Begum Supreme Court Ruling Today

[fender62]

i wonder how this will turn out, the weka judges will erm probably let her return, thus allowing all the others to do the same, moneys no object or public safety only points of law matter.
https://news.sky.com/story/shamima-begum-is-bride-to-find-out-whether-she-can-return-to-the-uk-to-fight-citizenship-decision-12229127

[fender62]

evidence to prosecute mmm, and just how are they going to get any.
fact is she went to isis with an open heart ie an utopia for proper god fearing muslims sic.. not like she joined the girl guides is it.
but if she was let in, as i said it would green light all the others of her ilk and just imagine the families of brits murdered by isis, this thing of a women let in.. they ca,t have there loved ones back, but give this women right of appeal, it's a slap in the face to the dead.

[fender62]

was that an answer removed from a pro begum.. and dinghy arrival welcomer..

[Bobbisox1]

No, just another gulliverism :0)

[fender62]

ill be blunt isis supporters have no place in the uk, let alone us keeping x hundreds or thousands of them in prison.

[Bobbisox1]

Commission a ship that's no longer in service or likely to be, get the whole lot on and take to a remote island with a food drop once a month ;)

[gulliver1]

Sorry Bobbi, I just love watching "keeping up appearances" Think she is so funny.

[jim360]

For those who wish to read the judgement:

https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2020-0156-judgment.pdf

[Bobbisox1]

Section 6 is interesting "She appealed for her human rights claim"
What about the human rights of people like Alan Henning and James Foley?

[jim360]

People still have human rights whether or not they choose to respect them in others. Holding on to that principle is a strength; it's what distinguishes "us" from "them". It's the same reason that even the most vile criminals still have a right to a fair trial, and (as far as possible) to due legal process. It would, after all, make no sense to extend the right to a fair trial only to those who are innocent.

[Peter Pedant]

jim many thanks for the ref

yeah and foo! de old foolz in da supreme ct letting her back in!
( er excuse me, they didnt)
yeah but foo but - day cdve innit? - that is they cd have let her back in

what did their old ladies say den? no kissy kissy if you let the terrorist back in - hows your father, she stays out!

( sozza readers just imagined AB banter on a popular subject)

[Peter Pedant]

// was that an answer removed from a pro-begum and dinghy arrival glad hander?//

no just a well argued riposte that had no right to exist on this thread jostling with the crazed, stupid and brayne dead ....

anyway I thought they wd let her back in - and I imagine not as a reason in law the mounting evidence that once a baby killer and dog stabber, always so - - has tipped the balance
kill a baby once and they go on doing it ....

[tiggerblue10]

She showed no regret previously and may never do so. How do you rehabilitate someone who has been brainwashed by extremists that their way is the only way. I'm glad of the SC ruling.

[fender62]

her regrets... not forgetting what her faith is, and the sin bin that is britain according to her, but would like a nice comfy house or flat here
it's like taking up the proverbial twice and saying thanks..but duh it's a point of law... yea go and live with her and or ilk.

[Peter Pedant]

she has no regrets
well not any that I heard and I have listened pretty carefully

she just wished to be let "back to Britain to practise her religion in peace" - the judgement is pretty dense - one of the few that I thought thank god I dont do this branch of law

[fender62]

"back to Britain to practise her religion in peace" mmm she was here already doing that i assume, so it says to me.. britain is not a caliphate
thus she cannot practice in peace, is that not why she left, ie britain is not an islamic country, and that she wanted to live in an islamic country..and the extreme that isis fittd the bill, living with 3 century moral and ethics..the good ole days of rape and pillage.

[New Judge]

//People still have human rights whether or not they choose to respect them in others.//

That's true, Jim. But the SC found that "The right to a fair hearing does not trump all other considerations, such as the safety of the public." They went further to say that “The appropriate response to the problem in the present case is for the deprivation [of her citizenship] hearing to be stayed – or postponed – until Ms Begum is in a position to play an effective part in it without the safety of the public being compromised."

It is quite clear that the court was satisfied that, should she return to the UK, she would present a danger to the public. This was the Home Secretary's overriding consideration when determining the matter. The government has a duty to protect the public. If that duty means curtailing the rights of individuals who pose a threat then so be it. For once I think the SC got a matter of this nature right.

[barney15c]

She wants forgiveness. But I saw no contrition in any interview she had given. She made her bed...

[jim360]

The sense I got from reading the SC Ruling is that the Court was neither satisfied nor dissatisfied, per se, with the Minister's ruling, and merely were satisfied that (a) the decision was not unreasonable based on the information available to the Secretary of State at the time (Javid), and (b) the authority to make such a decision had been entrusted to the Secretary of State by Parliament. Therefore, it was deemed inappropriate for the Courts to step in and make the decision themselves on Begum's citizenship, or the dangers it may or may not pose to National Security; doing so would in principle run against the ideas of Parliamentary Supremacy and Separation of Powers.

For all that is often said against the legal system, for the most part, they understand -- as a collective, at least, if not always individually -- their role and the limitations of it. If Ministers trample over their own laws, or fail to understand the country's Constitution, it is their own fault when the Courts say so. On the other hand, any one judge or Court may be mistaken; this Judgement is as scathing as it's possible to be in a document like this about the Court of Appeal's previous decision in this case. It's also manifestly preferable for it to be *difficult* for a Minister to revoke anybody's citizenship, rather than easy.