Independent Leyton Orient Forum

Admin wrote: ↑Fri Feb 26, 2021 11:36 am

LittleMate wrote: ↑Fri Feb 26, 2021 11:26 am

Admin wrote: ↑Fri Feb 26, 2021 11:16 am

So she's broken UK law. Why shouldn't she face justice here then?

Don't get me wrong, I understand the emotions behind your view, but what harm do you think she'd be able to do if she returned?

The harm is symbolic.

It may serve to radicalise certain elements of the far right wing and cause tensions in the moderate muslim community that do not want her either.

Our legal system is not set up for this modern problem. There should be an offense in statute that sees people who go off and follow radical fundamentalist ideals immediately incarcerated upon their return. Allow her back in and the people supporting her claims in the UK will want her out on bail.

A serious question. What is the status of her children? She left as single and I'm guessing she wants to bring a family unit back??

All of her children are dead.

Hypothetically, if she returned, what do you think the UK Government would do with her?

Prestige Worldwide wrote: ↑Fri Feb 26, 2021 11:48 am

Admin wrote: ↑Fri Feb 26, 2021 11:41 am

Prestige Worldwide wrote: ↑Fri Feb 26, 2021 11:35 am

So if a British person commits a crime abroad, they should be tried here? Why?

Of course they should be tried in that country. However, as far as we're aware, there's no evidence that she has committed any crimes in Syria - she's at present living in a refugee camp.

We imprison foreign nationals here in the UK for crimes committed in the UK. And then in many cases we deport those foreign nationals back to their country of origin.

So hypothetically, if SB is tried and convicted in Syria, serves her sentence, where should Syria deport her to?

Here, once her sentence finishes.

Or Bangladesh. Whats the reason she doesnt have citizenship there again? Because they dont want anything to do with her either.

Ronnie Hotdogs wrote: ↑Fri Feb 26, 2021 11:56 am Took longer to hit page 2 than I expected but now orny's here, we should start to rattle through.

Admin wrote: ↑Fri Feb 26, 2021 11:58 am
AFAIK, She's born in Britain and under UK law is a confirmed British Citizen as her father already had UK settled status. I don't believe she's ever set foot in Bangladesh who reject any assertion that she is Bangladeshi.

Obviously, they don't want anything to do with her. On balance, they're probably right to claim that she's British and not Bangladeshi.

Ornchurch wrote: ↑Fri Feb 26, 2021 12:01 pm

Admin wrote: ↑Fri Feb 26, 2021 11:58 am
AFAIK, She's born in Britain and under UK law is a confirmed British Citizen as her father already had UK settled status. I don't believe she's ever set foot in Bangladesh who reject any assertion that she is Bangladeshi.

Obviously, they don't want anything to do with her. On balance, they're probably right to claim that she's British and not Bangladeshi.

From the net

According to the information currently available, Ms Begum was born in the UK, at least one of her parents is a Bangladeshi citizen by birth. Therefore, according to Section 5 of the Citizenship Act 1951 and Rule 9 of the Bangladesh Citizenship Rules 1952 , Ms Begum is ‘a citizen of Bangladesh by descent’. Her citizenship is not contingent upon whether she holds a Bangladeshi passport or any other proof of citizenship or whether she has submitted any application for the same, or whether she has ever visited Bangladesh. It is evident from the provisions above that holding a passport or a proof of citizenship or applying for the same or even visiting Bangladesh has no impact on the legal fact of citizenship.

Ornchurch wrote: ↑Fri Feb 26, 2021 12:01 pm

Admin wrote: ↑Fri Feb 26, 2021 11:58 am
AFAIK, She's born in Britain and under UK law is a confirmed British Citizen as her father already had UK settled status. I don't believe she's ever set foot in Bangladesh who reject any assertion that she is Bangladeshi.

Obviously, they don't want anything to do with her. On balance, they're probably right to claim that she's British and not Bangladeshi.

From the net

According to the information currently available, Ms Begum was born in the UK, at least one of her parents is a Bangladeshi citizen by birth. Therefore, according to Section 5 of the Citizenship Act 1951 and Rule 9 of the Bangladesh Citizenship Rules 1952 , Ms Begum is ‘a citizen of Bangladesh by descent’. Her citizenship is not contingent upon whether she holds a Bangladeshi passport or any other proof of citizenship or whether she has submitted any application for the same, or whether she has ever visited Bangladesh. It is evident from the provisions above that holding a passport or a proof of citizenship or applying for the same or even visiting Bangladesh has no impact on the legal fact of citizenship.

Mistadobalina wrote: ↑Fri Feb 26, 2021 12:04 pm

Ornchurch wrote: ↑Fri Feb 26, 2021 12:01 pm

Admin wrote: ↑Fri Feb 26, 2021 11:58 am
AFAIK, She's born in Britain and under UK law is a confirmed British Citizen as her father already had UK settled status. I don't believe she's ever set foot in Bangladesh who reject any assertion that she is Bangladeshi.

Obviously, they don't want anything to do with her. On balance, they're probably right to claim that she's British and not Bangladeshi.

From the net

According to the information currently available, Ms Begum was born in the UK, at least one of her parents is a Bangladeshi citizen by birth. Therefore, according to Section 5 of the Citizenship Act 1951 and Rule 9 of the Bangladesh Citizenship Rules 1952 , Ms Begum is ‘a citizen of Bangladesh by descent’. Her citizenship is not contingent upon whether she holds a Bangladeshi passport or any other proof of citizenship or whether she has submitted any application for the same, or whether she has ever visited Bangladesh. It is evident from the provisions above that holding a passport or a proof of citizenship or applying for the same or even visiting Bangladesh has no impact on the legal fact of citizenship.

Do you actually believe they have more of a responsibility for her than we do?

Mistadobalina wrote: ↑Fri Feb 26, 2021 12:04 pm

Ornchurch wrote: ↑Fri Feb 26, 2021 12:01 pm

Admin wrote: ↑Fri Feb 26, 2021 11:58 am
AFAIK, She's born in Britain and under UK law is a confirmed British Citizen as her father already had UK settled status. I don't believe she's ever set foot in Bangladesh who reject any assertion that she is Bangladeshi.

Obviously, they don't want anything to do with her. On balance, they're probably right to claim that she's British and not Bangladeshi.

From the net

According to the information currently available, Ms Begum was born in the UK, at least one of her parents is a Bangladeshi citizen by birth. Therefore, according to Section 5 of the Citizenship Act 1951 and Rule 9 of the Bangladesh Citizenship Rules 1952 , Ms Begum is ‘a citizen of Bangladesh by descent’. Her citizenship is not contingent upon whether she holds a Bangladeshi passport or any other proof of citizenship or whether she has submitted any application for the same, or whether she has ever visited Bangladesh. It is evident from the provisions above that holding a passport or a proof of citizenship or applying for the same or even visiting Bangladesh has no impact on the legal fact of citizenship.

Do you actually believe they have more of a responsibility for her than we do?

Ronnie Hotdogs wrote: ↑Fri Feb 26, 2021 12:06 pm

Mistadobalina wrote: ↑Fri Feb 26, 2021 12:04 pm

Ornchurch wrote: ↑Fri Feb 26, 2021 12:01 pm

From the net

According to the information currently available, Ms Begum was born in the UK, at least one of her parents is a Bangladeshi citizen by birth. Therefore, according to Section 5 of the Citizenship Act 1951 and Rule 9 of the Bangladesh Citizenship Rules 1952 , Ms Begum is ‘a citizen of Bangladesh by descent’. Her citizenship is not contingent upon whether she holds a Bangladeshi passport or any other proof of citizenship or whether she has submitted any application for the same, or whether she has ever visited Bangladesh. It is evident from the provisions above that holding a passport or a proof of citizenship or applying for the same or even visiting Bangladesh has no impact on the legal fact of citizenship.

Do you actually believe they have more of a responsibility for her than we do?

Of course he does.

Prestige Worldwide wrote: ↑Fri Feb 26, 2021 12:11 pm So shes made herself stateless?

Ornchurch wrote: ↑Fri Feb 26, 2021 12:13 pm

Ronnie Hotdogs wrote: ↑Fri Feb 26, 2021 12:06 pm

Mistadobalina wrote: ↑Fri Feb 26, 2021 12:04 pm

Do you actually believe they have more of a responsibility for her than we do?

Of course he does.

Please don’t try to answer questions on my behalf.

Like Tuffers I’m bored with the subject but what I have posted here shows that the UK has not made her stateless.

It is also interesting reading some other articles that while you refer to her as “one of our own” she certainly didn’t see herself as such

Prestige Worldwide wrote: ↑Fri Feb 26, 2021 12:11 pm So shes made herself stateless?

Ornchurch wrote: ↑Fri Feb 26, 2021 12:09 pm The rest of the article.

Suggests to me that at 21 she can choose to be a Bangladeshi national.


Now, the question is whether Ms Begum can simultaneously hold both British and Bangladeshi citizenship. The UK permits dual citizenship. However, Bangladesh generally prohibits the same.

Section 14 of the Citizenship Act 1951 of Bangladesh prohibits dual citizenship by stating that, if a citizen of Bangladesh simultaneously holds the citizenship of another State, then he or she must renounce the citizenship of that other State, failing which he or she shall cease to be a citizen of Bangladesh. However, this provision is not applicable to any person below the age of 21 years. In Ms Begum’s case, this provision is inapplicable as she is only 19 years of age. Consequently, she can still simultaneously be a national of the UK and Bangladesh, at least until she turns 21.

Additionally, Article 2B(1)(i) of the Bangladesh Citizenship (Temporary Provisions) Order 1972, states that, a person shall be disqualified from citizenship of Bangladesh if he or she ‘owes, affirms or acknowledges, expressly or by conduct, allegiance to a foreign state’. The Commission in G3 (para 63) has confirmed that, this provision is confined to persons who were alive during the commencement of the that Order in 1972, and the Commission in E3 and N3 (para 69) has also held that in light of the historical context, the aforesaid provision is only concerned ‘with allegiance to a hostile state’.

Furthermore, the proviso to the aforementioned Article 2B(1) clarifies that a citizen of Bangladesh shall not cease to be a citizen merely by reason of being a citizen or acquiring the citizenship of another State. The Commission in E3 and N3 (para 69), after criticising the proviso for being ‘poorly conceived and poorly drafted’, concluded that its purpose is to clarify that the bare fact of dual nationality would not disqualify someone from being a citizen of Bangladesh.

Moving on to Article 2B(2) of the Bangladesh Citizenship (Temporary Provisions) Order 1972. It authorises the Government of Bangladesh to grant Bangladeshi citizenship to any person who is a citizen of any other State through the issuance of an official notification.

Subsequently, purportedly, on the basis of the aforementioned provision, on 18 March 2008, the Government of Bangladesh issued a Statutory Regulatory Order (SRO) No. 69 Law/2008 (2008 Instruction) in Bangla (online version unavailable). It provides that a citizen of Bangladesh can acquire and concurrently hold the citizenship of the UK. Also, no special permission or authorisation needs to be acquired in this regard, nor are there any sort of formalities required to be fulfilled in order to benefit from this Instruction.

Unofficial translations of this 2008 Instruction have been used by the Commissions in G3 (para 11), and E3 and N3 (para 17). This Instruction has also been criticised by the Commission in E3 and N3 (para 77) for being ‘imprecise and discursive’. Ultimately, the Commissions in G3 (para 74), and E3 and N3 (para 79) have held that the 2008 Instruction does not apply to cases where British citizenship has been acquired at birth. It only applies to Bangladeshi nationals who have subsequently acquired British nationality such as by taking an oath of allegiance. The Commission in E3 and N3 (para 79) further added that the 2008 Instruction does not have retrospective effect. Therefore, the 2008 Instruction is clearly not applicable to Ms Begum since she acquired British citizenship by birth.

It is evident that the relevant legal provisions are far from precise and efficient. However, it is abundantly clear that Ms Begum is legally a citizen of Bangladesh until she attains the age of 21 years. Thus, the claims of the Government of Bangladesh and some others that Ms Begum is not a Bangladeshi citizen owing to the fact that she does not hold a Bangladeshi passport or any other proof of citizenship, has never submitted any application for dual nationality, and has never visited Bangladesh, have no legal basis.

Ronnie Hotdogs wrote: ↑Fri Feb 26, 2021 12:17 pm

Ornchurch wrote: ↑Fri Feb 26, 2021 12:13 pm

Ronnie Hotdogs wrote: ↑Fri Feb 26, 2021 12:06 pm

Of course he does.

Please don’t try to answer questions on my behalf.

Like Tuffers I’m bored with the subject but what I have posted here shows that the UK has not made her stateless.

It is also interesting reading some other articles that while you refer to her as “one of our own” she certainly didn’t see herself as such

She is one of our own, whether you or her like it or not. A born and bred Cockney.

Admin wrote: ↑Fri Feb 26, 2021 12:23 pm
"Now, the question is whether Ms Begum can simultaneously hold both British and Bangladeshi citizenship. The UK permits dual citizenship. However, Bangladesh generally prohibits the same."

Did the above not give you a clue that this might not be as straightforward as you think?

Regardless of the legal issues (which I believe are ongoing), Sajid Javid took the decision to make Shamima Begum stateless without any consultation with the Bangladeshi government and likely in contravention with UK and International law.

Let me put it another way to you. If a Syrian national committed a crime here and served a sentence, you'd want them deported? What would your view be if Syria just decided to make them stateless and refused to accept them back?

Ornchurch wrote: ↑Fri Feb 26, 2021 12:30 pm

TBH My only concern is that if she does come back she serves a long term inside.

Ronnie Hotdogs wrote: ↑Fri Feb 26, 2021 12:33 pm

Ornchurch wrote: ↑Fri Feb 26, 2021 12:30 pm

TBH My only concern is that if she does come back she serves a long term inside.

If she's found guilty, of course.

Ornchurch wrote: ↑Fri Feb 26, 2021 12:09 pm The rest of the article.

Suggests to me that at 21 she can choose to be a Bangladeshi national.

Ornchurch wrote: ↑Fri Feb 26, 2021 12:37 pm

Ronnie Hotdogs wrote: ↑Fri Feb 26, 2021 12:33 pm

Ornchurch wrote: ↑Fri Feb 26, 2021 12:30 pm

TBH My only concern is that if she does come back she serves a long term inside.

If she's found guilty, of course.

Looking at what happened how can she not be?