www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6720367...UK-police-chief.html

Can the home secretary really go round un-britishing people on a whim?

honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6720367...UK-police-chief.html

Can the home secretary really go round un-britishing people on a whim?

On a technicality...she's entitled to a Bangladeshi Passport...so will not be stateless..

....gesture politics against an easy media target....we let in real fighters,and were even told being nice was a good idea....this silly idiot got all the blame for daring to sh@g a fighter....ban all...or none at all....

"'I'm a 19-year-old girl with a new born baby. I don't have any weapons; I don't want to hurt anyone even if I did have weapons or anything,' she said."

Christiane Amanpour was interviewing a couple of Islamic extremism experts about this case on CNN last night:

Video: With ISIS fall, Europe faces returnees dilemma

"Christiane Amanpour speaks with Professor Peter Neumann and al-Qaeda member-turned spy Aimen Dean about how to approach the looming crisis."

Aimen Dean said that mothers had been known to blow themselves up together with their baby. He seemed to think that if she had any chance of returning to the UK she'd have to be prepared to divulge everything and everyone she knew to the security services. Perhaps she has been approached and has proved uncooperative.

Well, supposedly she doesn't actually have Bangladeshi citizenship so it's a rather dubious move even based on their own insane law.

It also breaches article 6 of the ECHR (right to a fair trial). But then again the age of consent breaches article 8 (right to private and family life). And child porn law breaches article 10 (free expression). Terrorism law also breaches article 10, they claim "oh there is an exception for national security", but if you define national security as I do, "preventing society from collapsing into a totalitarian state" then all of a sudden terrorism law breaches it.

Of course, the courts don't care about any of that. Quite honestly, they might as well have never bothered to create the ECHR, as it's not enforced. It didn't help that they added vague exceptions open to interpretation, but even the US Constitution has mostly had the same exceptions added in, despite it being more absolute in the rights it gives.

She left her home country at the age of 15, less than a year after her mother's death. Her father said in an interview shortly following her departure that he believed his daughter was targeted by Islamic State recruiters through the internet. Grief hits people in different ways. Stripping someone of their citizenship, rendering them stateless, is like cutting off the life support cord of an astronaut on a spacewalk. Sajid Javid could not have been in full command of the facts or his faculties while reaching this decision.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharmeena_Begum

md wrote:
She left her home country at the age of 15, less than a year after her mother's death. Her father said in an interview shortly following her departure that he believed his daughter was targeted by Islamic State recruiters through the internet. Grief hits people in different ways. Stripping someone of their citizenship, rendering them stateless, is like cutting off the life support cord of an astronaut on a spacewalk. Sajid Javid could not have been in full command of the facts or his faculties while reaching this decision.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharmeena_Begum
That Wikipedia article is apparently about someone else with a similar name.
For Shamima Begum, who is currently in the UK news, see Amira Abase, Shamima Begum and Kadiza Sultana. This article is about the unrelated individual Sharmeena Begum, who attended the same school and travelled out to Syria two months before them.

Thanks Jo for the correction.

Brutal treatment of a week old child; foolish treatment of a potential terrorist who could certainly give valuable information to our security forces; bonkers decision by politician ambitious for greater things (no way)... it all stinks.

honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6720367...UK-police-chief.html

Can the home secretary really go round un-britishing people on a whim?

I suspect there will be a court challenge and this will be over-turned but the Home Secretary will have achieved what he wants : looking "tough" while actually breaching someone's rights but as it'll take a couple of years and cost a fortune he won't give a stuff.

There is the moral issue of "dumping" such people on other countries.

It all seems so ridiculous as she could easily be monitored.

hedda wrote:
honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6720367...UK-police-chief.html

Can the home secretary really go round un-britishing people on a whim?

I suspect there will be a court challenge and this will be over-turned but the Home Secretary will have achieved what he wants : looking "tough" while actually breaching someone's rights but as it'll take a couple of years and cost a fortune he won't give a stuff.

There is the moral issue of "dumping" such people on other countries.

It all seems so ridiculous as she could easily be monitored.

Indeed Hedda....much worse have been let back in....but they never made the front page....hope life is treating you well

hedda wrote:
honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6720367...UK-police-chief.html

Can the home secretary really go round un-britishing people on a whim?

I suspect there will be a court challenge and this will be over-turned but the Home Secretary will have achieved what he wants : looking "tough" while actually breaching someone's rights but as it'll take a couple of years and cost a fortune he won't give a stuff.

There is the moral issue of "dumping" such people on other countries.

It all seems so ridiculous as she could easily be monitored.

He looks like a bit of a dickhead to me, and ironically, taking away a vulnerable person's passport seems quite an "unbritish" thing to do.