I made a couple of lengthy posts on social media regarding UK Home Secretary Sajid Javid's attempt to strip former ISIS collaborator Shamima Begum of her UK citizenship, while she is in a refugee camp in Syria (src: https://is.gd/Jy1CBE). I've decided to reproduce them here.
--
Person A:
Do we know if the Begum girl has been violent? Or just had sex and babies and said some stuff in an interview?
Me:
"She was part of the Al Hansa brigade... these are people who have been trained by ISIS and look for other people, [they] are the.. morality police: to go out and have [other people] whipped and a 'whole bunch of other things'.." - Haris Rafiq, Quilliam Foundation counter extremism organization, src: is.gd/MLa8FI
--
Me:
This is shining a
light on an issue of too much power in one place, and protection of the
equality of human rights. There is a moral dilema regarding the lethally
radicalized ISIS teenage girl (and her baby) but she is among maybe
1000s of others in same or 'worse'
position, its the media's pinhole camera that's put her in the centre of
the conversation.
But if Home Secretary can just point at any Brit with a
non UK parent and permanently 'un-citizen' them and have them exiled
without opportunity of effective recourse, then isn't there a class of
citizenry that does not have equal rights to the rest of the citizenry?
I'm British but one of my parents does not have British passport,
wouldn't this put me in this class of British citizenry? Am I a '2nd
class citizen' and how long have I and others like me been in this
class? Home Secretary claims to be very careful in these decision, but
is this power future proof?
--
Me:
From what I've heard (still looking for sources), up until 1800s citizenship stripping was commonly used, then committee system of checks and balances was introduced by Liberals to ensure fairness. It was then rarely used, a few cases during the wars for spies, fell into disuse after war, throughout 1970s there were maybe 9 cases.
Me:
From what I've heard (still looking for sources), up until 1800s citizenship stripping was commonly used, then committee system of checks and balances was introduced by Liberals to ensure fairness. It was then rarely used, a few cases during the wars for spies, fell into disuse after war, throughout 1970s there were maybe 9 cases.
Then in 2002 Tony Blair passed
The Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act (src: https://is.gd/8d2n3Q)
which I understand, by amending, the 1981 Nationality Act:
1. took away committee, made it the sole call of Home Secretary
2. made appeals process secretive, something called a 'Special Commission' which is closed-door, not a proper court and they make the call.
1. took away committee, made it the sole call of Home Secretary
2. made appeals process secretive, something called a 'Special Commission' which is closed-door, not a proper court and they make the call.
'Deprivation of British citizenship and withdrawal of passport facilities' (House of Commons Library) - https://is.gd/vhLMqk states:
'A Home Office Freedom of Information response in June 2016 revealed that there had been 81 deprivation of citizenship orders made in the years 2006-2015. 36 orders were made on the grounds that deprivation was conducive to the public good; 45 orders were made on the grounds that the Home Secretary was satisfied that people had used fraud or false representation to gain British citizenship by registration or naturalisation.'
'A Home Office Freedom of Information response in June 2016 revealed that there had been 81 deprivation of citizenship orders made in the years 2006-2015. 36 orders were made on the grounds that deprivation was conducive to the public good; 45 orders were made on the grounds that the Home Secretary was satisfied that people had used fraud or false representation to gain British citizenship by registration or naturalisation.'
--
Me:
Cannot confirm but I've heard the Act has been used more than 350 times
since 2002. In October Javid said he wanted to expand power so he can
use it on criminals as well as terrorists (src: is.gd/vk6Jt4).
I can steel-man an argument in favour of the Home Secretary's decision
by framing it in terms of a breach of the social contract the citizen
has with the state, but this all seems like yet more authoritarianism
creep.
--
Person B:
She is a traitor years gone by she would have been executed at the Tower of London
Person C:
Only after a court process. Luckily we don’t execute anymore. I’m glad we are more civilised. If we weren’t we’d be the same as ISIS. Due court process on return I say.
Me:
An issue raised there i think is that any crimes she committed out of UK are not in UK's jurisdiction. Can't pin treason on her cuz ISIS is not a (recognised) state that we were at war with. So legalities are tricky. But I think the bigger picture is that this is for UK to solve (if she returned), not any other state. Which I think highlights that the public conversation is asking the wrong question (what do we do with her). Sure she's UK's problem, this is where she emerged from.
So the question that we should be asking and having an intellectually honest conversation about, unhindered by fear of offence (you cannot think without risking offence) is: why and how are ideologically tyrannical individuals like this repeatedly emerging from our nation which is rooted in, and ought to be guided by, pluralism and liberal principles? Until we can start this conversation and have it honestly and within a framework of reason, this problem will not improve.
Javid's current course of
action serves to avoid this conversation, perhaps to 'play to the
gallery' of popular opinion, as well as attempt to illiberally expand
his powers.
No comments:
Post a Comment