Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
 Share
yorkie1999

Also in the news

By yorkie1999, in General Chat

Recommended Posts

Guest MattP

Guest MattP

Posted
Posted (edited)

She was a dual national? What a stroke of luck.

 

Bangladesh isn't Islamic State, but she'll certainly fit in better there than here given her views.

 

Well done Sajid Javid. 

Edited by MattP
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest MattP

Guest MattP

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

You have to laugh!

It begs the question whether she did really want to come back or was on the wind up. I thought the interviews were extremely strange, begging to be taken in but also reinforcing commitment to ISIS at the same time.

 

If she didn't know she was a dual national that's two monumental fcuk ups she's made before the age of twenty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest MattP

Guest MattP

Posted
Posted (edited)
20 minutes ago, Heathrow fox said:

I’m sure Bangladesh are over the moon with this news.Two more hungry mouths to feed.What if they tell her to get stuffed aswell.This could go on for months

Well they can hardly complain given they've actually left people stateless for the heinous crime of visiting Israel. - https://m.jpost.com/Israel-News/Bangladeshi-banned-from-home-country-for-visiting-Israel-returns-to-Jewish-State-515238

 

They might be happy, it's a country where Jews, Gays and Christians are oppressed - she's a educated young girl and might make it to parliament one day.

Edited by MattP
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kopfkino

Kopfkino

Posted
Posted

Won't expect many people in the country to care cos of the specifics of the case but really people should be concerned about the government declaring its power to unilaterally revoke the rights of one of its citizens. Shameful of the UK to just think it can wash its hands of a problem rather than deal with it properly. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Beechey

Beechey

Posted
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

Won't expect many people in the country to care cos of the specifics of the case but really people should be concerned about the government declaring its power to unilaterally revoke the rights of one of its citizens. Shameful of the UK to just think it can wash its hands of a problem rather than deal with it properly. 

This is something every country has the right to do, as long as the person in question is not left stateless. Is removing the threat from the country permanently not dealing with it properly?

However, in 2014 the UK signed into law a bill which allows the Home Secretary to remove citizenship from someone even if it makes them stateless. That is not the case here, though.

Edited by Beechey
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest MattP

Guest MattP

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Nalis said:

As an aside on your thoughts on whether she should have been let back in or not, from an economic perspective alone the costs of keeping her here could have potentially ran into millions.

And that's probably the best case scenario of bringing her back. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kopfkino

Kopfkino

Posted
Posted
13 minutes ago, Beechey said:

This is something every country has the right to do, as long as the person in question is not left stateless. Is removing the threat from the country permanently not dealing with it properly?

However, in 2014 the UK signed into law a bill which allows the Home Secretary to remove citizenship from someone even if it makes them stateless. That is not the case here, though.

 

No revoking citizenship and offloading her onto somewhere else is not dealing with it properly. She's our problem ffs, she's lived all her life here, she was radicalised here. Her completely innocent child is a British citizen too. That's before even thinking about how it might be wrong to just revoke citizenship of someone that is a dual national by chance rather than their choice, as is the case here.

 

Of course its a superb solution for a Home Secretary playing perfect politics to help his party leadership bid and a great solution for a self-obsessed, increasingly inward-looking country that's evidently uninterested in some of its obligations to the international community. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Wymsey

Wymsey

Posted
Posted (edited)

She would've known the initial implications of returning to the UK - including personal/family security fears, future employment issues considering her links to a jihadi terrorist organisation, a backlash/protest on the Muslim communities in the UK by far-right groups etc.

 

Despite the decision by Javid; can imagine at some point her posting a video of herself or something and win many over -  strongly apologising for what she's done, and convincing viewers that with her being a female, well-educated juvenilw, having close family that live in England and feel she's he human rights have been abused etc - in a bid to gain more of the public to have sympathy for her and then some petition would be made by someone, to persuade the UK government to reverse their decision on her will attract a large enough number to put this matter towards a Commons debate and, with regret, Javid etc apologises for something like 'not reading the full facts' etc and opens the door for her to live in the UK.

Edited by Wymeswold fox
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest MattP

Guest MattP

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

No revoking citizenship and offloading her onto somewhere else is not dealing with it properly. She's our problem ffs, she's lived all her life here, she was radicalised here. Her completely innocent child is a British citizen too. That's before even thinking about how it might be wrong to just revoke citizenship of someone that is a dual national by chance rather than their choice, as is the case here.

 

Of course its a superb solution for a Home Secretary playing perfect politics to help his party leadership bid and a great solution for a self-obsessed, increasingly inward-looking country that's evidently uninterested in some of its obligations to the international community. 

It's a huge decision and I'm certain it's one that Javid has took a lot of time to think about, it's not something that has been taken lightly, I just can't help thinking that it's the morally correct thing to do here, our law is sacrosanct and we haven't broken that.

 

The safety of innocent people here comes before the safety of people like her who joined the most barbaric regime on earth and there can't be justification for bringing her home if it ends up like Manchester Arena again where numerous families have to start burying their children because of it, our laws and rights will only hold up if that isn't allowed to happen. 

 

I'm concerned about the long term consequences of this both ways, but letting her back in gives a free pass to any jihadi to do the same in any future conflict - that's not helping the World out either, Syria is proof of that. Had we been this tolerant of this sort of behaviour seventy of years ago we could have thousands of Lord Haw Haw's on out hands.

 

Her child should be allowed to come here as well, he is the innocent victim of this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dr The Singh

Dr The Singh

Posted
Posted
49 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

Won't expect many people in the country to care cos of the specifics of the case but really people should be concerned about the government declaring its power to unilaterally revoke the rights of one of its citizens. Shameful of the UK to just think it can wash its hands of a problem rather than deal with it properly. 

That isn't Britains fault, its the consequence of being a duel citizen, my father was a duel citizen and gave up his Indian passport because under duel citizen, your not protected by any of the countries should there be a diplomatic issue, as your not 100% citizen of any of the countries........that's how it was explained to us anyway.  So in theory baglessdesh can wipe itself aswell

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kopfkino

Kopfkino

Posted
Posted (edited)
52 minutes ago, MattP said:

It's a huge decision and I'm certain it's one that Javid has took a lot of time to think about, it's not something that has been taken lightly, I just can't help thinking that it's the morally correct thing to do here, our law is sacrosanct and we haven't broken that.

 

The safety of innocent people here comes before the safety of people like her who joined the most barbaric regime on earth and there can't be justification for bringing her home if it ends up like Manchester Arena again where numerous families have to start burying their children because of it, our laws and rights will only hold up if that isn't allowed to happen. 

 

I'm concerned about the long term consequences of this both ways, but letting her back in gives a free pass to any jihadi to do the same in any future conflict - that's not helping the World out either, Syria is proof of that. Had we been this tolerant of this sort of behaviour seventy of years ago we could have thousands of Lord Haw Haw's on out hands.

 

Her child should be allowed to come here as well, he is the innocent victim of this.

Call me a cynic but I'm sure it was an easy decision for him - win-win - he either succeeds or the courts rule against him and he can do a bit more politics. The UK's rule of law is sacrosanct, it's what sets civilised societies apart, so a HS shouldn't just be able to, on a political whim, revoke a citizen's rights, and if she can get back she should be put straight into handcuffs and put on trial (It shows our treason laws need updating actually).

 

Eh? So effectively the Home Secretary has to revoke a citizen's rights cos he can't trust the intelligence services that work for him not to **** up? That's essentially the logic of the second paragraph.

 

I don't get why we should be able to just dump our citizens on the rest of the world when we decide we don't want them?

 

It feels awful to be in a position where it feels like I'm defending her. But I can't look past the dangerous precedent for government power that moves like this set. She could be deradicalised and rehabilitated but instead this condemns her to whatever life, possibly remaining in the area to join another terror network and posing a danger to the locals. There's also the fact that she could be a source of valuable information and improve our understanding of the grooming and radicalisation process. And also that this is just the UK washing its hands of a problem that is as much the UK's as anyones and probably leads to a situation where the burden is put onto Syria's neighbours like Lebanon. 

 

Edited by Kopfkino
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Alf Bentley

Alf Bentley

Posted
Posted

I wonder how we'd feel if we were on the other end of this dual citizenship procedure?

Imagine that, say, an American has gone to join ISIS and wants to return to the US.

But the US discovers that she has dual British citizenship so revokes her US citizenship and leaves the UK to sort her out, even though she's never been to the UK?

 

I wonder where she and her baby will end up? Unlikely to be Bangladesh any time soon, I presume, given cost and practicalities. Also unlikely that the British authorities will try to take her baby back to the UK.

An expert on Newsnight said that, if the father confirms his status, the baby would automatically have Dutch citizenship. But the father's location is unknown, as a prisoner of Syrian rebel forces, apparently (if still alive).

Even if he turns up and is handed over, he's presumably heading for a long prison sentence - and the Dutch presumably wouldn't want to take his British/Bangladeshi jihadi bride.

 

Reportedly, dozens of infants have died of cold, hunger and lack of medical care at this camp in recent months, so this may prove to be a death sentence for the baby (yes, his parents put him in this situation, but the UK Govt is obstructing his chance of escaping it). After the US withdrawal, it's also presumably likely that the Kurdish/rebel forces controlling the camp will be attacked by Assad's forces.

 

This is the wrong move for me. While undue risk with other lives shouldn't be taken, every reasonable effort should be made to bring them and all other British jihadis/families back to the UK. Maximum info can then be gleaned from them. Those who have committed offences (most, I presume) can be tried and punished (the mother is surely at least guilty of active support for an illegal terrorist organisation?) - and hopefully rehabilitated over time. There are many former extremists who now work to persuade others to avoid groups like ISIS. If she remains untrustworthy, once released, she could be monitored - not possible if she survives and lives on abroad. That way, the legal authorities / social services could also decide on the best care for her kid, rather than leave him at risk of death in a dangerous camp that might again become a war zone. Kopfkino has already made the points about us not expecting other nations to deal with problems created by our citizens.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...