Were you groomed and radicalised at age 15?
Advertisement
by The Notorious Mad Jack » Thu Jul 16, 2020 7:12 am
by The Blaatschapen » Thu Jul 16, 2020 7:14 am
by The Notorious Mad Jack » Thu Jul 16, 2020 7:22 am
by Greed and Death » Thu Jul 16, 2020 7:29 am
by Hirota » Thu Jul 16, 2020 7:40 am
I don't think Beatrix Potter ever expected her character to join radical Islam. Mind you, Jemima did wear a shawl...or maybe it was a Hijab after all?!
by Gormwood » Thu Jul 16, 2020 7:45 am
by Hirota » Thu Jul 16, 2020 8:02 am
by Greed and Death » Thu Jul 16, 2020 8:06 am
The Islands of Versilia wrote:The Blaatschapen wrote:
Democracy? Really? FPTP isn't very democratic. Also, House of Lords.
Personal freedom, eh, can I smoke a joint there?
Tolerance of different peoples and beliefs? Please, until recently the monarch couldn't be or marry a catholic. (or something of that sort)
Active participation? In what? What does this even mean?
I'll give you the other two.
Don’t ask me, blame the government and national curriculum that names them as British values.
by CoraSpia » Thu Jul 16, 2020 8:51 am
Ostroeuropa wrote:CoraSpia wrote:Then 'the community' can deal with it. It is never acceptable to strip someone of citizenship and leave them to rot because you can't find something to charge them with, nor should we go back to the days of state-sanctioned murder.
Ultimately it's a matter of making enemies having consequences. While we can hand-wring about how it's wrong, the fact is, if everyone in your community wants you dead but you didn't break the law, then "Nobody saw who shot the guy". This is a basic fact about human society that the law is unable to address because it is not the only tool for dealing with social deviancy. There is always the unspoken assumption that if you try to game the system and use it in bad faith, people will respond in kind.
This is also the function of revolutions. Howling that the law says you can't cut off the kings head is largely irrelevant. They made enemies, it has consequences.
I happen to think the legal arguments may well be on her side. But that doesn't mean people can't try and ignore that. The issue is, you need unbiased people to enforce the law. But when the scope and magnitude of your fuck up is such that *everybody is consciously biased against you*, you're kind of fucked, and that's fine with me. "Don't piss off literally everyone and then cry about the law protecting you from their vengeance" is a rule that our ruling classes have internalized (though seem to be forgetting), it applies here too.
If you go around and rape every judge in the UK, good luck getting a fair trial. Similarly, Jemima declared war on this nation and joined a terrorist unit. So long as people can try and keep her out, they will. They might fail, but the trying is going to happen nonetheless, and arguments about "The law" will fall on deaf ears.
Her rights may have been violated. But I don't think anyone really cares.
by Gormwood » Thu Jul 16, 2020 8:53 am
CoraSpia wrote:Ostroeuropa wrote:
Ultimately it's a matter of making enemies having consequences. While we can hand-wring about how it's wrong, the fact is, if everyone in your community wants you dead but you didn't break the law, then "Nobody saw who shot the guy". This is a basic fact about human society that the law is unable to address because it is not the only tool for dealing with social deviancy. There is always the unspoken assumption that if you try to game the system and use it in bad faith, people will respond in kind.
This is also the function of revolutions. Howling that the law says you can't cut off the kings head is largely irrelevant. They made enemies, it has consequences.
I happen to think the legal arguments may well be on her side. But that doesn't mean people can't try and ignore that. The issue is, you need unbiased people to enforce the law. But when the scope and magnitude of your fuck up is such that *everybody is consciously biased against you*, you're kind of fucked, and that's fine with me. "Don't piss off literally everyone and then cry about the law protecting you from their vengeance" is a rule that our ruling classes have internalized (though seem to be forgetting), it applies here too.
If you go around and rape every judge in the UK, good luck getting a fair trial. Similarly, Jemima declared war on this nation and joined a terrorist unit. So long as people can try and keep her out, they will. They might fail, but the trying is going to happen nonetheless, and arguments about "The law" will fall on deaf ears.
Her rights may have been violated. But I don't think anyone really cares.
They really should care. We don't want to normalise this sort of governmental action, and the more we let it go the closer we are to doing just that.
by CoraSpia » Thu Jul 16, 2020 8:53 am
The Notorious Mad Jack wrote:The Blaatschapen wrote:
Nah, I only joined NationStates when I was 18.
Amazing reply.
Anyway given that she's in a camp in an area controlled by the Syrian Democratic Forces, a Kurdish-led group that controls the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria, it should be relatively simple to retrieve Shamima Begum from the area and bring her to the UK so that she gets a fair hearing - and then a fair trial, along with deprogramming. The government's position that the hearing on her citizenship should go ahead despite admitting it wouldn't be a fair trial was bizarre.
by The Blaatschapen » Thu Jul 16, 2020 9:22 am
Gormwood wrote:CoraSpia wrote:They really should care. We don't want to normalise this sort of governmental action, and the more we let it go the closer we are to doing just that.
What could possibly go wrong with nationstates dumping their most troublesome citizens in other countries and going "Not Our Problem"?
by Hrythingland » Thu Jul 16, 2020 9:42 am
CoraSpia wrote:The Notorious Mad Jack wrote:Amazing reply.
Anyway given that she's in a camp in an area controlled by the Syrian Democratic Forces, a Kurdish-led group that controls the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria, it should be relatively simple to retrieve Shamima Begum from the area and bring her to the UK so that she gets a fair hearing - and then a fair trial, along with deprogramming. The government's position that the hearing on her citizenship should go ahead despite admitting it wouldn't be a fair trial was bizarre.
Even though they can't prevent her from coming back the government have stated that they won't do anything to try and get her out of there. They're pulling out all the possible cards to let this woman rot and it's truly sick.
by Austria-Bohemia-Hungary » Thu Jul 16, 2020 10:14 am
by Dumb Ideologies » Thu Jul 16, 2020 10:15 am
Hrythingland wrote:CoraSpia wrote:Even though they can't prevent her from coming back the government have stated that they won't do anything to try and get her out of there. They're pulling out all the possible cards to let this woman rot and it's truly sick.
Its sick that she went away to fight for a group that despises this country and only wanted to come back and beg for mercy when she was carrying a child. She's about as British as a bloody manatee. She can go back to Bangladesh or wherever it is her family is originally from.
by Fartsniffage » Thu Jul 16, 2020 10:18 am
Dumb Ideologies wrote:Hrythingland wrote:Its sick that she went away to fight for a group that despises this country and only wanted to come back and beg for mercy when she was carrying a child. She's about as British as a bloody manatee. She can go back to Bangladesh or wherever it is her family is originally from.
Actively aiding the ISIS regime should put one beyond the realm of rehabilitation attempts. She does not deserve another chance. The trouble is that the lack of the death penalty means we will not be able to eliminate her, and I'm sure lobbying groups will pressure for her to be given that undeserved second chance.
But that is our problem I think, it's wrong to leave unwanted litter behind on someone else's territory even if we don't have proper disposal facilities, so to speak.
by Chan Island » Thu Jul 16, 2020 10:28 am
Gormwood wrote:CoraSpia wrote:They really should care. We don't want to normalise this sort of governmental action, and the more we let it go the closer we are to doing just that.
What could possibly go wrong with nationstates dumping their most troublesome citizens in other countries and going "Not Our Problem"?
Conserative Morality wrote:"It's not time yet" is a tactic used by reactionaries in every era. "It's not time for democracy, it's not time for capitalism, it's not time for emancipation." Of course it's not time. It's never time, not on its own. You make it time. If you're under fire in the no-man's land of WW1, you start digging a foxhole even if the ideal time would be when you *aren't* being bombarded, because once you wait for it to be 'time', other situations will need your attention, assuming you survive that long. If the fields aren't furrowed, plow them. If the iron is not hot, make it so. If society is not ready, change it.
by Ifreann » Thu Jul 16, 2020 10:35 am
Chan Island wrote:Hirota wrote:I don't think Beatrix Potter ever expected her character to join radical Islam. Mind you, Jemima did wear a shawl...or maybe it was a Hijab after all?!
They certainly would read different if Mr Mcgregor was shouting Allahu Akbar when he catches the rabbit.Gormwood wrote:What could possibly go wrong with nationstates dumping their most troublesome citizens in other countries and going "Not Our Problem"?
On the logic of "they could potentially apply for citizenship somewhere else even though they don't actually have that citizenship and now never will" to boot.
Surely, absolutely, positively, nothing at all could go wrong with that precedent.
by Gormwood » Thu Jul 16, 2020 10:39 am
Ifreann wrote:Chan Island wrote:
They certainly would read different if Mr Mcgregor was shouting Allahu Akbar when he catches the rabbit.
On the logic of "they could potentially apply for citizenship somewhere else even though they don't actually have that citizenship and now never will" to boot.
Surely, absolutely, positively, nothing at all could go wrong with that precedent.
I wonder if perfidious Albion is a signatory to the treaties on reducing statelessness.
by Fartsniffage » Thu Jul 16, 2020 10:43 am
Gormwood wrote:Ifreann wrote:I wonder if perfidious Albion is a signatory to the treaties on reducing statelessness.
Why Yes It Is. Cue shoutings for the UK to leave the UN or ignore the convention.
Article 8
Contracting States shall not deprive people of their nationality so as to render them stateless. (Exceptions: where otherwise provided in the Convention; where nationality has been acquired by misrepresentation or fraud; disloyalty to the Contracting State).
by Agarntrop » Thu Jul 16, 2020 10:44 am
Fartsniffage wrote:Gormwood wrote:Why Yes It Is. Cue shoutings for the UK to leave the UN or ignore the convention.Article 8
Contracting States shall not deprive people of their nationality so as to render them stateless. (Exceptions: where otherwise provided in the Convention; where nationality has been acquired by misrepresentation or fraud; disloyalty to the Contracting State).
by Fartsniffage » Thu Jul 16, 2020 10:45 am
by Austria-Bohemia-Hungary » Thu Jul 16, 2020 10:46 am
by Ifreann » Thu Jul 16, 2020 10:48 am
Fartsniffage wrote:Gormwood wrote:Why Yes It Is. Cue shoutings for the UK to leave the UN or ignore the convention.Article 8
Contracting States shall not deprive people of their nationality so as to render them stateless. (Exceptions: where otherwise provided in the Convention; where nationality has been acquired by misrepresentation or fraud; disloyalty to the Contracting State).
by Gormwood » Thu Jul 16, 2020 10:48 am
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Almighty Biden, Ancientania, Bimflurpity, Cyptopir, GMS Greater Miami Shores 1, Google [Bot], Ifreann, Immoren, Ineva, Kannap, Kareia, Khoikhoia, Lycom, Nanatsu no Tsuki, New Westmore, Shrillland, Socalist Republic Of Mercenaries, The Holy Therns, The Jamdoin, The Jamesian Republic, Tiami, Tinhampton, Tungstan, Uiiop, Uvolla, Valrifall, Vikanias, Zurkerx
Advertisement