Has anyone watched the 90 minute BBC documentary on Shamima Begum?

Again

If she were brought back here and put in a Court of Law for a jury to decide her fate there would be no evidence. She was in Syria. Any supposed atrocities would be reported, discussed and dismissed as hearsay. Ergo, she would never be sentenced.

Whitewavemark2

Again

Yup!

I’m afraid the Tribunal disagrees with you.

Zoejory

I've been all over the place with this case. Initially I was totally opposed to her ever returning. Time has made me less decisive.

Her attitude toward the Manchester bombing wa shocking but she was apparently in a room with other isis members who won't have been placed of she'd been berating atrocities in the UK.

Her interviews have possibly been her downfall.

However the fact is she was 15. Many of us appear to have been terribly mature at 15 and wouldn't have done such a thing. When I was 15 I was a horror. Not Muslim so I wouldn't have joined up but it's wrong to suggest we all behaved and thought impeccably responsibly at that age. I actually ran away with a couple of footballers to London when 13. Not my best move.

We have sympathy with Virginia Giuffre, as we should, but she was 16 when she went to work and 17 when she met PA. Not many people will shout at her and tell her she knew exactly what she was doing.

So I think that Begum should be allowed to return. She'll probably have to wait until we have a new Government , Our legal system has its hands tied somewhat at present.

Excellent article in the Guardian. Refreshing change from the Mail

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/feb/22/the-guardian-view-on-shamima-begum-stateless-and-detained-in-syria

Why have other countries repatriated similar?

That’s a good editorial, Zoejory

Other foreign governments have brought back families of IS terrorists, recognising their constitutional rights as well as implicitly admitting that such people are their responsibility. This mature behaviour is apparently too much to ask for from Britain’s government, which relies on an electoral strategy of demonisation and fearmongering. Ms Begum’s case reveals that the Tories view the law not as a fundamental part of the UK’s constitutional system, but as an unnecessary obstacle to the exercise of executive power

The Tribunal decided that the HS had acted lawfully. Clearly some posters think they are better qualified to decide that issue, even with only part of the evidence.

You don't have to be a fancy Lawyer to know the Law in this case. She does not have another nationality, so they were not allowed to strip her of her British one.

She had her parents’ Bangladeshi nationality at the relevant time. You obviously consider that the Tribunal didn’t understand the law and therefore reached an incorrect conclusion. Have you read the full open report of the decision? A link was given upthread. Rather time consuming, 76 pages iirc, but worthwhile. I highly recommend it.

The UK has broken International Law, that is not the same as acting illegally under UK law, however this is a country that as a member of the UN used to uphold International law, now it seems not to.

Frankly I give up. I had no idea we had such a surfeit of highly qualified lawyers on GN, all KCs I expect but too modest to say so, experts in domestic and international law.

Gsm please could you answer this question. Is it either legal or moral for one country to insist another country must give citizenship to an individual? Particularly when the country in question has a clear legal ruling which means that country does not recognise that citizenship.
Bangladeshi law is clear. Dual citizenship is not legal. In order to have Bangladeshi citizenship the individual must renounce the other citizenship.

I’m no longer posting on this thread Glorianny. I’m sick to the back teeth of barrack room lawyers. Please refer to my earlier posts.

Perhaps now would be a good time for her parents to talk about the difficult home life that SN evidently has which made her decide to leave. Maybe time for some more evidence about the current suggestions if grooming and trafficking from SB herself. I didn’t watch her TV program, so she may have talked about that, but all the info in the UK about ISIS was not of children playing happily in the sunshine.

Fleurpepper

You don't have to be a fancy Lawyer to know the Law in this case. She does not have another nationality, so they were not allowed to strip her of her British one.

The Commission was considering whether or not the decision made in February 2019 to strip Begum of her citizenship was lawful or unlawful.

As she had Bangladeshi citizenship through her parents as well at that time, then the Commission stated, rightly, that it was not unlawful.
She argued that she did not have Bangladeshi citizenship.

Since then, she has turned 21 and no longer has Balgladeshi citizenship as she would have needed to apply for it in her own right as an adult.

Mr Justice Jay, who wrote the judgment, published on Wednesday, on behalf of the Siac panel, said that although there was credible suspicion that Begum “was recruited, transferred and then harboured for the purpose of sexual exploitation”, that was “insufficient” for the commission to deem the home secretary’s decision unlawful. He said it was for those advising the home secretary to consider and assess whether Begum’s travel was voluntary.

She is still married to Yago Riedijk, perhaps that is another reason why she is considered a high security risk.

Begum can appeal against the decision.

www.dualcitizenshipreport.org/dual-citizenship/bangladesh/#:~:text=Citizenship%20in%20Bangladesh%20is%20primarily,may%20apply%20for%20Bangladeshi%20citizenship.

I will always admit when I am wrong and having trawled through a lot of stuff I eventually found something which explained why "technically" she had Bangladeshi citizenship when the UK revoked her British citizenship. This is despite Bangladesh saying that she did not have citizenship (interesting), SB never having visited, spoken the language had any connection with Bangladesh etc . As she was under 21 and she had a mother who was born in Bangladesh, she did have dual British and Bangladeshi citizenship. To retain it she would have needed to apply formally when she reached 21, which she has not done, so now she is "stateless". However, although this does not answer the moral questions regarding her situation. So GSD you have the legal position correct but I still feel that getting "rid" of people like this is morally reprehensible.

Thank you. I appreciate that.

foxie48

I will always admit when I am wrong and having trawled through a lot of stuff I eventually found something which explained why "technically" she had Bangladeshi citizenship when the UK revoked her British citizenship. This is despite Bangladesh saying that she did not have citizenship (interesting), SB never having visited, spoken the language had any connection with Bangladesh etc . As she was under 21 and she had a mother who was born in Bangladesh, she did have dual British and Bangladeshi citizenship. To retain it she would have needed to apply formally when she reached 21, which she has not done, so now she is "stateless". However, although this does not answer the moral questions regarding her situation. So GSD you have the legal position correct but I still feel that getting "rid" of people like this is morally reprehensible.

Would it be possible for you to post a link to that information. All the sources I have found like the one posted by Callistemon21 say that dual citizenship is not permitted under Bangladeshi law. Is it possible that although the UK considered she had dual nationality, Bangladesh didn't. Which really brings us back to whose law applies? And is it right that a country with specific law on citizenship should be ignored by a country which grants citizenship on the whims of government?

Not sure I can but it seems that Bangladeshi law is not particularly well written and is open to interpretation, dual nationality is give under certain circumstances for children under 21. tbh I think the UK govt just looked and found a loophole. they have revoked the citizenship on these grounds before then had to back track but really, isn't it immaterial? SB is (or was) a British citizen and whatever she has done (or not done) is the responsibility of the UK (not Bangladesh or any other country). Having read the full account of what the school and the secret service knew prior to her leaving the UK I feel sickened by the lack of care shown to this girl and her two friends. She should never had been able to get on a plane to get to Turkey!

However, although this does not answer the moral questions regarding her situation

No, it doesn't, but as GSM (and I) were pointing out, posters were disputing the legality of the decision which by the rules of law, was perfectly correct.

The Commission referred to that when they questioned the issue of trafficking.

It was not their job to judge the morality of the decision of the Home Secretary but the legality.

Have you read my link Glorianny?

Having read the full account of what the school and the secret service knew prior to her leaving the UK I feel sickened by the lack of care shown to this girl and her two friends. She should never had been able to get on a plane to get to Turkey!

Well, I agree. The school should have been more proactive in bringing this to the attention of the family and the authorities.

But I can also infer from the information that she was both determined and devious.

Callistemon21

Have you read my link Glorianny?

Yes I read it. I thought the most important words were The Bangladeshi government may grant citizenship they have always denied that she had citizenship.

All the sources I have found like the one posted by Callistemon21 say that dual citizenship is not permitted under Bangladeshi law

Sorry, but my link does not say that.

Yes, a 15 year old, determined and devious. A child.

She had never even visited Bangladesh - even if legally allowed to ahve citizenship of that country, how can it be humane in any way,shape or form- to send her 'back' to a country she has never been to???