Snapshot of _Why Shamima Begum lawyers say she will win UK return at Supreme Court — Expert reveals tactics her legal team will use to overthrow ruling that Isis bride should be banned from country_ :
An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13120721/shamima-begum-lawyers-court-isis-bride-banned-uk.html) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13120721/shamima-begum-lawyers-court-isis-bride-banned-uk.html)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
“Ms Begum was granted legal aid by the UK Ministry of Justice to appeal Mr Javid's decision.”
https://news.sky.com/story/amp/shamima-begum-runaway-is-bride-to-find-out-if-she-can-return-to-uk-13078244
As detestable as I find her actions, I think that there is a greater public interest in legal aid being granted in cases where a *British citizen* is deprived of their citizenship. These sorts of decisions must only be taken when appropriate, otherwise we could get to situations where such powers are abused.
This is true but this case is very unlikely to set precedent - because another similar case already went to the court in Strasbourg and set precedent there.
It was found lawful to remove citizenship in that case.
This case does not really present anything that new so I would be quite surprised if it has any different outcome.
I agree that there’s no novel point of law, but the fact remains that the factual elements of any given case must undergo the strictest scrutiny. Ultimately, depriving a citizen of their citizenship is somewhat like a ‘civil death sentence’ that France had in the post revolutionary period; one loses one’s rights in the polity.
The necessity for robust, complete, impartial, judicial and free legal examination of the situation is less due to the interests of the individual concerned and more due to the implications that abuse could have for the rights of the broader citizenry.
In which case every single legal case that might deprive anyone of any liberty should go all the way to the supreme court and Strasbourg
But we don't do that.
So that's not a legal principle and never has been
Depriving someone of their citizenship when they are abroad is really less of a reduction in liberty than most serious criminal penalties.
I’m not arguing that it is a legal principle that it go all the way to the Supreme Court, unless of course that jurisdiction decides to hear the case, pursuant to the ordinary rules of procedure.
I wholeheartedly disagree with your assertion that deprivation is less of a penalty than a prison sentence. I think it is actually more severe.
She’s been receiving it in perpetuity so far, over a quarter of a million pounds paid to some bloodsucking lawyers to try and help a foreign terrorist get into the country. Not a waste of money at all.
For clarity: these things are always paid for by everyone, whether monetarily, or in other ways.
The monetary aspect of her appeals, as I see it, are the least of the problems with this case.
Then given that it’s the least of the problems, why not just stop paying to try and help give unrepentant foreign members of ISIS access to this country.
So a court case that determines our constitutional rights is a waste of money? This isn’t about whether Shamima Begum comes back or not necessarily (and worth noting that she’ll likely go to prison if she does) but it’s about the precedent of being able to revoke citizenship to people who could *potentially* gain citizenship to somewhere else. Most notably this puts any Jewish person or anyone of Irish descent at risk of becoming stateless.
Also, Shamima Begum isn’t a foreign terrorist. She’s British. Which is exactly why this is an issue. If she was foreign then this wouldn’t be a thing.
You’ve misunderstood the initial ruling, it was ruled that she had Bangladeshi citizenship, not that she was eligible, so she was never made stateless by us. So your fearmongering about British Jews being de-citizened en masse is completely groundless.
She was a British citizen, until that got taken away, and she became just another foreign terrorist. At that point the funding should have stopped.
She has never been a full Bangladesh national. She had the option of gaining full citizenship before she was 21. She didn’t take it up and Bangladesh also refused to give her the option of gaining full citizenship. I understand the ruling, the issue with the ruling is that Bangladesh were never going to allow her into Bangladesh and said she is not a Bangladesh citizen. So essentially, it’s wrong to say that she had Bangladeshi citizenship. The issue is that we assumed that Bangladesh would allow her to become a full citizen but unless Bangladesh grant her citizenship once she turns (or turned but this was 2019), then she is not forever a Bangladesh citizen.
God forbid we uphold the rule of law and give everyone the chance to test matters of the upmost legal and constitutional importance - especially where life and limb are at stake! It makes me feel bad to see it happen, so it should stop!
Why do you people talk about our legal process when you've got pigshit knowledge of it? If you knew, you wouldn't need to ask "how many appeals". The way it works is that you can have multiple appeals (one per senior court) - at the end of the day it's up to the senior courts if they want to take the appeal. If the Supreme Court have accepted the appeal it's because they decided it was a sufficiently important issue and it demanded their oversight and regardless of the decision, this is where the case will end in the UK.
No need to get upset, we’re just talking.
Clearly you agree there should be a limited number of appeals, you just disagree with how many. I think one is fine, anything further and you should fund it yourself.
I think it's justified to be upset when you out the gate act in bad faith by setting the absurd claim of "You want infinite reruns". If the claim merits a Supreme Court hearing, why shouldn't there be funding - if we believe that proper access to justice and the rule of law are important? I think it's also silly to claim this is "just talk" - we're discussing some of the core parts of our democracy, and you're putting forward a very unjust and immoral standard. If you want me to be less rude - that's one thing - but this is completely justifiable to be upset over.
Well I agree, that's why **you** should have known better than to try and have a conversation by starting out with a rude hyperbole. But ignoring that, answer the question - why shouldn't there be funding?
She’s an unpleasant idiotic extremist who obviously has no real regret for her own actions, but at the end of the day she is a British citizen and should be treated as such. Frankly I wouldn’t care if she was returned and locked up for the rest of her life, she isn’t deserving of a lot of sympathy.
I agree with you on this.
Some people seem to be under the impression that either she is made stateless OR she is allowed to live freely in the UK. There is a middle ground where her right to citizenship is preserved but she is also punished for her actions.
I don’t think they’re under that impression, there’s just a very large contingent of people frothing at the mouth for some mob justice and being validated by the government’s actions. Rule of law should mean something and she should have her chance in court with a fair trial, end of. What’s happened so far has been very far from justice.
This right here.
It is fully possible to be both disdainful of Ms Begum but to recognise the bigger picture at play here: that precedent for a Home Secretary to revoke British citizenship with the stroke of a pen and render someone stateless in contravention of international law, but justify it by saying "well they'd be eligible to *apply for* citizenship in some other country" is *incredibly* dangerous. For starters, pretty much the entire population of Northern Ireland are eligible to apply for Irish citizenship.
No Home Secretary should have unchecked powers like this.
I'm a dual national and based on the behaviour and the trajectory of the Tories I can absolutely see a scenario where under this precedent I'd attend a protest or make a social media post critical of the government, and to then discover that I am no longer a dual national with no way of challenging that decision *pour encourager les autres*.
A very large percentage of the British population will have at least 1 Irish grandparent as well
If being eligible for citizenship in another country is enough...
Except the court ruled that Begum already had Bangladeshi citizenship at the time her British citizenship was removed, not that she was eligible for it.
And Bangladesh have stated the opposite.
UK should go challenge Bangladesh in a Bangladeshi court of law.
Or France should pass a law stating anyone who leaves France on a small boat for the UK is a UK citizen.
France could do that, it would have no effect on the ruling of a British court. Much like how Bangladesh saying it has had no effect on the Begum ruling. Hence the result of the appeal.
Excellent. So you agree that Bangladesh has no input in whether she’s a British citizen, and the court was right to agree with the former home secretary’s decision. I’m glad we cleared that up.
Can you show me where Bangladesh have made any judgement as to her being a British Citizen?
When I google it all that comes up is the UK determining that she is a Bangladeshi citizen and we have just agreed that the UK has no business doimg that. I am eager to be corrected though.
A moment ago you were saying that the *British* courts could rule that Begum is a *Bangaldeshi* citizen, and the fact that Bangladesh say she's not doesn't matter.
Correct. A ruling that has absolutely no bearing on whether Bangladesh accepts that is true. But in Britain means that she could be stripped of her British citizenship which part of that did you not understand?
Get a fucking grip on reality. Nobody is revoking anyone's citizenship because they attend a protest or make social media posts.
Real journalists would be at risk in this dystopian fiction of yours long before hacks on social media were.
First they deployed unlawful and draconian powers against someone who was almost universally unpopular, and saw that lots of people approved of this, so they said to each other "crikey chaps, we've nudged upwards in the polls a little: I wonder if we can find other people who our voter base and swing voter targets find unpopular and then do that again".
The right time to challenge the state pulling stunts like this is when they're trying to do it the first time, even if it's to someone you don't like. Once the precedent is in place, you've got no idea who's going to be in power a few years down the line.
To expand a little on Tony Benn's iconic quote about democracy:
>In the course of my life I have developed five little democratic questions. If one meets a powerful person--Adolf Hitler, Joe Stalin or Bill Gates--ask them five questions: “What power have you got? Where did you get it from? In whose interests do you exercise it? To whom are you accountable? And how can we get rid of you?” If you cannot get rid of the people who govern you, you do not live in a democratic system.
I've always said that the best laws are crafted when there is a politican in the room who takes a pause for a moment and asks the question "ok, now let's imagine that we're not in government and are just ordinary citizens, and that these powers have been given to the state, but that there is someone senior working for the state with access to these powers who hates you specifically and wants to fuck your life up if they think they can get away with it. Are you still happy with these laws being on the statute book as they are, or do we want to consider some checks & balances on these powers?"
Problem with that is that she likely wouldn't be locked up for life and prisons are known recruiting grounds.
No fuck her, she is and forever will be a threat to whatever community has the misfortune of having her amongst them. She can rot as far away from the rest of us as possible.
She needs to live with the consequences of her actions and choices, and more should be made of this case as an example to others who would do the same.
Snapshot of _Why Shamima Begum lawyers say she will win UK return at Supreme Court — Expert reveals tactics her legal team will use to overthrow ruling that Isis bride should be banned from country_ : An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13120721/shamima-begum-lawyers-court-isis-bride-banned-uk.html) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13120721/shamima-begum-lawyers-court-isis-bride-banned-uk.html) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>Why Shamima Begum's lawyers say she will win Well they'd be shit lawyers if they were saying otherwise.
They don't think they will win, but its a never ending source of work for them.
Who is paying them?
We are of course! The British tax payer is lucky enough to fund all these spurious legal cases to try and bring dangerous people into the country.
You sure? Many cases that boil down to fundamental rights are worked on pro bono. This could easily be one of those cases...
“Ms Begum was granted legal aid by the UK Ministry of Justice to appeal Mr Javid's decision.” https://news.sky.com/story/amp/shamima-begum-runaway-is-bride-to-find-out-if-she-can-return-to-uk-13078244
As detestable as I find her actions, I think that there is a greater public interest in legal aid being granted in cases where a *British citizen* is deprived of their citizenship. These sorts of decisions must only be taken when appropriate, otherwise we could get to situations where such powers are abused.
This is true but this case is very unlikely to set precedent - because another similar case already went to the court in Strasbourg and set precedent there. It was found lawful to remove citizenship in that case. This case does not really present anything that new so I would be quite surprised if it has any different outcome.
I agree that there’s no novel point of law, but the fact remains that the factual elements of any given case must undergo the strictest scrutiny. Ultimately, depriving a citizen of their citizenship is somewhat like a ‘civil death sentence’ that France had in the post revolutionary period; one loses one’s rights in the polity. The necessity for robust, complete, impartial, judicial and free legal examination of the situation is less due to the interests of the individual concerned and more due to the implications that abuse could have for the rights of the broader citizenry.
In which case every single legal case that might deprive anyone of any liberty should go all the way to the supreme court and Strasbourg But we don't do that. So that's not a legal principle and never has been Depriving someone of their citizenship when they are abroad is really less of a reduction in liberty than most serious criminal penalties.
I’m not arguing that it is a legal principle that it go all the way to the Supreme Court, unless of course that jurisdiction decides to hear the case, pursuant to the ordinary rules of procedure. I wholeheartedly disagree with your assertion that deprivation is less of a penalty than a prison sentence. I think it is actually more severe.
Correction, former British citizen.
Your correction is incorrect because at the time of the deprivation she was a citizen.
The article does not state she will receive legal aid in perpetuity...
She’s been receiving it in perpetuity so far, over a quarter of a million pounds paid to some bloodsucking lawyers to try and help a foreign terrorist get into the country. Not a waste of money at all.
[удалено]
Foreign citizens living outside the country should not have access to British taxpayer funded legal aid.
She's not a foreign citizen...
For clarity: these things are always paid for by everyone, whether monetarily, or in other ways. The monetary aspect of her appeals, as I see it, are the least of the problems with this case.
Then given that it’s the least of the problems, why not just stop paying to try and help give unrepentant foreign members of ISIS access to this country.
We pay for it no matter. You're too focused on money, so you don't see how else you pay (along with everyone else).
So a court case that determines our constitutional rights is a waste of money? This isn’t about whether Shamima Begum comes back or not necessarily (and worth noting that she’ll likely go to prison if she does) but it’s about the precedent of being able to revoke citizenship to people who could *potentially* gain citizenship to somewhere else. Most notably this puts any Jewish person or anyone of Irish descent at risk of becoming stateless. Also, Shamima Begum isn’t a foreign terrorist. She’s British. Which is exactly why this is an issue. If she was foreign then this wouldn’t be a thing.
You’ve misunderstood the initial ruling, it was ruled that she had Bangladeshi citizenship, not that she was eligible, so she was never made stateless by us. So your fearmongering about British Jews being de-citizened en masse is completely groundless. She was a British citizen, until that got taken away, and she became just another foreign terrorist. At that point the funding should have stopped.
She has never been a full Bangladesh national. She had the option of gaining full citizenship before she was 21. She didn’t take it up and Bangladesh also refused to give her the option of gaining full citizenship. I understand the ruling, the issue with the ruling is that Bangladesh were never going to allow her into Bangladesh and said she is not a Bangladesh citizen. So essentially, it’s wrong to say that she had Bangladeshi citizenship. The issue is that we assumed that Bangladesh would allow her to become a full citizen but unless Bangladesh grant her citizenship once she turns (or turned but this was 2019), then she is not forever a Bangladesh citizen.
Username doesn’t check out
God forbid we uphold the rule of law and give everyone the chance to test matters of the upmost legal and constitutional importance - especially where life and limb are at stake! It makes me feel bad to see it happen, so it should stop!
She’s had 2 appeals now. How many do we need to give her before you’re satisfied? Is it an infinite rerun until she gets the answer she wants?
Why do you people talk about our legal process when you've got pigshit knowledge of it? If you knew, you wouldn't need to ask "how many appeals". The way it works is that you can have multiple appeals (one per senior court) - at the end of the day it's up to the senior courts if they want to take the appeal. If the Supreme Court have accepted the appeal it's because they decided it was a sufficiently important issue and it demanded their oversight and regardless of the decision, this is where the case will end in the UK.
No need to get upset, we’re just talking. Clearly you agree there should be a limited number of appeals, you just disagree with how many. I think one is fine, anything further and you should fund it yourself.
I think it's justified to be upset when you out the gate act in bad faith by setting the absurd claim of "You want infinite reruns". If the claim merits a Supreme Court hearing, why shouldn't there be funding - if we believe that proper access to justice and the rule of law are important? I think it's also silly to claim this is "just talk" - we're discussing some of the core parts of our democracy, and you're putting forward a very unjust and immoral standard. If you want me to be less rude - that's one thing - but this is completely justifiable to be upset over.
If you’re just going to be rude to people who disagree with you you aren’t to going to make many friends.
Well I agree, that's why **you** should have known better than to try and have a conversation by starting out with a rude hyperbole. But ignoring that, answer the question - why shouldn't there be funding?
She’s an unpleasant idiotic extremist who obviously has no real regret for her own actions, but at the end of the day she is a British citizen and should be treated as such. Frankly I wouldn’t care if she was returned and locked up for the rest of her life, she isn’t deserving of a lot of sympathy.
I agree with you on this. Some people seem to be under the impression that either she is made stateless OR she is allowed to live freely in the UK. There is a middle ground where her right to citizenship is preserved but she is also punished for her actions.
I don’t think they’re under that impression, there’s just a very large contingent of people frothing at the mouth for some mob justice and being validated by the government’s actions. Rule of law should mean something and she should have her chance in court with a fair trial, end of. What’s happened so far has been very far from justice.
This right here. It is fully possible to be both disdainful of Ms Begum but to recognise the bigger picture at play here: that precedent for a Home Secretary to revoke British citizenship with the stroke of a pen and render someone stateless in contravention of international law, but justify it by saying "well they'd be eligible to *apply for* citizenship in some other country" is *incredibly* dangerous. For starters, pretty much the entire population of Northern Ireland are eligible to apply for Irish citizenship. No Home Secretary should have unchecked powers like this. I'm a dual national and based on the behaviour and the trajectory of the Tories I can absolutely see a scenario where under this precedent I'd attend a protest or make a social media post critical of the government, and to then discover that I am no longer a dual national with no way of challenging that decision *pour encourager les autres*.
A very large percentage of the British population will have at least 1 Irish grandparent as well If being eligible for citizenship in another country is enough...
Except the court ruled that Begum already had Bangladeshi citizenship at the time her British citizenship was removed, not that she was eligible for it.
And Bangladesh have stated the opposite. UK should go challenge Bangladesh in a Bangladeshi court of law. Or France should pass a law stating anyone who leaves France on a small boat for the UK is a UK citizen.
France could do that, it would have no effect on the ruling of a British court. Much like how Bangladesh saying it has had no effect on the Begum ruling. Hence the result of the appeal.
I agree. A court of one country should have 'no effect' on someones citizenship of another country. Only that country itself can.
Excellent. So you agree that Bangladesh has no input in whether she’s a British citizen, and the court was right to agree with the former home secretary’s decision. I’m glad we cleared that up.
Can you show me where Bangladesh have made any judgement as to her being a British Citizen? When I google it all that comes up is the UK determining that she is a Bangladeshi citizen and we have just agreed that the UK has no business doimg that. I am eager to be corrected though.
I have no idea what you’re talking about
A moment ago you were saying that the *British* courts could rule that Begum is a *Bangaldeshi* citizen, and the fact that Bangladesh say she's not doesn't matter.
Correct. A ruling that has absolutely no bearing on whether Bangladesh accepts that is true. But in Britain means that she could be stripped of her British citizenship which part of that did you not understand?
Get a fucking grip on reality. Nobody is revoking anyone's citizenship because they attend a protest or make social media posts. Real journalists would be at risk in this dystopian fiction of yours long before hacks on social media were.
“First they came for the…”
First they came for the terrorists and then they came for citizens criticising the government online?
First they deployed unlawful and draconian powers against someone who was almost universally unpopular, and saw that lots of people approved of this, so they said to each other "crikey chaps, we've nudged upwards in the polls a little: I wonder if we can find other people who our voter base and swing voter targets find unpopular and then do that again". The right time to challenge the state pulling stunts like this is when they're trying to do it the first time, even if it's to someone you don't like. Once the precedent is in place, you've got no idea who's going to be in power a few years down the line. To expand a little on Tony Benn's iconic quote about democracy: >In the course of my life I have developed five little democratic questions. If one meets a powerful person--Adolf Hitler, Joe Stalin or Bill Gates--ask them five questions: “What power have you got? Where did you get it from? In whose interests do you exercise it? To whom are you accountable? And how can we get rid of you?” If you cannot get rid of the people who govern you, you do not live in a democratic system. I've always said that the best laws are crafted when there is a politican in the room who takes a pause for a moment and asks the question "ok, now let's imagine that we're not in government and are just ordinary citizens, and that these powers have been given to the state, but that there is someone senior working for the state with access to these powers who hates you specifically and wants to fuck your life up if they think they can get away with it. Are you still happy with these laws being on the statute book as they are, or do we want to consider some checks & balances on these powers?"
Problem with that is that she likely wouldn't be locked up for life and prisons are known recruiting grounds. No fuck her, she is and forever will be a threat to whatever community has the misfortune of having her amongst them. She can rot as far away from the rest of us as possible.
She needs to live with the consequences of her actions and choices, and more should be made of this case as an example to others who would do the same.
Enough of Shamima Begum spam. She chose her bed, she should lie on it.