Shamima was smuggled in by WESTERN inteligence!

Status
Not open for further replies.
ellal said:
Under their laws she had to be registered in Bangladesh within a short period of time after her birth - 6/12 months...
Click to expand...
No, that's wrong... http://bdlaws.minlaw.gov.bd/act-242.html

"Subject to the provisions of section 3 a person born after the commencement of this Act, shall be a citizen of Bangladesh by descent if his 1[father or mother] is a citizen of Bangladesh at the time of his birth"
 
denso13 said:
Yes. The courts agree that you are wrong.
Click to expand...
How so?

And the courts of which country?

Still sticking with the 'our courts are better than their's' argument?

And have you got an opinion on the threat to break international law on the N.I. protocol?
 
denso13 said:
No. I'm saying ours is correct. She was a Bangladeshi citizen when her British one was revoked and the courts agree. It matters not a jot what Bangladesh say now.
Click to expand...
She wasn't a Bangladeshi citizen. She had never applied. No passport was ever issued.
And as I have said, any country has the right to refuse an application from anyone on any grounds that they deem fit.
The only citizenship that she held was British, and that was revoked.

Imagine if you will, a child was born in Britain to American parents who had a right to be and work in Britain.
They then returned to USA.
Later in the child's life, he/she became an international undesirable person, and USA revoked their passport on the grounds that they were entitled to a UK one.
Do you think UK would automatically award that person a UK passport because they were entitled to one?
 
Pat ex said:
It's a different argument.
Bangladesh, like any other country has the right to refuse anyone citizenship. And just like any other country they cannot make anyone stateless.
Therefore they have the right to refuse Shamima a Bangladesh passport. If she already had citizenship, they would not have been able to deny her that citizenship.
UK cannot interpret another countries laws, and dictate how and when they should be applied. UK has no control over Bangladesh anymore.
Therefore UK acted on the possibility that she was entitled to another country's citizenship. They should have waited until she actually had that citizenship.
It was the only citizenship that she held at that time.

The whole reason why she is refused permission to enter UK is based on secret evidence that Sajid Javid had. And he does not want this 'secret' evidence tested in court.
Click to expand...
Thats completely wrong.
If a person has a right in law to something, how can the state refuse without a legal basis? The person would appeal to the courts and the courts would apply the law. As they frequently do here. I'm not suggesting the Bangladeshi legal system is as independent as the UK system, but to assume this without evidence is an insult to their system. She is deemed a Bangladeshi citizen according to their law. No political commentator saying otherwise has provided any legal reference to why she is not a citizen. They simply say we are wrong and its our problem ( a bit like your argument).

UK can take guidance from experts and those experts advised she would not be made stateless. Her own team have given up on this, both SIAC and the Supreme Court have ruled she was not made stateless. Her appeal is not on the basis that she was made stateless.
 
gasbusters said:
A double-agent working for Canadian intelligence & ISIS is reported to have smuggled #ShamimaBegum & her 2 friends from Bethnal Green into Syria. The UK then conspired to cover-up Canada’s role in their recruitment & trafficking. Yes, you read that right!

She was a 15 year old groomed child smuggled into Syria by Canadian intelligence

Wow just wow!

www.thetimes.co.uk

‘Western spy’ took Shamima Begum to Syria

A spy working for Canadian intelligence smuggled Shamima Begum and her two friends from Bethnal Green into Syria and Britain later conspired with Canada to cov
www.thetimes.co.uk www.thetimes.co.uk
Click to expand...
Just wondering how this came about. Did the Canadian agent randomly turn up at her home and persuade her to get a few friends together for a trip to Syria? At that point did she and her friends query anything or just pack a bag? Why did she not discuss the Syria trip with her parents? Seems a bit odd that she and her friends would just go along with it without question.

Not really likely is it. Far more feasible is that she and her friends made first contact and ISIS used a Canadian bloke to enable the trip. ISIS were desperate for girls to keep its terrorist fighters happy and it seems there were plenty of girls around the World that were willing to fulfil the role. Bad choice, but a choice nonetheless.
 
denso13 said:
She was automatically a Bangladeshi citizen by the fact her parents were Bangladeshi. The courts have declared this the correct interpretation.
Click to expand...
According to UK interpretation of Bangladeshi law. But only the government of the country can interpret their own laws.
And as I keep saying, any country can deny anyone the right to citizenship.
Shamima is entitled to a UK passport, but it's been revoked by UK government.
 
motorbiking said:
Thats completely wrong.
If a person has a right in law to something, how can the state refuse without a legal basis? The person would appeal to the courts and the courts would apply the law. As they frequently do here. I'm not suggesting the Bangladeshi legal system is as independent as the UK system, but to assume this without evidence is an insult to their system. She is deemed a Bangladeshi citizen according to their law. No political commentator saying otherwise has provided any legal reference to why she is not a citizen. They simply say we are wrong and its our problem ( a bit like your argument).

UK can take guidance from experts and those experts advised she would not be made stateless. Her own team have given up on this, both SIAC and the Supreme Court have ruled she was not made stateless. Her appeal is not on the basis that she was made stateless.
Click to expand...

Pat ex said:
According to UK interpretation of Bangladeshi law. But only the government of the country can interpret their own laws.
And as I keep saying, any country can deny anyone the right to citizenship.
Shamima is entitled to a UK passport, but it's been revoked by UK government.
Click to expand...
Shamima is entitled to a UK passport, but it's been revoked by the UK government, proving that any government can, and does revoke their country's passport at a whim. As you said, UK has the power to revoke passports. They cannot deny that power to any other government.
 
jeds said:
Just wondering how this came about. Did the Canadian agent randomly turn up at her home and persuade her to get a few friends together for a trip to Syria? At that point did she and her friends query anything or just pack a bag? Why did she not discuss the Syria trip with her parents? Seems a bit odd that she and her friends would just go along with it without question.
Click to expand...
15 year old girls do behave recklessly.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top