Shamima was smuggled in by WESTERN inteligence!

[Pat ex]

Absolute nonsense. Their response is wrong in law anyway, what's the point.

No it wouldn't, all explained in the judgement.

According to UK's interpretation of Bangladeshi law.
We're going round in circles. If UK can revoke someone's citizenship, another country has every right to deny citizenship to them.
UK revoked Shamima's citizenship on the basis that she was entitled to Bangladeshi citizenship. Bangladesh denies this. Therefore she was rendered stateless.

Hundreds of other terrorists who fought for ISIS were allowed to return to UK.
So it is totally unjust that a 15 year old girl who has not been found guilty of any crime should be rendered stateless.
It smacks of retribution, not rehabilitation.
It shows UK to be an unjust country, exploiting the law to apply unfair penalties to children of immigrants.
It potentially alienates more people and affords radicalisers the ammunition for further radicalisation.

 

[Pat ex]

It's morally wrong to do something so bad that your citizenship is removed. Don't blame the system.

She was radicalised in UK. She has not been charged with any offence, and she has not been tried for any offence, and she has not been found guilty of any offence.
Sajid Javid's decision was based on secret information which has not been tested by the courts.
But his 'opinion' was given preferential weight in the Supreme Court.

 

[denso13]

According to UK's interpretation of Bangladeshi law.

So what?

another country has every right to deny citizenship to them

Of course they have.

Bangladesh denies this

On a press release, it has never been tested in the courts, whose job it is to interpret the law.

Therefore she was rendered stateless.

By Bangladesh, if you believe their claims.

 

[Dork Lard]

Can we get one thing straight & try to understand it. If the UK withdraws your citizenship & nominates 'Bangladesh' as your new state, & if 'Bangladesh' then drops you like the hot potato that you are, then it is NOT Bangladesh that has made you stateless.

Which part of this don't you understand???

 

[Justin Passing]

Just shoot her. Sorted.

 

[motorbiking]

Perhaps you would be good enough to point out where her legal team accepted that the removal of her citizenship did not make her stateless.

As I understand it, that judgment has not been made by the Supreme Court, and that judgement cannot be made until Shamima is allowed to enter UK and make her case, which of course UK is not allowing her to do so. So they are effectively refusing her a fair trial.
It is on this aspect that the Supreme Court has ruled that both Sajid Javid and Shamima claims have equal weight. But as we know, Sajid Javid's decision is based on secret information which the Court has not seen.
It was on this issue that the Supreme Court decided that under section 6 of the human Rights Act, a submission about her citizenship would have succeeded. So it's possible that her legal team, who you claim have conceded that the removal of her citizenship was legal, erred.

If you recall her appeal was against the order in the first place was with SIAC. The appeal was on 3 fronts - it made her stateless, deviated from policy and not allowing her back to fight it breached her right to a fair trial. SIAC ruled it did not make her stateless and was in scope of policy. Court of appeal overruled SIAC. Supreme Court assessed it all and concluded court of appeal were wrong. SIAC ruling stands.
Scope of supremer Court ruling (in the judgement posted many times in this thread):
9 - SIAC ruled not stateless
71 - Role & Scope of SIAC
77 jurisdiction of SIAC
78 view of the court of appeal
79 counter arguments presented
94 consideration of the impact
116 review of the method used
133 errors of the court of appeal over ruling SIAC
134 Home Secretary had the right, court of appeal opinion irrelevant.
136 He did act lawfully
137 appeals are dismissed - SIAC ruling stands.

As QCs they must accept and respect the ruling, in the media they have. Panick even defended the Supreme Court judges saying they were not ruling morally or ethically but on the rights granted to the Home Secretary in law.

If you'd like to read the original SIAC ruling its here:

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/begum-v-home-secretary-siac-judgment-1.pdf

 

[Deleted member 18243]

We shouldn't break international law.

I agree, but what if those laws are to our detriment?

Peter Hitchens, today, says that "people smugglers .... are confident that no civilised, law governed country can act against migrants once they have put to sea". He then goes on to say "if things go on this way the machinery of the British state will simply become the servant of the migrants...delivering them safely to shore where most of them will stay".

That's a prime example of the good intentions of law-making having disastrous consequences. Must we follow these laws until we meet our doom; seek to change the laws or simply break them?

PETER HITCHENS: We CAN smash the smuggling gangs. But it’ll cost a lot of money... and pride - Mail Online - Peter Hitchens blog

PETER HITCHENS: We CAN smash the smuggling gangs. But it’ll cost a lot of money... and pride

hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk

 

[Pat ex]

If you recall her appeal was against the order in the first place was with SIAC. The appeal was on 3 fronts - it made her stateless, deviated from policy and not allowing her back to fight it breached her right to a fair trial. SIAC ruled it did not make her stateless and was in scope of policy. Court of appeal overruled SIAC. Supreme Court assessed it all and concluded court of appeal were wrong. SIAC ruling stands.
Scope of supremer Court ruling (in the judgement posted many times in this thread):
9 - SIAC ruled not stateless
71 - Role & Scope of SIAC
77 jurisdiction of SIAC
78 view of the court of appeal
79 counter arguments presented
94 consideration of the impact
116 review of the method used
133 errors of the court of appeal over ruling SIAC
134 Home Secretary had the right, court of appeal opinion irrelevant.
136 He did act lawfully
137 appeals are dismissed - SIAC ruling stands.

As QCs they must accept and respect the ruling, in the media they have. Panick even defended the Supreme Court judges saying they were not ruling morally or ethically but on the rights granted to the Home Secretary in law.

If you'd like to read the original SIAC ruling its here:

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/begum-v-home-secretary-siac-judgment-1.pdf

All of which illustrates just how fragile were each of the judgements.
At the end of the day, the Supreme Court gave more credence to the Home Secretary's concern for National Security (based on secret information that the Court had not seen) over and above the Human Rights of a UK citizen, and the right to a fair trial.

In reality, the secret information that swung the decision has never been seen by anyone else but the Home Secretary.
Hundreds of others were allowed back and charged with crimes.
I believe the evidence against Shamima was so weak that it would not have led to a charge being brought, and revoking her passport was his only option.
The only politically correct decision now is for the UK to deny Shamima leave to return to the UK to allow her to appeal. Any other decision would leave the Home Secretary and the UK justice system open to ridicule for preventing Shamima's appeal for so long, and subsequently denying her access to a fair trial, and her Human Rights for so long.

 

[Pat ex]

By Bangladesh, if you believe their claims.

UK cannot claim the moral high ground when they so readily disregard International Agreements that they have made with others, and interpret another country's laws to suit their own purpose.
UK have demonstrated their willingness to be hypocritical and unreliable. Their PM is a proven liar. The governing party voted for that proven liar as their PM. Their new PM is about to be chosen by 16,000 non-UK citizens, among others, when the electorate of UK don't have a vote.
It all suggests that UK government are more corrupt than other countries, interpret laws and International Agreements to suit themselves, and ignore UN Charters when it suits.

 

[Pat ex]

I agree, but what if those laws are to our detriment?

Peter Hitchens, today, says that "people smugglers .... are confident that no civilised, law governed country can act against migrants once they have put to sea". He then goes on to say "if things go on this way the machinery of the British state will simply become the servant of the migrants...delivering them safely to shore where most of them will stay".

That's a prime example of the good intentions of law-making having disastrous consequences. Must we follow these laws until we meet our doom; seek to change the laws or simply break them?

PETER HITCHENS: We CAN smash the smuggling gangs. But it’ll cost a lot of money... and pride - Mail Online - Peter Hitchens blog

PETER HITCHENS: We CAN smash the smuggling gangs. But it’ll cost a lot of money... and pride

hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk

I have posited an immediate resolution to the smuggling gangs.
Create a class of visa, designed for Asylum Seekers, so that they can travel to a country by regular means.
They're coming anyway, via risky and criminal means. They're creating, funding and providing the market for the people smugglers.
An opportunity to travel by regular means would immediately alleviate the need to cross the channel by dingy, would not risk lives, would not endanger other shipping, would alleviate the need to rescue asylum seekers, would allow the resources currently employed in trying to stop the crossings to be redeployed, etc.

If the UK were genuinely concerned for their safety, they would seek ways to make it safe for them, but we all know that that is not their real concern. Their real concern is to make it as dangerous and difficult as possible for asylum seekers to reach UK.

 

[denso13]

try to understand it

Well you don't, that's not what happened at all, as a matter of fact.

 

[denso13]

Why do you bother?

To point out mistruths, misconceptions and falsehoods. I cite sources for everything I quote, if you wish you can refute them by showing counter evidence.

You just saying things means diddly squat.

attract zero respect from your peers.

Did you speak to them all? Show us the results...

 

[Andydevon]

Nope always look at Denso13 posts with credibility. Well structure and with evidence. Not sure we agree politically thought. But that's no bad thing.

 

[gant]

The problem with that is he asked dark lord did he speak to the peers he made reference to knowing full well he can't. Same as he follows the science and takes it as read but I'm sure he has some doubts about everything these scientists say and has a few questions of his own he'd like to ask these scientists, but that too is impossible.

 

[denso13]

knowing full well he can't

Why did he claim he knew then?

Same as he follows the science and takes it as read but I'm sure he has some doubts about everything these scientists say and has a few questions of his own he'd like to ask these scientists, but that too is impossible.

Word salad. It's a discussion forum. I put forward what I think and why. Others criticise and say nothing of essence. Believe it or not I'm open to different views, but just saying things means nothing.