are you sure?Luckily we stopped killing people a while back
are you sure?Luckily we stopped killing people a while back
are you sure?
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.
Done and dusted in 1971, 81 and 02. Been this way for almost 20 years. You get what a judicial review is?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.
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.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.
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 you want to understand the legal position in the UK, its sensible to start with.... UK Law!
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.
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.
She was not a citizen of Bangladesh at the time of her UK citizenship being revoked. So Bangladesh law is irrelevant.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.
It would have been a lot cheaper to allow her back to UK, and charge her with relevant crimes.To think that my taxes are going towards this piece of shiite, makes me sick
She cannot travel because she is stateless. She cannot leave Syria because she is stateless.Apparently she may well get executed? If she went back to Bangladesh?
Blimey we would not want that
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.
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.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.