"Jihadi Bride" story

[Niels]

7 minutes ago, Kayakman said:

Is this not obvious to you?....this is so obvious!!!!!!  People who are recruited and join any organization are usually active to some degree....COME ON MAN!!!!!

I have not reread the thread but I can't imagine that I was ever one of her "defenders" or "sympathisers" here.☺

 

[Kayakman]

2 minutes ago, Niels said:

I have not reread the thread but I can't imagine that I was ever one of her "defenders" or "sympathisers" here.☺

 

Thank God...the woman would slit your throat in a second....she is ISIS!

Even now, alot of soft people don't seem to understand the gravity of the threat, hard to believe really. 

[Marauder]

On 15/02/2019 at 16:12, Just Browny said:

• adhering to the sovereign's enemies, giving them aid and comfort, in the realm or elsewhere

?

[JohnM]

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/isis-bride-shamima-begum-gets-14314275

Outrageous, indefensible.

[Shadow]

4 minutes ago, JohnM said:

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/isis-bride-shamima-begum-gets-14314275

Outrageous, indefensible.

Should you be reading stuff like that, with your heart? 

[gingerjon]

12 minutes ago, JohnM said:

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/isis-bride-shamima-begum-gets-14314275

Outrageous, indefensible.

Yes, the state should be allowed to do what it likes without any independent oversight.

[JohnM]

....

[Dave T]

26 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

Yes, the state should be allowed to do what it likes without any independent oversight.

Indeed. It is like some people only want a fair and just system for nice people who are like 'us'. 

Suddenly the media is rife with stories about her sewing bomb vests and how she is using tax-payers money and how the public purse could run into thousands. Well great, if that is the price for us having a civilised, compassionate society in this country then that is exactly what we should be doing. 

I am disappointed that the British Government, with this evidence of extreme terrorism from a British Citizen did not want to bring her to justice. We just wash our hands to grandstand to the public, but ultimately leave her free. I suppose we can always hope she dies like her baby. Cowards.

[gingerjon]

1 minute ago, Dave T said:

Indeed. It is like some people only want a fair and just system for nice people who are like 'us'. 

Suddenly the media is rife with stories about her sewing bomb vests and how she is using tax-payers money and how the public purse could run into thousands. Well great, if that is the price for us having a civilised, compassionate society in this country then that is exactly what we should be doing. 

I am disappointed that the British Government, with this evidence of extreme terrorism from a British Citizen did not want to bring her to justice. We just wash our hands to grandstand to the public, but ultimately leave her free. I suppose we can always hope she dies like her baby. Cowards.

If she was as involved as the entirely coincidental and not attributable stories put out say she was then I would have thought we might want to make the effort to either capture her so this zealot can't be part of a group in the future and/or have her in custody so we can at least try to get some intel out of her.

Either way, someone deprived of their citizenship by the state should have the right to challenge that. If people are against that then I'm a little concerned by their wholesale subservience to the state.

[ckn]

26 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

If she was as involved as the entirely coincidental and not attributable stories put out say she was then I would have thought we might want to make the effort to either capture her so this zealot can't be part of a group in the future and/or have her in custody so we can at least try to get some intel out of her.

Either way, someone deprived of their citizenship by the state should have the right to challenge that. If people are against that then I'm a little concerned by their wholesale subservience to the state.

Absolutely. She was deprived of her sole citizenship at the populist whim of the Home Secretary, she never held dual citizenship therefore now has nowhere to go.  If that doesn't deserve legal aid in order to challenge its validity and legality then nothing ever will.

Even those who can't stand the thought of her coming here must see that the precedent must be challenged.  What's to stop a future Home Secretary judging off his/her own back that they merely don't like someone and withdraws their British citizenship?  If you think that "of course that wouldn't happen", just think back to the anti-terror laws where the Home Secretary (Blunkett at the time, IIRC) promised repeatedly that they'd never be used on anything but terrorism cases and that safeguards would be built in, within six months they were being used to watch parks for dog owners who didn't pick up their dog mess.  This doesn't even have those "safeguards" built in, it's simply the political whim of a politician with zero judicial oversight.

[JohnM]

She and her lawyer apologists are perfectly at liberty to use or abuse (as a number of "human rights" lawyers now struck off did) our courts and legal system to pursue their cause. She made her bed as a proven enemy of the state. She must now lie in it. We don't want her here and the state must not pay. Let her supporters pay out of their pockets. Set an example. Start a just giving campaign. 

[gingerjon]

3 minutes ago, JohnM said:

She and her lawyer apologists are perfectly at liberty to use or abuse (as a number of "human rights" lawyers now struck off did) our courts and legal system to pursue their cause. She made her bed as a proven enemy of the state. She must now lie in it. We don't want her here and the state must not pay. Let her supporters pay out of their pockets. Set an example. Start a just giving campaign. 

Which human rights lawyers have now been struck off?

Why should a Home Secretary have unlimited, unchallengeable power?

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Dave T said:

Indeed. It is like some people only want a fair and just system for nice people who are like 'us'. 

Suddenly the media is rife with stories about her sewing bomb vests and how she is using tax-payers money and how the public purse could run into thousands. Well great, if that is the price for us having a civilised, compassionate society in this country then that is exactly what we should be doing. 

I am disappointed that the British Government, with this evidence of extreme terrorism from a British Citizen did not want to bring her to justice. We just wash our hands to grandstand to the public, but ultimately leave her free. I suppose we can always hope she dies like her baby. Cowards.

There was never a baby. 

[Dave T]

2 minutes ago, Leonard said:

There was never a baby. 

oh

[ckn]

16 minutes ago, Leonard said:

There was never a baby. 

I now remember why I had you on ignore.  Welcome back to that exclusive list!

[Niels]

If I can make a point without returning to anyone's ignore list.

The point I was making was that first there now is evidence of deviant and criminal behaviour. 

Second point is that this isn't really surprising. If someone joins ISIS then the organisation is such that it is unlikely they will be willing or allowed to play a passive role. 

To other Muslims or those connected, she is "one of us" in the sense it is used here. Yet opinion of her amongst moderate muslims is the same revulsion as most of us. 

Therefore not wanting her back etc is not really to do with race or religion as such. 

Here it seems to be more Liberal people who are concerned about her fate. However in moderate muslim countries it is the other way around. Liberals in those countries don't have the same concern. Possibly because the fundamentalists are their political enemies and they obviously understand more about Islamic terror. 

 

 

[Dave T]

8 minutes ago, Niels said:

If I can make a point without returning to anyone's ignore list.

The point I was making was that first there now is evidence of deviant and criminal behaviour. 

Second point is that this isn't really surprising. If someone joins ISIS then the organisation is such that it is unlikely they will be willing or allowed to play a passive role. 

To other Muslims or those connected, she is "one of us" in the sense it is used here. Yet opinion of her amongst moderate muslims is the same revulsion as most of us. 

 Therefore not wanting her back etc is not really to do with race or religion as such. 

Here it seems to be more Liberal people who are concerned about her fate. However in moderate muslim countries it is the other way around. Liberals in those countries don't have the same concern. Possibly because the fundamentalists are their political enemies and they obviously understand more about Islamic terror. 

I'm not sure I'm really following this point Neils. 

The concern is around us being a fair and just society. There are loads of people who make sickening posts about wanting her tortured, killed, whatever - if believing we should follow the correct process according to our laws is being a liberal, so be it. 

Maybe in other countries they don't value a fair and just society in the same way, but I thought the UK was better than that.

It is easy for people to mock 'liberals' and suggest people are being soft on her, but I think the view has been pretty consistent here from any sympathisers, she should have been allowed in as a British citizen, investigated, her 'imaginary' child cared for and if she had committed crimes, punished. 

If there is evidence that she has been actively involved in terrorist attacks, then I'd have expected her baby to have been taken into care and her to be charged and given a life sentence in the UK. I hardly think that is a soft stance to take. I'd argue it is responsible, instead of leaving others to worry about 'our' terrorists.

[gingerjon]

17 minutes ago, Niels said:

If I can make a point without returning to anyone's ignore list.

The point I was making was that first there now is evidence of deviant and criminal behaviour. 

Second point is that this isn't really surprising. If someone joins ISIS then the organisation is such that it is unlikely they will be willing or allowed to play a passive role. 

To other Muslims or those connected, she is "one of us" in the sense it is used here. Yet opinion of her amongst moderate muslims is the same revulsion as most of us. 

Therefore not wanting her back etc is not really to do with race or religion as such. 

Here it seems to be more Liberal people who are concerned about her fate. However in moderate muslim countries it is the other way around. Liberals in those countries don't have the same concern. Possibly because the fundamentalists are their political enemies and they obviously understand more about Islamic terror. 

 

 

You might want to go back and read everyone else's posts on this thread. Yet again, it seems that your creating a completely incorrect collective view to argue against. And then, in this case, completely fail to argue against it anyway.

Still, if you're happy for the Home Secretary to have the unchallengeable right to strip someone of citizenship then go ahead. I'm just more of a fan of laws and rights, and the ability to hold the state to account.

[Saintslass]

8 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

You might want to go back and read everyone else's posts on this thread. Yet again, it seems that your creating a completely incorrect collective view to argue against. And then, in this case, completely fail to argue against it anyway.

Still, if you're happy for the Home Secretary to have the unchallengeable right to strip someone of citizenship then go ahead. I'm just more of a fan of laws and rights, and the ability to hold the state to account.

You may be surprised to learn that it is actually perfectly legal to strip someone of their citizenship, just not to make them stateless in the process.  So the Home Secretary, by stripping someone of their citizenship, is working within the law and respecting rights (of us, UK citizens, to be kept safe from terrorists) unless he is making them stateless in the process.  As yet we do not know whether Begum has been made stateless given the conflicting reports about her Bangladeshi heritage (her father lives there and is from there and so is her mother, more to the point).  And even if she does not have Bangladeshi citizenship (which according to earlier reports she has automatically until she is aged 21), BY LAW the Home Secretary is allowed to suspend her return to the UK for up to two years.

[gingerjon]

Just now, Saintslass said:

You may be surprised to learn that it is actually perfectly legal to strip someone of their citizenship

I'm not remotely surprised. It's been well discussed.

The person stripped of it has the right to appeal.

[ckn]

2 minutes ago, Saintslass said:

You may be surprised to learn that it is actually perfectly legal to strip someone of their citizenship, just not to make them stateless in the process.  So the Home Secretary, by stripping someone of their citizenship, is working within the law and respecting rights (of us, UK citizens, to be kept safe from terrorists) unless he is making them stateless in the process.  As yet we do not know whether Begum has been made stateless given the conflicting reports about her Bangladeshi heritage (her father lives there and is from there and so is her mother, more to the point).  And even if she does not have Bangladeshi citizenship (which according to earlier reports she has automatically until she is aged 21), BY LAW the Home Secretary is allowed to suspend her return to the UK for up to two years.

She DOES NOT have Bangladeshi citizenship, she would have to apply for it and Bangladesh have already said they wouldn't grant it.  It’s not automatic as some folk like to keep pretending to suit their argument.  She is currently stateless because of the politically driven illegal action of our Home Secretary.

[Saintslass]

23 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I'm not sure I'm really following this point Neils. 

The concern is around us being a fair and just society. There are loads of people who make sickening posts about wanting her tortured, killed, whatever - if believing we should follow the correct process according to our laws is being a liberal, so be it. 

Maybe in other countries they don't value a fair and just society in the same way, but I thought the UK was better than that.

It is easy for people to mock 'liberals' and suggest people are being soft on her, but I think the view has been pretty consistent here from any sympathisers, she should have been allowed in as a British citizen, investigated, her 'imaginary' child cared for and if she had committed crimes, punished. 

If there is evidence that she has been actively involved in terrorist attacks, then I'd have expected her baby to have been taken into care and her to be charged and given a life sentence in the UK. I hardly think that is a soft stance to take. I'd argue it is responsible, instead of leaving others to worry about 'our' terrorists.

There is a fine line between being a fair and just society and putting citizens at risk in order to appear fair and just.  It is NOT fair and just to citizens to knowingly put them at risk.

There are presently discussion about holding trials in Iraq.  Quite a few countries have expressed interest in this.  Those countries would all pay for any jihadis found guilty to be jailed in Iraq.  

[Saintslass]

1 minute ago, gingerjon said:

I'm not remotely surprised. It's been well discussed.

The person stripped of it has the right to appeal.

Indeed.  That is because we are a fair and just society.

[gingerjon]

Just now, Saintslass said:

Indeed.  That is because we are a fair and just society.

Yup.

And, in order to ensure we stay that way, people who require it, are able to receive legal aid.

So everything in this case is as it should be.

[Saintslass]

1 minute ago, ckn said:

She DOES NOT have Bangladeshi citizenship, she would have to apply for it and Bangladesh have already said they wouldn't grant it.  It’s not automatic as some folk like to keep pretending to suit their argument.  She is currently stateless because of the politically driven illegal action of our Home Secretary.

That is not certain.  The law in Bangladesh is that all people up to the age of 21 have automatic citizenship of that country.  However, there was a caveat to that but I don't remember now what it was.  

As I said in my previous post, the Home Secretary is legally entitled to withhold her return for up to two years regardless.  That is his legal right and therefore he is not acting illegally in stopping her return at this stage.  Whether he has acted illegally in stripping her of her citizenship will be decided in court.  It would appear she is being given legal aid to fund her appeal and so that will be sorted out in due course.