Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To wonder why Sajid Jarvis was so quick to remove Shamima Begum’s British nationality

503 replies

MrsSchadenfreude · 22/02/2019 15:54

But has done nothing about removing Asma Assad’s? Asma Assad is a dual British-Syrian National, so why not deprive her (and her kids) of British nationality? I can’t quite believe that the government hasn’ Done this. Why on Earth not?

OP posts:
MitziK · 22/02/2019 16:25

She's a woman who was groomed in the UK as a child, her family isn't particularly 'nice' in terms of their views, she's dark skinned, not emaciated and delicate looking, articulate and was effectively trained to overcome any response to humans being killed just as soldiers are trained by any country.

Had she been a light skinned, attractive little thing who sobbed and wailed, whose babies had survived, who had parents with the funds and ability to come across as middleclass/hire a hotshot PR and lawyer, it would have been completely different.

She's being treated like this not because of what she specifically has done whilst there, she's being treated like this because it's always the female's fault and not the fault of the man who groomed her in the way that so many paedo and hebephiles do and, through her experiences, she is strong/a survivor, rather than prepared to present herself as a victim in the way that girls and women are expected to do in society.

IF they had half a brain, they'd be bringing her back to find out as much information as possible (assuming that as a female, she'd have actually been trusted with any in the first place), to give information about how she was groomed, to inform development of the PREVENT strategies and generally treated as a victim of sustained grooming and sexual abuse as a child. But picking on the bad dark skinned wimmins is always a vote winner.

QuaterMiss · 22/02/2019 16:26

Until the middle of this week I believed the British citizenship I was born with was inviolable.

Now it appears that although yours might be, mine is not.

I'm over half a century old. And feeling a little destabilised right now.

Rufusthebewilderedreindeer · 22/02/2019 16:29

All I can say is thank fuck your dear beloved lefty friend Diane Abbott isn’t Home Secretary

Whise dear beloved lefty friend?

Oh no wait...i see what you are doing

Disagree with one thing the current government is doing and that makes you agree with everything labour is doing

Gotcha

I mean its obviously a load of bollocks...but gotcha

Oysterbabe · 22/02/2019 16:29

It was just to appease the mob baying for the blood of a child who who groomed and raped.

StealthPolarBear · 22/02/2019 16:31

How do you think the people who groomed her ended up in the situation they're in? Did they get to the age of 18 and make an independent, informed choice to join isis?

prettypossums · 22/02/2019 16:32

Until the middle of this week I believed the British citizenship I was born with was inviolable.
Now it appears that although yours might be, mine is not.

Why? Are you a terrorist? Or a Rochdale paedophile?

Or just a common or garden drama queen...

Ofthread · 22/02/2019 16:39

Populism

SaturdayNext · 22/02/2019 16:40

RedWineIsFabulous, how exactly do you make out that OP's post is supporting Shamima Begum?

You also seem to miss the fact that what most people are supporting is the proper application of international law. Or does that make you sick as well?

SchadenfreudePersonified · 22/02/2019 16:41

It's been done to appeal to the populist vote and unfortunately it has support (even though it's blatantly illegal under international law).

I agree.

I don't want the woman in this country, but I think it is worse to abuse power to break international law to keep her out. It's a slippery slope.

If the law isn't fit for purpose in this terrorist age, then look at it properly and re-draft it to deal with these situations.

Let her in and let her face a prison sentence (it will make her a martyr)

Keep her out and make her struggle (it will make her a martyr)

Either way, extremism wins - she loses.

However, I notice that Christopher Chope is silent on this abuse of the law, even though he allegedly hates "knee-jerk" legislation (and therefore won't support anything that will provent abuse of women)

higgyhog · 22/02/2019 16:42

What Mitzik said, I agree entirely.

Al2O3 · 22/02/2019 16:43

All I can say is thank fuck your dear beloved lefty friend Diane Abbott isn’t Home Secretary.

Quite. She would probably grant asylum to every other stateless terrorist and give them legal aid.

TemporaryPermanent · 22/02/2019 16:43

I don't want Diane Abbott as home Secretary, no. But I don't want Sajid Javid either. Is that ok? Can we have Amber Rudd back, I can live with that.

C8H10N4O2 · 22/02/2019 16:43

Why? Are you a terrorist? Or a Rochdale paedophile?

I would assume the QuaterMiss, who is born British, has at least one parent who wasn't born British.

Removing citizenship from someone British, on the tenuous grounds that they had a parent who immigrated creates a two tier citizenship.

I'm assuming all those who want to see British violent criminals and paedophiles shipped to poorer countries with less protections in place for women and children will be equally happy to have criminals from other countries shipped over here on the grounds that with a British grandparent they qualify for British citizenship.

Al2O3 · 22/02/2019 16:45

Had she been a light skinned, attractive little thing who sobbed and wailed, whose babies had survived, who had parents with the funds and ability to come across as middleclass/hire a hotshot PR and lawyer, it would have been completely different.

What like.....Sally Jones. I don't think so.

corythatwas · 22/02/2019 16:45
  • Until the middle of this week I believed the British citizenship I was born with was inviolable. Now it appears that although yours might be, mine is not.

Why? Are you a terrorist? Or a Rochdale paedophile?*

We don't know it's going to end there. It may well be that in 5 or 10 years time there will be a far more right-wing government than the present one. If there is a precedent of ignoring international law then that could be used to get rid of other people the govt doesn't want. Jews or black people or anybody else who doesn't happen to be persona grata at the time. Once a govt starts ignoring the law, you don't know where that might be going.

StealthPolarBear, if she is stateless that means every single country in the world can deny her entry. Bangladesh, which is the only country that could (but didn't have to) give her citizenship have already said they won't.

This is depriving a person of citizenship if they have no other citizenship (as she doesn't) is illegal in international law. This is a deliberate breaking of international law by the UK.

In theory, she could end up being sent backwards and forwards indefinitely between Syria and the UK, as neither customs will let her through. Hugely expensive and who would pay for that?

In practice it may mean Syria- the country she went to support terrorists against- is unable to deport her. Will you explain how that is fair? This is the country that has no responsibilities towards her, the one country where she has already proved a danger- and we should force them to keep her? Nice.

Even if only used against criminals, it shows a horrific disdain of other countries. She is too dangerous for us, so let's try to foist this danger onto some other country that has no obligation towards her, that did not raise her, that has no resources to deal with her.
To me, all these arguments of "she doesn't deserve it, she is dangerous, we mustn't take her back" are basically saying "we still have a right to deport criminals to Australia because who cares about those other, foreign countries". It is shocking to the rest of the world.

Hefzi · 22/02/2019 16:46

You're all aware that she isn't the first to have her citizenship revoked for siding with ISIS, right? So I'd suggest that Javid has done it because she was recently "found" in a camp and has been aggressively courting the media ever since, including wanting to be "got home" which is a right denied to every British citizen when they are in a place where the UK has no consular services.

I don't support removing citizenship, and I strongly suspect that it was ascertained that she has Bangladeshi citizenship, although no current passport, before it was decided - but it's a bit disingenuous of PP to suggest that this is sui generis.

SaturdayNext · 22/02/2019 16:46

All I can say is thank fuck your dear beloved lefty friend Diane Abbott isn’t Home Secretary.

That's all you can say in response to the reasoned posts replying to your original one, @RedWineIsFabulous? Not the strongest of arguments, is it?

C8H10N4O2 · 22/02/2019 16:47

With respect to the OP:

  • blatant pitch for party leadership
  • distraction from the bollocksing of Brexit
  • distraction from the appalling treatment of immigrants and their British born children who have worked here for 40+ yrs.
MeredithGrey1 · 22/02/2019 16:49

Removing citizenship from someone British, on the tenuous grounds that they had a parent who immigrated creates a two tier citizenship.

Exactly, this decision treats the citizenship of children of immigrants as second class. I loathe the idea of removing citizenship because it means people aren't equal under the law, and some citizens face harsher punishments (removal of citizenship) than others, just because of the nationality of their parents/grandparents.

Lockheart · 22/02/2019 16:49

I can't help but feel there's a large cross over between the people who say "fuck her, she should stay there" and those who say "deport the bastard, why should they be our problem?" whenever an immigrant is sent to prison for committing a crime here in the UK.

I would ask the question - why should she be Syria's problem? She's British (since I doubt the revoking of her citizenship will stand up in international law). She's our problem.

SaturdayNext · 22/02/2019 16:49

@Al2O3, the Home Office doesn't deal with the processing of Legal Aid applications. But don't let the facts get in the way of your prejudices, will you?

Nesssie · 22/02/2019 16:50

SB is an easy target, that's why. Who's more a threat, a child bride or the wife of a dictator with chemical weapons? It's been done to appeal to the populist vote and unfortunately it has support (even though it's blatantly illegal under international law). Amen

Why should Bangladesh or Syria have to deal with her? She is British and is Britain's problem to deal with.

They should take the baby off her and throw her and her parents in jail. No way she ran away on her own...

Rufusthebewilderedreindeer · 22/02/2019 16:52

i don't want Diane Abbott as home Secretary, no. But I don't want Sajid Javid either. Is that ok?

No tempory thats not how it works

If you dont like javid that means you love and adore abbott

Thats like a political fact

TalkinPeece · 22/02/2019 16:52

Dog whistle politics of the lowest order

winsinbin · 22/02/2019 16:55

I don’t support her but that doesn’t mean we can break U.K. law to try and exclude her. That’s the sort of thing Trump does.