ISIS bride stripped of citizenship, banned from the UK

[Auristania]

Why exactly is the discussion now about executing her? As far as I'm aware, she hasn't actually done anything except travel to a war zone, marry an idiot, and hold a variety of offensive opinions. You can't go round executing people for having offensive opinions. If we did that in the UK, the streets would run red.

Something about guilt by association.

The precise and exact word. She joined a terrorist organization, She deliberately and with malice aforethought associated with genociders murderers rapists etc and helped with their endeavours.

Why do you insist that she must be praised for the purity of her faith?

[Vassenor]

Something about guilt by association.

The precise and exact word. She joined a terrorist organization, She deliberately and with malice aforethought associated with genociders murderers rapists etc and helped with their endeavours.

Why do you insist that she must be praised for the purity of her faith?

When did I insist that?

[Eitoan]

Shoot her. Save big $$$

[Nimzonia]

The precise and exact word. She joined a terrorist organization, She deliberately and with malice aforethought associated with genociders murderers rapists etc and helped with their endeavours.

Exactly how did she "help with their endeavours"? Did she plan attacks? Did she build bombs? You need specific charges if you're going to execute someone, not vague wishy-washy accusations of thought crime.

Hanging war criminals and terrorists is one thing, but hanging their wives for 'associating' with them is a step too far.

[Llalta]

You really are desperate to make a martyr out of her, just like ISIS wants, aren't you?

What they want is irrelevant. What they need is a good killing down to the last of them.

Would that not make you as bad as them?

[Fartsniffage]

What they want is irrelevant. What they need is a good killing down to the last of them.

Would that not make you as bad as them?

If someone shoots and wounds you and you shoot back and kill them, are you as bad as them?

[Byzconia]

So, the UK stripped a citizen of her citizenship without any trial or due process? "We have to fight the terrorists because we care about freedom and human rights--except in our own country!"

And just fyi--because I know some of the folks here will try to spin it this way--no, I don't "support ISIS/terrorism," I support the rule of law--and this is a clear violation of it. Then again, rule of law has been steadily eroding in the West for the past 20 years in the name of "fighting terrorism," so I really shouldn't be surprised at this point.

[Fartsniffage]

So, the UK stripped a citizen of her citizenship without any trial or due process? "We have to fight the terrorists because we care about freedom and human rights--except in our own country!"

And just fyi--because I know some of the folks here will try to spin it this way--no, I don't "support ISIS/terrorism," I support the rule of law--and this is a clear violation of it. Then again, rule of law has been steadily eroding in the West for the past 20 years in the name of "fighting terrorism," so I really shouldn't be surprised at this point.

The home secretary followed the due process as set out in the British Nationality Act 1981.

[Byzconia]

So, the UK stripped a citizen of her citizenship without any trial or due process? "We have to fight the terrorists because we care about freedom and human rights--except in our own country!"

And just fyi--because I know some of the folks here will try to spin it this way--no, I don't "support ISIS/terrorism," I support the rule of law--and this is a clear violation of it. Then again, rule of law has been steadily eroding in the West for the past 20 years in the name of "fighting terrorism," so I really shouldn't be surprised at this point.

The home secretary followed the due process as set out in the British Nationality Act 1981.

My apologies, by "due process," I meant "trial" (they're generally used interchangeably in the US, but I guess it's fair to say they're not always synonyms). She was never arrested nor charged with a crime. She never had her day in court, as everyone should be entitled to. Just because the British passed a law saying they can strip people's rights if they feel like it doesn't mean people don't have rights.

[Vassenor]

So, the UK stripped a citizen of her citizenship without any trial or due process? "We have to fight the terrorists because we care about freedom and human rights--except in our own country!"

And just fyi--because I know some of the folks here will try to spin it this way--no, I don't "support ISIS/terrorism," I support the rule of law--and this is a clear violation of it. Then again, rule of law has been steadily eroding in the West for the past 20 years in the name of "fighting terrorism," so I really shouldn't be surprised at this point.

The home secretary followed the due process as set out in the British Nationality Act 1981.

Persuant to section 40 of the above:

(3)The Secretary of State may by order deprive a person of a citizenship status which results from his registration or naturalisation if the Secretary of State is satisfied that the registration or naturalisation was obtained by means of—

(a)fraud,

(b)false representation, or

(c)concealment of a material fact.

(4)The Secretary of State may not make an order under subsection (2) if he is satisfied that the order would make a person stateless.

So which of those three applies, and how does it not violate Subsection 4?

[Fartsniffage]

The home secretary followed the due process as set out in the British Nationality Act 1981.

My apologies, by "due process," I meant "trial" (they're generally used interchangeably in the US, but I guess it's fair to say they're not always synonyms). She was never arrested nor charged with a crime. She never had her day in court, as everyone should be entitled to. Just because the British passed a law saying they can strip people's rights if they feel like it doesn't mean people don't have rights.

Her day in court comes after he has signed the order. She has a guaranteed right to appeal the decision through the courts and to the best of my knowledge retains her citizenship until that process has be exhausted.

Until the order is signed then what would there be for a court to decide?

[Terruana]

Shoot her. Save big $$$

So your solution to someone tacitly supporting murder by joining a terrorist group is to actively endorse her murder?

[Fartsniffage]

The home secretary followed the due process as set out in the British Nationality Act 1981.

Persuant to section 40 of the above:

(3)The Secretary of State may by order deprive a person of a citizenship status which results from his registration or naturalisation if the Secretary of State is satisfied that the registration or naturalisation was obtained by means of—

(a)fraud,

(b)false representation, or

(c)concealment of a material fact.

(4)The Secretary of State may not make an order under subsection (2) if he is satisfied that the order would make a person stateless.

So which of those three applies, and how does it not violate Subsection 4?

You missed some bits out Vass. Why would you do that?

[F117(2)The Secretary of State may by order deprive a person of a citizenship status if the Secretary of State is satisfied that deprivation is conducive to the public good.]
(3)The Secretary of State may by order deprive a person of a citizenship status which results from his registration or naturalisation if the Secretary of State is satisfied that the registration or naturalisation was obtained by means of—
(a)fraud,
(b)false representation, or
(c)concealment of a material fact.
(4)The Secretary of State may not make an order under subsection (2) if he is satisfied that the order would make a person stateless.
[F118(4A)But that does not prevent the Secretary of State from making an order under subsection (2) to deprive a person of a citizenship status if—
(a)the citizenship status results from the person's naturalisation,
(b)the Secretary of State is satisfied that the deprivation is conducive to the public good because the person, while having that citizenship status, has conducted him or herself in a manner which is seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the United Kingdom, any of the Islands, or any British overseas territory, and
(c)the Secretary of State has reasonable grounds for believing that the person is able, under the law of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom, to become a national of such a country or territory.]

I hope this helps.

[Terruana]

I am genuinely interested - those who are in favour of denying her entry to the UK (and even those who support straight-up murdering her), why did you rule out the idea of deradicalisation?

Preferably I would like a reply slightly more in depth than "because she joined ISIS".

[Vassenor]

Persuant to section 40 of the above:



So which of those three applies, and how does it not violate Subsection 4?

You missed some bits out Vass. Why would you do that?

[F117(2)The Secretary of State may by order deprive a person of a citizenship status if the Secretary of State is satisfied that deprivation is conducive to the public good.]
(3)The Secretary of State may by order deprive a person of a citizenship status which results from his registration or naturalisation if the Secretary of State is satisfied that the registration or naturalisation was obtained by means of—
(a)fraud,
(b)false representation, or
(c)concealment of a material fact.
(4)The Secretary of State may not make an order under subsection (2) if he is satisfied that the order would make a person stateless.
[F118(4A)But that does not prevent the Secretary of State from making an order under subsection (2) to deprive a person of a citizenship status if—
(a)the citizenship status results from the person's naturalisation,
(b)the Secretary of State is satisfied that the deprivation is conducive to the public good because the person, while having that citizenship status, has conducted him or herself in a manner which is seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the United Kingdom, any of the Islands, or any British overseas territory, and
(c)the Secretary of State has reasonable grounds for believing that the person is able, under the law of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom, to become a national of such a country or territory.]

I hope this helps.

So how is it conducive to the public good? And we already know that (c) does not apply given that Bangladesh has already said she has no ability to claim citizenship there.

[Byzconia]

My apologies, by "due process," I meant "trial" (they're generally used interchangeably in the US, but I guess it's fair to say they're not always synonyms). She was never arrested nor charged with a crime. She never had her day in court, as everyone should be entitled to. Just because the British passed a law saying they can strip people's rights if they feel like it doesn't mean people don't have rights.

Her day in court comes after he has signed the order. She has a guaranteed right to appeal the decision through the courts and to the best of my knowledge retains her citizenship until that process has be exhausted.

Until the order is signed then what would there be for a court to decide?

"A guaranteed right to appeal" what? A directive handed down by a government department? Could you imagine if this were how any other crime were handled? "Okay, the Minister of Justice has decided you're guilty of murder. If you disagree with this, feel free to appeal, then we'll give you a trial." There's a reason Western justice systems are based on the principal of "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law." Allowing government ministers/departments to make this decision on their own will lead to nothing good.

[Fartsniffage]

You missed some bits out Vass. Why would you do that?



I hope this helps.

So how is it conducive to the public good? And we already know that (c) does not apply given that Bangladesh has already said she has no ability to claim citizenship there.

They haven't said that. They have said that she doesn't currently hold citizenship and that they don't like terrorists, which you keep assuring us she is not. And (C) does apply even if the Bangladeshis deny her citizens ship because at the time he signed the order he had reasonable belief that she did have the option of a second citizenship.

As to how it is conducive to the public good? I'm sure Sajid has many reasons but the one I like best is that it will save us money. No one in their right mind will ever employ her after this and there would need to be a lifetime of surveillance put on her when police budgets are already hacked to the bone.

[Fartsniffage]

Her day in court comes after he has signed the order. She has a guaranteed right to appeal the decision through the courts and to the best of my knowledge retains her citizenship until that process has be exhausted.

Until the order is signed then what would there be for a court to decide?

"A guaranteed right to appeal" what? A directive handed down by a government department? Could you imagine if this were how any other crime were handled? "Okay, the Minister of Justice has decided you're guilty of murder. If you disagree with this, feel free to appeal, then we'll give you a trial." There's a reason Western justice systems are based on the principal of "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law." Allowing government ministers/departments to make this decision on their own will lead to nothing good.

The law has been in place for 36 years, what bad things had it lead to?

And it isn't a criminal matter

[Byzconia]

"A guaranteed right to appeal" what? A directive handed down by a government department? Could you imagine if this were how any other crime were handled? "Okay, the Minister of Justice has decided you're guilty of murder. If you disagree with this, feel free to appeal, then we'll give you a trial." There's a reason Western justice systems are based on the principal of "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law." Allowing government ministers/departments to make this decision on their own will lead to nothing good.

The law has been in place for 36 years, what bad things had it lead to?

Fair point, nothing as of yet (that I know of). The issue I take is the massive amount of overreach our governments have granted themselves in the name of "national security." Again (like I said), she was a British citizen, she has rights even if the British government has decided she doesn't. Even if you want to argue the law has only been used responsibly (as in, not abused), it doesn't change the fact that law itself is unjust and violates everything we (claim to) stand for as a society.

And it isn't a criminal matter

Let me guess, it's a "national security" matter, right?

[Fartsniffage]

Let me guess, it's a "national security" matter, right?

No. It's a civil matter. Which is why the government first has to take an action before a court case can proceed.

Think of it like the US government deciding to take your house under eminent domain. Until they start the process you can't really do anything about it in a court as there is nothing to challenge.

[Auristania]

The precise and exact word. She joined a terrorist organization, She deliberately and with malice aforethought associated with genociders murderers rapists etc and helped with their endeavours.

Exactly how did she "help with their endeavours"? Did she plan attacks? Did she build bombs? You need specific charges if you're going to execute someone, not vague wishy-washy accusations of thought crime.

Hanging war criminals and terrorists is one thing, but hanging their wives for 'associating' with them is a step too far.

There is also the charge that her job was in the Religious Police. Everybody expects the Islamic Inquisition. If she be proven an Inquisitor does she deserve punishment or reward?

[Vassenor]

Exactly how did she "help with their endeavours"? Did she plan attacks? Did she build bombs? You need specific charges if you're going to execute someone, not vague wishy-washy accusations of thought crime.

Hanging war criminals and terrorists is one thing, but hanging their wives for 'associating' with them is a step too far.

There is also the charge that her job was in the Religious Police. Everybody expects the Islamic Inquisition. If she be proven an Inquisitor does she deserve punishment or reward?

What evidence has been presented? Where has she been proven guilty?

And I'm not sure how you rationalise that with her "housewife life".

[Byzconia]

Let me guess, it's a "national security" matter, right?

No. It's a civil matter. Which is why the government first has to take an action before a court case can proceed.

Think of it like the US government deciding to take your house under eminent domain. Until they start the process you can't really do anything about it in a court as there is nothing to challenge.

While I understand the argument you're trying to make, this is a false equivocation. Eminent domain =/= stripping someone of their citizenship. The latter is a far worse thing to do to a person, and thus requires far more red tape in order to actually accomplish. The onus should most certainly be on the government to charge her with a crime and take her to court, rather say "We're going to take away your citizenship, but hey you can appeal it if you want to." And, for that matter, does she know she can appeal? Furthermore, how will she go about actually doing that? If it's not a criminal case, then she has no right to an attorney, meaning she'll have to either pay for one herself or find a group willing to do that for her (and what are the likely chances of that happening?).

[Yagon]

She's admitted she hosed up and is willing to serve time, and I dunno if we should make her suffer too much for leaving ISIS and wanting to change back sides.

Future folks considering that will be watching this.

I don't want the beard with the Kalashnikov to finish the beating/raping/cooking/moreraping day by being able to say "And even if you made it back to them, they won't want you. You're mine now."

[Fartsniffage]

No. It's a civil matter. Which is why the government first has to take an action before a court case can proceed.

Think of it like the US government deciding to take your house under eminent domain. Until they start the process you can't really do anything about it in a court as there is nothing to challenge.

While I understand the argument you're trying to make, this is a false equivocation. Eminent domain =/= stripping someone of their citizenship. The latter is a far worse thing to do to a person, and thus requires far more red tape in order to actually accomplish. The onus should most certainly be on the government to charge her with a crime and take her to court, rather say "We're going to take away your citizenship, but hey you can appeal it if you want to." And, for that matter, does she know she can appeal? Furthermore, how will she go about actually doing that? If it's not a criminal case, then she has no right to an attorney, meaning she'll have to either pay for one herself or find a group willing to do that for her (and what are the likely chances of that happening?).

The UK has something called legal aid, it pays for a solicitor and barrister. It's not limited to criminal cases. Gives the poor guy a chance against the rich big guy in civil cases.

She does know she can appeal as according to the law before the home secretary signs the order to revoke citizenship they must send a letter to the person explaining why they are doing it and that they have a right to appeal. That letter has been shown to her by ITV news as I imagine it might take a while for the post to get a letter from London to a refugee camp in Syria.

And it's not required that a person is guilty of a crime for citizenship to be revoked as it's a civil matter. The red tape in this case is the legal system. The last time this was tried it took about 6 years for a final decision to be reached and the government lost.