Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Chat

Join the discussion and chat with other Mumsnetters about everyday life, relationships and parenting.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Shamima Begum has her citizenship revoked

999 replies

KenAdams · 19/02/2019 18:48

How can this happen? I thought they aren't allowed to leave a person stateless? Not that I'm disagreeing, I'm just wondering how they managed it.

OP posts:
MrPan · 19/02/2019 19:25

Really wrong for a govt to decide who is and isn't worthy of being a citizen. It's deeply concerning.

Am not surprised buy still disappointed at the pitchfork folk on the thread. But hey it's MN.

Playing nicely to the govt intended focus group and voters.

BrizzleMint · 19/02/2019 19:25

Totally hypocritical of our Govt.

Are you surprised that politicians are hypocritical? Shock

The baby might not have British citizenship, I think this applies to him, in which case she has been abroad for too long hasn't she?

If your British parent lived in the UK before you were born
You can apply if all of the following are true:

you’re under 18
your mother or father was a British citizen when you were born
your British parent lived in the UK for at least 3 years before you were born
your British parent did not spend more than 270 days outside the UK during those 3 years
your British parent had a British mother or father who could pass on their citizenship to them

GenderIsAPrison · 19/02/2019 19:26

Great news.

Was so waiting for this to fall into the ‘Human Rights’ and ‘racist’ traps, delighted and surprised that it didn’t.

SwedishEdith · 19/02/2019 19:27

I don't think it's fair to class people as thick and/or racist because they agree with the decision.

OK, they lack the ability to deal with nuanced situations. The world, for them, is black and white as it makes it easier for them to deal with.

CameliaCamelia · 19/02/2019 19:27

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

MrPan · 19/02/2019 19:27

And no, no confide any checks were made. This govt is both ruthless and massively stupid.

thefirst48 · 19/02/2019 19:27

Best decision all round.

Courchevel · 19/02/2019 19:27

I was on the fence with this... I think British standards of tolerance and fairness are important so have been torn.
Then I watched this interview... www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47299907

You cannot compare an intended attack on civilians (Manchester arena), with anything the UK has done in Syria (very carefully targeted attacks on very specific Islamic state infrastructure).
Yes women and children have been killed in Syria but, IT IS NOT by UK plc.
Its made me quite angry watching her to be honest!!

Jon65 · 19/02/2019 19:28

Misti you are very rude. People can have their opinion on here without being insulted. I believe this is a very difficult case, but a message needed to be sent to this young woman and others who might fancy a jolly to radicalism. I am highly educated and not a 'thicko'. This woman was radicalised at 15 yes, but she is now 19 years old and is choosing herself what is happening now. She has no compassion and I do not wish to have people in the UK, walking side by side with me, like this woman who is continuing to choose her attitude and politics. For once I actually agree with a HO decision.

DisrespectfulAdultFemale · 19/02/2019 19:28

If anyone reads the letter it says that a decision has been taken to deprive Begum of her citizenship but does not say that this has already been done. It also notes that she has the right to appeal.

CameliaCamelia · 19/02/2019 19:28

Ooooh mrpan has inside info.... he know no checks were made. How? How do you know for sure?

Wildcate · 19/02/2019 19:28

OK, they lack the ability to deal with nuanced situations. The world, for them, is black and white as it makes it easier for them to deal with

Or, perhaps, we just don’t agree with you?

Mistigri · 19/02/2019 19:29

How can this happen?

There's a very good chance it'll be overturned in the courts - she was a minor, she hasn't been convicted of a crime.

This is all about Sajid Javid's ambitions to be prime minister. It has nothing to do with keeping the public safe.

HotpotLawyer · 19/02/2019 19:30

“We didn’t export her. She went of her own volition. “

Yes, but we are now exporting her to Bangladesh.

Budsbegginingspringinsight · 19/02/2019 19:30

Couch it's utter drivel....like Nazi's saying.... we're trying to take over the world so in defense local community and countries fight back... then Nazi's say. .oh we're going to kill more of you now because your killing us

It's utter pointless drivel.

MrPan · 19/02/2019 19:30

Totes agree misti. Javed represents the worst of oily politicians.

CameliaCamelia · 19/02/2019 19:30

What did Begum say about the Manchester terrorist attacks?

CameliaCamelia · 19/02/2019 19:31

We aren't exporting her..... just redirecting her!

ReflectentMonatomism · 19/02/2019 19:31

She needs bringing home and de-radicalising

I think this is a very dubious piece of dogwhistle politics which will stick so long as she is represented by a community lawyer for community people who would be more at home doing conveyancing, but will collapse like a house of cards if a good international human rights lawyer gets involved.

That said, I can't say I find "de-radicalising" terribly convincing. Her family are religious fanatics, and the track record of "de-radicalisation" is non-existent. Plenty of terrorists who have actually done terrorist shit have had prior engagement in such programmes, and there is no evidence, and precious little anecdote, which says they work. We can't intern her. We can't jail her long-term because she hasn't committed serious crimes for which we can provide UK-standard evidence in a UK court. Extra-judicial killings aren't quite cricket.

I presume the hope is that the Bangladeshi government will do nothing, and is in any event not capable of doing anything, so she will remain in Syria. Then either someone will kill her or the Iraqi, Turkish or maybe even Syrian authorities will try her and either execute her or imprison her for life.

It's cynical, dog whistle politics and it makes us look like Trump, but unfortunately it's hard to see what the plausible alternative is. She would be out free in the UK in a few years, the chances of her being "de-radicalised" are approximately zero and she would make a very serious rallying point for extremists. This is a bad, ugly, cynical outcome, better only than all the even more ugly alternatives.

Saylav · 19/02/2019 19:31

In the interview with her conducted by the Scottish guy, watch her reaction immediately after he asks her about the Manchester bombing.
Her eyes lit up momentarily and she was trying not to smile.
It was only when he mentioned women and children that she expressed an sort of probably feigned regret.

If anyone has the link to that interview, could you post it for me - I'm not sure whether it was the BBC one or the Times interview?

It's worth watching.

Saucery · 19/02/2019 19:31

The main message anyone vulnerable to being recruited to Isis sympathies will get from this is not one any rational person would want them to get.
Wherever she ends up she will be free to continue to spout her hate and no doubt Western media will continue to broadcast it widely, which is irresponsible and dangerous.

SoupDragon · 19/02/2019 19:31

So, she was radicalised in the U.K. and we are just going to dump this problem of our own making onto Bangladesh?

PostmanPatIsIncompetent · 19/02/2019 19:31

Pretty sure flashbac has it right.

Basically just a PR move by the government. It's win-win for them - either she doesn't appeal, so it stands; she does and loses, so it stands; or she does and wins, and the government get to blame the judges and use it as further "proof" that we should leave ECHR. No one's any safer or better off but hey, Javid gets a boost to his leadership chances with the Tory membership.

Just because it's cynical doesn't mean it's wrong...

HotpotLawyer · 19/02/2019 19:32

“I don't think this would have been a decision that would have been made unless she was a serious threat. So they must have serious intelligence on her.”

If they had serious intelligence on her don’t you think they would rather have her back for thorough de-briefing? And keep her under surveillance?

I reckon this is one big show.