end of the road wrote: » this post makes no sense, the other poster was talking about erric. erric is a different poster to me. whatever you were trying to achieve, it has been an epic fail. ah well, better luck next time.
end of the road wrote: » it is clear cut, as a british court/tribunal ruling that someone is a citizen of another country only carries weight in britain under british law. as bangladesh say she is not a citizen of theirs, then in the real world she is not a bangladeshi citizen, and any ruling by a british court is in international terms irrelevant because ultimately britain cannot tell bangladesh who is and isn't a citizen of their country.
Deleted User wrote: » At least Eric Cartman had the good grace to know he was out of his depth and gracefully retreated from the discussion. He's sticking to 'thanking'.
Rodney Bathgate wrote: » End of the road is on your side of the discussion. It isn’t fair to mock him. Even if he does deserve it.
Rodney Bathgate wrote: » https://www.ejiltalk.org/shamima-begum-may-be-a-bangladeshi-citizen-after-all/ “Therefore, as of February 2019, Ms Begum is legally a Bangladeshi citizen. Consequently, the decision of the Home Office to deprive her of her British citizenship does not legally render her stateless. Hence, the measure is not unlawful insofar as the issue of statelessness is concerned. Although, it may very well be unlawful on other grounds, whether under British law or even international law.” Not as cut and dry as you are pretending lads. Anyway, we’ll see how it pans out.
[Deleted User] wrote: » At least Eric Cartman had the good grace to know he was out of his depth and gracefully retreated from the discussion. He's sticking to 'thanking'.
Rodney Bathgate wrote: » She hasn’t been ‘arbitrarily deprived’ of a nationality. It was a direct result of her actions and followed due process. And she can claim Bangladeshi citizenship as her parents are / were both Bangladeshi, so she a right to a nationality. Not seeing any issues there.
Gatling wrote: » Her citizenship has been revoked but she has other options which makes it very much legal The UDHR was adopted by the United Nations (UN) General Assembly in 1948, with Australia voting in favour. It affirms fundamental human rights, but is not a binding treaty. 40Prohibition on opening current accounts for disqualified persons. (b)at the time when the account is opened B is unable, because of circumstances that cannot reasonably be regarded as within its control, to carry out a status check in relation to P Everyone has the right to a nationality. (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality
Danzy wrote: » Fine we'll have your progressives approach but you should have to help clean up the dead Kurds from it's outcome. I'll give you the binbag for collecting the parts. I'm not going to entertain the racism, European exceptionalism stuff, that's just indulging your lordship and I am done with people like you. The Ross O'Carroll Kelly meets Arch Bishop McQuaid tendancy that has come to dominate the Left. Your frankly insane rant about me wanting a woman who participated in a campaign which saw about 100k Kurds dead. The Brits are under no legal obligation to take her back and that is to their benefit, it is also to the benefit of the Kurds as it limits the recruitment opportunity for ISIS. You can always send her money.
Deleted User wrote: » Article 15 of the UDHR. UK Immigration Act 2014 (Section 40). International Law and UK Law. Take your pick.
Rodney Bathgate wrote: » Can you share the details of the law that you claim makes it ‘illegal’ please?
end of the road wrote: » . she will only be out in a few years if that is what is decided. she went on a false passport which is a criminal offence, she joined a terrorist group which is a criminal offence. she also went to syria, which i believe at the time was itself a criminal offence unless done for legitimate reasons which she didn't go for legitimate reasons. this is all very easily proved, and sentences can be increased for those offences insuring she spends a very very long time behind bars. she will only be a rallying point in britain because a dum populist politician made her one, had they just took her back and mentioned nothing of it hardly anyone would know about her. radicalisation in prisons happens because like everything in britain, the system doesn't do it's job properly and is deliberately underfunded. the kurds and syrians are at way way more risk with these vermin in their country then they are if the vermin are deported back to where they belong. the kurds don't want her, your suggestion of letting them know that aid to them depends on them dealing with european isis trash is bullying and ultimately racist and a form of exceptionalism. you are effectively saying that britain and other western countries are to superior to have to deal with their issues, and that the kurds are such that they have to clean up the wests mess and are not entitled to the same rights as the rest of us because they are lesser beings. sorry but that is ultimately a repugnant view and has no place. if the kurds say they don't want these people then that is the end of it, you or i or anyone else don't get to force european isis vermin on them.
end of the road wrote: » it is not anti british to say britain must grow up and take responsibility for it's problems. if we gave assylum to an algerian terrorist then that is a problem and should be relooked at. the west funded, armed and trained isis until they found out exactly what they were really about, isis were the next big thing and the good guys at the start. revoked in name only, she has no other citizenship or chance of gaining one thankfully so she remains british as it is illegal to make someone stateless or bully another country to take on someone else's citizen. i would imagine you will be waiting, there would be no support for that what soever from anyone and she has no irish links.
Gatling wrote: » Former citizen ,this is nothing more than your anti British sentiment speaking, Didn't we give asylum and citizenship to an Algerian terrorist who was charged with murder and terrorism but walked in here no questions asked apparently. The west did not support Isis if it wasn't for the west Israel would be one of the few ME countries left standing,the Kurds heavily backed by Western special forces and 24/7 airstrikes done the damage to isis , Russia is still looking for Isis ....... Which they claimed they defeated in a week
Rodney Bathgate wrote: » Not anymore, mate. Did you miss the part where her British citizenship was revoked?
quintana76 wrote: » Am just waiting for the Minister of Justice to invite her into Ireland and give a free house after four months. As crazy as that may sound it not beyond the realms of possibility.
[Deleted User] wrote: » Are you still filling the thread with your bloviating bollocks? Shamima Begum is British. It doesn't matter how many times or ways you, or your fellow clueless compadres, try to deny it, Shamima Begum is British.
Deleted User wrote: » Shamima Begum is British.
Rodney Bathgate wrote: » “ Sharmeena Begum was born to Shahnaz Begum and Mohammad Uddin. She was raised by her mother until her father joined them in the UK in 2007.” She may have been born in the UK but she wasn’t conceived there. Whatever her passport may say, she was never really ‘British’.
end of the road wrote: » incorrect she is a british citizen. your last sentence is exactly the issue, we could in effect be forced to take on foreign isis fighters or even british isis fighters who happen to have irish citizenship, russia, sending isis fighters back to europe would help with their own aim to destableise it, syria, well the west originally supported isis and other rebel groups, so assad certainly has no wish to help them.
Danzy wrote: » If she is left back in she will be out in a few years, she remains committed to the Islamic State and its methods, she will radicalise others in jail and be a rallying point in Britain. That will have the effect of more dead Kurds and Syrians etc. Jack Letts had the same thing happen to him and his parents were jailed as well for helping him financially. Not a peep about it from the bourgeoisie Left. Now that Begum, who can only be compared in views, actions amd outlook to the Bitc5 of Belsen and there is a steady stream of complaint. Her crimes were in Kurdish and Syrian territory. Let her be tried and shot there and let the Kurds know that aid depends on that happening. Isis hope she comes back to Britain.
biko wrote: » She was 15 when she left. She then stayed with ISIS for years until she was captured. She is 20/21 now. Begum was an "enforcer" in ISIL's "morality police", and tried to recruit other young women to join the jihadist group. I think she's better off outside British soil, and the UK Supreme Court agrees with me.
Gatling wrote: » Second class nah she's now a non citizen let her live out whats left of her life in the desert or shoot her and the many like her , What about the number of Isis fighters with multiple citizenships including Irish gained through various scams should we be forced to allow foreign fighters come here
wicklowstevo wrote: » because they will do what the British or other western countries will not and can not do . over there her best possible future is being left in the desert camp to fester and eventually die , or be shot some day soon its handy that western governments wont have to get their hands dirty but if you join the other side during a war this is the result
FTA69 wrote: » The precedent of stripping people’s citizenship because their parent or parents are from a different country is making that point exactly - the idea you will be punished in a way that’s different to other citizens on the basis of your heritage. Shamima Begum wasn’t travelling on a false passport or any of that craic. She’s British and therefore she is a British problem. Why should the Kurds have to be landed with these people?
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wa.vanillicon.com/v2/a605da6df673e065ac5a7e976411f425.svg)
