From webstump at ..iark.greenend.org.uk Thu Aug 08 23:04:01 2024 Return-path: To: hex at ..seen.ac.am Subject: Re: Re: Shamima Begum References: In-Reply-To: Reply-To: matthewv+ulmtestmod at ..riolis.greenend.org.uk Errors-To: webstump+ulm-bounces at ..iark.greenend.org.uk X-Webstump-Event: [172315322328290] reject notnew Message-Id: From: webstump+ulm-bounces at ..iark.greenend.org.uk Date: Thu, 08 Aug 2024 23:04:00 +0100 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 The post that you submitted to uk.legal.moderated has been rejected by a moderator. This post contains insufficient new material. Similar points have been made already in this discussion, which is in danger of becoming too repetitive. The group charter and moderation policy can be found at https://uklegal.weebly.com/ Disputed moderation decisions can be discussed in the newsgroup uk.net.news.moderation ============================================ Full text of your message follows > From webstump@chiark.greenend.org.uk Thu Aug 08 22:40:22 2024 > Return-path: > Envelope-to: webstump+?@slimy.greenend.org.uk > Received-SPF: pass (mailhub-hex-d.mythic-beasts.com: domain of uni-berlin.de designates 130.133.4.89 as permitted sender) client-ip=130.133.4.89; envelope-from=mod-submit@uni-berlin.de; helo=outpost5.zedat.fu-berlin.de; > X-STUMP-Warning-0: Next header (DKIM-Signature) truncated! > X-STUMP-Warning-1: Next header (DKIM-Signature) truncated! > X-STUMP-Warning-2: Next header (DKIM-Signature) truncated! > X-STUMP-Warning-3: Next header (DKIM-Signature) truncated! > DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=uni-berlin.de; s=fub01; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-Type:Mime-Version:References:Message-ID:Date:Subject:From:To:Sender: Reply-To:Cc:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From: Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help: List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=0WtXNdjxZMHh8T0HLKR20UTQ7954eYdX0uDeEWYzTyc=; t=1723153219; x=1723758019; b=iNW7nuQ8rVwwEvs > From: Norman Wells > Newsgroups: uk.legal.moderated > Subject: Re: Shamima Begum > Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2024 22:40:18 +0100 > Message-ID: > References: > > > > Mime-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit > X-Orig-X-Trace: individual.net WvOpjAp2O/lEV3Khh45LqQFIJxq0tikip6eA+aWynX1SeZN93R > Cancel-Lock: sha1:sRyxjut8Q7EOt4s4vHSLhdOMcVY= sha256:dSv3NdLl2iflm96PsUkb5xW2IPZbnG8HLZNKWexaVsA= > User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird > Content-Language: en-GB > X-Originating-IP: 130.133.4.5 > X-ZEDAT-Hint: RO > X-Mythic-Source-External: YES > X-BlackCat-Spam-Score: 17 > X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.7 > Delivered-To: usenet-uk-legal-moderated@usenet.org.uk > X-BlackCat-To: usenet-uk-legal-moderated@usenet.org.uk > X-Mythic-Originator: uid-1081-on-lynx.mythic-beasts.com > X-STUMP-Warning-4: Unfolded headers Received: Received: Received: Received: Received: DKIM-Signature: DKIM-Signature: DKIM-Signature: DKIM-Signature: > > On 08/08/2024 21:56, The Todal wrote: > > On 08/08/2024 21:39, Norman Wells wrote: > > > >> > >> At the time her British citizenship was revoked, she was under 21 and > >> had dual citizenship with Bangladesh.  Had she had dual citizenship > >> when she reached 21, the Bangladeshi Citizenship Act 1951 says that > >> her Bangladeshi citizenship would lapse or be revoked because, unlike > >> the UK, it doesn't like the concept.  But she hadn't.  Her British > >> citizenship had been revoked by that time, meaning that all she had > >> was her Bangladeshi citizenship. > >> > >> That continues and cannot be removed by the Bangaldeshi authorities > >> without breaching all sorts of international conventions. > >> > >> Had we waited until she was 21 and her Bangladeshi citizenship had > >> been revoked, we could not then have revoked her UK citizenship > >> because that would have left her stateless.  That is why the above > >> says 'the same decision could no longer be made'.  But it could then, > >> and it was. > >> > >> She is *not* stateless, nor does the above say she is. > >> > > > > She is, at the present time, stateless. Your theory that she could > > demand Bangladeshi citizenship and be granted that citizenship is a > > theory held only by you, not by any reputable legal source. > > She doesn't have to demand it or be granted it any more than you have to > demand or be granted British citizenship. It is hers automatically > under the provisions of the Bangladeshi Citizenship Act 1951. > > Since that Act is definitive, please find and quote any provisions you > think deny her Bangladeshi citizenship by descent. > > > You will > > look in vain for your theory in any of the court judgments. > > > https://www.statelessness.eu/updates/blog/shamima-begum-now-stateless-still-deprived-her-british-citizenship > > > > Now that Ms Begum has turned 21, it is accepted that, because of the way > > Bangladesh’s nationality laws operate, she is no longer a citizen of > > that country [paragraph 303 of the judgment of 22 February 2023]. > > That is not accepted in the slightest, and is just plain wrong. > > What provisions of the Citizenship Act 1951 make it so? > > Can you quote them? If not, why not? > > > But what the Commission is doing in the 22 February 2023 judgment is > > reviewing the lawfulness of the 19 February 2019 decision to deprive her > > of her citizenship at a time when, it has held, deprivation would not > > have left her stateless. Her statelessness now does not change whether > > that decision was lawful. > > > > unquote > > > > And here's that Paragraph 303 of the SIAC decision > > > > The Commission has thought carefully about this but cannot accept this > > argument. It will assume for present purposes that the relevant question > > must be addressed as at 19th February 2019, taking into account > > subsequent evidence to the extent that it bears on that question, and > > not as at today’s date – when there is absolutely no prospect of Ms > > Begum being admitted to Bangladesh since she is now over 21 and is not a > > citizen of that country. > > But she is, according to Bangladeshi law, which the Commission has > clearly misunderstood. > > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEzBAEBCgAdFiEEfWu6wfyjzX88oocanSrwpvmn4x4FAma1QNAACgkQnSrwpvmn 4x68gAf/RMsvLGDTOUDWFRZvfLoGqqiofGTGQ+2tZbxXCAe8JRwwOMSw8SasnXzt J/ZJXEyvcnGbyYW+SA85IHfPvuQBNgGHb9nvGGNO9bvAP8vxCWKBK3JFGSH+cUd7 Rmu16KvRcimJ8bK1ICt1H4qbaIu5UKzarB65JElUwzYGVF3Yg+nv4Nb4mNnkW3Tn v9Ajf/p/fZeeMp7Tv9ch1Um1Wd6FKu5kDk5wGocH+ATAc8Zbhyu4hvHI9sC+f5e+ 6aCsyUdjRGFLwaTJCfCWxCyyDIR0EXjJdJVtUwPjWbuPtEAPRW9HNaEQ1Ingj654 wmKimicyuL6HnrJ15Z5IwlFDp2BFlA== =tkm0 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----