O/T: Please please let me come home

[BigFatPie]

Ok so it looks like the international law relating to this case comes from the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness which is not a peremptory law (the kind that all countries have to respect regardless of whether they've signed up to it or not) but we ratified the convention in 1966 so we are bound by it.

The part of the convention that regulates revocation of nationality is article 8.

8.1 says that 'a state shall not deprive a person of his nationality if such deprivation would render him stateless'.

8.2 says that notwithstanding clause 8.1a country can revoke nationality if it was obtained by fraud.

8.3 says that notwithstanding clause 8.1 a country can retain certain rights to revoke nationality in certain situations, which is lists, but the country has to declare it is retaining these rights when it ratifies the treaty.

On ratification the UK retained the right to deprive a naturalised person of his nationality if the person 'has conducted himself in a manner seriously prejudicial to the ***** interests of her Britannic Majesty '.

So I suppose it depends whether she is naturalised and whether she ends up getting Bangladeshi citizenship as to whether it's legal.

The treaty is quite interesting though, you can find the original text on the UN website.

I'll try and find a YouTube version for Tricky too 😉

Yeah I read that last night, that’s why I knew it was illegal to take her UK citizenship off her. Bangladesh say she’s no citizen of theirs so Javid, at the stroke of his pen, has rendered her stateless, a very serious situation, on the basis of
what? She hasn’t been convicted, or even tried of any crimes. We have no idea of the evidence against her.

I really would like to live in a country that abides by international law, rather than the rule of the lynch mob.

[Elite_Pie]

It is the policy of the tolerant intolerants that every one MUST have a label. Anyone who doesn't concur with their thinking automatically qualifies as either far right, racist or both.

Or in Soccerman's case, an unwashed benefit-scrounging terrorist-loving Momentum supporter.

It works both ways.

[Pieeyedandlegless]

Said it before and will say it again - she is a british citizen who has committed a crime against her own country and so she should be brought back to stand trial for treason. {then when she is found guilty - she should be given a life sentence.}

[navypie]

Yeah I read that last night, that’s why I knew it was illegal to take her UK citizenship off her. Bangladesh say she’s no citizen of theirs so Javid, at the stroke of his pen, has rendered her stateless, a very serious situation, on the basis of
what? She hasn’t been convicted, or even tried of any crimes. We have no idea of the evidence against her.

I really would like to live in a country that abides by international law, rather than the rule of the lynch mob.

You do, unfortunately.

[navypie]

Seeing as she's never been there, I wonder if Bangladesh would have the right to revoke her citizenship also. It seems a bit harsh to force this woman on them when her only connection is a parental one. I'm sure if the boot was on the other foot and she was being forced on us there would quite rightly be outrage.

Perish the thought, someone the UK doesn't want being forced on them.

[Old_pie]

Yeah I read that last night, that’s why I knew it was illegal to take her UK citizenship off her. Bangladesh say she’s no citizen of theirs so Javid, at the stroke of his pen, has rendered her stateless, a very serious situation, on the basis of
what? She hasn’t been convicted, or even tried of any crimes. We have no idea of the evidence against her.

I really would like to live in a country that abides by international law, rather than the rule of the lynch mob.

Bangladesh can say what they like but any person who has a Bangladeshi parent is automatically a Bangladeshi by their constitution. No further proof other than the parent is required.

The UK generally abides by International Law not to make someone stateless but in this case she will not become stateless as her Bangladeshi status is unaffected.

Now if the Bangladeshis don't want one of their Islamic citizens (whether she's ever lived there is irrelevant) then they have to sort their own laws out.

As for evidence against her what else do you want? Seems to me there is enough evidence to take away the citizenship of her parents too. They want to live in an Islamic State pay their air fare and deport them.

It's only since she got worried about her 3rd child that she's made any noises about coming back with no regrets about going or supporting her IS fighting husband and his kind.

I resent any taxes I've paid towards allowing her parents to even be here now and subject to "fake news" it seems as if they went out to Syria anyway.

Talk about being a "soft touch".

[MagpieTony]

Or in Soccerman's case, an unwashed benefit-scrounging terrorist-loving Momentum supporter.

It works both ways.

Agreed.

[BigFatPie]

There’s a thoughtful document which illustrates how to deal with a British woman who travels to join ISIS and has a baby:

- Managed return to UK
- Criminal investigation
- Deradicalisation
- Care for baby

It’s the Home Office 2018 counter-terrorism strategy, foreword by Sajid Javid.

Javid is in effect going against his own department’s policy.

[sidders]

She herself has already said she wants to remain with her husband who is Dutch. She has stated he will likely be sent to prison in the Netherlands so she will go over there with the child and wait for him to serve his sentence, so in some ways she may not be that keen to come back to the UK where she may well become a target.

Wasn't her Dutch ISIS husband killed in an air raid?

[nottsco2002]

Wasn't her Dutch ISIS husband killed in an air raid?

No that was one of the girls she scuttled off with. She is quite right in what she says that she wants to stay with and support her husband. Problem solved.