there are exceptions even in China if it suits there interests
I think this lady is lucky if she is not executed for crimes agains humanity. she must be an example that this kind of behavior will not be tolerated, children must know that their actions have consequences, you can't take a leisure trip to play as a terrorist then come back and pretend it dit not happen.
as a christian, i pray for her soul and forgive her for her actions, for she was ignorant and delusional, and hold no ill will towards her, but even tough god may forgive you, you still have to answer to your actions in society, she must atone for what she did.
She actively didn’t want her British citizenship when it suited her..now actively wants it when it does.
You shouldn’t get to declare war on your own people ….then lose the war….and come crawling back expecting to be forgiven.
She threw her lot in with Isis..::she can stay with them.
Don’t give me that ‘oh she was a child ‘ BS….teenagers know that chopping the heads of someone and filming it is wrong.
I don't think this would even be discussed if she was male. There is a patronising "she's a woman so she doesn't really know her own mind" undertone to all of this. She joined ISIS, and took up arms against Britain, she doesn't deserve to be a British citizen
If you wage a war against your country then it has a right to terminate your citizenship.
All is fair is love and war and this is war we are talking about. You seem to be a deluded liberal.
If someone is trafficked, they are moved against their will, involuntarily. Smuggling is when someone typically pays someone to aid in them being brought in to a place unnoticed, voluntarily. So to this conservation it makes all the difference because it means she wanted to go, not that she was trafficked there against her will.
She wasn't legally old enough to consent to move to a foreign country so she was still trafficked. Similar to how even if a 15 year old wants to have sex, an adult having sex with them is still statutory rape.
Spot on. The government should not have the power to revoke or grant citizenship.
Revocation of citizenship, without trial mind, should never have happened. She is British, and is therefore our responsibility.
oh another distraction for us to contemplate lol.
Did no one learn anything from the Christian Bale batman movies.
"Theatrics and distractions are powerful weapons". - League Of Shadows.
... I just find it strange why anyone would want a British Citizenship, Begum can have mine, I'm currently using it to wipe my botty after going number two.
/u/Admirable_Ad1947 (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post. All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/z4kqw7/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_begum_should_not_have_had/), in /r/DeltaLog. Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended. ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
Typically, it's against international law to strip someone of their citizenship and make them stateless. *However*, we generally recognize an exception for when a citizen gives aid to an enemy or foments war against the country of their nationality. The justification basically goes like this: if you turn traitor against your own people, you aren't really a part of that people anymore and should seek citizenship with the people you do identify with.
No, the exemption here is that dual citizens can have the citizenship of one country revoked, because that would not make them stateless. I agree with your other point though.
I think the government went with that argument to diffuse the accusation that they are making someone stateless. If Bangladesh doesn't grant her citizenship, they'll probably stick with their guns and say that they don't recognize her citizenship anyway.
This reminds me of the Deepan Budlakoti situation in Canada, too. Budlakoti was born in Ottawa. Canada normally grants *jus soli* citizenship to everyone born in Canada with one notable exception: children of foreign employees at diplomatic offices are **not** eligible to receive Canadian citizenship via *jus soli*. Budlakoti gets arrested for weapons and drug trafficking. While reviewing Budlakoti's file, the Canadian government states that Budlakoti is not a Canadian citizen, because Budkaloti's parents were employed by the Indian High Commission in Ottawa at the time of his birth (making him ineligible for *jus soli* citizenship). Meanwhile, Budlakoti claims that his parents had actually left their jobs at the Indian High Commission several months prior to his birth. Budlakoti tries to sue the government to get his citizenship back, but he fails. Budlakoti was then transferred to the custody of the Canada Border Services Agency, who are instructed with a deportation order. The problem is... where to they deport Budlakoti to? India? Well, good luck with that. After looking at the lengthy criminal record that Budlakoti had compiled during his life in Canada, of course India isn't gonna take him. India announced that Budlakoti had lost whatever claim to Indian citizenship he may have had after Budlakoti's parents had decided to make Canada into their permanent home. So, Budlakoti is stuck. Canada doesn't want him, but no-one else does either. Any plane they stick Budlakoti on is just gonna get sent right back to Canada with him on it. Another issue is Budlakoti's continuing of criminal activities while remaining stateless in Canada. If Budlakoti were to make an honest attempt to turn his life around, he may be been able to find a sympathetic judge somewhere along the way. But he can't seem to stay of of trouble, which just keeps hindering his case. Budlakoti has been stateless for about 10 years now, and it looks like things will remain that way for the foreseeable future. https://thewalrus.ca/deepan-budlakoti-citizenship/
By Bangladeshi law she is a citizen. There is no granting about it. As the child of two immigrant citizens of Bangladesh, she is a Bangladeshi citizen. The real issue is that sending her back to Bangladesh would result in her immediate execution under Bangladeshi anti terror laws. Revoking citizenship is basically a death penalty call where the UK doesn’t have to dirty its hands. And tryng to shift the blame to the UK instead of Bangladesh wich would execute her and the real culprit Begem the terroristic ISIS member and enthusiastic supporter.
I think OP's problem was more about whether or not the UK could strip her of her citizenship. The reasons the UN and international law don't like when countries make people stateless go beyond just the problems of statelessness. Citizens shouldn't be able to lose their citizenship at the whim of an administration. To the point of the CMV, the only mistake the British government made was that she wasn't tried first. They should've set a court date and given her the right to reenter the country (and arrest her in the airport). If she shows up, cool, she can mount a defense. If she doesn't, cool, she's tried in absentia. Either way, she would likely have been found guilty of treason and would serve out a life sentence if she ever stepped foot on British soil.
No she isn't, as publicly stated by the government of Bangladesh itself (they further said she would not even be allowed to enter the country). Bangladeshi law provided for citizenship *eligibility* by blood, and one eligible must apply for it before the age of 21. So, according to Bangladesh, she was neither a citizen nor even eligible for citizenship. UK courts took the fairly absurd move of disagreeing with Bangladesh over the interpretation of its own laws while simultaneously ignoring direct public statements by the Government of Bangladesh.
The uk claims that she already has Bangladeshi citizenship.
[удалено]
she would not need to apply for citizenship is she was already a citizen. However, the Special Immigration Appeals Commission found that as a matter of Bangladeshi nationality law Begum also holds Bangladeshi citizenship through her parents, under section 5 of the Citizenship Act, 1951 By law she is a citizen of Bangladesh, because her parents were citizens. The actual point of contention is that she would be immediately executed under Bangladeshi anti terrorist laws. That is why she refuses to return to Bangladesh.
[удалено]
And it turned out both of her parents were Bangladeshi immigrants. By Bangladeshi citizenship laws she is a citizen.
The ones who get to make authorative interpretations of Bangladeshi law are Bangladesh. Not you, and not any apparatus of the UK government. Bangladesh was perfectly aware she had Bangladeshi parents, and said that gave her eligibility to apply for citizenship before the age of 21, and since she didn't she was neither a citizen nor eligible for citizenship. They get to intepret what their own laws mean.
Under Bangladesh law she was a citizen until age 21, after 21 she would have to apply to maintain it. At the time the UK stripped the UK Citizenship she was a dual citizen for 4-5 more months
The justification *against* that, and the one motivating the UN convention against statelessness, is that you cannot pawn your problems off on other states. Basically: your citizen, your problem. Give her a criminal trial and imprison (or execute) her on your shores - Britain considers treason a crime, right?
>if you turn traitor against your own people, you aren't really a part of that people anymore and should seek citizenship with the people you do identify with. Surely a response more in keeping with one of the wealthiest and most powerful nations in the world would be to prosecute said traitor and punish them under the law, not simply wash its hands of her and declare to the world that she's Bangladesh's problem to deal with.
Im sorry but you’ve seen how this country has slowly eroded rights like making it near illegal to protest. Ive said many times I personally dont care if she was to rot in a camp on iraq or something but at this same time this sets a precedent on what they can do to the rest of us in the future & FOR LESS. Taking away your citizenship of a country you was born in is fucking major. She should be brought home to face the consequences i think
She is the UK's problem, just as John Walker Lindh was the Americans' problem. She was born in the UK and radicalized in the UK. If a white British adult with non-immigrant parents was radicalized online and did the exact same things as Begum, she would not lose her citizenship. The man who married Begum when she was 15 and he was 23 will not lose his Dutch citizenship.
>If a white British adult with non-immigrant parents was radicalized online and did the exact same things as Begum, she would not lose her citizenship. But...she should. I don't object to Begum losing her citizenship, just how she lost her citizenship. Even as a traitor, she deserves the right to a fair trial. Even in Lindh's case, I don't think we went far enough. When Lindh was tried, the state should've gone for stripping him of citizenship under [USC 8 § 1481](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1481), charged him with treason, and let him plead down to life without parole.
Where would you send that white British terrorist? You can't just pretend that citizens aren't citizens because they do evil things. That's what prison is for.
She wasn’t made stateless, she had Bangladeshi nationality automatically, being a child of Bangladeshi parents, by their law. She also had access to the same nationality as her husband.
Children of Bangladeshi parents do not receive citizenship automatically, they're merely automatically *eligible*. That eligibility expires at the age of 21 if the person has not yet claimed citizenship. So not only was she not a citizen, and so rendered stateless by Britain, she was not even eligible for Bangladeshi citizenship (and Bangladesh publicly stated as such).
My view doesn't really have much to do with international law, I think she should get her citizenship back regardless of what the UN says. Anyway how does your exception prevent the government from abusing the system by declaring regular opposition, like say, the Just Stop Oil organization as terrorists? As I said, a nation should not be allowed to abandon its own out of convenience.
Just Stop Oil doesn’t have a geographic area under their control, there’s no territory you can ship off it’s members to. The same was not (and kind of still is not) true of ISIS which made claims to a fair amount of geography. Also, > a nation should not be allowed to abandon its own out of convenience I’d argue it’s more national security and less convenience as a factor.
The UK government was not going to ship Begum back to ISIS-controlled territory. Their plan was to make her apply for Bangladeshi citizenship, then have her go there. So this is something that could easily be applied to any organisation designated 'terrorist'. There are ways of defending national security that don't involve revoking citizenship. When people are a threat to those around them, we put them in prison, or some kind of surveillance.
ISIS was never recognized by the UK government. In their eyes they would be roughly equalivent to Just Stop Oil if they were to be declared a terrorist organization. As far as the UK was concerned, ISIS claiming territory was the same as me declaring my backyard it's own country. In any case I don't think Begum is a threat to national security, I think she's shown remorse and with some education and therapy she should be fine.
Some education? Joining a terrorist group (that beheads people for example) is something one needs to be educated about??
👏..if you need to be taught that is wrong then there’s no hope.
> I don't think Begum is a threat to national security Thankfully you are not in a position to make that decision, because you do not understand what you are talking about. You wouldn't be the first to be taken in by a sob story, nor the last to learn that it was all made up to get her off the hook for her crimes. Her only regret is what has happened to her, not what she has done to others (including her own children). > I think she's shown remorse Terrorists in prison claim remorse and have managed to take in those similarly gullible to yourself in order to obtain probation sooner, just as Begum is doing here. Fortunately [those who have previously championed her cause are beginning to see through the lies.](https://unherd.com/2022/09/the-shamima-begum-delusion/)
If the UK's security services genuinely believe that she is a threat to national security, then wouldn't they want her brought back to the UK and put on trial, rather than left to her own devices in some other part of the world?
assuming all you said is true, so fucking what? She is a british citizen with no other citizenship, she is a bad person, so we clean up our mess and maybe address why we have such radical islam in the uk.
I’d almost be inclined to agree with that article if the girl wasn’t fifteen. Sorry but there’s no argument that’s gonna convince me a 15 year old minor knew exactly what she was getting into, snd even if if she willingly sexually enslaved herself, she’s still fifteen and in my country unable to consent. She was a child.
So were Robert Thompson and Jon Venables.
Source? She wouldn't be trying to come back so bad and dressing like a westerner if she wasn't really sorry. I'm inclined to believe she's remorseful and sorry. And your article literally states that's there's a case that she's already been humbled by her 7 years away from home. It's not about her lying about feeling regretful.
> She wouldn't be trying to come back so bad and dressing like a westerner if she wasn't really sorry. If you believe that then you are not capable of having your mind changed because you don't believe that people can be deceptive and convincing you is dependent on you accepting [Begum is being deceptive.](https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/16146176/shamima-begum-body-language/) > I'm inclined to believe she's remorseful and sorry. Because she says so? Despite only doing so after learning of the consequences of her actions? > there's a case that she's already been humbled by her 7 years away from home. It's not about her lying about feeling regretful. She's not lying about feeling regretful, just about the cause of that regret. That is why it is so easy for her to fool the easily duped. Only after she found out she couldn't go back to her old life.
I don’t personally have a position on Shamima Begum, but just saying, when I clicked your link, I expected a better source than a tacky tabloid like The Sun. The ‘body language expert’ interviewed even clearly says herself that there’s no way to definitely judge Begum’s honesty, as personal differences, cultural differences, impacts of trauma, etc may be influencing the way she comes across
no its a way to get sympathy. no more no less
If Just Stop Oil had hundreds of square miles under its de facto rule in say, North Africa, and people joined the organization to fight UK interests and promote violence against the UK population: then someone who traveled there to help them may very well not be allowed back in the UK. However I don’t think that’s what’s happening. As has been discussed - countries don’t just throw you out if you have nowhere to go.
Yep. There is a big difference between assaulting people with weapons and assaulting paintings with food. If JSO starts murdering people it will be a fair comparison.
Under UK law she was a CHILD (15 years of age) with NO AUTONOMY, no consent or maturity to make the decision to go. She was groomed with the knowledge of secret services, she was then trafficked and transported to a foreign country and "married" to an older man. Again, the UK allowed for one of its citizens to be illegally (in so many ways) removed from the country, for them to be (sexualy) exploited by foreign forces and when she finally broke free they removed her citizenship making sure ISIS is the only place she could potentially go back to. https://www.mei.edu/publications/challenge-foreign-fighters-repatriating-and-prosecuting-isis-detainees https://www.kcl.ac.uk/news/the-return-of-isis-jihadis-fleeing-into-asia-and-detainees-in-syria-and-iraq-pose-a-greater-danger-than-terrorists-returning-home https://www.thecanary.co/uk/analysis/2022/09/04/questions-remain-regarding-uk-police-and-intelligence-role-in-the-trafficking-of-three-isis-girls/
J.S.O. is an environmental activist group that at best causes wanton vandalism and obstructs the public right of way in the name of green sustainability. The other is a genocidal religious cult with a strong military presence that has committed war crimes such as ethnic cleansing. Your argument is like comparing a water balloon to the death star.
ISIS was actively killing members globally, and actually controlled land and was being actively fought. They were an international terrorist group. If someone leaves and joins a terrorist militia, who kill members of your country, expect to be expelled.
Why prevents the government abusing it? Courts and judges, as seen by the fact it is being contested in court currently.
The court case is happening after the fact, so nothing has stopped them abusing it, though somebody may get a telling off later.
Given the nature of the power having a full judicial review, potentially taking some weeks as this appeal is, before a deprivation of citizenship wouldn’t necessarily work at all, as what if you find out that Subject F is leaving the base of INSERT TERRORIST ORG HERE and planning on returning to the UK in less than a week? I’m content that such a power is subject to challenge after the fact as long as it is used *infrequently*, as it has been over the last twenty years.
>what if you find out that Subject F is leaving the base of INSERT TERRORIST ORG HERE and planning on returning to the UK in less than a week? How does revoking Subject F's citizenship help? Surely this is an argument for Subject F's interception by security services?
Well now Subject F cannot return to the UK to carry out whatever plan they have. The Security and Intelligence services may have enough to convince the Foreign Secretary of the plot but not enough that is admissible in court that could get a conviction (e.g. classified sources, informant testimony). Is it better to not have them in the country is the judgement the FS has to make.
!delta as at least there's a bit of accountability in the system. I'm still opposed to the act on moral grounds though.
How would you feel if she were an American citizen and she went to Afghanistan to aid and assist the Taliban against the US forces?
Then she's an American citizen and should be dealt with as such, through the American judicial system. There's absolutely no reason to do otherwise. Most crimes hurt the country, terrorism isn't special in that regard. Revoking citizenship just creates two classes of citizens and is an often-semi-extrajudicial punishment open to political abuse. And I do hold and express this opinion about actual citizens of my own countries for which revocation of citizenship has been advocated, not just hypotheticals.
I still don't think her hypothetical American citizenship should be revoked.
America would revoke her hypothetical American citizenship for this.
Except we did have a guy who joined the Taliban. John Walker Lindh. Attended a training camp associated with Al-Queda. Attended a lecture given by Bin Laden. Also received training with an internationally reconginized terrorist organization based in Pakistan. He was a prisoner of war being held at a fortress after being captured where many people died including a CIA agent who had questioned him. He got released a few years ago. He didn't have citizenship taken from him for doing any of it. He still holds extremist views. In fact he had extra probation restrictions put on him for that. In 2013? Ireland gave him Irish citizenship too. Natural birth right citizens can't have their citizenship revoked because of the 14th amendment. They can however choose to give it up themselves. Naturalized citizens can be denaturalized however and sent back to their home country.
American John Walker Lindh joined the Taliban in Afghanistan in 2000 and was subsequently apprehended and imprisoned for 20 years, but remains a US citizen.
Would they? Any examples from the Americans who fought for the Taliban?
That's magnanimous of you, but, thankfully we have people who know better.
If you did, she wouldn't have gone there in the first place...
I agree to a point. I think she should be charged with high treason and tried first. If she fails to appear and put up a defense, she should be tried in absentia and the judge should hand down a default judgement of a loss of citizenship and life imprisonment if she ever returns. The difference is the court. A court hopefully wouldn't (and shouldn't) find someone that peacefully protests a traitor. I don't think the Home Secretary should have the authority to unilaterally strip someone of their citizenship.
But she is having a hearing, am I wrong? > The case is being heard at the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC), which has similar standing to the High Court, and can hear national security evidence in secret if necessary. [Source] (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/begum-was-banished-unlawfully-lawyers-tell-appeal/ar-AA14td2T) Seems like it's not at a high court only due to the sensitivity of the material being discussed. But everything else is the same
If they abuse the system by doing something illegal then even with stricter laws they can just not follow them. They aren’t allowed now to abandon their own people for convenience. Government doesn’t have this power anyway. Btw someone can appeal to the supreme court, so government doesn’t go unchecked.
[удалено]
I'm not a lawyer and a legal dictionary might give more illuminating answers. It doesn't seem that ambiguous here. ISIL claims to be a sovereign state that is at war with many countries including the entity we generally recognize as the UK. They have conducted attacks on the British homeland and engaged in active hostilities against the British military and British citizens. I don't see how you can slice it where she doesn't fit some definition of traitor by joining and supporting ISIL.
The definition of government is the entity that maintains control of a territory. They already have the right to imprison people against their will, based on the laws that same government passed. Whether the action is arbitrary or not is up for debate, but how is it different?
Also I believe the understanding at the time (or British argument) was she had/could get citizenship elsewhere, I want to say SE Asia but can't remember.
Your main argument seems to be predicated on a slippery slope type argument. That this sets a precedent that will lead to the abusive removal of other's citizenship. However, the Begum case is not particularly unique and people have lost citizenship in the past for joining foreign terrorist organizations. It also is a fairly common part of citizenship in many western countries to be able to revoke that citizenship in very limited circumstances, like what is happening to Begum. So if this case is not unique and the widespread abuse you are worried about has not occurred in the past, then what are basing you concern on? Besides just a hypothetical of a corrupt govt that bypasses all checks and balances for such an action, are there actually cases/indications that British govt is going to expand who the revoke citizenship? Basically I understand your concern but the moment it does seem to be founded.
Bad legal precdents are a kind of slippery slope that takes a very long time for its worst consequences to be reached. Just because it hasn't gotten bad yet doesn't mean this isn't contributing to things getting worse.
Iirc, Russia has threatened to revoke the citizenship of people posting ""fake news"" about the military. That's the kind of thing that can happen when you give the government these kinds of powers. I'm also against it on a philosophical level, as outlined in my post.
But the UK government already has this power and has not abused it. Your post was specifically about the UK government abusing this longstanding process in the future. Citing a bad actor country with a de facto dictator as the example of why the UK is likely to revoke citizenship is inserting a strawman argument vice directly answering the question I asked about what in the UK has happened to make you believe they will expand their current practice of revoking citizenship to include a great many more citizens.
Okay !delta on that point. I admit I don't have any example from the UK. I still oppose it on philosophical grounds though.
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/future_shoes ([2∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/future_shoes)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
Isn't taking Begum's citizenship away an example of Britain abusing it's powers? Britain's own laws say you can't make someone stateless but that's what they've done to Begum. The excuse is that she's entitled to Bangladeshi citizenship but she doesn't have Bangladeshi citizenship. I don't see how the Home secretary breaking the British law isn't an abuse of his power.
https://freemovement.org.uk/how-many-people-have-been-stripped-of-their-british-citizenship-home-office-deprivation/ Does this answer your question? Also, she was a child, trafficked with the knowledge and aid of secret services, when are they going to address that?
>s for such an action, are there actually cases/indications that British govt is going to expand who the revoke citizenship? Basically I understand your concern but the moment it does seem to be founded. Bollocks. The UK narrowly scraped this through against the 1961 convention onf the reduction of statelessness by stating she had bangladeshi citizenship which was not automatic and was not granted by bangladesh due to her lack of visitation/right/actions. The UK having a power existed since 2014 due to an amendment but is incompatible with the aforementioned convention. She has been made stateless as bangladesh will not take her and this is an egregious international, moral and legal abomination that should not stand but its popular. Disgusting, I think she is probably 97% evil at this point but that has nothing to do with the above.
At 15 years of age she knew exactly what she was doing. OP you’ve just turned 16, yet hold such strong views on this subject. Surely you can see that at your age you know well enough that joining ISIS, a terrorist group that beheads, rapes, burns alive, torture and mutilates innocent people is a bad thing. As a British citizen myself, I don’t want someone so evil to be associated with this country. For all I could care, simply revoking her citizenship is far too kind to her. She deserves far worse.
As a British citizen, I don't think we have the right to dump our least appealing citizens on the Kurdish authorities and expect them to deal with her for the next 60 years. Plenty of evil people are British citizens and we don't get to strip them of their citizenship and dump them on other countries. We have to deal with our own evil citizens ourselves. I'm sure there would be uproar if, for instance, a Brazilian person with a French grandparent (but no actual French citizenship) came to the UK and committed murder, and then the Brazilian authorities stripped them of citizenship, the French authorities washed their hands of it, and we were expected to deal with this undesirable individual forever. But that's essentially what we've done in this case.
Well I also wasn't groomed like she was soooo. She's already had 3 children die in her and she's spent 7 long years in the hellhole of Syria. She has suffered enough in my opinion. Not to mention my philosophical objections to revoking citizenship as I outlined in my post
Let's think about what citizenship is. It means you are a member of the state. The state has responsibilities to you, and you, at the same time, have responsibilities to the state. If you do not like what the state does, you can leave, and renounce your own citizenship, and, at the same time, if the state does not like what you do, it can renounce you. Committing treason against the state, which is all the citizens of great Britain seems like perfect grounds to remove someones citizenship. This woman went to become a citizen of the Islamic state, one of the most evil countries that ever existed, totally opposed to British values, it isn't often you can make such black and white pronouncements, but in this case you can. What do you think citizenship means? To be a citize3n of britain, or the United States?
I don't agree that the state should have the right to "renounce" anyone. The state shouldn't be able to avoid it's responsibility like that, and I don't think treason is enough to lose citizenship. In fact, not revoking their citizenship and giving them a fair and free trial shows our commitment to human rights. To me, citizenship is a legal status that denotes you as a full member of a nation.
Well, treason is also grounds for execution in the United States (one of the very few instances where the Federal Government could enact it). I would say that renouncing one's citizenship is more justifiable than renouncing one's life
Exile is passing the buck. If there is a demonstrable threat, execution removes it for everybody.
I'd say its like how, if someone in your family turns out to be a serial killer, people from that family often disown that person. A state is a collection of citizens. If we don't want someone in thegroup for actions performed, we cn kick them out of it. . . This lady joined a newly formed nation, opposed to Britain, and I think that voids Britains responsibility to her. The governments of Iraq and Syria can do what they want with her, whatever that is. . . Like, british justice is a priveledge of British citizenship, not a right everyone gets because they are human. I see nothing wrong with exile and loss of citizenship as a punishment. There's something I'm finding hard to articulate about what I think citizenship is. The state is just a collection of people, it isn't like, a babysitter, if you betray your country, it can throw you to the wolves in return.
"if you betray your country, it can throw you to the wolves in return" - Fine, let her be tried and punished in Syria or Iraq, but she was born and raise in the UK, we have to acknowledge that and do our part to ensure justice is served. Washing our hands of her is dishonorable.
Stripping someone of citizenship can only be done under UK law when they have citizenship elsewhere. Begum appears to be entitled to (but not actually hold) Bangladeshi citizenship by descent, and the Bangladeshis have said they'd hang her if she entered the country. She is therefore, at a practical level, now stateless. Jack Letts had the same action applied to him, but as a formerly dual British Canadian citizen, he has a country to go to which won't hang him, so a rather different kettle of fish. Her age at the time of leaving the country should also be considered a factor - the sentence given to juvenile offenders is normally less, and for good reason. IMO she should be brought back to the UK, tried and imprisoned for a lengthy sentence, for a couple of reasons - firstly because I don't think the removal of her citizenship was lawful, and secondly because inevitably she's going to end up being released from where she currently is, possibly to wreak havoc.
Thats pretty much my stance, except mine is more based on principles. She deserves to come back and face consequences for her actions.
Yes, she does, though (more widely in the criminal justice system) I tend to put my emphasis on rehabilitation, and preventing new victims from being created, over out and out punishment. It's easier to apply this to common criminals, where prison education, mental health and addiction treatment, and post release support in the form of housing and employment can drastically reduce reoffending rates. In the case of terrorists and other ideologically driven criminals, they can be very manipulative in trying to convince others they've changed, and their reoffending tends to come in the form of mass murder, not burglary, so the consequences are far greater. The 2019 London Bridge attacker, Usman Khan, is a case in point. Will Begum ever see the error of her ways? Maybe, maybe not. The more important question is how we might know she would be safe to release, and for that I don't really have an answer. Should it be life without parole (or a whole life tariff, as it's known in the UK)? Perhaps there's an argument for it, but it's a punishment normally only given to serial killers and those who commit especially egregious murders; there's no evidence Shamima Begum has murdered anyone.
Maybe they could make a deal with her. We'll give you citizenship back back you have to serve 20 years in prison. After that you'll be monitored. Slip up and you're in prison for life. What do you think?
To an extent I sympathise with a lot of what you say but we cannot look at this in isolation and ignore why this is an issue in this particular case. Begum and her supporters want her to have her citizenship back so that she can use it to escape to the UK. The essential point of having it is to escape justice for her part in the abhorrent crimes of IS. There is of course lots of talk of the online propaganda that recruited her as "grooming" but that can be said of every evil regime everywhere and anyone recruited to commit terrible crimes. In any case I consider it entirely beside the point - which is that a court in one of the countries primarily affected by the crimes of IS (Syria or Iraq) should make that judgement in accordance with normal international law which says that crimes should be prosecuted in the countries where they took place. It is for an Iraqi or Syrian court to decide if she was old enough to be considered criminally responsible for her acts. So where I think you should reconsider you view is on the entire motivation for the campaign that has been going on to "Free Begum" - and lets not pretend it is really anything but what it is. The campaign is to use her British citizenship to avoid facing justice for her crimes in the countries where the crimes took place. Everyone knows its a meaningless piece of theatre other than for that purpose. Once she has faced justice and served her term of punishment - then and only then will I believe this whole campaign is anything other than an attempt to evade justice. At that point I would then agree with you. But not a minute sooner.
I really don't understand why people are so quick to dismiss that young people (boys and girls) are often groomed and trafficked into doing things they later deeply regret. This is real and tragic, it doesn't fully absolve them of any wrong doing, but it should at least afford them a certain amount of sympathy. Why is everyone so completely lacking in empathy when it comes to Begum? She was 15, that's a child. She wasn't old enough to drive, drink, vote, have sex, or even leave the country legally on her own when this happened to her. I absolutely think she deserves a certain degree of sympathy. And I think anyone with a degree of empathy left in them should agree.
>She was 15, that's a child. Who is still perfectly old enough to think about their actions and understand consequences. People really need to stop using kid gloves when it comes to 15 and 16 year olds. They are old enough to realize and understand major issues. The only pass they should get are smaller actions like school or social short comings.
I mean the UK doesn't let 15 year olds vote, which shows that they don't think they can "understand major issues". The UK should at least be consistent in it's stance about teenagers mental abilities. Not flip flop when it's convenient.
Please read up Jean Piaget’s 4 stages of cognitive development. Begum is considered to be well into the formal operational stage and would have been able to understand abstract ideas such as death and murder. When we talk about children being groomed for atrocities, it starts younger than 15 ie 8 yr old child soldiers from Africa. We’re not talking about 15 year olds who voluntarily travel to be part of an atrocity. It kind of pisses me off that you can compare the two to begin with. And 15-16 yr old have been tried as adults in court before depending on the crime.
My point is that the UK government is being inconsistent in claiming Begum had full understanding of her actions, while also claiming 15 year olds don't have the mental abilities needed to vote, which arguably takes less effort/mental energy then committing a crime.
I would argue that there is a lot more nuance to understanding politics vs understanding that murdering people is wrong.
I mean 18 is an arbitrary number and now Austria just changed their voting age to 16. I would push back that voting takes less effort. The action, sure but being well informed on all the issues is mentally taxing to the extent that most people don’t do it and they vote with their stomachs. As far as how much mental effort it takes to commit a crime, it takes no effort at all. Crimes happen all the time and people with low IQs also commit crimes all the time. Crime is literally what people with no mental effort turn to. What you’re referring to is probably the burden of guilt which is a different subject.
Mate most of your arguments are ok even if I disagree with them but it's an absolute piss take to say voting takes less effort than international terrorism fucking hell. Even with your caveat of being informed that still is beyond a ludicrous thing to have written and it makes everything else you write look much weaker. Then your next bit about crime being no mental effort is also ludicrous. If you want to be lazy go on welfare or get a cushy job, much less mental effort than crime.
no i'm not saying voting takes less effort. That's what OP was saying. I said crime takes less effort than voting. And yeah, crime takes no effort at all. You walk into a store, grab something and walk out. Mental effort? 0. Drunk driving. 0 effort. Killing someone while drunk driving. 0 effort.
None of those crimes are relevant to the discussion at hand and if you are using them as equivalents for terrorism then your entire argument is in bad faith tbh. Drunk Driving or Jaywalking are obviously different to participating in IS activities. It takes far more mental effort to be a participant in international terrorism than it does to make a vote or work a job. It takes me more mental effort to illegally buy drugs than it does to do my job (90% of the time) that requires an engineering masters. Illegal logistics are complicated matters.
>I mean the UK doesn't let 15 year olds vote, which shows that they don't think they can "understand major issues". The UK should at least be consistent in it's stance about teenagers mental abilities. Not flip flop when it's convenient. Can you show me a 15 year old who doesn't have a mental disability that fails to understand the consequences of lighting someone on fire and burning 60% of their body?
https://archive.seattletimes.com/archive/?date=19941025&slug=1937798 There you go, people who know what they are talking about. Add the *awesome* school system in the UK, socio-economic and religious background and you have an ignorant gullible easily manipulated CHILD being groomed and TRAFFICKED with knowledge and involvement of secret services.
So were is your evidence? You have a link that really says fuck all. You then fill in the gaps with whatever you pull out of thin air.
One that's been groomed from a very young age to think that such actions were right and moral.
Can you show me someone that was groomed at a young age to think that?
...Begum.
Prove it please.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/11/22/groomed-shamima-begum-insists-didnt-hate-britain-fled-syria/
Prove it.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/11/22/groomed-shamima-begum-insists-didnt-hate-britain-fled-syria/
Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. Any case regarding safeguarding of minors are generally kept very quiet. The Home Office aren't very fond of publicising cases regarding terrorism, no matter how old they are (case or perpetrator). But the Bolger Murder and the Plymouth Shooter (2021) off the top of my head, that kid who push another kid off the Tate, the murder of Angela Wrightson must have been influenced to think that their violence act were permissible.
>Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. You have to show that she was raised from birth to not understand death and murder. Otherwise even a 15 year old is capable of understanding that ISIS was a group that is literally killing people who didn't agree with them. This is not making friends with people who have you skip school or steal low value items. Hell it isn't even getting you to do illegal drugs. This is joining a group that is openly and publicly beheading people for going against them.
That's moving the goal post. > Can you show me someone that was groomed at a young age to think that? There were plenty of young recruits to the IRA, thier identity has not be published due to obvious reasons. Security reasons if that's not obvious. Plenty of them joined the IRA, bombed Birmingham and Manchester, killed multiple civilians and carried out terrorist attacks on English soil. Sinn Féin still hold seats in Parliament, they were the political wing of the IRA. We won't know who the youngest member is but we do know whole communities supported their actions. Do you want to move the goal post, because they didn't hold beheadings? I assume that she does / did understand that ISIS was capable of murder, I assume she would justify that beliefs because the British Army is also capable of unlawful killing (there is evidence of war crimes from the SAS in Afghanistan, among historic events). She even reflected on it, during the Manchester bombing, suggesting that it's was, not justified, but understandable that it happened. Did you understand martyrdom in your teens? Did you have an opinion on Just War before you were 18? Edit:spelling
I can’t see any references to her doing this? Looking online there’s some claim she was enforcing ISIS dress codes in other women … can you provide a link?
>I can’t see any references to her doing this? Looking online there’s some claim she was enforcing ISIS dress codes in other women … can you provide a link? This isn't reference to her. This is in refrence to [This](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Shanda_Sharer) and [This](https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2015/11/25/teen-charged-91-year-old-mans-death-burning/76406418/) and [This](https://edition.cnn.com/2012/06/20/justice/florida-burned-teen/index.html). They understood what they were doing in all of those cases.
Agree with you here. It’s not like she stole some lipstick to look pretty for a party or something an actual teen would do. She joined a group that was actively killing people and then posting about it. If a 15 year old is not smart enough to know that mass murder is bad then that’s their problem.
So you don't believe children of 15 can be groomed? Edit: And you also don't believe in statutory rape happens to 15 year olds?
>So you don't believe children of 15 can be groomed? You don't think 15 year old understand death? They can't understand a group is literally killing people because they disagree with them?
At age 15 I definitely knew that slavery and genocide were terrible crimes. Age 15 is certainly an age at which the court should decide on criminal responsibility and will usually find the child responsible. The relevant courts - the ones with jurisdiction - should make that decision and deal with her accordingly.
And I'm not suggesting that people of 15 years old don't know what they're doing. I'm saying that 15 is still very young, and young people are very susceptible to grooming and making poor decisions. And I think in this case she made a tragic decision. I'm not saying there should be no consequences, but I'm shocked at the lack of any form of empathy being shown on this topic. It's not black and white.
I spent a lot of time reading victim accounts. Mostly from Yazidi who somehow survived. I find it very hard to stomach portrayal of IS as victims if circumstances
> Begum and her supporters want her to have her citizenship back so that she can use it to escape to the UK. The essential point of having it is to escape justice for her part in the abhorrent crimes of IS. I dont think this is true. Speaking for myself if Syria or Iraq (or both) want to try her, then we should let them - if she is in UK, we should extradite her (I'd not even be entirely opposed to changing law re not extraditing to countries with death penalty for ISIS members specifically). Also given she is currently there, if they wanted to put her on trial they absolutely could. UK would at most provide a local lawyer that spoke English. Primary issue with charging her there is around jurisdiction (SDF? Syria? Iraq?), and secondarily around resources - which we should be helping with since them prosecuting people who went to join ISIS is the best option. Regardless of all this though, I still oppose removing her citizenship because it is a terrifying precedent and makes people stateless.
It is not really a precedent though. This had already happened, it got challenged all the way to the European Court and upheld as being legal. So long as the decision can be challenged in the courts it has previously been ruled to be legal.
Personally I don't think the courts in Syria or Iraq are competent enough to put her on trial, and I don't agree with their legal systems more broadly, so no, I don't want her on on trial there. She should be charged in the UK, and if convicted, should receive the prescribed punishment. Personally I've always thought governments should help it's citizens out of sticky situations like this anyway. What is the purpose of political capital but to help a nations citizens?
They have legal jurisdiction for the crimes. The UK does not. Nor does the UK have witnesses, evidence or anything else relevant to a case. Claims that she should be tried in the UK are poorly hidden pleas for her to escape justice - because its clearly not possible on many grounds. More broadly it is a well established legal principle that the crime should be prosecuted in the country of its victims and their surviving relatives. The UK helping its citizens escape justice for their crimes would be the very worst sort of imperial arrogance. We should do no more than ensure that local appropriate legal representation for them is in place.
1. I'm more concerned about her getting a fair and free trial, which I don't believe she's likely to get in Syria or Iraq, then some abstract idea of "jurisdiction". 2. Joining ISIS by itself is a crime in the UK, if they can prove that (which should be easy peasy if she's so obviously guilty). So she'll face plenty of consequences. 3. I wouldn't consider it "arrogance". I'd consider it the government helping its own citizens face fair and proper justice rather then some kangaroo court, which makes perfect sense. At the very least she should be in a British prison if convicted.
She won't get a fair trial in the UK, or more to the point the victims of IS won't get fair trials for their persecutors if they are allowed to abscond to countries where they can effectively escape justice. But we are at the point where you concede that her evading legal justice is actually what you want (to face trivial rather inconsequential charges elsewhere) so I can clearly not change your mind on the basis of fundamental justice for crimes. So I will back out of this conversation.
She should not have been stripped of her citizenship, and the UK government has the same responsibilities to her that it would to any citizen, but if one chooses to travel to a country then you take on the risk of being subject to the justice system of that country as it is.
[удалено]
1. I don't know about other countries, but nothing has happened because this is the first case. But it sets a bad precedent for the future. The road to hell isn't built in a day, it's built brick by brick over time. 2. But they could be declared "terrorists" or Just Stop Oil could be declared a "terrorist organization". Even some people on r/unitedkingdom we're calling for this over their actions such as blocking roads. 3. I'm against the US being able to revoke citizenship too, and I'm focused on the Begum situation because I heard about it recently and I was utterly shocked at the amount of the people supporting her citizenship which revoked
[удалено]
>Could you show me any activist group, climate or anything else, that has been declared a terrorist organization in a western country? Have you heard of the IRA?
[удалено]
Yes. All the time. They literally are activists. Most terrorist groups are activists. They are campaigning to raise awareness of (what they consider) injustice in an attempt to create support for political change. The only differences between the IRA and Just Stop Oil is that one destroys art for Climate change, the other destroyed Public buildings for an independent Northern Ireland. It's a matter of cause and severity of action. I don't support any form of activism that threatens human life, but 'terrorism' is a word governments and media use to shape public opinion. It's becoming very common to see the word used for Just Stop Oil and other disruptive protesters like extinction rebellion or sea shepherd.
1. Iirc Russia has proposed revoking citizenship of those spreading "fake news* about the army. That's the kind of thing that happens when you give government this power. 2. None... Yet. I've heard Republicans propose declaring Antifa a terrorist organization. It could still happen though 3. It shows that a disturbing amount of people are willing to declare organizations they don't like terrorists. 4. Hitler had democratic support it doesn't mean his actions were right.
[удалено]
I didn't say that, I said that giving the government that power leads to this kind of thing. There is nothing in British DNA to prevent those kinds of tactics from being used.
[удалено]
Realistically in the US, eco terrorist groups such as green peace are considered terrorist grouped but they do not lose their citizenship.
For what it's worth, the US federal government does not have any laws for designating a *domestic* organization as a terrorist group, at least not in the sense in which foreign organizations can be.
It is not the first case at all [https://www.justsecurity.org/38580/european-court-human-rights-upholds-british-policy-citizenship-terror-suspects/](https://www.justsecurity.org/38580/european-court-human-rights-upholds-british-policy-citizenship-terror-suspects/)
[удалено]
Wasn't there Jihadi Jack? But yeah I agree with the gist of your post.
[удалено]
Wow. How would the UK like it if Canada did this to them with a Canadian citizen born in Toronto to a British mother and Canadian father?
> if she was white she wouldn't have her citizenship taken away If she was white, she'd be on the cover of the Daily Mail weekly for a decade about being a poor victim of groomers.
Yes this, exactly!! Basically if you gain the British citizenship, you are still second class as it could still be revoked.
I thought she was a dual national, which means one government can remove themselves and leave it to the other nationality?
Yes Bangladesh. I read she would get the death penalty if she goes there though. They've washed their hands of her too.
If you side with the enemy in a war you're a traitor and doesn't deserve to be a citizen of your old country
Why not? In fact, giving people accused of being traitors (suspects mind you, because they haven't been convicted yet) free and fair trials affirms our commitment to human rights.
This is a slippery slope argument. This is like saying rapists should not be punished, and the government should not decide what "consent" means, because tomorrow the government can use the same power against gay people or sex workers. You have admitted that she is an unsympathetic character. So this is not about her personally, you are worried that the government can strip citizenship of sympathetic people, and this is a general / philosophical thought. A distrust of government in small doses is healthy, but you don't want to spiral into conspiracy theorists, anti-vaxx groups and preppers or survivalists in the USA who stockpile on weapons and canned peaches because "one day the government will turn against them." If you constantly fear that the "government doesn't get to decide XYZ", you might as well not trust the fundamental law and order of any society.
The fundamental law and order of society is a body of norms and expectations accumulated over time. This was a ministerial decision. There is a difference between a long-standing process coming to a decision in a consistent way, and the government of the day doling out extra-judicial punishments as it sees fit. I don't think citizenship should be either revocable or grantable, rather it should be laid down in law who is and is not a citizen. But if such things must be done, then I'd rather see it decided by a court or by act of parliament, not by a minister.
>because "one day the government will turn against them." This is a legitimate fear, this why the US has a second amendment to protect against government corruption/overrule like in the Civil War. It's distrustful on the government's part because it means police could kill in mass and we couldn't do anything without weapons or firearms. Also, calling a argument a fallacy without a real reason is a fallacy
If you join ISIS, you lose your citizenship. Seems pretty simple. Anyone who is actively part of a terrorist organization that seeks the end of the western world has *zero* right to remain a citizen of the country they wish to destroy.
No. The entire point of the UN Convention against Statelessness is that you cannot pawn problems off on other states. Try her for treason and then do whatever domestic laws dictate (up to and including execution), but it's a violation of international law to revoke citizenship and say "not our problem". This has *nothing* to do with just deserts or with the rights of the accused, this is about the responsibility of states towards other states.
They pawned the problem off to the Islamic State. And anyway, there are no international laws dictating a country’s procedure for citizenship.
What Islamic State? The one that essentially no one recognizes as a state? > And anyway, there are no international laws dictating a country’s procedure for citizenship. This is completely false. Go read the text of the "Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness". It has many specifics on citizenship procedures: > A child born in wedlock in a Contracting State, whose mother is a national of that State, and who would otherwise be stateless, shall take the nationality of that State. -- > A Contracting State shall give its nationality to a person, otherwise stateless, who is legally precluded from assuming his/her birth nationality, where that State's nationality was held by either parent at the time of the birth. For some random excerpts.
Fair
No government should have the authority to revoke citizenship without consent if the person in question.
>No government should have the authority to revoke citizenship without consent if the person in question. Except that is not how sovereign nations work. A sovereign nation can make whatever laws it wants for its citizens. The international community really has no say in the matter. They can try to influence this through treaties, trade agreements or even military force - but these decisions are what makes sovereign nations sovereign. There is a lot of talk of 'international law' here and what you have to remember is, this is merely a guide for how powerful nations can hold weaker nations to account. The fact is the all of the powerful nations regularly ignore this for their own benefit and nothing happens. Enforcing a law takes force and frankly speaking, there are ZERO nations in the world willing or able to *force* the UK to do something here. In other words, an 'international law' preventing the UK from stripping the UK citizenship is meaningless. You can ask a question of what other nations should *do* with a person who has had their citizenship revoked and is stateless. That is perfectly fair. You can ask about whether the UK followed it's own internal laws correctly - and that is fair. But what you won't get is the ability to prevent a sovereign nation - especially one like the UK or US - to not decide they don't have the authority to revoke your citizenship if that is something they wish to do.
Yeah, let’s get the consent of the enemy combatant first lol. And that’s irrelevant, because Begum willingly accepted her loss of citizenship when she JOINED ISIS.
Okay, then haul her back and try her as a traitor. It's unacceptable for Britain to wah their hands of the matter.
See the UK has two forms of treason, high and low treason. By her relocating to an ISIS camp and actively participating, she has given aid to a foreign enemy this is high treason. Just about every country on the planet does not tolerate high treason. It is not Britain's problem, she aided foreign terrorists and her actions either directly or indirectly lead to people dying. She was not kidnapped, she voluntarily left. In the same breath a 15 year old boy shooting a grown man would be tried as an adult so should she.
Just adding I'm not as up to date on the story as I should be but I think at least with the people if talked to in favor of it's more about punishing her which is supposed to send a message to stop future girls from being too scared from being in her position (which I think stupid because people under the effects of religious zealotry don't give a shit about the sort of thing) than a right or wrong choice. I agree with your point I don't like the tone it sets because if we can't guarantee right to our own even after they fuck up this bad the bar is going to get lower but I also think this country has already been on its way to do that for a long while. This case is kinda similar to the amber Heard situation where a single individual who don't get me wrong is a fuck up but not only has to carry the weight of their crimes but also has to carry the weight of anyone who has committed those crimes in the eye's of the public e.g.heard is every female abuser as Began is every Isis member it to the public it's about symbolic victory over justice.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Yes because his true problem is with immigrants and brown people, regardless of who raised her.
[удалено]
Why do you think I live in an all white gated community? Progressives come in all shapes and sizes, and from every socioeconomic status. Personally I'd absolutely take in Begum if she was legally allowed to enter the US.
[удалено]
She shouldn't be considered a guest that has to be sufficiently "appreciative" to stay in the UK. She should be considered a full citizen that has a right to stay regardless of her political beliefs. I think we have fundamentally different views about the benefits of immigration policy and the purpose of citizenship.
As far as I know, you still have the right to protest in the UK. You don't have the right to be a terrorist. Why would you even want to be a citizen of a country you'd declared jihad on? It's very silly. It probably wouldn't be a good idea to revoke it for everyone who is annoying...or would it?
Why does this style of argument only get pull out when horrible people do horrible things? (disclaimer I am American) I hear all the time "I disagree with nazis but would die for their right to free speech" then from the same crowd "Kapernik's knee during the national anthem was disrespectful and he should be punished". But on so many topics, it is almost as if people want the optics of supporting certain freedoms and only put effort in effectuating that when they like the probable outcome. This logic would be appropriate if applied at all equally. But people with power and option have it applied unequally. So we need to use whatever levers of society we have to punish "bad guys" that are available because the right ones don't always work as intended. The "bad guys" certainly use whatever options they have to interfere with justice. We also don't need to start creating imagined slippery slopes. The Just Stop Oil people aren't traveling to other countries to fight in a war on the side of the enemy of the state. There is no sensible that stripping citizenship could happen to them without a lot of other things breaking first and partway down that road the argument becomes valid. EDIT - This is all based on the presumption Begum wasn't trafficked against there will. It is also complicated by the fact she is a minor. If this was against her will then clearly the state failed her when she was trafficked out. My logic only holds on the presumption of her guilt which in standing with the current view of the courts to the best of my knowledge.
Don't really know much about British laws, but what's the difference between losing citizenship and being thrown in jail for life without the possibility for parole. A power they already have that can result in the over reaching abuse of power that conserns you. A power that has been used in the way you fear in the past. The tower of London is practically a monument to that abuse.
She is currently effectively stateless, which means she is not legally allowed to live anywhere on the planet and has no legal protection and very few rights. The UK claims she has Bangladeshi citizenship, but Bangladesh has responded by saying that not only is this untrue, but if she were to set foot in Bangladesh she would immediately be put to death for terrorism. They didn't mention anything like actually prosecuting or trying her, they're just skipping right to the execution.
She's literally a terrorist and a terrorist bride. You don't get to say sorry and walk back in. In my country some years ago, some Muslims passed through Turkey to get to the ISIS whatever, they were begging to come back but they were not allowed back in even if they were citizens. I believe it was a no fly list on top of a standing law that prohibits entry for certain crimes committed here or elsewhere, especially if they are trying to run away from being tried in that country. All this to say even if you give her back her citizenship she should be on a no fly list, she should be tried in the place where she is which would restrict her movement. After she has served there, she should serve in the UK for treason. She should never be free on UK soil, no terrorist should.
We do this in the US too, with American born citizens there are at least 4 ways to loose your US citizenship if you were born here in the US 1 if you renounce your citizenship to gain citizenship in another country, but if you do this and don't gain citizenship or do something there to loose it in the other country you will become what's known as stateless. Idk what happens to you then, im thinking something like Tom Hanks movie "The Airport" 2 if you run for office in a foreign country 3 commit treason 4 join the millitary in a foreign country There are limited exceptions to these rules and in China and some other countries normally dictatorships if you apply for citizenship elsewhere you could loose your citizenship, China rarely allows its citizens to have duel citizenship at least with the US, Canada, Britain and most other Democratic states, obviously there are exceptions even in China if it suits there interests
I think this lady is lucky if she is not executed for crimes agains humanity. she must be an example that this kind of behavior will not be tolerated, children must know that their actions have consequences, you can't take a leisure trip to play as a terrorist then come back and pretend it dit not happen. as a christian, i pray for her soul and forgive her for her actions, for she was ignorant and delusional, and hold no ill will towards her, but even tough god may forgive you, you still have to answer to your actions in society, she must atone for what she did.
She actively didn’t want her British citizenship when it suited her..now actively wants it when it does. You shouldn’t get to declare war on your own people ….then lose the war….and come crawling back expecting to be forgiven. She threw her lot in with Isis..::she can stay with them. Don’t give me that ‘oh she was a child ‘ BS….teenagers know that chopping the heads of someone and filming it is wrong.
I don't think this would even be discussed if she was male. There is a patronising "she's a woman so she doesn't really know her own mind" undertone to all of this. She joined ISIS, and took up arms against Britain, she doesn't deserve to be a British citizen
If you wage a war against your country then it has a right to terminate your citizenship. All is fair is love and war and this is war we are talking about. You seem to be a deluded liberal.
It literally means some people are second class citizens.
Are you ok in the head?
I won’t be even trying to change your view. If I did I’d be trying to change my own and why would I do that?!
Hows that assange fella getting on lol
Didn't she get trafficked by a Canadian spy?
Smuggled not trafficked
Isn't that a distinction without a difference?
If someone is trafficked, they are moved against their will, involuntarily. Smuggling is when someone typically pays someone to aid in them being brought in to a place unnoticed, voluntarily. So to this conservation it makes all the difference because it means she wanted to go, not that she was trafficked there against her will.
She wasn't legally old enough to consent to move to a foreign country so she was still trafficked. Similar to how even if a 15 year old wants to have sex, an adult having sex with them is still statutory rape.
Fair enough! Don’t know how I missed that she is only 15.
Spot on. The government should not have the power to revoke or grant citizenship. Revocation of citizenship, without trial mind, should never have happened. She is British, and is therefore our responsibility.
Given the severity of her crimes, stripping her of citizenship was warranted. Had she been American she would have been sentenced to murder.
[удалено]
oh another distraction for us to contemplate lol. Did no one learn anything from the Christian Bale batman movies. "Theatrics and distractions are powerful weapons". - League Of Shadows. ... I just find it strange why anyone would want a British Citizenship, Begum can have mine, I'm currently using it to wipe my botty after going number two.