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:
SaturdayNext · 23/02/2019 09:12

If people want to be against us like this and have two nationalities or passports then they will have to cope with their second one. I only have one. I don't have the choices this lady has

But she doesn't, Xenia. She's never had Bangladeshi citizenship or a Bangladeshi passport. As matters stand currently, you have infinitely more choices than she has.

swingofthings · 23/02/2019 09:23

Because what we get from the media is never the full or whole truth. Sadly, the vast majority of our society would preach to it if the Media became a religion.

SoupDragon · 23/02/2019 09:24

Why do all the people harping on about her supposed Bangladeshi citizenship think it is perfectly acceptable to dump the UK's problems onto Bangladesh? She has never been there and barely speaks the language. It is not their problem, it is ours.

I don't think we should go out of our way to bring her home (although I wonder if it is better she is questioned and locked up/monitored here) but dumping this onto another country is not right.

LaurieMarlow · 23/02/2019 09:32

think it is perfectly acceptable to dump the UK's problems onto Bangladesh? She has never been there and barely speaks the language. It is not their problem, it is ours.

It seems to be a common trait of the British these days. Take no responsibility for their own actions/problems, try to foist them on other countries (see also the Irish border issue).

It’s appalling.

Dungeondragon15 · 23/02/2019 09:34

I'm not sure that that's an assumption we can make, Dungeons. This government's track record in the courts demonstrates that it has a history of ignoring the law, and it simply isn't likely that in every case it has lost the lawyers told them they were absolutely right.

I am not making an assumption that they have consulted lawyers. This has been quite clearly stated. Obviously the lawyers didn't tell them they were "absolutely right". They rarely (if ever) do that anyway! That's why I used the word "arguably". It's clearly a grey area that the courts need to decide on.
The Bangladesh government have actually previously stated that people born in the UK to parents with Bangladeshi citizenship would, at the time of their birth, be Bangladeshi citizens and would at least remain so until the age of 21. They are changing their mind on this now, no doubt due to some loophole but that is why the Government has lost previously (the Jihadis were over 21 so longer had the right).

Dungeondragon15 · 23/02/2019 09:37

Why do all the people harping on about her supposed Bangladeshi citizenship think it is perfectly acceptable to dump the UK's problems onto Bangladesh? She has never been there and barely speaks the language. It is not their problem, it is ours.

Nobody has said that it is "perfectly acceptable". We are talking about the legalities.

SoupDragon · 23/02/2019 09:40

Nobody has said that it is "perfectly acceptable".

Every single person who has said it's great etc thinks it is perfectly acceptable.

Dungeondragon15 · 23/02/2019 09:45

Every single person who has said it's great etc thinks it is perfectly acceptable.

Has anyone said it is great? While I really couldn't care less about whether it gives Shamima Begum some stress I don't think it at all fair on Bangladesh to even try this.

Loopytiles · 23/02/2019 09:47

Initially the line was that UK government resources / people would not be deployed to enable her, or other citizens who travelled there, to return home. And probably most people’s families can’t afford to pay for agencies or criminal services to travel, so the people have to stay there.

In this specific case, presumably a concern is that a media organisation might pay for the young woman and her baby to leave the camp and travel to the UK.

Should that happen, I don’t think it’s OK to refuse entry, because that foists our problem citizens on other countries, in this case Bangladesh.

SoupDragon · 23/02/2019 10:08

Has anyone said it is great?

Yes. Both here, on other threads and out in the big wide world outside MN.

Xenia · 23/02/2019 10:10

She is under 21. She has the right to Bangladesh nationality - end of story. She has her right to appeal the UK decision and has been told how to appeal so the courts will look at it but it seems a sound case under the law to me.

Is it our problem? Surely part of the reason she did all this is her Bangladshi parents brought her up in a manner which could cause this. Surely it is much less likely she would have wanted to to ao Isis to breed had she been brought up in a standard UK atheist home?

Loopytiles · 23/02/2019 10:14

She was brought up in the UK, not Bangladesh. Her parents resided and brought her up here legally. Unfair to want Bangladesh, a less wealthy country than the UK where she did not reside or even visit, to deal with her.

LaurieMarlow · 23/02/2019 10:23

I can only imagine the outrage on here if another country tried to do the same thing to the uk.

So imagine if say, Thailand (to take a random example) tried to foist a known terrorist on us who’d never visited this country and doesn’t speak English, because by some loophole they were entitled to British citizenship. All because Thailand CBA dealing with their own problems and wanted to appease their own braying mob.

There would be carnage.

SoupDragon · 23/02/2019 10:24

Is it our problem?

She was born, raised and radicalised in the UK. Why do you think it is Bangladesh's problem?

SoupDragon · 23/02/2019 10:25

Haven't Bangladesh stated that she does not have citizenship and will not be allowed in? I assume they know their rules fairly well.

Dungeondragon15 · 23/02/2019 10:27

Yes. Both here, on other threads and out in the big wide world outside MN.

Many people (including me) think it is great that she can't come home tomorrow and that she could have to wait months to get her citizenship back. I think very few people (if they thought about it anyway) think it is great to try and foist her on Bangladesh.

Budsbegginingspringinsight · 23/02/2019 10:28

I imagine in the real world it goes on all the time!

Unless anyone has precise figures on to and fro of criminals and terrorists it's all speculation.

What we do know is, she's not the first terrorist joining Isis whose citizenship has been revoked. We also know many other countries are grappling with the same issues.

Dungeondragon15 · 23/02/2019 10:31

Haven't Bangladesh stated that she does not have citizenship and will not be allowed in? I assume they know their rules fairly well.

She does have citizenship according to their previously stated criteria though. The reason why Britain wasn't able to revoke British citizenship of two other Jihadis is that they were over 21. No doubt they will have some other reason (I hope so!) but it wasn't previously stated.

marfisa · 23/02/2019 10:36

No matter what you think of Shamima Begum, the deprivation of citizenship is on the rise in the UK, and it's a very disturbing phenomenon. Theresa May was the first Home Secretary in British history to make widespread use of it.

metro.co.uk/2019/02/21/why-sajid-javids-decision-on-shamima-begum-cheapened-british-citizenship-8697251/

Fazackerley · 23/02/2019 10:37

Presumably she has the right to a Dutch passport as well as she married a man from Holland.

Original poster
MrsSchadenfreude · 23/02/2019 10:38

Those who mentioned passport control in UK - there is no passport control when you leave the U.K. (apart from, bizarrely, on Eurostar). If you fly BA from Terminal 5, you have no interaction with anyone until, possibly, when you get to security. So no-one would have checked.

I still think that if we are removing her British nationality, we should revoke Asma Assad’s as well.

Some jihadi fighters for IS have their British nationality revoked when they are out of the UK. And are put on every watchlist going. So when they pitch up at an airport in eg Turkey, they are not allowed to fly and are left in limbo, and told to report to eg the Iraqi or Pakistani Embassy for assistance. Unsurprisingly they don’t always want to help...

OP posts:
Dungeondragon15 · 23/02/2019 10:42

Presumably she has the right to a Dutch passport as well as she married a man from Holland.

Apart from the fact that her marriage is probably not legally recognised it takes more than just being married to someone who is Dutch to get a Dutch passport so no.

Loopytiles · 23/02/2019 10:45

Marriage doesn’t confer Dutch citizenship.

Thymeout · 23/02/2019 10:46

Not sure why people are being so sympathetic to Syria in all this. By 'Syria' we're talking about Assad, who caused all this mess, by starting a civil war, bombing and gassing his own civilians, leaving a vacuum in which ISIS were able to establish the Caliphate. Not feeling that sorry for him.

And the outcome still hasn't been decided. The area with the refugee camps is run by the Kurds, who have their own problems with the Turks, who also fought in the war, and regard the Kurds as enemies because of terrorist attacks in Turkey carried out by a different Kurdish group.

Too many unknowns about SB to be passing judgment based on a few media interviews surrounded by IS minders. No idea whether she's telling the truth or not. Bear in mind that she'd have suffered a very painful death only weeks ago if she'd said anything critical of Jihadi martyrs/suicide bombers. If she wasn't brain-washed before, she certainly is now.

Btw, she wouldn't have been living the life of a 50's housewife. She'd have been sent out to patrol the streets to enforce the Islamic dress code, helped with induction tutorials with new arrivals, possibly involved in recruiting new runaways on-line.

SaturdayNext · 23/02/2019 10:49

I am not making an assumption that they have consulted lawyers. This has been quite clearly stated. Obviously the lawyers didn't tell them they were "absolutely right". They rarely (if ever) do that anyway! That's why I used the word "arguably". It's clearly a grey area that the courts need to decide on.

Dungeondragon, I didn't say you were making an assumption that they consulted lawyers - clearly they did. However, you are making an assumption that the Home Office's lawyers told them they could revoke citizenship, or indeed that they told them it was arguable. As I said, there is evidence that this government is perfectly capable of ignoring its lawyers' advice when it is politically convenient, and I rather suspect that is what has happened here.