ISIS people returning thread - no Lisa Smith talk (21/12/19)

The_Kew_Tour

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

This thread really has gone full gammon. It's like reading the comments on Daily Mail articles.

Ya tell that to all the people across Europe and even Muslims themselves killed by the group she openly supports

Wow some people

Ush1

Boggles wrote: »

I have no idea, but why should any other nation be bullied into that burden?

You mean like how the UK was being bullied to accept her back?

I'm particularly uncomfortable with the rights of a British citizen being taken away when the person has not been charged, not been tried, not been convicted of anything.

I thought we established what people did wrong beyond a reasonable doubt in court before we issued punishments in civilised countries, not emulated the countries we despise for their lawlessness.

None of this is in support of the girl, more in support of a civilized process before we start baying for someone to be killed, or 'have the baby kicked out of her' as one genius (who thinks IS are animals but thinks that's reasonable) suggested earlier, or take away the rights conferred on them at birth such as their citizenship and all associated rights.

It does give people something else to chat about besides Brexit and will no doubt raise the governments popularity rating, so color me skeptical about the motivation behind the move.

ohnonotgmail

lainey_d_123 wrote: »

It's not 'arbitrary'. There are laws regarding committing terrorist acts and being a danger to national security. Do you not think the lawyers advising the government know them better than you?

well it is arbitrary. why just this woman? Why not others who have gone to ISIS? I'm sure those laws involve due process. where is the due process here?

ohnonotgmail

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

Ya tell that to all the people across Europe and even Muslims themselves killed by the group she openly supports

Wow some people

I'm sure the froth-filler gibbering would be of great comfort to them.

The_Kew_Tour

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

I'm sure the froth-filler gibbering would be of great comfort to them.

In your head maybe

ohnonotgmail

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

In your head maybe

yeah i think that went over your head.

ToBeFrank123

lainey_d_123 wrote: »

It's a right to get it when you're born. It's not a right to keep it when you fight against your own country. Why do you think it should be unconditional and lifelong? If she hadn't gone to Syria and done what she did, she'd be able to keep it no bother. Her choice.

Agreed. Hopefully it will encourage others with dual nationality to think twice before they leave the security of the UK for a terrorist organization. You go there you lose UK citizenship and all that entails.

The_Kew_Tour

I just don't see what's wrong with not wanting a Muslim murder as much as West hater in your country.

She openly supports it. If that's something wrong well I move on and let ya be

malinheader

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

I'm sure the froth-filler gibbering would be of great comfort to them.

So what is your solution about the child.

seamus

malinheader wrote: »

So do you think the child should be let in without the mother and adopted. Or what other solution

The child is entitled to British citizenship, and the UK cannot remove this from the child without due process.

Ignoring the situation of the mother, the UK has a duty to this child. If the mother were to seek to allow the child to live in his home country, the UK may not be able to refuse that request, and by extension may not be able to refuse to allow his mother to come with him.

Their knee-jerk reaction in this regard to satisfy the braying masses has made it more complicated, not simpler.

The simpler answer would have been to bring her home, interrogate and prosecute her and put the child into care.

However, now that she's not a British citizen, they may not be able to prosecute her and they cannot take the child from her.

ohnonotgmail

malinheader wrote: »

So what is your solution about the child.

Well seamus already beat me to it. The child is a british citizen. If the mother wants the child raised in the UK then the british government should not prevent that. The question of who raises that child then becomes a matter for social services in the UK.

tretorn

Candie wrote: »

I'm particularly uncomfortable with the rights of a British citizen being taken away when the person has not been charged, not been tried, not been convicted of anything.

I thought we established what people did wrong beyond a reasonable doubt in court before we issued punishments in civilised countries, not emulated the countries we despise for their lawlessness.

None of this is in support of the girl, more in support of a civilized process before we start baying for someone to be killed, or 'have the baby kicked out of her' as one genius (who thinks IS are animals but thinks that's reasonable) suggested earlier, or take away the rights conferred on them at birth such as their citizenship and all associated rights.

It does give people something else to chat about besides Brexit and will no doubt raise the governments popularity rating, so color me skeptical about the motivation behind the move.

When she left Britain to join what she thought was a caliphate dedicated to the murder of infidels then as far as I am concerned she made her bed so go lie on it.

Its up to the country she went to to try her and imprison her if they find her guilty of anything. She can then apply to be extradited back to the UK . I didnt think it was possible to deny her return because doing so would make her stateless but obviously the best legal brains in the UK have advised the Government that it is possible to deprive her of citizenship and you will find the majority of the British public support their Government in this decision.

I wouldnt be too worried about Begums rights, she had no concern for the rights of innocent aid workers and nor did she care about women and children being raped by ISIS. She wants to save her own skin now and is thinking she would like her child to avail of all the UK has to offer just the same as she did.

If banning her does nothing else but show other young Muslims what happens when you turn on the country you have grown up in then its a small price to pay.

Begin was motivated by some idealistic idea she had of what its like to live in a Muslim utopia, send her off to Bangladesh and dont give her any more publicity.

If the mother has been deprived of citizenship rights then her child in turn has lost his citizenship rights too. He derives this rights through his mother and the Government probably shouldnt let him back in either. He is better off with his mother anyway and she thinks she will be happier in a Muslim society than London so let her do the best for her child in Bangladesh. her family can leave the UK too and join her there, its a free country unlike many Muslim countries and her entire family can go back to Bangladesh if they like.

The_Kew_Tour

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

I just don't see what's wrong with not wanting a Muslim murder as much as West hater in your country.

She openly supports it. If that's something wrong well I move on and let ya be

I’m a British citizen by birth. This woman hates me and supports a regime that wants to murder me and all other British citizens.

If her right to being a British citizen can legally be revoked I’m delighted. She can float about in international waters for all I care about her.

malinheader

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Well seamus already beat me to it. The child is a british citizen. If the mother wants the child raised in the UK then the british government should not prevent that. The question of who raises that child then becomes a matter for social services in the UK.

I think it would be very unfair to separate a child from its mother.
But if she wants the child brought up in the uk I have no problem with that, as long as it's not by some radical nut
jobs.
As for her coming back. Not until hell freezes over.

ohnonotgmail

tretorn wrote: »

When she left Britain to join what she thought was a caliphate dedicated to the murder of infidels then as far as I am concerned she made her bed so go lie on it.

Its up to the country she went to to try her and imprison her if they find her guilty of anything. She can then apply to be extradited back to the UK . I didnt think it was possible to deny her return because doing so would make her stateless but obviously the best legal brains in the UK have advised the Government that it is possible to deprive her of citizenship and you will find the majority of the British public support their Government in this decision.

I wouldnt be too worried about Begums rights, she had no concern for the rights of innocent aid workers and nor did she care about women and children being raped by ISIS. She wants to save her own skin now and is thinking she would like her child to avail of all the UK has to offer just the same as she did.

If banning her does nothing else but show other young Muslims what happens when you turn on the country you have grown up in then its a small price to pay.

Begin was motivated by some idealistic idea she had of what its like to live in a Muslim utopia, send her off to Bangladesh and dont give her any more publicity.

If the mother has been deprived of citizenship rights then her child in turn has lost his citizenship rights too. He derives this rights through his mother and the Government probably shouldnt let him back in either. He is better off with his mother anyway and she thinks she will be happier in a Muslim society than London so let her do the best for her child in Bangladesh. her family can leave the UK too and join her there, its a free country unlike many Muslim countries and her entire family can go back to Bangladesh if they like.

this is not true. She was a british citizen when the child was born. The child inherited their citizenship from the mother at that point. Their citizenship is not conjoined. the child is still a british citizen.

Grayson

lainey_d_123 wrote: »

It's not 'arbitrary'. There are laws regarding committing terrorist acts and being a danger to national security. Do you not think the lawyers advising the government know them better than you?

The law states that the home secretary makes the decision. It's not based on any courts or anything like that. And the law is pretty broad in that respect

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/feb/20/shamima-begum-could-the-plan-to-revoke-her-citizenship-be-stopped

It is understood the home secretary is relying on section 40(2) of the British Nationality Act 1981 to strip Begum of her passport. It says he can “by order deprive a person of a citizenship status if the Secretary of State is satisfied that deprivation is conducive to the public good”, and if they have behaved in a way that “is seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the United Kingdom”.

There's no due process. If she did something specific then she should be tried for it. And if the punishment is stripping citizenship, then do it. But in this case it's just the home secretary saying it and then doing it.

ohnonotgmail

malinheader wrote: »

I think it would be very unfair to separate a child from its mother.
But if she wants the child brought up in the uk I have no problem with that, as long as it's not by some radical nut
jobs.
As for her coming back. Not until hell freezes over.

It is also unfair to deny a british citizen the right to live in britain. which of these is more unfair to the child?

stefanovich

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

It is also unfair to deny a british citizen the right to live in britain. which of these is more unfair to the child?

Do you think she should live anywhere in Britain other than HMP?

Lone Stone

i seen her being interviewed and i was absolutely turned from yea maybe to no way should she be let back into that country before i was like yea maybe she was just a dumb kid at the time.

malinheader

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

It is also unfair to deny a british citizen the right to live in britain. which of these is more unfair to the child?

My honest opinion. You and a few more posters on here will not be happy till she's pushing a pram round mothercare as if nothing happens.
Fair dues to the UK right decision, hope our government is taking note. Now time to revoke a few more.
Protect there genuine citizens.

jmayo

Grayson wrote: »

Removing citizenship from someone is something that should never be done. When you remove citizenship, you strip people of a load of rights that they have.

One thing that always jumps to mind when i hear of something like this is the nazi's. No, I'm not godwinning, I'm not comparing the tories to the nazi's. It's just that the nazi's stripped the jews of their german citizenship. When they did that it enabled them to do stuff that they couldn't do legally to german citizens. It also meant that many couldn't flee because they had no citizenship, so no passport etc...

If what she did was illegal, then open a case with the CPS and prosecute her when she returns. If she's deemed a security risk, then she should be monitored when she gets back.

Typically of people with a viewpoint like yours to always see it as someone having "rights".

What about the obligations and responsibility of a citizen?

She became a traitor to her country and her fellow citizens when she went and joined an organisation and a state (it was one of sorts) that was effectively an enemy of her country.

What she did was the effectively the same as someone fleeing Britain to go join the nazis in Germany during the war.

And you really are pushing it, and you probably fecking well know it, to claim revoking this terrorists citizenship is akin to what was done to Jews in Nazi Germany.

If anything it kinda reinforces my thoughts that the ones most in support of islams mass introduction into Europe and almost excusitory for it's fundamentalist muslims have a thing about Jews.

stefanovich wrote: »

To be honest , mentally, a 19 year old and a 15 year old are not too far removed. A normal 15 year old would not see a war on tv and think it was a good idea to go join up with the Caliphate. Her parents need to be heavily investigated.

It could beg the question why are so many muslims seemingly mentally ill :rolleyes:

Grayson

malinheader wrote: »

My honest opinion. You and a few more posters on here will not be happy till she's pushing a pram round mothercare as if nothing happens.
Fair dues to the UK right decision, hope our government is taking note. Now time to revoke a few more.
Protect there genuine citizens.

Has anyone said that she shouldn't be tried for any crimes she's committed? I think even membership of ISIS is a crime so there's definitely that.

It's weird there's a group of people here saying her citizenship shouldn't be stripped and that she should face trail for her crimes. And for some reason we're the wishy washy liberals.

How messed up does your argument have to be to think that the people who think she should be put on trial are the ones going easy on her.

ohnonotgmail

malinheader wrote: »

My honest opinion. You and a few more posters on here will not be happy till she's pushing a pram round mothercare as if nothing happens.
Fair dues to the UK right decision, hope our government is taking note. Now time to revoke a few more.
Protect there genuine citizens.

I never posted anything that would make you think that. You, like a lot of others here, see everything in black and white. Either a poster agrees completely with what you post or they want the complete opposite. there is no nuance, no shades of grey. No scope for intelligent debate. You dont want one, you just want to rant and rave and have your little fantasies about killing people you dont like. I was completely correct when I mentioned the Daily Mail comments section.

ohnonotgmail

stefanovich wrote: »

Do you think she should live anywhere in Britain other than HMP?

Some salient posts of mine that are relevant. Apparently they make me a lefty liberal and that I

..will not be happy till she's pushing a pram round mothercare as if nothing happens.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

It is not a question of her being allowed back. She is a british citizen so they cannot prevent her from returning. That does not mean that they have to offer her any assistance to return nor does it mean she won't be investigated for criminal activity when she returns.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Wether or not britain or its citizens want to take her back is irrelevant. She has a right to return to the UK as a UK citizen. The home secretary could put a temporary block on her return but it would only be temporary. That does not mean the british government should help return home, i think they would be crazy if they did. And of course if she does return home she should be the target of a criminal investigation.

Ulysses Gaze

Grayson wrote: »

Has anyone said that she shouldn't be tried for any crimes she's committed? I think even membership of ISIS is a crime so there's definitely that.

It's weird there's a group of people here saying her citizenship shouldn't be stripped and that she should face trail for her crimes. And for some reason we're the wishy washy liberals.

How messed up does your argument have to be to think that the people who think she should be put on trial are the ones going easy on her.

Because she'll probably serve less than 3-4 years in prison (i.e. in a holiday camp compared to a prison in Syria or Kurdistan) and be comped at the expense of the taxpayer for the rest of her life. As will the other children she has on release.

malinheader

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

I never posted anything that would make you think that. You, like a lot of others here, see everything in black and white. Either a poster agrees completely with what you post or they want the complete opposite. there is no nuance, no shades of grey. No scope for intelligent debate. You dont want one, you just want to rant and rave and have your little fantasies about killing people you dont like. I was completely correct when I mentioned the Daily Mail comments section.

No I don't want to rant and rave. But some on here cany seem to see what is wrong with wanting to take a physco nut job back into a country she hates everything about and would probably cause harm again to its citizens.

weldoninhio

Grayson wrote: »

I didn't realise it was the law that you had to agree with the freedoms in the west to avail of those freedoms.

Also, she was a teenage girl who was groomed by professional groomers.

Link? Or any evidence at all to show this??

ohnonotgmail

malinheader wrote: »

No I don't want to rant and rave. But some on here cany seem to see what is wrong with wanting to take a physco nut job back into a country she hates everything about and would probably cause harm again to its citizens.

well if you can make up false claims about my posts then i can do the same to yours. fair is fair.

weldoninhio

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

how is stripping her of her citizenship not undermining any rights she has??? that is exactly what it is doing. it is undermining the right she has had since birth to be a british citizen and all that entails.

She had no British rights at birth. She was born in Bangladesh.