How do you solve a problem like Shamima Begum?

Should Shamima Begum be allowed to return to the UK


  • Total voters
    29

ZenGiraffe

There's nothing grey about my gardens.
Joined
Apr 25, 2020
Messages
7,782
Location
Handforth Parish Council
Well, this is a question of jurisprudence that has been debated for centuries, I'm not sure we're going to resolve it here
That may well be so, but we can still express our opinion that the Home Secretaries (since it was Javid that made the original decision) and Supreme Court are in the wrong with regard to the entire situation.
 

dmlaw

Democracy doesn't work
Joined
Aug 24, 2009
Messages
13,856
That may well be so, but we can still express our opinion that the Home Secretaries (since it was Javid that made the original decision) and Supreme Court are in the wrong with regard to the entire situation.
We absolutely can say that the Home Secretaries are in the wrong, but the Supreme Court are doing what they are meant to do in this situation. They are specifically not supposed to make moral judgements or to attempt to subvert the will of Parliament by making their own law. It's Parliament that are the baddies here, not the Supreme Court.
 

Iguana

Protect yourself with fire
Joined
Jan 17, 2008
Messages
21,835
Location
Between war and denial
More broadly, it is surely a flaw in the legal system if the Home Secretary can illegally strip someone of their citizenship, and that act then leaving no pathway to challenge that decision in court? My understanding is that the Supreme Court's decision today does not include whether the original act of stripping citizenship was legal or not. I don't understand how this situation can be allowed to stand?

The Government could choose to change the law. So I guess you just have to elect a different Government next election to change the result, but you'll be in a different country then so you won't be able to!
 

Iguana

Protect yourself with fire
Joined
Jan 17, 2008
Messages
21,835
Location
Between war and denial
That may well be so, but we can still express our opinion that the Home Secretaries (since it was Javid that made the original decision) and Supreme Court are in the wrong with regard to the entire situation.

Yes of course, I don't think I've said you mustn't express your opinion! I'm just saying essentially the same as dmlaw, that the Supreme Court is doing what it is meant to do to uphold the rule of law.
 

ZenGiraffe

There's nothing grey about my gardens.
Joined
Apr 25, 2020
Messages
7,782
Location
Handforth Parish Council
We absolutely can say that the Home Secretaries are in the wrong, but the Supreme Court are doing what they are meant to do in this situation. They are specifically not supposed to make moral judgements or to attempt to subvert the will of Parliament by making their own law. It's Parliament that are the baddies here, not the Supreme Court.
The judiciary are a check on the powers of the executive and the legislature though?
 

dmlaw

Democracy doesn't work
Joined
Aug 24, 2009
Messages
13,856
The judiciary are a check on the powers of the executive and the legislature though?
That's right. Our helpful unwritten constitution gives the legislature (Parliament) supremacy over the other two branches of government. In this case, the Supreme Court are being asked to consider whether the actions of a member of the executive (the Home Secretary) are compatible with the law as set out by the legislature and they have decided that it is.
 

Iguana

Protect yourself with fire
Joined
Jan 17, 2008
Messages
21,835
Location
Between war and denial
Or at the very least, a mechanism that forces Parliament to specifically overrule a Supreme Court decision

I have all sorts of problems with that :D Mostly that you're giving Parliament the power to overrule the courts that check whether the Government is following the law
 

ZenGiraffe

There's nothing grey about my gardens.
Joined
Apr 25, 2020
Messages
7,782
Location
Handforth Parish Council
I have all sorts of problems with that :D Mostly that you're giving Parliament the power to overrule the courts that check whether the Government is following the law
Well I am on the spot and watching a very different political drama, so it wasn't especially thought through. However, basically, I don't think it should possible for a Government to take legal actions to prevent a trial on their illegal action, and I feel the Supreme Court should be able to somehow fix it.
 

Peekaboo

User
Joined
Nov 13, 2005
Messages
4,806
The intense humming of evil in action:

The British Nationality Act 1981 gave home secretaries the power to deprive people of British citizenship if their presence was “not conducive to the public good” or if their nationality was gained fraudulently.

But in 2014 the government extended the law to let the power be used even when people would be made stateless, if they have “conducted themselves in a manner seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the UK”.

“In practice, this power means the secretary of state may deprive and leave a person stateless if that person is able to acquire (or reacquire) the citizenship of another country,” official guidance states.

Hailing the change in November 2014, the then home secretary Theresa May said the power had been used because of terrorist activity in the “overwhelming majority” of cases.

Literally stopping one inch away from breaking international human rights on a fucking technicality. And they haven't wasted their time:

citizenship-revoked.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: COB

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom