Any British person who has a foreign-born parent will feel their status is more precarious after the court of appeal decision
The court of appeal ruled this morning that Shamima Begum had been lawfully deprived of her British citizenship. The 24-year-old’s citizenship was first revoked in 2019. She challenged that decision at a special immigration appeals commission last year, and lost. This latest ruling might represent the end of her hope to return home, although given the young woman’s circumstances – all three of her children have died, she lives in a refugee camp they call the “mini caliphate”, and is thought of only periodically by her countrymen in order to be pilloried then forgotten again – it would be foolish to try to guess at her levels of resilience or despair.
The judges were careful to stress that the ruling didn’t represent any comment on the sympathy or otherwise it was reasonable to have for Begum – rather, that there was nothing unlawful in Sajid Javid’s deprivation decision. The ruling hadn’t failed to take into account that Begum had been groomed and trafficked, which would have put it in breach of the UK’s anti-slavery protections, and was the contention of her appeal.
It’s hard to conceive of what grooming and trafficking mean, if not what happened to Begum, painstakingly documented by Josh Baker in his podcast documentary last year, Shamima Begum – Return from Isis. She left the UK aged 15, and her lawyers highlighted numerous failings of the state – Begum’s school, the Met police, Tower Hamlets council – that even allowed her to get as far as Turkey. Her entry into Syria was reportedly partly facilitated by an informant for Canadian intelligence, so the state failings go beyond even our own.
Well, yes. Similarly, how inmates lose rights other people enjoy. It’d not a shock that her citizenship has been removed. She joined a terrorist organization. Their country rightfully doesn’t want to take care of a terrorist / have her in their community.
She was born here. This ruling means that anyone with a foreign-born parent (and anyone who is Jewish) can lawfully be deprived of their citizenship even if it means making them stateless. If that doesn’t trouble you, it’s because you haven’t thought it through.
How did you read that to mean “this ruling means that anyone who is Jewish can lawfully be deprived of their citizenship”?
Because it was based on the possibility of her getting citizenship elsewhere. In Begum’s case, she was technically eligible for Bangladeshi citizenship at the time of the ruling, although that is no longer true, and was not true in any meaningful way at the time of the decision.
Every Jewish person is technically eligible for Israeli citizenship. And that could be used to deprive them of British citizenship, with this ruling as precedent.
Also, it wasn’t based on the possibility of her getting citizenship elsewhere. She got hit by both rules allowing the removal of citizenship. Both on security grounds, and on the “citizen of other country” one. Even if she doesn’t have a different citizenship, she can be deprived of it because she is a threat.
I have thought it trough plenty. This law has been in its current form for 40 years. The ability to remove a citizenship on security grounds was created over 100 years ago. The UN charter on statelessness allows what they are doing.
It doesn’t matter that she was born in the UK. Read up what she did while there in Syria. This isn’t a tyrannical government stripping a young naive precious girl of citizenship. She was a full blown terrorist. She excused terrorist bombings. She excused the rapes. She is absolutely a security threat to the UK.
The issue is that this punishment establishes two classes of people. Those who can lose their citizenship because they can theoretically get another somewhere and those who cant.
Imagine if this child was born in the UK to British parents and has no other possible nationalities, what then?
When a country grants citizenship they should not be allowed to revoke it unless it was obtained fraudulently. Revoking citizenship should never be used as a form of punishment.
What then? They become stateless.
They should absolutelly be allowed to revoke citizenship.
And you can’t intentionally make a person stateless. In that case, they couldn’t have stripped her citizenship.
Yeah you can. It literally says in the UN conventions that “disloyal or certain criminal conduct may limit an individuals ability to avail the benefit of the Convention”. It would be idiotic otherwise.
At 15.
It’s pretty damning of the UK. Punishing a victim of grooming by stripping their citizenship.
Just because the tabloids got hold of the story and told a caricature story to sell papers.
You call her a victim of grooming, they call her a potential terrorist threat. It’s not a “caticature” of the story. Some fuckups are unforgivable. Going to a different country to join a terrorist org is one of such fuckups.
Does the UK also revoke citizenship of anyone with a long family history in the country if they do similar things? I can’t fathom taking citizenship away but I’m here in the US where cops just kill you or you get railroaded into jail whether you’re guilty or not (but hey you’re still a citizen…that can’t vote ever again)
Yeah, it does, since the UK law states that they can take away your citizenship if they think it’s beneficial for the community (i.e. when you are a threat, when you are a terrorist).
Why isn’t jail sufficient?
Because she was part of the morality police, has sewn suicide vests on people so they couldn’t take the explosives out without detonating and because she feels no remorse and actually excuses terrorism and rape.
The really cool part is how in a shorter than you think amount of time they’ll use this precedent to apply a new definition of “terrorist” to people who never left the country, then “terrorist” will get broader and broader. “Those communist socialist scum are terrorizing our voting booths.”
When protection from the government only applies to citizens and the government finds acceptable ways to turn citizens into non-citizens with easily malleable definitions…
Then you’ve got yourself a fascist stew going.
Like when Obama assassinated that US citizen (who was a massive piece of shit btw) overseas openly and nobody really bitched.
The really cool part of this is that the law has been in effect for 40 years. Yet nothing on the slippery slope you doomsay about happened. The gov website says around 20 people get hit by it every year. Another 20 for fraud charges. Yet it hasn’t been a problem. There is the appeals court for it. The only reason we talk about this is that a tale of a “poor innocent child being stolen away from the UK returning and being denied citizenship” sounds great for clickbait in a “news” article.
The reality is, she went to join ISIS willingly. Now she is paying the price for it.
deleted by creator
It can be both. I worked briefly in youth work and young offender institutes. Some young people were simultaneously fucking terrifying and dangerous, while also wheeling and dealing like a Kray twin crossed with Del Boy (a 12 year old kid who carried 5 mobile phones - all stolen - for different “business purposes” comes to my mind).
Doesn’t mean they aren’t victims as well and doesn’t mean they should be treated as adult criminals.
I don’t particularly care about the most granular definition of “terrorism” in the context of the wide definition of “child abuse”.
It isn’t a “granular” definition - read her wiki page. She stitched suicide vests, so they couldn’t remove the explosives without going “boom”. She enforced “morality” laws. She carried an AK with her. She was regarded as an enforcer. She tried to recruit other girls into ISIS.
She got lured into joining by watching beheading videos and the luxuries of living as a terrorist. She literally said “I still hold ‘some’ of the UK’s values”. She didn’t regret going to Syria. She excused terrorist attacks. She excused rape in ISIS. She has no remorse for what she did while there.
This is a textbook case of a law working. The only difference between her, and other people deprived of citizenship for similar things, is that she has a PR agency.