May Kicks Another Brit While They Are Down

[Guest]

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.

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.

[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

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

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.

[Bollocks to Brexit]

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

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

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.

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.

[Hew Johns]

Well that's a wretched false equivalence.

As I read it, the British Supreme Court agrees that Begum cannot have a free and effective appeal in her present circumstances, but does not agree that the only alternative is entering the UK.

[Bollocks to Brexit]

Well that's a wretched false equivalence.

As I read it, the British Supreme Court agrees that Begum cannot have a free and effective appeal in her present circumstances, but does not agree that the only alternative is entering the UK.

Not a false equivalence at all, except in your rather dense head.

The point is that we should defend everyone's rights; once we allow governments to ride roughshod over them on the basis of political expediency, we risk opening the floodgates.

Allowing her to enter the UK to make her case would send a very important message about the impartiality and fairness of our justice system and about our values.

[Bronshtein]

Yes.

Even if she could somehow access Zoom or Teams or similar (she can't) it is no substitute for proper face to face work with legal representation.

For double standards see media coverage of Aung San Suu Kyi's non appearance in court today. Everybody realised the games the coup leaders are playing by denying her a day in court. It shouldn't matter whether you are a world leader or a dumb kid who thought she was on an adventure, your rights should be the same. Of course they are both having theirs denied right now but we only seem bothered by the one and not the other.

As I said - what worried me for Begum is that even should she somehow get access to a hearing, the 'Supreme Court' has already said Javid's interpretation of 'national security' trumps her human rights. The appeal against having her citizenship revoked appears to have already been decided.

(I admit my bias - I would not strip anyone of their citizenship. It is a pusillanimous act designed to push problem people onto someone else's list of difficult things to do. I thought we still thought we ruled the world - apparently we can't deal with a schoolgirl from Bethnal Green.)

[Hew Johns]

Well that's a wretched false equivalence.

As I read it, the British Supreme Court agrees that Begum cannot have a free and effective appeal in her present circumstances, but does not agree that the only alternative is entering the UK.

Not a false equivalence at all, except in your rather dense head.

Is it really your intent to equate the suffering of millions of communists, socialists, and Jews at the hands of the Nazis with Ms. Begum's self induced troubles?

The point is that we should defend everyone's rights; once we allow governments to ride roughshod over them on the basis of political expediency, we risk opening the floodgates.

A point we are all discussing, but not the one Niemöller is making.

Allowing her to enter the UK to make her case would send a very important message about the impartiality and fairness of our justice system and about our values.

Is the question of whether her participation is in person or in absentia all that compelling? The message various Kurds, Yazidi, and Shia would be receiving is probably more like - you can be a Brit merc, go to exotic lands, meet interesting people, engage in genocide, and abscond back to the UK should things not work out.

[Hew Johns]

Yes.

Even if she could somehow access Zoom or Teams or similar (she can't) it is no substitute for proper face to face work with legal representation.

Which she could have as well. What she won't have is face to face interaction with the judge and prosecution.

For double standards see media coverage of Aung San Suu Kyi's non appearance in court today. Everybody realised the games the coup leaders are playing by denying her a day in court. It shouldn't matter whether you are a world leader or a dumb kid who thought she was on an adventure, your rights should be the same. Of course they are both having theirs denied right now but we only seem bothered by the one and not the other.

Apples and orangutans.

As I said - what worried me for Begum is that even should she somehow get access to a hearing, the 'Supreme Court' has already said Javid's interpretation of 'national security' trumps her human rights. The appeal against having her
citizenship revoked appears to have already been decided

No. You are getting yourself in a tizzy over things the SC did not say. The appeals court said Begum's right to a fair
hearing in the UK overrode national security concerns. The SC said it does not. That does not mean it cannot outweigh them.

You have to be realistic. Having made extraordinary efforts to join a genocidal NGO, breeding and fatally neglecting 3 children, and seemingly unrepentant, the verdict appears to be a formality. Maybe her lawyers can pull some horror story of an abusive upbringing out of a hat to change the scales. This is no different than many other cases. Impartiality does not forbid opinion, it forbids an unwillingness to change it.

(I admit my bias - I would not strip anyone of their citizenship. It is a pusillanimous act designed to push problem people onto someone else's list of difficult things to do. I thought we still thought we ruled the world - apparently we can't deal with a schoolgirl from Bethnal Green.)

The case is not terribly satisfactory. It appears to rest on Begum's eligibility for Bangladeshi citizenship, and, yeah it's mere opportunism to revoke her citizenship before Bangladesh does. There is a structural conundrum in that the citizen in question is most likely to be somewhere else, doing bad things, and not welcome to return, yet must be offered a chance to challenge any revocation of citizenship.

As for "schoolgirls": they can do horrendous harm; and you keep ducking the question of how you would prosecute her for activities in far away places, where witnesses, evidence, investigators, police, and all the other mechanisms of a judicial system are wanting.

[Picador]

As for "schoolgirls": they can do horrendous harm; and you keep ducking the question of how you would prosecute her for activities in far away places, where witness, evidence, investigators, police, and all the other mechanisms of a judicial system are wanting.

Well that's the problem isn't it? The only evidence is not exactly firm, in that they're the words she's used in interviews and such. Apart from that - hearsay.

Which leads to another legal conundrum. If a jury (not necessarily 12 of her peers) isn't persuaded by the prosecution arguments, they have no choice but to find her not guilty and acquit her.

On the other hand, if she's found guilty then her lawyers will keep the appeal process going until she's released.

Either way, we the public will be paying for the misbegotten cow for the rest of her life. It would be far better if an errant bomb fell on her.

After all she said she welcomed martyrdom.

[Hew Johns]

To be sure, having looked hard at the Amanda Knox case, I have no trust in the British press reporting on schoolgirls.