Shabina Begum can come back to UK

[JohnD]

Luckily we stopped killing people a while back

are you sure?

 

[sodthisforfun]

are you sure?

Yes, 1964.

 

[motorbiking]

1. But the UK cannot argue that Bangladesh must grant her citizenship. It can only argue that she may be entitled to it.
2. But Bangladesh are not signatories to the Convention, so are not bound by it.
3. Bangladesh have grounds to refuse Shamima citizenship because she has never resided in that country, and because she has not always been stateless.
4 Finally, that rescinding of citizenship, and rendering stateless, depends on the individual having received a formal assertion that they will be granted citizenship of another country. Shamima has not received that assertion, as far as we know.

1. see section 40
2. See Citizenship act 1951 (Bangladesh Law) https://www.refworld.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/rwmain/opendocpdf.pdf?reldoc=y&docid=543d0d724. She has citizenship through "blood right"
3. see above.
4 see above.

If the UK signs up to a UN Convention, one assumes that UK law would respect that Convention.
The Convention gives time for the Convention to come into effect in the signatory countries.
I think UK has had sufficient time now, since '54 or '61. Don't you?

It's a UN Convention, which UK signed up to.

Done and dusted in 1971, 81 and 02. Been this way for almost 20 years. You get what a judicial review is?

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

1. see section 40
2. See Citizenship act 1951 (Bangladesh Law) https://www.refworld.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/rwmain/opendocpdf.pdf?reldoc=y&docid=543d0d724. She has citizenship through "blood right"
3. see above.
4 see above.

But if she has not received a formal assertion that her application (if there ever is or was one) will be successful, UK acted, according to the UN Convention, in contravention of that Convention.
I'll see if I can find the relevant bit of the Convention again.

 

[motorbiking]

If you want to understand the legal position in the UK, its sensible to start with.... UK Law! I'm sure her legal team would love your help.

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

If you want to understand the legal position in the UK, its sensible to start with.... UK Law!

In signing up to UN Conventions, signatories agree to enact that Convention. Therefore it overrules national law, unless that nation withdraws its signature. UK is still a signatory to the UN Convention. It must honour the Convention.

If the UK signs up to a UN Convention, one assumes that UK law would respect that Convention.
The Convention gives time for the Convention to come into effect in the signatory countries.
I think UK has had sufficient time now, since '54 or '61. Don't you?

It's a UN Convention, which UK signed up to.

The Convention further seeks to prevent statelessness later in life by prohibiting the withdrawal of citizenship from States’ nationals – either through loss, renunciation, or deprivation of nationality – when doing so would result in statelessness.
https://www.unhcr.org/protection/statelessness/3bbb286d8/convention-reduction-statelessness.html
​

More to follow.

Bangladesh is not a signatory to the UN Convention, but the UN can use the Convention for discussions with non-signatories.

Even in States which are not parties, the 1961 Convention serves as a yardstick to identify gaps in nationality legislation, and is used by UNHCR as a basis for the technical advice it provides to Governments.

 

[motorbiking]

In signing up to UN Conventions, signatories agree to enact that Convention. Therefore it overrules national law, unless that nation withdraws its signature. UK is still a signatory to the UN Convention. It must honour the Convention.

That is incorrect. You seem to also be missing that she was not made stateless at the time her British citizenship was revoked as per Bangladeshi law.

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

That is incorrect. You seem to also be missing that she was not made stateless at the time her British citizenship was revoked as per Bangladeshi law.

She was not a citizen of Bangladesh at the time of her UK citizenship being revoked. So Bangladesh law is irrelevant.
She was made stateless by UK on the grounds that she might be eligible for Bangladesh citizenship. BUT she has never resided in Bangladesh.

Sorry, I'm not championing her cause, but UK should not flout the rules.

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

To think that my taxes are going towards this piece of shiite, makes me sick

It would have been a lot cheaper to allow her back to UK, and charge her with relevant crimes.
But it's not about the money, is it?

 

[Trazor]

It should be remembered that she was only a 15 year old child, when she left.

She was easy prey for a groomer, she was used and abused.

Hard to see her as a full blown terrorist.

 

[transam]

Apparently she may well get executed? If she went back to Bangladesh?

Blimey we would not want that

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

Apparently she may well get executed? If she went back to Bangladesh?

Blimey we would not want that

She cannot travel because she is stateless. She cannot leave Syria because she is stateless.
For her to return to UK for the court case, UK can either return her citizenship, or use some other mechanism to allow her to travel.
So any risk of her going to Bangladesh is pretty remote.

Shamima Begum is not a Bangladeshi citizen and there is "no question" of her being allowed into the country, Bangladesh's ministry of foreign affairs has said.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-47312207​

UK made her stateless in contravention to the UN Convention on Human Rights.

If her appeal is not successful, UK cannot deport her to anywhere.
If her appeal is successful, UK can charge her with appropriate crimes. If she's convicted she remains a UK citizen.
The only hope that UK has is if it can persuade the court to reconsider its verdict.

 

[sodthisforfun]

And let that be a lesson for anyone who ever considers joining a bloody evil death cult.

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

That is incorrect. You seem to also be missing that she was not made stateless at the time her British citizenship was revoked as per Bangladeshi law.

Under the 1981 British Nationality Act, a person can be deprived of their citizenship if the home secretary is satisfied it would be "conducive to the public good" and they would not become stateless as a result.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-47312207​

 

[Mottie]

It should be remembered that she was only a 15 year old child, when she left.

She was easy prey for a groomer, she was used and abused.

Hard to see her as a full blown terrorist.

I find it hard to believe a 15 year old schoolgirl from a Muslim family could get the funds and a passport and make arrangements to travel abroad without help from someone, possibly from her own family. I can’t remember seeing any panicked parents campaigning for her return. Or those she travelled with.