How do you solve a problem like Shamima Begum?

Should Shamima Begum be allowed to return to the UK

  • Total voters
    30
Iguana said:
Well, this is a question of jurisprudence that has been debated for centuries, I'm not sure we're going to resolve it here
Click to expand...
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.
 
ZenGiraffe said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
ZenGiraffe said:
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?
Click to expand...

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!
 
ZenGiraffe said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
dmlaw said:
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.
Click to expand...
The judiciary are a check on the powers of the executive and the legislature though?
 
ZenGiraffe said:
The judiciary are a check on the powers of the executive and the legislature though?
Click to expand...
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.
 
Or at the very least, a mechanism that forces Parliament to specifically overrule a Supreme Court decision
 
ZenGiraffe said:
Or at the very least, a mechanism that forces Parliament to specifically overrule a Supreme Court decision
Click to expand...

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
 
Iguana said:
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
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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
Celebrity Big Brother on pause then

(All jokes aside though, this feels like a dangerous start of a slippery slope.)
 
Bullshit decision by a bullshit government. If she was white, she'd be the poor soul who escaped from the evil grooming gangs and she'd be up there with Captain Tom.
 
I read the first four paragraphs, found myself agreeing with JRM, and then read no more as I had gassed myself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)
Back
Top Bottom