Jump to content

British IS schoolgirl wants to return home


AlphonseCapone

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Smithee said:

 

Can you back that up?

 

I don't believe she is. If she was, Britain would have no legal problem removing her citizenship.

A very quick Google says as Bob says, that she's a citizen of Bangladesh by descent. That's why the tribunal in February ruled it legal to revoke her British citizenship. That makes perfect sense to me. Bangladesh refusing to have her is on the same level as the UK throwing her out.

 

Maybe I've missed something but I'm guessing her lawyers appealing the appeal?

 

Should the worst happen and Scotland were to become independent my two boys who were born in England to an English mother would have an automatic right to a Scottish passport. Bangladesh is no different with Begum in this.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Mikey1874

    69

  • Jambo-Jimbo

    60

  • Governor Tarkin

    59

  • Unknown user

    47

Unknown user
35 minutes ago, IronJambo said:

A very quick Google says as Bob says, that she's a citizen of Bangladesh by descent. That's why the tribunal in February ruled it legal to revoke her British citizenship. That makes perfect sense to me. Bangladesh refusing to have her is on the same level as the UK throwing her out.

 

Maybe I've missed something but I'm guessing her lawyers appealing the appeal?

 

Should the worst happen and Scotland were to become independent my two boys who were born in England to an English mother would have an automatic right to a Scottish passport. Bangladesh is no different with Begum in this.

 

Bob didn't say she's a citizen of Bangladesh, he said she's of Bangladeshi descent.

And the first few links I can find are all Bangladesh confirming that she's not a citizen of theirs.

 

According to them she's a British citizen by birth and has never even applied for Bangladeshi citizenship.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unknown user
44 minutes ago, IronJambo said:

A very quick Google says as Bob says, that she's a citizen of Bangladesh by descent. That's why the tribunal in February ruled it legal to revoke her British citizenship. That makes perfect sense to me. Bangladesh refusing to have her is on the same level as the UK throwing her out.

 

Maybe I've missed something but I'm guessing her lawyers appealing the appeal?

 

Should the worst happen and Scotland were to become independent my two boys who were born in England to an English mother would have an automatic right to a Scottish passport. Bangladesh is no different with Begum in this.

 

Sorry, to answer your last point, nonsense.

 

If I'd had kids in Holland they'd be Dutch citizens. They might be entitled to be UK citizens but until citizenship is applied for and granted they're not UK citizens. That's how it actually works.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Smithee said:

 

Bob didn't say she's a citizen of Bangladesh, he said she's of Bangladeshi descent.

And the first few links I can find are all Bangladesh confirming that she's not a citizen of theirs.

 

According to them she's a British citizen by birth and has never even applied for Bangladeshi citizenship.

Nobody said she was a Bengali citizen. I certainly didn't either. She has a right to it. 

 

As for your other quote, my children have as much right to Scottish citizenship as you and I if there was ever to be such a thing. Application or no application.

 

Given the above she can appeal it all she wants. I can't see the British government being forced into having her back as she could quite rightfully go somewhere else. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unknown user
1 hour ago, IronJambo said:

Nobody said she was a Bengali citizen. I certainly didn't either. She has a right to it. 

 

As for your other quote, my children have as much right to Scottish citizenship as you and I if there was ever to be such a thing. Application or no application.

 

Given the above she can appeal it all she wants. I can't see the British government being forced into having her back as she could quite rightfully go somewhere else. 

 

Well you did.

 

"A very quick Google says as Bob says, that she's a citizen of Bangladesh by descent."

 

Being entitled to something and being something are 2 different things.

I've lived abroad, I was entitled to Dutch citizenship but I'm not a Dutch citizen because I didn't take the necessary steps with the ING. If I'd had kids over there they would have been Dutch. They would have been entitled to UK citizenship, but until I go and apply for it on their behalf they're not dual citizens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Smithee said:

 

Well you did.

 

"A very quick Google says as Bob says, that she's a citizen of Bangladesh by descent."

 

 

You're misunderstanding plain English if you think I said she was a Bangladeshi citizen. 

 

The British courts understand it and it was understood enough but the courts on the appeal that she wasn't made stateless by then revoking get British citizenship. If that ever changes then it's down to the courts, not your misunderstanding of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unknown user
5 minutes ago, IronJambo said:

You're misunderstanding plain English if you think I said she was a Bangladeshi citizen. 

 

The British courts understand it and it was understood enough but the courts on the appeal that she wasn't made stateless by then revoking get British citizenship. If that ever changes then it's down to the courts, not your misunderstanding of it.

 

What does "she's a citizen of Bangladesh" mean to you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Smithee said:

 

What does "she's a citizen of Bangladesh" mean to you?

You've missed part of the sentence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unknown user
13 minutes ago, IronJambo said:

You've missed part of the sentence.

Yeah by descent.

I think it's you who's struggling with English mate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Smithee said:

Yeah by descent.

I think it's you who's struggling with English mate.

So what's so hard to understand that she has a right to Bangladeshi citizenship and all she has to do is ask? That's what the courts decided.

 

Maybe you should talk with your school mates about this instead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Smithee said:

 

Sorry, to answer your last point, nonsense.

 

If I'd had kids in Holland they'd be Dutch citizens. They might be entitled to be UK citizens but until citizenship is applied for and granted they're not UK citizens. That's how it actually works.

My daughter born in Edinburgh, moved to Canada as a three year old, when I got my Canadian Citizenship a tad early because I needed it to be hired by a Canadian Federal police force the kids got theirs also, my wife was Canadian born. Our daughters children my grandchildren use their mothers birthplace in U.K. to claim British Citizenship and have travelled to Britain using their U.K passports  more expedient for arrivals at U.K.airports. They are not likely to be faced with Canadian deportation, but the whole birthright thing is possibly more complicated than we, certainly I understand. As another aside my grandson proved to be a pretty good football goalie, excelled in the University leagues here, he was offered some jobs in pro teams here, but didn't want them, but would have gone to Scotland in a second, again it was suggested that he would need no foreign player arrangements, using again his mother for Scottish residence rights. no offers so no mattered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unknown user
1 hour ago, IronJambo said:

So what's so hard to understand that she has a right to Bangladeshi citizenship and all she has to do is ask? That's what the courts decided.

 

Maybe you should talk with your school mates about this instead.

 

And what's so difficult to understand about the difference between having something and having a right to something?


"she's a citizen of Bangladesh by descent" means you're saying she's a Bangladeshi citizen. If you don't think it does, I can't help you bud, there's nothing else to discuss here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Smithee said:

 

And what's so difficult to understand about the difference between having something and having a right to something?


"she's a citizen of Bangladesh by descent" means you're saying she's a Bangladeshi citizen. If you don't think it does, I can't help you bud, there's nothing else to discuss here.

The difference between having and having the right to have is moot in this case. Because she can have citizenship elsewhere it means she hasn't been made stateless. It's quite simple.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unknown user
13 minutes ago, IronJambo said:

The difference between having and having the right to have is moot in this case. Because she can have citizenship elsewhere it means she hasn't been made stateless. It's quite simple.

"she's a citizen of Bangladesh by descent" means you're saying she's a citizen of Bangladesh. She isn't, and you're taking bollocks if you're claiming that sentence means something else.

 

She never has been and it sounds like she never will be - you have to apply and they don't have to accept.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Smithee said:

"she's a citizen of Bangladesh by descent" means you're saying she's a citizen of Bangladesh. She isn't, and you're taking bollocks if you're claiming that sentence means something else.

 

She never has been and it sounds like she never will be - you have to apply and they don't have to accept.

Why wouldn't they accept her? She is Bengali.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unknown user
16 minutes ago, IronJambo said:

Why wouldn't they accept her? She is Bengali.

We just pretending that sentence never happened now?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Smithee said:

We just pretending that sentence never happened now?

Maybe they don't want her because she's a terrorist?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unknown user
25 minutes ago, IronJambo said:

Maybe they don't want her because she's a terrorist?

 

Don't want her as a citizen of Bangladesh you mean?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 19/06/2021 at 12:15, IronJambo said:

Nobody said she was a Bengali citizen. I certainly didn't either. She has a right to it. 

 

*As for your other quote, my children have as much right to Scottish citizenship as you and I if there was ever to be such a thing. Application or no application.

 

Given the above she can appeal it all she wants. I can't see the British government being forced into having her back as she could quite rightfully go somewhere else. 

* Bollox. 

 

When my Mrs was made an illegal alien in 2012 thro the Hostile environment mantra of the scum Tories. Our three kids became illegal also. And they were all born in Paisley. It mattered not a jot what nationality the father is and the fact we were married for over 14 years at the time. Thank feck for Windrush or we'd have been fecked. 

Edited by ri Alban
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, ri Alban said:

* Bollox. 

 

When my Mrs was made an illegal alien in 2012 thro the Hostile environment mantra of the scum Tories. Our three kids became illegal also. And they were all born in Paisley. It mattered not a jot what nationality the father is and the fact we were married for over 14 years at the time. Thank feck for Windrush or we'd have been fecked. 

 

I remember that Ri and couldn't believe it at the time. I seem to recall her parents were Brits and she was born in Canada. Same circumstances as it seems as my grandchildren and they got passports simply and used them to travel Europe during pre Brexit. My wife a Canadian came on vacation we met she stayed and married she was of German background, never questioned, and when we hit our sixties in Canada we both got our Pensions.  You must have run into a power hungry bureaucrat or we some how slipped under the fence. 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Sharpie said:

 

I remember that Ri and couldn't believe it at the time. I seem to recall her parents were Brits and she was born in Canada. Same circumstances as it seems as my grandchildren and they got passports simply and used them to travel Europe during pre Brexit. My wife a Canadian came on vacation we met she stayed and married she was of German background, never questioned, and when we hit our sixties in Canada we both got our Pensions.  You must have run into a power hungry bureaucrat or we some how slipped under the fence. 

 

 

 

 

 

All about marriage, Bob. Me and the Mrs weren't married when the kids were born. 

 

My wife was adopted in Canada as baby and the UK would not recognise this(no British citizenship by descent) when Hostile environment came to town. Fecking brutal 6 years we had, and has made me extremely vicious towards The Tories, even tho I've hated them since Thatcher. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are this lassies parents British and were they married when she was born.  If not married, it's the mother, if yes, it's the father. 

 

Seems they are married and have settled status. So you cannot leave her stateless as she's British. 

Edited by ri Alban
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, ri Alban said:

All about marriage, Bob. Me and the Mrs weren't married when the kids were born. 

 

My wife was adopted in Canada as baby and the UK would not recognise this(no British citizenship by descent) when Hostile environment came to town. Fecking brutal 6 years we had, and has made me extremely vicious towards The Tories, even tho I've hated them since Thatcher. 


I had no idea about the hostile environment policy before reading your post. What a ***** Theresa May is. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Governor Tarkin
3 minutes ago, Des Lynam said:
13 minutes ago, ri Alban said:

My wife was adopted in Canada as baby and the UK would not recognise this(no British citizenship by descent) when Hostile environment came to town. Fecking brutal 6 years we had, and has made me extremely vicious towards The Tories, even tho I've hated them since Thatcher. 


I had no idea about the hostile environment policy before reading your post. What a ***** Theresa May is. 

 

It's an absolute abomination, Des.

As if Paisley isn't enough of a hostile environment as it is.

Glad it all worked out for you, ri.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ri Alban said:

* Bollox. 

 

When my Mrs was made an illegal alien in 2012 thro the Hostile environment mantra of the scum Tories. Our three kids became illegal also. And they were all born in Paisley. It mattered not a jot what nationality the father is and the fact we were married for over 14 years at the time. Thank feck for Windrush or we'd have been fecked. 

Totally different thing. Very shite patter from our government there. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, ri Alban said:

All about marriage, Bob. Me and the Mrs weren't married when the kids were born. 

 

My wife was adopted in Canada as baby and the UK would not recognise this(no British citizenship by descent) when Hostile environment came to town. Fecking brutal 6 years we had, and has made me extremely vicious towards The Tories, even tho I've hated them since Thatcher. 

Well I never had that kind of problem but I can well imagine the stress it could cause, and in my case because of who I am extreme anger, because that always seemed a good solution (wrongly) for me, but like they say enjoy the good outcome.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 17/06/2021 at 23:25, Sharpie said:

Not living in Britain I am not really up on all the circumstances of this case. However I believe a teen age girl left the Country of her birth and joined a terrorist group guilty of unbridled murders and other terrorist acts. Some sympathy seems to be sought for her because her babies she gave birth to from Jihadist terrorists have died. I don't know about the legality of her Citizenship, but I do know that everything I done as a British born citizen was accompanied by either a verbal or a signatory oath to the United Kingdom and the Monarch of the time thereof.

It is being suggested that regardless of what she has done she should not or cannot be deprived of her Citizenship,  I find this an interesting legal question. If she has departed the Country and pledged allegiance to a group of terrorists in a foreign country, and committed to acts of violence against if necessary her own original birthland, she should be subject to disbarment of her Citizenship, she is a proven traitor, who has denied any oath or promise she has undertaken to her native land.

Many countries less civilised than good old U.K. would have sent an assassin to where she is and removed her Citizenship with her life, case closed, lets get on to next matter. Do the crime then do the time.

 


Suppose stripping someone of their citizenship and leaving them stateless or for other countries to have to deal with isn’t really the most moral thing for a country to do. No matter what their crime is if they are born in the UK we need to take responsibility IMO. 
 

This really shouldn’t be about what she deserves or what she doesn’t. She should come back and be dealt with by us. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, AlimOzturk said:


Suppose stripping someone of their citizenship and leaving them stateless or for other countries to have to deal with isn’t really the most moral thing for a country to do. No matter what their crime is if they are born in the UK we need to take responsibility IMO. 
 

This really shouldn’t be about what she deserves or what she doesn’t. She should come back and be dealt with by us. 

On 19/06/2021 at 07:54, Smithee said:

"she's a citizen of Bangladesh by descent" means you're saying she's a citizen of Bangladesh. She isn't, and you're taking bollocks if you're claiming that sentence means something else.

 

She never has been and it sounds like she never will be - you have to apply and they don't have to accept.

 

I think possibly you are taking the question of her citizenship too literally. Certainly I and I believe others are not saying she is a Bangladeshi citizen, what we are saying is that because of descent she could make a valid claim for such. Equally the Nation being asked to accept has the right to deny the request, 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, AlimOzturk said:


Suppose stripping someone of their citizenship and leaving them stateless or for other countries to have to deal with isn’t really the most moral thing for a country to do. No matter what their crime is if they are born in the UK we need to take responsibility IMO. 
 

This really shouldn’t be about what she deserves or what she doesn’t. She should come back and be dealt with by us. 

 

Can United Kingdom actually take responsiblity for what she is alleged to have done, she went by her own choice to another Country, I would suggest although young that was a right. She married a Dutch citizen and gave birth to children, it is alleged she and her husband were members of Isis. I admit to no knowledge but ask other than stated has she done anything criminal, murder, bombing or any form of terrorist activity. I guess I am asking what does she deserve, removal of citizenship she got by birth, jail for non listed crimes, just being a member of a terrorist group, or should she just stay where it is reported she is happy and likes, or come back to Britain to face possible criminal charges, arrest and possibly detention and worstly become a model of hate, scorn, and possible physical abuse because of her  questionable past. Again as seems to happen its the baddie who ends up shouting loudest this is not fair I am British and want to be here, the fact she left of her own volition will be starkly negated. My main problem in life is repairing a burst pipe leading to my toilet, I am genuinely in shit,  and must as should she, have to get myself out of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Sharpie said:

 

Can United Kingdom actually take responsiblity for what she is alleged to have done, she went by her own choice to another Country, I would suggest although young that was a right. She married a Dutch citizen and gave birth to children, it is alleged she and her husband were members of Isis. I admit to no knowledge but ask other than stated has she done anything criminal, murder, bombing or any form of terrorist activity. I guess I am asking what does she deserve, removal of citizenship she got by birth, jail for non listed crimes, just being a member of a terrorist group, or should she just stay where it is reported she is happy and likes, or come back to Britain to face possible criminal charges, arrest and possibly detention and worstly become a model of hate, scorn, and possible physical abuse because of her  questionable past. Again as seems to happen its the baddie who ends up shouting loudest this is not fair I am British and want to be here, the fact she left of her own volition will be starkly negated. My main problem in life is repairing a burst pipe leading to my toilet, I am genuinely in shit,  and must as should she, have to get myself out of it.


The problem the UK have is that she has stated her desire to return home to the UK. She knows what awaits her when she returns but wants to return regardless. The government, rather than taking responsibility for a citizen (regardless of her crimes) and deal with the situation have simply washed their hands of it and left her stateless. That does nothing to help the situation. 
 

A person can’t just be stateless because she is a criminal or outcast for past transgressions. It’s a dangerous precedent to set tbh in a world which is fast becoming a multi national globalisation. She was born in the UK and seeing as nobody else wants her then she has to come back and face any punishment here. 
 

She has (or should have) the right to return home to her country of birth. We then has have the right to arrest and give try her for terrorist related crimes. 
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, AlimOzturk said:


The problem the UK have is that she has stated her desire to return home to the UK. She knows what awaits her when she returns but wants to return regardless. The government, rather than taking responsibility for a citizen (regardless of her crimes) and deal with the situation have simply washed their hands of it and left her stateless. That does nothing to help the situation. 
 

A person can’t just be stateless because she is a criminal or outcast for past transgressions. It’s a dangerous precedent to set tbh in a world which is fast becoming a multi national globalisation. She was born in the UK and seeing as nobody else wants her then she has to come back and face any punishment here. 
 

She has (or should have) the right to return home to her country of birth. We then has have the right to arrest and give try her for terrorist related crimes. 
 

 

 A very good and informative post in reply to mine. I have to plead guilty to passing comment on a situation that has absolutely no impact on my life. Its good to be proven lacking in a comment in a calm and reasonable manner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sharpie said:

 

I think possibly you are taking the question of her citizenship too literally. Certainly I and I believe others are not saying she is a Bangladeshi citizen, what we are saying is that because of descent she could make a valid claim for such. Equally the Nation being asked to accept has the right to deny the request, 

I'm just seeing it for what it is to be honest. Let's pretend she had never ran away with Isis to cut off people's heads. Bangladesh would welcome her with open arms. There's only question of their acceptance of her because of her crimes. They'd be no less wrong or right to tell her to beat it than we are. Her only living parent (father) is also in Bangladesh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jambof3tornado
1 hour ago, AlimOzturk said:


The problem the UK have is that she has stated her desire to return home to the UK. She knows what awaits her when she returns but wants to return regardless. The government, rather than taking responsibility for a citizen (regardless of her crimes) and deal with the situation have simply washed their hands of it and left her stateless. That does nothing to help the situation. 
 

A person can’t just be stateless because she is a criminal or outcast for past transgressions. It’s a dangerous precedent to set tbh in a world which is fast becoming a multi national globalisation. She was born in the UK and seeing as nobody else wants her then she has to come back and face any punishment here. 
 

She has (or should have) the right to return home to her country of birth. We then has have the right to arrest and give try her for terrorist related crimes. 
 

 

Its going to cost us a fortune if she comes back.

 

Leave her where she is. She left the uk of her own free will,she knew what she was doing. Its all gone to **** and she's desperate to come back......nah screw that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Jambof3tornado said:

Its going to cost us a fortune if she comes back.

 

Leave her where she is. She left the uk of her own free will,she knew what she was doing. Its all gone to **** and she's desperate to come back......nah screw that.


Why should Syria or any other country have to deal with our citizens? She was born, raised, Schooled and radicalised in our country and is therefore our responsibility to deal with. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, AlimOzturk said:


Why should Syria or any other country have to deal with our citizens? She was born, raised, Schooled and radicalised in our country and is therefore our responsibility to deal with. 

I'm not sure this is correct. She didn't set up with Isis in the UK and there isn't an extradition treaty between the UK and Syria.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jambof3tornado
11 minutes ago, AlimOzturk said:


Why should Syria or any other country have to deal with our citizens? She was born, raised, Schooled and radicalised in our country and is therefore our responsibility to deal with. 

She was stripped of her citizenship, she would have done harm to british citizens if given the opportunity, The idea anyone leaving to join a terror organisation should simply be allowed to come home after doing so, is frankly abhorrent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I bought a new piece for the toilet, installed it myself and for the cost of $7.50 have lost a stressor, and like the thread subject sometimes one just has to sit back take stock, consider all avenues, make a decision, implement and hope it is correct, I have put emergency measures in place in case the repair fails for some reason, as can be done with a human problem also.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, IronJambo said:

I'm not sure this is correct. She didn't set up with Isis in the UK and there isn't an extradition treaty between the UK and Syria.

I thought she was a Bangladeshi citizen  ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, AlimOzturk said:


The problem the UK have is that she has stated her desire to return home to the UK. She knows what awaits her when she returns but wants to return regardless. The government, rather than taking responsibility for a citizen (regardless of her crimes) and deal with the situation have simply washed their hands of it and left her stateless. That does nothing to help the situation. 
 

A person can’t just be stateless because she is a criminal or outcast for past transgressions. It’s a dangerous precedent to set tbh in a world which is fast becoming a multi national globalisation. She was born in the UK and seeing as nobody else wants her then she has to come back and face any punishment here. 
 

She has (or should have) the right to return home to her country of birth. We then has have the right to arrest and give try her for terrorist related crimes. 
 

 


This is what I was thinking but you said it far more clearly than I could have. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, AlimOzturk said:


The problem the UK have is that she has stated her desire to return home to the UK. She knows what awaits her when she returns but wants to return regardless. The government, rather than taking responsibility for a citizen (regardless of her crimes) and deal with the situation have simply washed their hands of it and left her stateless. That does nothing to help the situation. 
 

A person can’t just be stateless because she is a criminal or outcast for past transgressions. It’s a dangerous precedent to set tbh in a world which is fast becoming a multi national globalisation. She was born in the UK and seeing as nobody else wants her then she has to come back and face any punishment here. 
 

She has (or should have) the right to return home to her country of birth. We then has have the right to arrest and give try her for terrorist related crimes. 
 

 

In a nutshell. It's the responsible thing to do. Well said, Alim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jambo-Jimbo

Just a few observations here, on the question of citizenship and being stateless or otherwise.

 

When Shamima Begum pledged allegiance/joined the Islamic State of Iraq & the Levant (ISIL) did she not become a citizen of the Islamic State of Iraq & the Levant at that point, and by doing so gave up her British citizenship in favour of ISIL.

Just because we in the West or the UN never acknowledged the Islamic Caliphate as being a State, Territory or a Country, doesn't mean it never existed as such, it was as much a country/territory/state to the people who were members of the Islamic Caliphate, to them it was their country, it was 'home'.  In fact wasn't that the very point of ISIS to set up their own Islamic Caliphate/Country, and the people joining ISIS believed that they had joined a new Islamic Country or Caliphate.

 

Let's be in no doubts here, if ISIL/ISIS or the Islamic Caliphate or whatever else they want to call themselves by, were still the force they were, Shamima Begum would still be churning out a new jihadi every year, she would have no interest in the UK except to see it burn to the ground and certainly wouldn't call the UK home, because the Islamic Caliphate would be her home.  Let's also be clear that if the Islamic Caliphate ever rose up again, she'd be offski in a flash to it.

 

I was of the opinion that we should just leave her out there and let her rot, she made her bed blah blah blah.

Now however, I'm of the opinion that the UK is missing a trick here, because, let her come back to her place of birth, face the full force of the law and if she is found guilty, make an example of her, and send a message out to other prospective jihadi brides, that this is what to expect if you ever come back.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jambo-Jimbo said:

Just a few observations here, on the question of citizenship and being stateless or otherwise.

 

When Shamima Begum pledged allegiance/joined the Islamic State of Iraq & the Levant (ISIL) did she not become a citizen of the Islamic State of Iraq & the Levant at that point, and by doing so gave up her British citizenship in favour of ISIL.

Just because we in the West or the UN never acknowledged the Islamic Caliphate as being a State, Territory or a Country, doesn't mean it never existed as such, it was as much a country/territory/state to the people who were members of the Islamic Caliphate, to them it was their country, it was 'home'.  In fact wasn't that the very point of ISIS to set up their own Islamic Caliphate/Country, and the people joining ISIS believed that they had joined a new Islamic Country or Caliphate.

 

Let's be in no doubts here, if ISIL/ISIS or the Islamic Caliphate or whatever else they want to call themselves by, were still the force they were, Shamima Begum would still be churning out a new jihadi every year, she would have no interest in the UK except to see it burn to the ground and certainly wouldn't call the UK home, because the Islamic Caliphate would be her home.  Let's also be clear that if the Islamic Caliphate ever rose up again, she'd be offski in a flash to it.

 

I was of the opinion that we should just leave her out there and let her rot, she made her bed blah blah blah.

Now however, I'm of the opinion that the UK is missing a trick here, because, let her come back to her place of birth, face the full force of the law and if she is found guilty, make an example of her, and send a message out to other prospective jihadi brides, that this is what to expect if you ever come back.

 

 

Just a note that ISIL was generally considered to be a proto-state, and international statelessness/citizenship law usually refers to states.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jambo-Jimbo
11 minutes ago, redjambo said:

 

Just a note that ISIL was generally considered to be a proto-state, and international statelessness/citizenship law usually refers to states.

 

Somehow I think whatever International law said on the subject of citizenship was the last thing on Begum et al's minds when they flocked to join the Islamic Caliphate and pledged allegence to the Islamic State of Iraq & the Levant, for them, and there is more than enough footage of interviews where the people said they had given up everything in the West and genuinely believed that they had joined a new Islamic country.

 

It's the mistake we keep making, in that we look at this through Westerners eyes. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Jambo-Jimbo said:

 

Somehow I think whatever International law said on the subject of citizenship was the last thing on Begum et al's minds when they flocked to join the Islamic Caliphate and pledged allegence to the Islamic State of Iraq & the Levant, for them, and there is more than enough footage of interviews where the people said they had given up everything in the West and genuinely believed that they had joined a new Islamic country.

 

It's the mistake we keep making, in that we look at this through Westerners eyes. 

 

I was looking at it from the legal standpoint.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...