Jihadi Brides and their Children.

[pwa]

Christianity obviously allows it too along with burning people to death. Both were common back in the day when most people in Western nations were ardent believers.
In my lifetime most of the deaths from terrorism in this country were caused out by Roman Catholics and in Ireland by Protestant fundamentalists of the Arlene Foster kind.
Since 1970 far more UK citizens have been murdered by Christian terrorists than by Muslim terrorists.

You misunderstand what was happening around Northern Ireland in the 70s and 80s if you think it was theological. It was about national identity.

I didn't say it was theological that's just your interpretation. I was just pointing out that it's wrong to blame Islam when a few muslims are terorists.

I didn't think that is what we were doing.

[landsurfer]

You misunderstand what was happening around Northern Ireland in the 70s and 80s if you think it was theological. It was about national identity.

I didn't say it was theological that's just your interpretation. I was just pointing out that it's wrong to blame Islam when a few muslims are terorists.

I didn't think that is what we were doing.

+ 1 Defiantly not whats happening here ...

[irc]

I profoundly disagree with doing this without due process.

Due process is being followed.

he Power to Deprive Citizenship 55.3.1 General Power 55.3.1.1Under s.40 of the 1981 Act, as amended by the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002from 1 April 2003 and by the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 from 16 June 2006, anyBritish citizen, British overseas territories citizen, British Overseas citizen, British National (Overseas), British protected person or British subject may, by Order, be deprived of his or her citizenship or status if the Home Secretary is satisfied that: a. it would be conducive to the public good to deprive the person of his or her British nationality, and that s/he would not become stateless as a result of the deprivation

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... ter-55.pdf

I'm happy for the interests of the UK public to prevail and that the public good is well served by not allowing her back in to the country. Her beliefs are not compatible with being a good citizen..

[kwackers]

I'm happy for the interests of the UK public to prevail and that the public good is well served by not allowing her back in to the country. Her beliefs are not compatible with being a good citizen..

"Public good"?
What constitutes "public good", I'm curious.

If it tips a few wannabe terrorists over the edge from simply 'thinking' to 'doing' is that "public good" - a bit like brexit?
In that it might hurt but at least she doesn't live here anymore...

I've no idea what goes on in their tiny minds but it seems to me that if someone who identifies with her already feels aggrieved and threatened then they're hardly likely to suddenly think "oh that's OK, she deserved it".
Of course if I've learned anything lately it's that the root cause isn't the thing we address, nope we simply shut our eyes, accept that we've made things worse and congratulate ourselves on our tiny victory.

[661-Pete]

I'm happy for the interests of the UK public to prevail and that the public good is well served by not allowing her back in to the country. Her beliefs are not compatible with being a good citizen..

Many people have 'beliefs' that are not compatible with being a good citizen. Stephen Yaxley-Lennon (aka "Tommy Robinson"), for instance. If the Government can make Shamima Begum stateless, in violation of International Law, can they not do the same for Mr Y-L? Strip him of his nationality and eject him into hyperspace?

Javid's grounds for his decision has nothing to do with her marrying a Dutchman, if that is in fact the case, but all to do with a tenuous suggestion that she may claim Bangladeshi citizenship, despite never having been to Bangladesh. It's certain to be challenged in the courts and may well be overturned. What then?

As I said, making someone stateless, however 'undesirable', is contrary to International Law. The Independent has a fairly detailed article on the topic.

[reohn2]

.....I'm happy for the interests of the UK public to prevail and that the public good is well served by not allowing her back in to the country. Her beliefs are not compatible with being a good citizen..

Better not have a referendum on capital punishment then eh?

[pete75]

You misunderstand what was happening around Northern Ireland in the 70s and 80s if you think it was theological. It was about national identity.

I didn't say it was theological that's just your interpretation. I was just pointing out that it's wrong to blame Islam when a few muslims are terorists.

I didn't think that is what we were doing.

I was talking generally. It's quite common in the UK particularly amongst the sort of people who voted for Brexit.

[pwa]

I didn't say it was theological that's just your interpretation. I was just pointing out that it's wrong to blame Islam when a few muslims are terorists.

I didn't think that is what we were doing.

I was talking generally. It's quite common in the UK particularly amongst the sort of people who voted for Brexit.

Such as me then. Well no, if you have a look back through the thread I doubt you will find anyone making sweeping derogatory comments about Muslims in general.

[Oldjohnw]

I profoundly disagree with doing this without due process.

Due process is being followed.

he Power to Deprive Citizenship 55.3.1 General Power 55.3.1.1Under s.40 of the 1981 Act, as amended by the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002from 1 April 2003 and by the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 from 16 June 2006, anyBritish citizen, British overseas territories citizen, British Overseas citizen, British National (Overseas), British protected person or British subject may, by Order, be deprived of his or her citizenship or status if the Home Secretary is satisfied that: a. it would be conducive to the public good to deprive the person of his or her British nationality, and that s/he would not become stateless as a result of the deprivation

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... ter-55.pdf

I'm happy for the interests of the UK public to prevail and that the public good is well served by not allowing her back in to the country. Her beliefs are not compatible with being a good citizen..

I meant she should face a court for her alleged crimes. And plenty of people have beliefs not compatible with being good citizens.

[merseymouth]

Hello all, "Better have a referendum over Capital Punishment"? Oh dear, yet another banana skin!
The British public have never had such a vote, the choice to abolish such a punishment wastaken by M.P.'s alone at a very poor time.
Sidney Silverman, a lawyer, got a lot of other lawyers to carry out that job. The very real pain of the Derek bentley execution was fresh in all minds, the A6 murder travesty was also up there, people recalled the Cameo Murder, Ruth Ellis was another notorious case!
To point we had a bad track record of hanging the wrong people, and definitely not hanging the right ones!!!
The Tottenham Outrages were still in the minds of people who lived through the times, so a guilty conscience brought about a liberal outcome.
Sure a fair number of wrong uns have survived since then, Brady, Hindley, Sutcliffe to name just a few, and maybe the idiot who hasn't learnt from his punishment over the Jamie Bulger murder might also be included in that list?
But sadly a number of totally innocent folk would have been wrongly topped as well! Stefan Kisco for one.
But how can we deal with seriously deluded folk who endanger society at large? If a life sentence meant Life then maybe things might improve?
But one thing is certain, the folk such as Brady should never have been allowed to play fast & loose with the legal system! Such offenders should be declared "Vexacious Litigents", with a firm overview to keep order.
Discuss. MM

[pwa]

This reminds me in a way of the two Fascist Mitford sisters, one married to Mosley and one a Hitler devotee. Diana, Mosley's wife, spent a few years in prison during the war, and the Hitler worshiping Unity tried to kill herself when Britain and Germany went to war. But they were British and couldn't be conveniently disowned, odious though their views were. Didn't Diana live to a very old age and remain vociferously anti-semitic right to the end?

[Tangled Metal]

Since when has marriages made in the caliphate been recognised in the UK? She isn't married to a Dutch man under any recognised authority. That really isn't the second nationality that allows the HS to apply that executive order.

As someone mentioned, she has a tenuous claim for Bangladeshi citizenship. Well if their rules for offspring of nationals is anything like a lot of western countries then if you've not claimed citizenship by legal age of adulthood then it's a lot harder possibly not possible to become a citizen through the descent route. Either way I believe she didn't have Bangladeshi citizenship so they've surely left her stateless until she applies and gets that citizenship of Bangladesh.

Court action should decide it. Popcorn time I think.

Personally we made her through neglect in the system.! Personal view is that as a nation we have a moral duty to try and save her from her past. More public good in that IMHO.

About that "public good" phrase. astonishing! Who missed that fluffy phrase when reviewing that legislation? That's a political term not a legal term it makes it such a grey area that's ripe for legal argument to define it.

It's so grey Liam Neeson gets killed by wolves reading it. It's so grey I bet it has more than 50 shades to it.

[pwa]

TM
I don't completely buy the idea that we made her the way she is. Partly, perhaps, but she and her family must have most of the blame. I do accept that racial prejudice on the streets must leave victims feeling alienated, which is I guess what you mean. But apparently her mother brought her up to reject Western values and despise the society she lived in. Her mum has a lot to do with this.

[kwackers]

Court action should decide it. Popcorn time I think.

Yep. I hope he's had good legal council because we're gonna look like dicks if we're successfully challenged - and that's from a pretty low base to start with.

If she comes back she'd have to go through all the 'de-radicalisation' stuff (or western indoctrination if you like) as well as having an eye kept on her.
Is this stuff fairly successful? I don't have any recollection of anyone coming back who went through it but still went on to commit or be involved with atrocities.
Does anyone know any different?

[yakdiver]

IMO she will be back in the UK with a new identity bought and paid for by us wait and see