Shamima Begum

[Strange]

4 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

She can be Dutch or Bangledeshi, so, nowhere near stateless.

Can she? She might have the right to claim citizenship of those countries (although it is not clear if that is the case) but would they grant her citizenship? Even if they might, it would take years so, yes, she would be stateless.

[Raider5678]

3 minutes ago, Strange said:

I don't think the UK has a very meaningful treason law. I can't remember (and can't be bothered to check!) but I think it is just about attempts to insult the king, or something equally silly.

The UK's high treason is defined as this:

"Offences constituting high treason include plotting the murder of the sovereign; committing adultery with the sovereign's consort, with the sovereign's eldest unmarried daughter, or with the wife of the heir to the throne; levying war against the sovereign and adhering to the sovereign's enemies, giving them aid or comfort; and attempting to undermine the lawfully established line of succession."

 

And I agree. She deserves a trial to determine the punishment. But until then, she's already been convicted of high treason against the United Kingdom.

Edited February 20, 2019 by Raider5678

[StringJunky]

Just now, Strange said:

Can she? She might have the right to claims citizenship of those countries (although it is not clear) but would they grant her citizenship. Even if they might, it would take years so, yes, she would be stateless.

just read it on the BBC: she's automatically Bangladeshi until she's 21; she's 19.

[dimreepr]

3 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Absolutely. 

"Do you know my son, with what little understanding the world is ruled?"

[StringJunky]

1 minute ago, dimreepr said:

"Do you know my son, with what little understanding the world is ruled?"

We have to make the best of it, with what we know.

[Raider5678]

52 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

"Do you know my son, with what little understanding the world is ruled?"

Yes. Too many people attempting to reduce the responsibility of others to accept the consequences of their actions. 

[Strange]

9 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

just read it on the BBC: she's automatically Bangladeshi until she's 21; she's 19.

That appears to be the justification: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-47301623

 

[dimreepr]

4 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

Yes. Too many people attempting to reduce the responsibility of others to accept the consequences of their actions. 

Is that your opinion?

[Carrock]

3 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

Yes. Too many people attempting to reduce the responsibility of others to accept the consequences of their actions. 

Or saying children should not be punished more than adults. If she'd been 21 her citizenship couldn't be revoked, according to legal precedents.

[StringJunky]

7 minutes ago, Carrock said:

Or saying children should not be punished more than adults. If she'd been 21 her citizenship couldn't be revoked, according to legal precedents.

She's not a child, she's an adult. In islamic cuture and some others, adulothood is endowed much earlier than in the west.

Edited February 20, 2019 by StringJunky

[dimreepr]

Just now, StringJunky said:

She's not a child, she's an adult.

when.

[StringJunky]

1 minute ago, dimreepr said:

when.

Right now.

[dimreepr]

what if she's 2

[Carrock]

35 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

She's not a child, she's an adult.

Not in every legal sense. She' still young enough to be punished as a child in this context. If she's an adult, why doesn't Bangladesh assign final (non)citizenship status at 18?

It's actually depressingly common for children to be punished as adults for crimes only children can commit. Do you really think individuals' responsibility to accept the consequences of their actions should reduce with increasing age?.

Just saw your edit.

Quote

In islamic cuture and some others, adulothood is endowed much earlier than in the west. 

Indeed. In some countries fifteen(or nineteen) year olds can be executed for crimes similar to those which she has allegedly committed. I doubt you want her executed, but that's where your logic seems to lead.

Edited February 20, 2019 by Carrock

[StringJunky]

41 minutes ago, Carrock said:

Not in every legal sense. She' still young enough to be punished as a child in this context. If she's an adult, why doesn't Bangladesh assign final (non)citizenship status at 18?

It's actually depressingly common for children to be punished as adults for crimes only children can commit. Do you really think individuals' responsibility to accept the consequences of their actions should reduce with increasing age?.

Just saw your edit.

Indeed. In some countries fifteen(or nineteen) year olds can be executed for crimes similar to those which she has allegedly committed. I doubt you want her executed, but that's where your logic seems to lead.

My point was she was given, and took, the freedom to behave and think as adult; with all it entails. I don't think one can pretend that she's a typical western youth and that her experience can be undone... she would need to be contained for a very long time.

[Strange]

1 hour ago, StringJunky said:

just read it on the BBC: she's automatically Bangladeshi until she's 21; she's 19.

Just heard someone on BBC R4 say that Bangladesh have said she is not a citizen, they know nothing about her and don't want her!

He went on to say that she would probably be entitled to come to the UK anyway, as the primary carer of a British citizen.

[Raider5678]

58 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

what if she's 2

This is a complete red herring.

She's not 2.

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

Is that your opinion?

Yes.

1 hour ago, Carrock said:

Or saying children should not be punished more than adults. If she'd been 21 her citizenship couldn't be revoked, according to legal precedents.

Could you link me to the law that states this?

[Carrock]

8 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

Could you link me to the law that states this?

From https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47301623

Quote

 

In 2017, the government lost an appeal case brought by two British citizens of Bangladeshi origin who were stripped of their citizenship when they were abroad.

The Special Immigration Appeals Commission ruled that E3 and N3 had not tried to retain their citizenship before they reached the age of 21, and so it had automatically lapsed.

That meant that the decision to strip them of their UK citizenship had rendered them stateless.

Ms Begum's case is different. Her Bangladeshi citizenship remains intact until she reaches 21, even if she has never visited the country or made active efforts to retain her citizenship.

 

Edited February 20, 2019 by Carrock
added paragraph in quote

[StringJunky]

6 minutes ago, Strange said:

Just heard someone on BBC R4 say that Bangladesh have said she is not a citizen, they know nothing about her and don't want her!

He went on to say that she would probably be entitled to come to the UK anyway, as the primary carer of a British citizen.

Would you want a terrorist? She wouldn't be the primary carer because she'd likely be in prison.

[Strange]

2 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

She wouldn't be the primary carer because she'd likely be in prison.

She is not in prison, she has not been convicted or even charged with anything.

Therefore she is the primary carer and may have the right to enter the UK on that basis. If she did that, then she *might* be arrested and charged. What happens in terms of care of the child would be up to the courts. (We are back to due process.)

[StringJunky]

7 minutes ago, Strange said:

She is not in prison, she has not been convicted or even charged with anything.

Therefore she is the primary carer and may have the right to enter the UK on that basis. If she did that, then she *might* be arrested and charged. What happens in terms of care of the child would be up to the courts. (We are back to due process.)

I never said she was. If justice is served, she *will* be charged, subject to a guilty verdict of being a a member of a prohibited organization and whatever else.

[Strange]

43 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

I never said she was.

No, but your argument seemed a bit confused. You seemed to be saying she wouldn't have the right to enter the country because she wouldn't be the primary carer if she was in prison. (Also, she could still be the primary carer in prison; some prisons allow mothers to look after their children.)

Quote

If justice is served, she *will* be charged, subject to a guilty verdict of being a a member of a prohibited organization and whatever else.

She will be charged if it seems likely that she has broken any laws. She will be found guilty if there is sufficient evidence that she did, in fact, break those laws. If neither of those conditions are met and she remains free then, I'm afraid, justice will have been served.

[StringJunky]

6 minutes ago, Strange said:

No, but your argument seemed a bit confused. You seemed to be saying she wouldn't have the right to enter the country because she wouldn't be the primary carer if she was in prison. (Also, she could still be the primary carer in prison; some prisons allow mothers to look after their children.)

She will be charged if it seems likely that she has broken any laws. She will be found guilty if there is sufficient evidence that she did, in fact, break those laws. If neither of those conditions are met and she remains free then, I'm afraid, justice will have been served.

She is guilty of being a member of IS.

[Strange]

1 minute ago, StringJunky said:

She is guilty of being a member of IS.

That is not for you to decide. Unless you don't believe that justice should be served.

[StringJunky]

11 minutes ago, Strange said:

That is not for you to decide. Unless you don't believe that justice should be served.

It's common knowledge and she acknowledges it. Conviction wrt to that should just be a formality; realistically. The question now is whether her lawyers and bleeding hearts can wangle her out of it.

Edited February 20, 2019 by StringJunky