Bye bye Theresa

[Nefarious]

The fundamental problem is that the sanctions under the criminal justice system in the UK simply don't reflect the seriousness of this kind of act.

Under the legislation in force at the time she left, I believe the maximum likely sentence (according to a legal analysis I read) would be 5 years. So potentially out in 2.5 and free to carry on fraternising with extremists in the UK and declaring that ISIS is fine because what they did was not haram under sharia law. Very much inadequate.

There is a more recent (Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019) legislation that take a more Australian style approach and adds to current legislation in order to:

- confer extra-territorial jurisdiction on a number of further offences to ensure that individuals abroad can be prosecuted for having encouraged or carried out acts of terror overseas; and

- provide for a new offence of entering or remaining in an area outside the United Kingdom that has been designated in regulations by the Secretary of State in order to protect the public from a risk of terrorism.

These would seem to do the job for Begum as far as ensuring she doesn't slip below the factual burden of proof for other existing offences (still TBC whether sentencing would continue to be derisory), but questions are obvious around the ability to apply retrospectively despite the wording around "remaining in an area". She is currently no longer in ISIS territory but a refugee camp as I understand it.

I was under the impression that there is an established process for introducing new laws or updating sentencing guidance. You know, one that involves elected representatives, legal professionals and senior judges.
Or is it a new brexit thing - just let facebook decide, make up new laws as you go and woe betide you if you're brown.

[V8Granite]

Yep.

Then she’s our problem to deal with, isn’t she?

Bring her back, if she wants to come back

Presumably she’ll be arrested at the border, if not escorted to the border for arrest from wherever she is

This.

Dave!

[GG.]

The fundamental problem is that the sanctions under the criminal justice system in the UK simply don't reflect the seriousness of this kind of act.

Under the legislation in force at the time she left, I believe the maximum likely sentence (according to a legal analysis I read) would be 5 years. So potentially out in 2.5 and free to carry on fraternising with extremists in the UK and declaring that ISIS is fine because what they did was not haram under sharia law. Very much inadequate.

There is a more recent (Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019) legislation that take a more Australian style approach and adds to current legislation in order to:

- confer extra-territorial jurisdiction on a number of further offences to ensure that individuals abroad can be prosecuted for having encouraged or carried out acts of terror overseas; and

- provide for a new offence of entering or remaining in an area outside the United Kingdom that has been designated in regulations by the Secretary of State in order to protect the public from a risk of terrorism.

These would seem to do the job for Begum as far as ensuring she doesn't slip below the factual burden of proof for other existing offences (still TBC whether sentencing would continue to be derisory), but questions are obvious around the ability to apply retrospectively despite the wording around "remaining in an area". She is currently no longer in ISIS territory but a refugee camp as I understand it.

I was under the impression that there is an established process for introducing new laws or updating sentencing guidance. You know, one that involves elected representatives, legal professionals and senior judges.
Or is it a new brexit thing - just let facebook decide, make up new laws as you go and woe betide you if you're brown.

What are you on banging on about? I've just pointed out to you that there is a new law, on the statute books currently and passed by the legislature to deal with the obvious deficiencies in the previous legislation re burden of proof and likely also inadequate sentencing (maximum sentences for certain existing offences have also been increased) - so clearly the law makers in this country deemed existing law to be insufficient so your rant about brexit and brown people is well, irrelevant really.

Begum is a difficult case because the old inadequate law was in force at the time she left Britain to offer (im)moral support to this death cult. As I've flagged, she's also not at the border asking to be let in - she's asking to be extracted from the situation she's currently in. I'm not clear there is any legal obligation on the UK government to put others lives at risk doing so.

Interestingly, the decision to remove her citizenship is apparently because Bangladeshi law allows you to retain the citizenship eligibility of your parents to 21 unless you renounce it, ergo, she does have Bangladeshi citizenship by automatic operation of law and has not been rendered stateless.

[GG.]

Anna Sourberries has joined them (the 7). Happy days. Can't stand her.

Predictably she was the only one of the three that saw fit to use the title Rt. Hon before her name.

[speedingfine]

Anna Sourberries has joined them (the 7). Happy days. Can't stand her.

Predictably she was the only one of the three that saw fit to use the title Rt. Hon before her name.

Out of interest, what don't you like about Soubry? I don't really know too much about her apart from being a vocal remainer.

[Nefarious]

TBH, I'm surprised that I need to explain this to you in janet and john language, what with you apparently being versed in legal matters, but I will anyway.

We have laws. They are a set of rules that citizens in the country are expected to abide by. If it is felt that somebody hasn't abided by them there is a process by which they are called to account, and if the allegations are upheld, they are appropriately punished. And by appropriately, I mean in accordance with the laws as they were laid down. That's how it works.

What you can't do is say after the event that earlier laws were "inadequate", and retrospectively punish people for things that weren't previously crimes because facebook people want some kind of vicarious retribution. What you also can't do (or morally shouldn't be able to do), is remove somebody's right to a fair trial because your previous and completely legitimate lawmaking process may be perceived as being at odds with the current zeitgeist of petty racism.

The fact that laws change does in no way reflect that previous laws were wrong (otherwise all new legislation would be automatically retrospective). New laws merely reflect what is currently deemed to be the most appropriate means of enforcing what, as an entire society, we deem to be our moral values.

And yes, there is a race element to it. Nobody, to my knowledge, has called for citizenship to be revoked in cases of murder, child molestation, rape, or a whole list of other morally abhorrent crimes, but if a child has the temerity to ideologically align herself with something people disagree with, then out come the calls for excommunication. Would the lynch mob have come to the same conclusion if she was white anglo-saxon protestant?

Oh, and please don't muddy the legitimate discussion of the morality of the withdrawal of citizenship with spurious nonsense about exactly what this girl's travel arrangements might or might not be. That's not what's at stake here. It's about a moral choice between either sticking by the principles of legislation and the legislative process, or making it up on the fly based on the opinions of a noisy but bigoted minority.

[GG.]

I think you're attributing an argument to me (namely that I'm saying she should be retrospectively prosecuted under the new law) that I'm not in any way making. You seem to be confusing my political position that I'm in favour of tougher sentencing as a deterrent and enhanced laws such as the 2019 act to mean that I'm against legal due process.

I'll put a more interesting and focused question to you. If Sajid Javid's approach of depriving her of citizenship under the law, which he is entitled to do as Home Secretary, is not illegal because (assuming for now) factually she has Bangladeshi citizenship, then would you support that action or is your view that she should still be repatriated here?

[Nefarious]

I think you're attributing an argument to me (namely that I'm saying she should be retrospectively prosecuted under the new law) that I'm not in any way making. You seem to be confusing my political position that I'm in favour of tougher sentencing as a deterrent and enhanced laws such as the 2019 act to mean that I'm against legal due process.

I'll put a more interesting and focused question to you. If Sajid Javid's approach of depriving her of citizenship under the law, which he is entitled to do as Home Secretary, is not illegal because (assuming for now) factually she has Bangladeshi citizenship, then would you support that action or is your view that she should still be repatriated here?

Please accept my apologies. When you previously used the phrase "the fundamental problem is that the sanctions under the criminal justice system in the UK simply don't reflect the seriousness of this kind of act", I incorrectly assumed that you were referring to the matter at hand and arguing that she should be excluded on the grounds that the UK criminal justice system is inadequate to deal with her, rather than simply stating a more general authoritarian stance (using this case as a hypothetical example).

As an aside, and for the sake of completeness, I will state that my political position is fundamentally opposed to the criminalisation of thoughts, ideologies and (in most cases) speech - I think it's a very dangerous path to start going down.

Further, I'll also add that I pretty strongly object to your apparently backwards approach to determining criminality/culpability - i.e. that you've already decided on an appropriate sentence that fits your perceived level of suitable retribution, and are hoping to interpret past, current and future legislation to ensure the criminal justice system delivers a punishment to match. Personally, I'd like a judge to hear the accusations against her, consider her defence and any relevant mitigation, and decide sentence based on her actions and the specific legislation at the time of those actions.

In response to your question, I believe that citizenship and the rights that go with it are not something that should be able to be withdrawn on the whim of politically motivated individuals. Her status or otherwise as a bangladeshi citizen may technically have a legal bearing on Javid's actions, but IMO has no bearing whatsoever on the moral debate on whether citizenship is a fundamental human right, or a good will gesture that may be removed at any moment by a capricious government in search of a bit of extra popularity this week.

[GG.]

That doesn't answer my question. The Home Secretary can't do it on a "whim". He has discretion to do it if it is deemed "conducive to the public good" and they would not become stateless as a result.

Assuming that he can do it without challenge in the courts via judicial review on the grounds of unreasonableness (the decision is subject to appeal) and because it does not make her stateless, then do you support it?

I think the only way you support the argument that this is being done capriciously is if it has not been done consistently in every instance where it could have been done. Would you therefore support it if it was done so consistently or do you think withdrawal of citizenship is always wrong for supporters of international terrorism?

[DeskJockey]

Whether she has Bangladeshi citizenship or not is a moot point. She was born and raised here. AFAIK she has never lived in Bangladesh. She is therefore the UK's problem to deal with under the applicable legislation. Trying to revoke her citizenship using a technicality shows Sajid Javid to be weak and populist (as Nef says) and the UK in general to want to shirk/abdicate moral responsibility using legal technicalities.

If Brexit comes to pass and Britain has to negotiate trade and exchange deals with other countries, this will surely weigh on their minds. If you can't trust the other half of the deal to act morally and ethically, then it becomes far more complicated as far more things will need to be covered/clarified. Certainly won't be a quick process.

[dinny_g]

If Brexit comes to pass and Britain has to negotiate trade and exchange deals with other countries, this will surely weigh on their minds. If you can't trust the other half of the deal to act morally and ethically, then it becomes far more complicated as far more things will need to be covered/clarified. Certainly won't be a quick process.

Valid point!

[Pete_]

Bangladesh aren't having her

[Orange Cola]

I’m hoping in independent party take off and grow. We’re flogging a dead horse with the current state of affairs and I find myself agreeing with a lot of the comments in this thread on the subject.

[Foz]

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/02/m ... ima-begum/

[Nefarious]

That doesn't answer my question. The Home Secretary can't do it on a "whim". He has discretion to do it if it is deemed "conducive to the public good" and they would not become stateless as a result.

Assuming that he can do it without challenge in the courts via judicial review on the grounds of unreasonableness (the decision is subject to appeal) and because it does not make her stateless, then do you support it?

I think the only way you support the argument that this is being done capriciously is if it has not been done consistently in every instance where it could have been done. Would you therefore support it if it was done so consistently or do you think withdrawal of citizenship is always wrong for supporters of international terrorism?

First up, I think my answer was pretty clear, but I'll try again. Revoking citizenship via executive power (what I previously colloquially referred to as "on a whim"), and therefore bypassing right to fair legal process, should *not* be a weapon in the government's/Home Office's arsenal.
I feel I should add a qualifier of "except in exceptional circumstances", but I'm really struggling to think of an example where I think it would either be morally right, or even, TBH, a good idea. Even if there were "exceptional circumstances" that I'm not foreseeing, I still think the decisions on such sanctions should only be made within the established legal system, and not by politically-motivated executive power.

And on your bizarrely pedantic second point - Firstly I said the government was capricious (which it demonstrably is across a wide range or policies and issues!), not the decision. Secondly, the withdrawal of citizenship is clearly *not* being done in all cases where it can be - according to a 2018 European Parliament report, around 30% of the estimated 3,900-4,300 EU nationals who left to join IS had already returned home. It would appear, and feel free to call me cynical here, that home office policy might be being guided by whether or not individual cases have a media shitstorm whipped up around them and if there's any mileage to be had out of populist appeasement. As such, I think it's a pretty good example of why politically-motivated bodies should not be given executive power to over-rule or bypass due legal process.

So, for absolute clarity -
1) I do not support Javid's decision to use executive power to withdraw citizenship, regardless of whether or not he can use the bangladeshi loophole. She is, by anyone's definition, british, and has the right to have her alleged crimes heard in a british court.
2) Consistency is a key tenet of any fair legal system. Use of executive power by political bodies can only ever make legal systems less consistent and less fair. Does applying a bad/immoral decision more consistently make it better? No.
3) I will hold back from stating that "withdrawal of citizenship is always wrong for supporters of international terrorism", but I cannot think of a situation where exclusion is preferable to fair trial. If such a situation does exist, let the decision be made in a court, by a judge, after all circumstances of the case have been heard.

[ZedLeg]

I’m hoping in independent party take off and grow. We’re flogging a dead horse with the current state of affairs and I find myself agreeing with a lot of the comments in this thread on the subject.

Why? They’re the same type of unprincipled neo-libs who walked us into this mess.

[Carlos]

That doesn't answer my question. The Home Secretary can't do it on a "whim". He has discretion to do it if it is deemed "conducive to the public good" and they would not become stateless as a result.

Assuming that he can do it without challenge in the courts via judicial review on the grounds of unreasonableness (the decision is subject to appeal) and because it does not make her stateless, then do you support it?

I think the only way you support the argument that this is being done capriciously is if it has not been done consistently in every instance where it could have been done. Would you therefore support it if it was done so consistently or do you think withdrawal of citizenship is always wrong for supporters of international terrorism?

First up, I think my answer was pretty clear, but I'll try again. Revoking citizenship via executive power (what I previously colloquially referred to as "on a whim"), and therefore bypassing right to fair legal process, should *not* be a weapon in the government's/Home Office's arsenal.
I feel I should add a qualifier of "except in exceptional circumstances", but I'm really struggling to think of an example where I think it would either be morally right, or even, TBH, a good idea. Even if there were "exceptional circumstances" that I'm not foreseeing, I still think the decisions on such sanctions should only be made within the established legal system, and not by politically-motivated executive power.

And on your bizarrely pedantic second point - Firstly I said the government was capricious (which it demonstrably is across a wide range or policies and issues!), not the decision. Secondly, the withdrawal of citizenship is clearly *not* being done in all cases where it can be - according to a 2018 European Parliament report, around 30% of the estimated 3,900-4,300 EU nationals who left to join IS had already returned home. It would appear, and feel free to call me cynical here, that home office policy might be being guided by whether or not individual cases have a media shitstorm whipped up around them and if there's any mileage to be had out of populist appeasement. As such, I think it's a pretty good example of why politically-motivated bodies should not be given executive power to over-rule or bypass due legal process.

So, for absolute clarity -
1) I do not support Javid's decision to use executive power to withdraw citizenship, regardless of whether or not he can use the bangladeshi loophole. She is, by anyone's definition, british, and has the right to have her alleged crimes heard in a british court.
2) Consistency is a key tenet of any fair legal system. Use of executive power by political bodies can only ever make legal systems less consistent and less fair. Does applying a bad/immoral decision more consistently make it better? No.
3) I will hold back from stating that "withdrawal of citizenship is always wrong for supporters of international terrorism", but I cannot think of a situation where exclusion is preferable to fair trial. If such a situation does exist, let the decision be made in a court, by a judge, after all circumstances of the case have been heard.

Should the UK bear the cost and risk to life to repatriate her ?

[GG.]

That doesn't answer my question. The Home Secretary can't do it on a "whim". He has discretion to do it if it is deemed "conducive to the public good" and they would not become stateless as a result.

Assuming that he can do it without challenge in the courts via judicial review on the grounds of unreasonableness (the decision is subject to appeal) and because it does not make her stateless, then do you support it?

I think the only way you support the argument that this is being done capriciously is if it has not been done consistently in every instance where it could have been done. Would you therefore support it if it was done so consistently or do you think withdrawal of citizenship is always wrong for supporters of international terrorism?

First up, I think my answer was pretty clear, but I'll try again. Revoking citizenship via executive power (what I previously colloquially referred to as "on a whim"), and therefore bypassing right to fair legal process, should *not* be a weapon in the government's/Home Office's arsenal.
I feel I should add a qualifier of "except in exceptional circumstances", but I'm really struggling to think of an example where I think it would either be morally right, or even, TBH, a good idea. Even if there were "exceptional circumstances" that I'm not foreseeing, I still think the decisions on such sanctions should only be made within the established legal system, and not by politically-motivated executive power.

And on your bizarrely pedantic second point - Firstly I said the government was capricious (which it demonstrably is across a wide range or policies and issues!), not the decision. Secondly, the withdrawal of citizenship is clearly *not* being done in all cases where it can be - according to a 2018 European Parliament report, around 30% of the estimated 3,900-4,300 EU nationals who left to join IS had already returned home. It would appear, and feel free to call me cynical here, that home office policy might be being guided by whether or not individual cases have a media shitstorm whipped up around them and if there's any mileage to be had out of populist appeasement. As such, I think it's a pretty good example of why politically-motivated bodies should not be given executive power to over-rule or bypass due legal process.

So, for absolute clarity -
1) I do not support Javid's decision to use executive power to withdraw citizenship, regardless of whether or not he can use the bangladeshi loophole. She is, by anyone's definition, british, and has the right to have her alleged crimes heard in a british court.
2) Consistency is a key tenet of any fair legal system. Use of executive power by political bodies can only ever make legal systems less consistent and less fair. Does applying a bad/immoral decision more consistently make it better? No.
3) I will hold back from stating that "withdrawal of citizenship is always wrong for supporters of international terrorism", but I cannot think of a situation where exclusion is preferable to fair trial. If such a situation does exist, let the decision be made in a court, by a judge, after all circumstances of the case have been heard.

You misunderstand how the law works - this is a legal avenue Sajid has a right to use. You've said you don't like it and would remove it but that, like my point on longer sentencing, etc. is just a political viewpoint. He has discretion to use it but his discretion is not unbounded and his decision is judicially reviewable. If he uses that power in a way that is deemed to be capricious (or more correctly, unreasonable, within the legal meaning of that word) it will be overturned. If not and the decision stands then you're incorrect in that she has any "right" to be repatriated and tried in the English courts. We have the right to try her should she be entitled to come back here and, if the Home Secretary's decision is upheld, she does not have the right to set foot back in British territory.

As to the point about unfairness and equitable treatment amongst all cases, your point about the 30% returning home doesn't really get to the nub of the question as you do not know how many could have been deprived of their citizenship on the basis of dual nationality and this sanction of stripping citizenship applied.

My personal viewpoint on it is that you cannot rely on people not taking all legal sanctions available against you (including removal of citizenship) if you abscond abroad to support (in whatever small way) an international terrorist organisation. I have no problem in the government making an example of her - in reality I think this is an excellent idea in order to discourage others - I have as little compassion towards her as she does towards the victims of the Manchester bombings or the beheaded aid workers that she noted were killed in accordance with Sharia law. If you have a system where you will be let back in and would likely be prosecuted for a crime with a 5 year maximum sentence then that provides absolutely no disincentive to anyone else thinking of doing the same. In essence the Home Secretary can apply a sanction greater than the one available in the courts in some senses and you could argue that that should not be the case - it isn't the same as saying he's "overriding" or "by-passing" legal due process, however.

The weakest part of the whole matter and where I would focus the criticism is around the issue as to whether she truly does have Bangladeshi citizenship by right. I am sure he will have taken legal advice on that point before making his decision or clearly that would be an easy route to having the decision overturned. The Bangladeshis have said they don't want her (and why would they) but equally that may also be political posturing and not legally accurate. In any event, i'm sure this will work its way through the courts and the decision will be reviewed fully.

[NotoriousREV]

I've been considering my opinion on this one for a few days. My initial reaction was the same as a lot of people: let her rot, don't let her come back, I don't want her or anyone sharing her views here. A lot of this was driven by her interviews and her attitude in them, but I think watching last night's interview has definitely changed my mind. She's detached from reality, there's no doubt about it. She's extremely naive. There's no doubt in my mind that she's weak minded (I don't mean stupid) and easily lead and I'd be fairly certain that she's, at the very least, burying a lot of the horror of what she's seen and experienced.

This doesn't mean I have any sympathy for her, exactly. I don't even think we owe her much in the way of compassion. But to revoke her citizenship arbitrarily on the back of public pitchforks and torches isn't the way civilised society should work.

Don't bring her home, but if she turns up at the border, arrest her, try her, imprison her, rehabilitate her. IMO.

[Richard]

Rev is correct

Even if she does have brown skin