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

I watched the programme and after some thought and discussion with other people I have decided I think she should be allowed to return to the UK. She should not be deprived of citizenship. She has given birth to 3 babies and lost them all. In the interview she said ‘my daughter was everything to me’. This was her first child and the child died. Imagine how a 16 year old could cope with that - and then to lose two more plus 2 miscarriages. She is traumatised and without hope, saying that she believes she will have to stay in the camp for ever. If she comes back to the UK her life will be pretty awful but there will be some kind of humanity in it.

I’ve just watched this and come to one conclusion. There is no emotion with anything she has said, done or witnessed, including the death of her three children, and maybe miscarriages also. This to me is someone who needs psychological help. She’s completely blank, no tears, nothing. There’s no way back from what she has done or experienced but our justice system may go some way to rehabilitation for her. At least she will have her family around her. She will not have a good time here but it will be a much better one than the camp she is in at the moment.

Fleurpepper

Remarkable indeed. But she was a child, legally, in UK Law,

So was Shemima, a child, and groomed. There is NO denying that.

Yes, of course. We all know that.

But that is not what this judgement was about.

Just read Zoejory’s link to Guardian editorial (13.55).
Says it all really.

Definitions of a child

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) defines a child as everyone under 18 unless, "under the law applicable to the child, majority is attained earlier".
England

In England a child is defined as anyone who has not yet reached their 18th birthday. Child protection guidance points out that even if a child has reached 16 years of age and is:

living independently
in further education
a member of the armed forces
in hospital; or
in custody in the secure estate

they are still legally children and should be given the same protection and entitlements as any other child (Department for Education, 2018a).'

And much more so if below 16, as she was.

Sorry for some reason the words "is final "have disappeared.

Callistemon21

^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.

Tried to cut and paste but it won't let me.
The 4th paragraph in your link says
In Bangladesh dual citizenship and nationality is not permitted by law
And later
The Bangladeshi government may grant dual citizenship
And finally
The decision of the government is in givig the satus of dual citizenship.
These are the actual words.

Remarkable indeed. But she was a child, legally, in UK Law,

So was Shemima, a child, and groomed. There is NO denying that.

Greta Thunberg at 15 years old was addressing world leaders on climate change and being taking seriously despite being neuro diverse…

Yes.

We can emote all we like.
But that is not what the Commisssion was asked to consider.

What part of it do you not understand, please?

No, but I would expect them to face the Law, and consequences, in this country.

My DGS is 16, and he is just a kid.

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???

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.

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.

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.

Have you read my link Glorianny?

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.

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!

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?

Thank you. I appreciate that.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.