She can appeal the decision. It could be seen as a test case with maybe 300+ more UK born IS supporters still in Syria and wanting to return.
If she really has dual citizenship, fair enough.
If she does not then illegal as you cannot render someone stateless.
Apparently as her mother is from Bangladesh, Bangladesh law states she has automatic dual citizenship inherited from the mother hence why the Government have made this move even though she was bourne and raised in the UK. She won’t be left without citizenship so they figure it is legal.
What she has said has done herself and her chances of returning no favours in the interviews she has given showing no remorse and her Manchester bombing comparison has just outraged people so they are not going to be sympathetic to her cause in a UK in such a furore over the whole Brexit/imigation/take back our borders attitudes so readily seen these days!
The bit i cant understand is this woman has never lived in Bangladesh so the UK government obviously are so arrogant that they think Bangladesh should take on a British grown terrorist rather than the UK.
Perhaps they are assuming Bangladesh will break international law and not allow her in.
It would have been interesting if Bangladesh had got in first and withdrawn any right to citizenship.
It’s not clear whether she has Bangladeshi citizenship to revoke. I’m not sure if eligibility to citizenship is something that can be removed, so it’s the last State that is left holding the baby, or terrorist.
I agree with Brian - her comments, especially about Manchester have been very ill advised and make sympathy difficult and the Bangladeshi angle has just given Javid the leverage that he needed. Sadly, by her own words she had made a bad situation indescribably worse.
That said I wonder how much blame should be ascribed to the Times journalist who broke the story. While I am sure the words are M Begum’s has she been encouraged to be less reserved and considered than she ought to have been in the interests of a scoop.
Oh yes-let’s blame the journalist for all of this and not her.
Paul is in no way blaming the journalist for all this, as you well know.
Its a very complex legal problem. I feel strongly this woman should face up to her crime and be prosecuted but a Home Secretary should not be courting popular opinion when he is making a difficult decision and i see no reason why either Syria or Bangladesh should be burdened with a British criminal.
He did ask how much blame should be ascribed to the journalist who broke the story didn’t he? What’s that if not blaming the journalist? Should the journalist or paper not have published the story? And since the law in Bangladesh states that she inherits her mother’s Bangladeshi citizenship the HS has done nothing wrong.
Seems quite a reasonable angle to ponder on… yet another angle…
Already, folk have been suggesting/swapping ideas for why she said what she did… putting her words under the microscope as it were…
Paul is not casting blame… he offers this for consideration/discussion … and rightly so IMO…
I reckon the response to Paul’s post… just goes to show how differently folk (any of us) can react to the written word…
Sue, you really should think about the difference between the two sentences “should we blame X” and “we should blame X”.
No the journalist did not (as far as I know) radicalise her, or encourage her to go to Syria. But he did “find” her, and give her a voice, apparently without any councilling the result of which is that her precarious situation has been made worse - persuant to her own words I agree.
I think it a reasonable question to ask. I’m glad others recognise where I was coming from even if you don’t.
The HS has ascribed a citizenship to this woman which is much less appropriate on all basis than the British one she already has. He knows there is a good chance it will be overturned legally and imo is doing it because it lets him off the hook if she does return to the uk. He’s a politician, anything he does will be for a political reason either for himself or the party, rarely for the public.
Less appropriate how?
Shamima Begum has/had a British passport and has never lived as a citizen of Bangladesh.
Well her British passport and nationality didn’t mean that much to her did it?
Thats not the point though is it? Shes a criminal and arguably a terrorist but everyone who condones the decision made by the HS is assuming that a British born and raised citizen can be fobbed off on another country where they can reap havoc just as long as its not on our doorstep.
If a terrorist brought up in another country also had British citizenship would you be happy if the HS of the other country said not our problem let the uk take the criminal?
If they had dual citizenship and the other country chose to revoke their citizenship then-as a is the rule of law-yes I would accept that. I think the term " happy" is not appropriate but would I accept it? Yes
One of the things that has puzzled me is that many journalists have interviewed Ms Begum and have returned from Syria so why couldn’t she come back with them, she has a British passport so it shouldn’t be an issue of paperwork?
It is reported that she went out on her sister’s passport and once arriving in Syria the passport was taken from her.