Frothers Unite! UK

[quote="Bronshtein"]Well, of course my opinion is irrelevant; I am no longer involved in the administration of justice, or the defence of the realm.

And being a well meaning, concerned, citizen who believes natural justice and human rights are laudable aims in and of themselves, is a naive and laughable thing these days.

The prison camp Begum is in, in northern Syria, does not allow access to the means to contact or brief her legal team.

The Court of Appeal said
[quote]the only way in which she can have a fair and effective appeal is to be permitted to come into the United Kingdom to pursue her appeal[/quote]

The 'Supreme Court' did not disagree with that opinion, but thought unfairness was not a deal breaker and that the 'the national security' threat overrode her right to a fair and effective appeal.

Oh, and Hew J - a 'unanimous decision' of a court does not mean that natural justice and the rule of law have been served.[/quote]

Well said!

The issue here is a simple one.

The Supreme Court accepted that the only way that Ms Begum could have a "free and effective" appeal was by coming to the UK as she does not have adequate access to her legal team from a camp in Syria.

However, rather than doing the correct and decent thing and allowing her to enter the UK so that she could mount such an appeal, it decided that a politician's view that allowing her to do so would be a threat to national security took precedence.

Think about that for a moment.

The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom decided that the values and independence of our legal system can be thrown in the bin on the whim of a politician; to almost quote Martin Niemöller:

First they came for the Communists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Communist.

Then they came for the Socialists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me
And there was no one left
To speak out for me.

As much as one might deplore Ms Begum's actions and views and believe that the world would be a marginally better place if she and her ilk had died in the collapse of her Caliphate, she should have the right to a free and effective chance at an appeal.

Well, of course my opinion is irrelevant; I am no longer involved in the administration of justice, or the defence of the realm.

And being a well meaning, concerned, citizen who believes natural justice and human rights are laudable aims in and of themselves, is a naive and laughable thing these days.

The prison camp Begum is in, in northern Syria, does not allow access to the means to contact or brief her legal team.

The Court of Appeal said
[quote]the only way in which she can have a fair and effective appeal is to be permitted to come into the United Kingdom to pursue her appeal[/quote]

The 'Supreme Court' did not disagree with that opinion, but thought unfairness was not a deal breaker and that the 'the national security' threat overrode her right to a fair and effective appeal.

Oh, and Hew J - a 'unanimous decision' of a court does not mean that natural justice and the rule of law have been served.

[quote="Bronshtein"]They have however prevented her from challenging that fiat in court by deciding on bizarre grounds that she is not allowed to return and brief her legal team or put her case in person.[/quote]

This, Bron, is why your opinions are irrelevant.
It may come as a surprise to you that, for better or worse, it is the 21st century and no longer the 1970s.
She does not need to meet her legal team in person nor appear in court in person.
Nowadays we have all sorts of technological wizardry that has obviously passed your stuck-in-the-past brain which means she can consult with her legal team and plead her case in court without having to be present.
If that's your objection to her situation then it's irrelevant - there are other ways she can achieve both quite satisfactorily without being there in person.

I claim no high ground based on imagined political affiliations. This is not left vs right. It is about the rule of law vs political interference in human rights.

The 'Supreme Court' took a political decision that Javid's interpretation of National Security prevailed over the judiciary's. This is a bizarre abrogation of their role.

They have refused Begum permission to enter the UK to argue her case. They did not decide that Javid's stripping of her citizenship by administrative fiat was legal. They have however prevented her from challenging that fiat in court by deciding on bizarre grounds that she is not allowed to return and brief her legal team or put her case in person. She is trapped by that decision of Javid's in a prison camp in Northern Syria where she has no access to her legal team.

There are I believe good grounds for her to win her case against Javid. That however, is not the case here. All that is at issue here is; should she be allowed proper access to justice to put that case against Javid's administrative decision?

Our current iteration of the highest court took the opinion she is not allowed that access. That is why I argue with the decision. Because it is wrong. It flouts natural justice.

My opinion about her guilt for acts in Syria is irrelevant. I simply believe that a British Citizen is our responsibility. If she was guilty of crimes; bring her home and try her. We owe it to her, but also we owe it to the rest of the world and to ourselves, and the legitimacy of our justice system.

[quote="Hew Johns"]As a liberal, I must point out conservatives piss and moan when it doesn't go their way either.[/quote]

As a conservative, I must point out that neither side occupies the moral high ground.

As a liberal, I must point out conservatives piss and moan when it doesn't go their way either.

That's the problem that liberals have Hew. They follow the rule of law, until it doesn't go their way. Then they plead to humanitarianism.

If the bitch had been killed in an allied airstrike Bronny wouldn't be going through such angst. Although it would still have been the fault of the 'West'.

Some points:
Bronny, in past argumebts when vileness of an accused has been pointed out, you insist that you are making an ethical argument about the correct application of the law. Now you have a unanimous decision that you don't like and you make an emotional appeal.
It seems a bit of a wheeze to argue than Begum must be present to present an adequate defense. What about Zoom? Obviously once she lands in Britain, whatever the outcome, she can't be sent elsewhere at that point.
She is not actually being punished. She was administratively stripped of her citizenship, which is a great burden but not punishment. She is where she is by her choices.
Is it actually a crime in Britain to run off to a foreign land and pledge allegiance to a rapaciously murderous banditry? Can and does British jurisdiction and protection extend across borders?
Stripping citizenship in such a situation does not seem unjust. (Question of age aside.)

While I think that the world would be a better place if Ms Begum and her ilk had met early deaths during the collapse of their Caliphate, the decision of the Supreme Court that basic human rights can be put aside if a politician says that they should be is deeply disturbing, especially when significant elements of the governing party are rather keen on cancelling human rights legislation.

Be careful what you wish for.

My point is precisely half of that - give her a fair trial.

She was abandoned by a politician with an executive order and now prevented from briefing any counsel properly or appearing in a court to argue her case to have that illegal act overturned.

She has said she wants to return and is prepared to face any consequences.

We have abrogated our responsibility - to her, to international law ( a theme in Johnson's administration - I know this started before his government), and to ourselves.

One of many concerns is that the 'Supreme Court' has prejudiced any argument about the merits of her case, stating that a politician's view of what constitutes national security trumps universal human rights. That is pretty much the argument of every tin pot dictatorship.

It might suit many people now, but when dePfeffel has withdrawn us from all Human Rights legislation and international agreements we might all regret not standing up for Begum's right to be represented fairly in an independent court of law.