If I have this right, there was no requirement for Javid to consider her human rights when removing citizenship, because she was outside the jurisdiction at the time.
Does that mean HMG could remove someone, lawfully but in breach of ECHR, then rely on removal beyond the jurisdiction to bar a remedy for the breach? That seems strange if so.
It seems to me that “everyone within their jurisdiction” was more likely intended to include non-citizen residents, than to exclude citizen ex-patriates.
I imagine you’ll be sourcing informed commentary on the prospects of the claim - shall look forward to it.
The 1981 Act runs that a person can have their citizenship removed if various conditions are satisfied and if; "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". The SofS knew that Bangladesh would not allow Begum to enter or recognise her citizenship. The Supreme Court's ruling actually seems strong on the basis of national security combined with Begum's automatic Bangladeshi citizenship on the basis of her parent's citizenship. It is angels dancing on the head of a pin, though, and it seems awfully close to sophistry.
Shamima Begum: the grift that keeps on giving. An enemy of the state, yet with access to what appears to be a bottomless pit of funding for legal advice, representation, and litigation.
Catherine Edgar: an ‘enemy’ of disability discrimination and unfair trials, with no access to any such resources. My right to defend myself has been removed, yet no one rushes to assist me. My only ‘safeguard’ is the Court of Appeal, pursued as a litigant in person. How, in those circumstances, is equality of arms and effective access to justice under Article 6 maintained? It was not maintained when I previously stood before them.
As a taxpayer and citizen of Northern Ireland, my so-called ‘human rights’ attract no practical protection. For the avoidance of doubt, I understand why public criticism is often directed towards immigration lawyers. However, I acknowledge that they are not the problem.
Immigration lawyers have to pay their bills like everyone else (except of course for the flabby privileged in downing street), but when funding isn’t available for police, and other legal aid is almost impossible to get, i will feel enraged if another penny is spent on this misguided brat.
There's no way of protecting people from the consequences of their own unfortunate choices, especially diring tge teen years when they are nore certain than anyone except Hitler that their choice is the right one.
Why should tax payers have to pay for yet another stupid girl's choice?
Actually there are ways of protecting the young (and others) from the consequences of their choices and the law often tries to do so eg by enforcing the age of consent, the age at which one may legally drive a motor vehicle, or get married or join the Armed Forces.
It also tries to protect young and old from the perfidy of others by various means eg by laws against fraud, against sexual or physical offences against the person, and relevant in this case, against human trafficking.
I find it hard to differentiate between what was done to Begum on line and then in person from what has been done to the victims of grooming gangs, except that for her the consequences have been far more serious and punitive.
She was a 15 year old and you may not know whar 15 year old Pakistani Muslim girls are like.
I do. I spent 12 years teaching them. They are determined to do what they want. They're both frightened and contemptuous of their parents they do not want an arranged marriage and that's what is in the menu if they stay at home. They're "encouraged" to become domesticated and are bullied - by their mothers who have usually been mutilated at a very young age.
So off she went to rebel againsy - or to fulfil -the demands of a misogynistic society.
She is the very best symbol ofand argument for why we should immediately STOP allowing Muslims into this country.
Pakistan has no culture of FGM, as you seem to suggest.
“Determined to do what they want” while “encouraged to be domesticated”; “Rebelling against - or fulfilling - the demands of a misogynist society” Which is it, then? Or were you just fabulating slurs at random?
Perhaps the girls you taught were determined not to do what a racist teacher wanted, rather than being determined to be refractory as a matter of policy.
If I have this right, there was no requirement for Javid to consider her human rights when removing citizenship, because she was outside the jurisdiction at the time.
Does that mean HMG could remove someone, lawfully but in breach of ECHR, then rely on removal beyond the jurisdiction to bar a remedy for the breach? That seems strange if so.
It seems to me that “everyone within their jurisdiction” was more likely intended to include non-citizen residents, than to exclude citizen ex-patriates.
I imagine you’ll be sourcing informed commentary on the prospects of the claim - shall look forward to it.
The 1981 Act runs that a person can have their citizenship removed if various conditions are satisfied and if; "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". The SofS knew that Bangladesh would not allow Begum to enter or recognise her citizenship. The Supreme Court's ruling actually seems strong on the basis of national security combined with Begum's automatic Bangladeshi citizenship on the basis of her parent's citizenship. It is angels dancing on the head of a pin, though, and it seems awfully close to sophistry.
Shamima Begum: the grift that keeps on giving. An enemy of the state, yet with access to what appears to be a bottomless pit of funding for legal advice, representation, and litigation.
Catherine Edgar: an ‘enemy’ of disability discrimination and unfair trials, with no access to any such resources. My right to defend myself has been removed, yet no one rushes to assist me. My only ‘safeguard’ is the Court of Appeal, pursued as a litigant in person. How, in those circumstances, is equality of arms and effective access to justice under Article 6 maintained? It was not maintained when I previously stood before them.
As a taxpayer and citizen of Northern Ireland, my so-called ‘human rights’ attract no practical protection. For the avoidance of doubt, I understand why public criticism is often directed towards immigration lawyers. However, I acknowledge that they are not the problem.
Immigration lawyers have to pay their bills like everyone else (except of course for the flabby privileged in downing street), but when funding isn’t available for police, and other legal aid is almost impossible to get, i will feel enraged if another penny is spent on this misguided brat.
There's no way of protecting people from the consequences of their own unfortunate choices, especially diring tge teen years when they are nore certain than anyone except Hitler that their choice is the right one.
Why should tax payers have to pay for yet another stupid girl's choice?
Actually there are ways of protecting the young (and others) from the consequences of their choices and the law often tries to do so eg by enforcing the age of consent, the age at which one may legally drive a motor vehicle, or get married or join the Armed Forces.
It also tries to protect young and old from the perfidy of others by various means eg by laws against fraud, against sexual or physical offences against the person, and relevant in this case, against human trafficking.
I find it hard to differentiate between what was done to Begum on line and then in person from what has been done to the victims of grooming gangs, except that for her the consequences have been far more serious and punitive.
She was a 15 year old and you may not know whar 15 year old Pakistani Muslim girls are like.
I do. I spent 12 years teaching them. They are determined to do what they want. They're both frightened and contemptuous of their parents they do not want an arranged marriage and that's what is in the menu if they stay at home. They're "encouraged" to become domesticated and are bullied - by their mothers who have usually been mutilated at a very young age.
So off she went to rebel againsy - or to fulfil -the demands of a misogynistic society.
She is the very best symbol ofand argument for why we should immediately STOP allowing Muslims into this country.
Pakistan has no culture of FGM, as you seem to suggest.
“Determined to do what they want” while “encouraged to be domesticated”; “Rebelling against - or fulfilling - the demands of a misogynist society” Which is it, then? Or were you just fabulating slurs at random?
Perhaps the girls you taught were determined not to do what a racist teacher wanted, rather than being determined to be refractory as a matter of policy.
You know nothing about her or her family circumstances and as a teacher you should surely know that every child is an individual.
And if you really spent 12 years teaching 15 year old Muslim girls and you speak of them like that then you are the problem not them.