Honestly, I'd trust Martin with more than he'd trust himself with.
His arguments here are actually persuasive and pragmatic. Despite my usual position of being the high-minded idealist, I find them genuinely difficult to refute, and I note that no one else has really tried either - resorting to empty rhetoric doesn't really cut it when we're potentially dealing with a highly radicalised cultist.
On balance, I still think bringing her back and trying her for crimes would be both the humane and the correct thing to do, but Martin would be always whispering in my ear that I was mortal.
resorting to empty rhetoric doesn't really cut it when we're potentially dealing with a highly radicalised cultist.
Potential is doing a lot of lifting there. Though, I'd have put that word later - I don't think there's any potential in having to deal with Shamima, the fact that we're having this discussion means that there's dealing with her going on, the exiling her by removing her citizenship was a way of dealing with her. The "potential" goes later - "dealing with a potentially highly radicalised cultist". I don't have any confidence that she's highly radicalised - when she left the UK she'd certainly been radicalised enough for her to think that's what she needed to do, and it appears from reports (veracity uncertain) that she remained radicalised while in Syria aiding the Da'esh fighters. Was that sufficient to warrant the description "highly radicalised"? And, after fleeing Syria to refugee camps, has the level of her radicalisation changed? Has she seen behind the curtain and decided that she'd been sold a lie, does she have regrets, is she still radicalised? And, if she is still radicalised would that have been different if she'd been allowed to return home before all her children died, if she'd got help to deradicalise? Even if some of that help was in prison after a conviction for crimes unspecified?
“Aiding a proscribed terrorist organisation”? Did she throw any bombs in Mother England?
Just who has she conspired to murder?
And if so why isn’t she being hauled home to face the courts?
You asked about crimes. I gave you the crimes. She's not being brought back to the UK to face trial because the UK government has decided - illegally to my mind - that this isn't her home.
And if so why isn’t she being hauled home to face the courts?
What's the gain? What does the UK gain by hauling her back for a trial and imprisonment, vs leaving her to rot in a refugee camp? I rather suspect that that is the realpolitik.
resorting to empty rhetoric doesn't really cut it when we're potentially dealing with a highly radicalised cultist.
Potential is doing a lot of lifting there.
At this point, Martin would be asking you whether you'd risk yourself, your children, your friends and your neighbours by having her back. And he has a point. A very good point.
What risk would she pose in the UK? Especially if she's tried and imprisoned where she can get help to shake off the brainwashing she's been exposed to.
The biggest risk she poses is as inspiration for others to criminal activity - and, arguably she poses a greater risk in the refugee camps where she can be described as a victim of Christian "Crusader" nations, whereas if back in the UK that description is harder to apply.
What risk would she pose in the UK? Especially if she's tried and imprisoned where she can get help to shake off the brainwashing she's been exposed to.
The biggest risk she poses is as inspiration for others to criminal activity - and, arguably she poses a greater risk in the refugee camps where she can be described as a victim of Christian "Crusader" nations, whereas if back in the UK that description is harder to apply.
You know the risk. And it's soft clarts like us who would allow that to happen again.
“Aiding a proscribed terrorist organisation”? Did she throw any bombs in Mother England?
Just who has she conspired to murder?
And if so why isn’t she being hauled home to face the courts?
You asked about crimes. I gave you the crimes. She's not being brought back to the UK to face trial because the UK government has decided - illegally to my mind - that this isn't her home.
Just which of those crimes is she alleged to have committed in the UK?
resorting to empty rhetoric doesn't really cut it when we're potentially dealing with a highly radicalised cultist.
Potential is doing a lot of lifting there.
At this point, Martin would be asking you whether you'd risk yourself, your children, your friends and your neighbours by having her back. And he has a point. A very good point.
I think it needs stating that the implication of this point is that it's OK for Iraqi and Syrian lives to be at risk from her, but not British lives.
(I know we are talking Realpolitik here, not ethics. But if we want to go down the Realpolitik route I think we should do so in full acknowledgement of the implications.)
“Aiding a proscribed terrorist organisation”? Did she throw any bombs in Mother England?
Just who has she conspired to murder?
And if so why isn’t she being hauled home to face the courts?
You asked about crimes. I gave you the crimes. She's not being brought back to the UK to face trial because the UK government has decided - illegally to my mind - that this isn't her home.
Just which of those crimes is she alleged to have committed in the UK?
I don't think that matters, as far as treason or terrorism offences are concerned. Lord Haw-Haw made all his broadcasts from Germany.
Agreed. But then I'm not in precarious power, offending tax payers, the poor, or in 5 with limited resources and not wanting the responsibility of closely surveilling her while she corrupts others. Not only would she need public defence for her trials, she would need full time protection for life. So a million a year all round for the whole circus, settling down to a hundred thousand a year after five-ten years.
“Aiding a proscribed terrorist organisation”? Did she throw any bombs in Mother England?
Just who has she conspired to murder?
And if so why isn’t she being hauled home to face the courts?
You asked about crimes. I gave you the crimes. She's not being brought back to the UK to face trial because the UK government has decided - illegally to my mind - that this isn't her home.
Just which of those crimes is she alleged to have committed in the UK?
I don't think that matters, as far as treason or terrorism offences are concerned. Lord Haw-Haw made all his broadcasts from Germany.
Not only did he do that, my recollection is that he was not a British subject and so could not have committed treason by anti-British broadcasts. There was a very thin basis for a treason charge.
“Aiding a proscribed terrorist organisation”? Did she throw any bombs in Mother England?
Just who has she conspired to murder?
And if so why isn’t she being hauled home to face the courts?
You asked about crimes. I gave you the crimes. She's not being brought back to the UK to face trial because the UK government has decided - illegally to my mind - that this isn't her home.
Just which of those crimes is she alleged to have committed in the UK?
I don't think that matters, as far as treason or terrorism offences are concerned. Lord Haw-Haw made all his broadcasts from Germany.
Not in the eyes of the bourgeoisie (tax paying Daily Heil readers), the poor (the Red North Wall that put Johnson in), the Muslim community, and people like a friend of mine who would happily have taken her out with a suicide bomb (colonic is best, he wouldn't now, he turned beautifully - and has to be protected).
Will we be stripping Wayne Cousins of his citizenship if he’s found guilty of murder ?
I tell you what, let's deradicalize him and turn him in to a productive, safe member of society in the proximity of beautiful women even in areas without streetlights.
“Aiding a proscribed terrorist organisation”? Did she throw any bombs in Mother England?
Just who has she conspired to murder?
And if so why isn’t she being hauled home to face the courts?
You asked about crimes. I gave you the crimes. She's not being brought back to the UK to face trial because the UK government has decided - illegally to my mind - that this isn't her home.
Just which of those crimes is she alleged to have committed in the UK?
I don't think that matters, as far as treason or terrorism offences are concerned. Lord Haw-Haw made all his broadcasts from Germany.
Not only did he do that, my recollection is that he was not a British subject and so could not have committed treason by anti-British broadcasts. There was a very thin basis for a treason charge.
Yes, @Anselmina has discussed that a few times. AIUI he had a fake British passport, and the British authorities pretended to be totally fooled by it so that they could hang him.
The point is, though, that treason-type offences don't have to be committed in the UK in order to be prosecuted in the UK. Otherwise, you could have the absurd situation whereby (say) Philby and his KGB friend could be on a cross-Channel ferry, and Philby would be committing an offence if he handed over his briefcase full of MI6 secrets while they were still in Dover, but would be totally innocent and in the clear if he waited until the ferry entered French territorial waters.
Will we be stripping Wayne Cousins of his citizenship if he’s found guilty of murder ?
I tell you what, let's deradicalize him and turn him in to a productive, safe member of society in the proximity of beautiful women even in areas without streetlights.
I think what the Gummint has done is to have its cake and eat it; take no responsibility and make an example of her
Exactly. Even Donald Trump correctly saw that this was lacking in moral backbone.
If as was suggested earlier in the thread there are many similar others who have been permitted to return, even @Martin54 's pragmatic argument falls. It becomes only a matter of selling fake "toughness" to those that will buy it.
Will we be stripping Wayne Cousins of his citizenship if he’s found guilty of murder ?
I tell you what, let's deradicalize him and turn him in to a productive, safe member of society in the proximity of beautiful women even in areas without streetlights.
You know we parole convicted murders don’t you ?
Er... and why do you ask that rhetorical question? I know many killers one way and another. You wouldn't believe it. And what's that got to do with this irredeemably criminally insane piece of s... person? This one won't get out alive without a whole life tariff and chemical castration if he's still young enough. 48 now. 22 years in Broadmoor should do nicely. Then tagged. Watched. They're ALL watched. Even ex special forces are on the radar.
So why is Shamima Begum’s situation considered so much more heinous than a *convicted* murderer that she’d be stripped of citizenship - and in terms of risks we run from criminals, we release criminals into the community - including murderers - all the time. As you note - we have processes for that. What is it that makes us think we couldn’t manage this young woman’s risk *if* she was convicted of an offence.
“Aiding a proscribed terrorist organisation”? Did she throw any bombs in Mother England?
Just who has she conspired to murder?
And if so why isn’t she being hauled home to face the courts?
You asked about crimes. I gave you the crimes. She's not being brought back to the UK to face trial because the UK government has decided - illegally to my mind - that this isn't her home.
Just which of those crimes is she alleged to have committed in the UK?
I don't think that matters, as far as treason or terrorism offences are concerned. Lord Haw-Haw made all his broadcasts from Germany.
Not only did he do that, my recollection is that he was not a British subject and so could not have committed treason by anti-British broadcasts. There was a very thin basis for a treason charge.
Yes, @Anselmina has discussed that a few times. AIUI he had a fake British passport, and the British authorities pretended to be totally fooled by it so that they could hang him.
The point is, though, that treason-type offences don't have to be committed in the UK in order to be prosecuted in the UK. Otherwise, you could have the absurd situation whereby (say) Philby and his KGB friend could be on a cross-Channel ferry, and Philby would be committing an offence if he handed over his briefcase full of MI6 secrets while they were still in Dover, but would be totally innocent and in the clear if he waited until the ferry entered French territorial waters.
It wasn't fake. He lied about being born British in applying for it. He was a British resident for most of his life, and worked for the Crown in British Ireland. So we 'ung the bastard. As we should have done the king.
resorting to empty rhetoric doesn't really cut it when we're potentially dealing with a highly radicalised cultist.
Potential is doing a lot of lifting there.
At this point, Martin would be asking you whether you'd risk yourself, your children, your friends and your neighbours by having her back. And he has a point. A very good point.
I think it needs stating that the implication of this point is that it's OK for Iraqi and Syrian lives to be at risk from her, but not British lives.
(I know we are talking Realpolitik here, not ethics. But if we want to go down the Realpolitik route I think we should do so in full acknowledgement of the implications.)
They aren't British tax payers.
The risk to Iraqi and Syrian lives can't be quantified. But it's not significant. ISIS is now virtual with less support than the Palestinians. Syria and Iraq are 'pacified'. We won't have to bomb Raqqa again for a long while. The moral of this story is, don't change any regime as you will always get worse unless you pay the full price upfront; Germany, Japan. If you want to change a culture, you have to do the same; Chechen, Uighur. Liberal interventionism, 'ethical' foreign policy - which I totally bought in to 20 years ago - is a total failure. Like deradicalization.
“Aiding a proscribed terrorist organisation”? Did she throw any bombs in Mother England?
Just who has she conspired to murder?
And if so why isn’t she being hauled home to face the courts?
You asked about crimes. I gave you the crimes. She's not being brought back to the UK to face trial because the UK government has decided - illegally to my mind - that this isn't her home.
Just which of those crimes is she alleged to have committed in the UK?
I don't think that matters, as far as treason or terrorism offences are concerned. Lord Haw-Haw made all his broadcasts from Germany.
Not only did he do that, my recollection is that he was not a British subject and so could not have committed treason by anti-British broadcasts. There was a very thin basis for a treason charge.
Yes, @Anselmina has discussed that a few times. AIUI he had a fake British passport, and the British authorities pretended to be totally fooled by it so that they could hang him.
The point is, though, that treason-type offences don't have to be committed in the UK in order to be prosecuted in the UK. Otherwise, you could have the absurd situation whereby (say) Philby and his KGB friend could be on a cross-Channel ferry, and Philby would be committing an offence if he handed over his briefcase full of MI6 secrets while they were still in Dover, but would be totally innocent and in the clear if he waited until the ferry entered French territorial waters.
It wasn't fake. He lied about being born British in applying for it. He was a British resident for most of his life, and worked for the Crown in British Ireland. So we 'ung the bastard. As we should have done the king.
He was a British resident. Not a British citizen. Yes, he lied. He was the enemy working for the (evil) cause he believed in. He could have (should have?) been executed as a war criminal, enemy of the state, or whatever. For some reason it pleased the authorities to understand the falsely obtained passport as proof of citizenship; and they executed him instead for Treason; whereas he was in fact a glowing example of citizenship in the country of which he really was a citizen - Germany. Maybe it was simply more expeditious to think of him as British and execute him; rather than having to go through international tribunals etc? Come to think of it, I wonder what he made of being hung for a traitor to a country he never 'belonged' to!
I don't suppose, ultimately, it really matters what the pretext is for his punishment as he was, of course, guilty of what he really had done in working against Britain, as he did. It was just an interesting example of past citizenship flim-flam that occurred to me as I was reading this thread.
I think the compassionate thing to do with the rather unhinged remark about hanging King George VI is to ignore it!
Anselmina, I assumed Martin54 meant the Duke of Windsor.
To pick up on something from earlier on: I think it was Sojourner who said something along the lines that Shamima Begum was born in the UK. Just to clarify, being born in the UK does not of itself make someone a British citizen. I realise it’s a tangent, as I understand that Begum is/was a citizen, but I think it might be different in other countries.
“Aiding a proscribed terrorist organisation”? Did she throw any bombs in Mother England?
Just who has she conspired to murder?
And if so why isn’t she being hauled home to face the courts?
You asked about crimes. I gave you the crimes. She's not being brought back to the UK to face trial because the UK government has decided - illegally to my mind - that this isn't her home.
Just which of those crimes is she alleged to have committed in the UK?
I don't think that matters, as far as treason or terrorism offences are concerned. Lord Haw-Haw made all his broadcasts from Germany.
Not only did he do that, my recollection is that he was not a British subject and so could not have committed treason by anti-British broadcasts. There was a very thin basis for a treason charge.
Yes, @Anselmina has discussed that a few times. AIUI he had a fake British passport, and the British authorities pretended to be totally fooled by it so that they could hang him.
The point is, though, that treason-type offences don't have to be committed in the UK in order to be prosecuted in the UK. Otherwise, you could have the absurd situation whereby (say) Philby and his KGB friend could be on a cross-Channel ferry, and Philby would be committing an offence if he handed over his briefcase full of MI6 secrets while they were still in Dover, but would be totally innocent and in the clear if he waited until the ferry entered French territorial waters.
It wasn't fake. He lied about being born British in applying for it. He was a British residentfor most of his life, and worked for the Crown in British Ireland. So we 'ung the bastard. As we should have done the king.
He was a British resident. Not a British citizen. Yes, he lied. He was the enemy working for the (evil) cause he believed in. He could have (should have?) been executed as a war criminal, enemy of the state, or whatever. For some reason it pleased the authorities to understand the falsely obtained passport as proof of citizenship; and they executed him instead for Treason; whereas he was in fact a glowing example of citizenship in the country of which he really was a citizen - Germany. Maybe it was simply more expeditious to think of him as British and execute him; rather than having to go through international tribunals etc? Come to think of it, I wonder what he made of being hung for a traitor to a country he never 'belonged' to!
I don't suppose, ultimately, it really matters what the pretext is for his punishment as he was, of course, guilty of what he really had done in working against Britain, as he did. It was just an interesting example of past citizenship flim-flam that occurred to me as I was reading this thread.
I think the compassionate thing to do with the rather unhinged remark about hanging King George VI is to ignore it!
'swot uh sed ennit?
Who's talking about George VI? A fine king, none finer. Unlike his brother...
So why is Shamima Begum’s situation considered so much more heinous than a *convicted* murderer that she’d be stripped of citizenship - and in terms of risks we run from criminals, we release criminals into the community - including murderers - all the time. As you note - we have processes for that. What is it that makes us think we couldn’t manage this young woman’s risk *if* she was convicted of an offence.
Firstly, there’s no particular reason to assume that every murderer will kill again. No reason to assume they harbour any hatred towards anyone else in the world. With someone who hates the entire country and (almost) everyone in it, and has taken significant steps to join a group that seeks to destroy it, the likelihood of them still wanting to kill us all if given half a chance is much stronger.
Secondly, criminals who are here in the country are a different issue than ones who are elsewhere. Especially if the reason they are elsewhere is because they renounced (de facto) their citizenship in order to become a citizen of another country (de facto) that now no longer exists. We would be going to a significant amount of trouble to bring someone to the country only to then either incarcerate them for a very long time or run the risk of them acting on their beliefs and killing some of us. Is it really worth it?
So why is Shamima Begum’s situation considered so much more heinous than a *convicted* murderer that she’d be stripped of citizenship - and in terms of risks we run from criminals, we release criminals into the community - including murderers - all the time. As you note - we have processes for that. What is it that makes us think we couldn’t manage this young woman’s risk *if* she was convicted of an offence.
I completely agree. But she is the tip of one very expensive, high vis, politically impossible iceberg. It's done. I didn't want it, don't like it, but it's done.
I don't suppose, ultimately, it really matters what the pretext is for his punishment as he was, of course, guilty of what he really had done in working against Britain, as he did. It was just an interesting example of past citizenship flim-flam that occurred to me as I was reading this thread.
How is it a crime in the UK for a citizen of another country to make anti-UK propaganda from a third country?
How come? Joyce was white. The only racist bit is that presumably he had ingested the belief that he was a good Nazi and a perfect Aryan.
On the Joyce treason point, it's always struck me as special pleading to claim that he was somehow not guilty because he wasn't really a British subject. It may be that his fraudulent application for a UK passport meant that the UK would have been entitled to repudiate him had it chosen to do so. However, by purporting to have been British, and by claiming a British passport, even if wrongfully, he had hoist himself by his own petard. It is an entirely reasonable answer to any attempt after the event to deny guilt simply to say, "Hard luck, chum. You can't have it both ways".
Applying this to Shamima Begum, if she wants to push her claim that she is still a UK national and so entitled to return, then it strikes me as completely wrong to suggest that she should not have been bound both before and during her absence from UK soil by all the obligations that rest on UK nationals. Those include not engaging with or conspiring with the Queens enemies and not sewing people into suicide suits.
The UK government has exercised a choice whether to let her return. At the moment it has said no. Some shipmates are arguing that has not got that choice. There is though, a choice for her. If she wishes to be a foreigner, then she must remain one and make her future elsewhere. If she wishes to return and is ever allowed to do so, then she must bear full responsibility for her actions, accept that responsibility and not try and wriggle out of it.
Incidentally, even a non- national can lay themselves open to prosecution if they indulge in treasonable or similar activities, particularly if they do so in UK territory, just as UK citizens can't claim to be exempt from foreign security laws when they are in those countries. Being a UK citizen does not entitle me or anyone else to claim the right to go to Paris or Washington and engage in espionage against France or the USA with impunity just because I don't happen to owe loyalty to the French or USA state.
Agreed. But then I'm not in precarious power, offending tax payers, the poor, or in 5 with limited resources and not wanting the responsibility of closely surveilling her while she corrupts others. Not only would she need public defence for her trials, she would need full time protection for life. So a million a year all round for the whole circus, settling down to a hundred thousand a year after five-ten years.
Agreed. But then I'm not in precarious power, offending tax payers, the poor, or in 5 with limited resources and not wanting the responsibility of closely surveilling her while she corrupts others. Not only would she need public defence for her trials, she would need full time protection for life. So a million a year all round for the whole circus, settling down to a hundred thousand a year after five-ten years.
Comments
His arguments here are actually persuasive and pragmatic. Despite my usual position of being the high-minded idealist, I find them genuinely difficult to refute, and I note that no one else has really tried either - resorting to empty rhetoric doesn't really cut it when we're potentially dealing with a highly radicalised cultist.
On balance, I still think bringing her back and trying her for crimes would be both the humane and the correct thing to do, but Martin would be always whispering in my ear that I was mortal.
Just who has she conspired to murder?
And if so why isn’t she being hauled home to face the courts?
You asked about crimes. I gave you the crimes. She's not being brought back to the UK to face trial because the UK government has decided - illegally to my mind - that this isn't her home.
What's the gain? What does the UK gain by hauling her back for a trial and imprisonment, vs leaving her to rot in a refugee camp? I rather suspect that that is the realpolitik.
At this point, Martin would be asking you whether you'd risk yourself, your children, your friends and your neighbours by having her back. And he has a point. A very good point.
She'd have a full court-appointed-and-paid-for team of lawyers. It'd be her right.
The biggest risk she poses is as inspiration for others to criminal activity - and, arguably she poses a greater risk in the refugee camps where she can be described as a victim of Christian "Crusader" nations, whereas if back in the UK that description is harder to apply.
You know the risk. And it's soft clarts like us who would allow that to happen again.
Not talking about the lawyers, talking about fanatical supporters who might try to spring her. Not bloody likely
Yes I can see why your esteemed rulers would not want her to have a fair trial. She might even be acquitted.
Covered by the Official Secrets Act I'm afraid. I volunteered at Triangle tonight. Will that do?
You see, when you're given responsibility, you act responsibly. That's what you'd all do. No matter what utter twaddle you speak here.
and whatever the result we would be stuck with her
Just which of those crimes is she alleged to have committed in the UK?
I think it needs stating that the implication of this point is that it's OK for Iraqi and Syrian lives to be at risk from her, but not British lives.
(I know we are talking Realpolitik here, not ethics. But if we want to go down the Realpolitik route I think we should do so in full acknowledgement of the implications.)
I don't think that matters, as far as treason or terrorism offences are concerned. Lord Haw-Haw made all his broadcasts from Germany.
@Ricardus - yes, no argument from me. That's partly the reason why, on balance, I think she should be tried in the UK, as a UK citizen.
Agreed. But then I'm not in precarious power, offending tax payers, the poor, or in 5 with limited resources and not wanting the responsibility of closely surveilling her while she corrupts others. Not only would she need public defence for her trials, she would need full time protection for life. So a million a year all round for the whole circus, settling down to a hundred thousand a year after five-ten years.
Not only did he do that, my recollection is that he was not a British subject and so could not have committed treason by anti-British broadcasts. There was a very thin basis for a treason charge.
He was American. Like Johnson.
Not in the eyes of the bourgeoisie (tax paying Daily Heil readers), the poor (the Red North Wall that put Johnson in), the Muslim community, and people like a friend of mine who would happily have taken her out with a suicide bomb (colonic is best, he wouldn't now, he turned beautifully - and has to be protected).
Riiiiight. I was going to say, and still will, that not all of you are talking twaddle. But not in this case.
I tell you what, let's deradicalize him and turn him in to a productive, safe member of society in the proximity of beautiful women even in areas without streetlights.
Yes, @Anselmina has discussed that a few times. AIUI he had a fake British passport, and the British authorities pretended to be totally fooled by it so that they could hang him.
The point is, though, that treason-type offences don't have to be committed in the UK in order to be prosecuted in the UK. Otherwise, you could have the absurd situation whereby (say) Philby and his KGB friend could be on a cross-Channel ferry, and Philby would be committing an offence if he handed over his briefcase full of MI6 secrets while they were still in Dover, but would be totally innocent and in the clear if he waited until the ferry entered French territorial waters.
You know we parole convicted murders don’t you ?
If as was suggested earlier in the thread there are many similar others who have been permitted to return, even @Martin54 's pragmatic argument falls. It becomes only a matter of selling fake "toughness" to those that will buy it.
Er... and why do you ask that rhetorical question? I know many killers one way and another. You wouldn't believe it. And what's that got to do with this irredeemably criminally insane piece of s... person? This one won't get out alive without a whole life tariff and chemical castration if he's still young enough. 48 now. 22 years in Broadmoor should do nicely. Then tagged. Watched. They're ALL watched. Even ex special forces are on the radar.
It wasn't fake. He lied about being born British in applying for it. He was a British resident for most of his life, and worked for the Crown in British Ireland. So we 'ung the bastard. As we should have done the king.
They aren't British tax payers.
The risk to Iraqi and Syrian lives can't be quantified. But it's not significant. ISIS is now virtual with less support than the Palestinians. Syria and Iraq are 'pacified'. We won't have to bomb Raqqa again for a long while. The moral of this story is, don't change any regime as you will always get worse unless you pay the full price upfront; Germany, Japan. If you want to change a culture, you have to do the same; Chechen, Uighur. Liberal interventionism, 'ethical' foreign policy - which I totally bought in to 20 years ago - is a total failure. Like deradicalization.
He was a British resident. Not a British citizen. Yes, he lied. He was the enemy working for the (evil) cause he believed in. He could have (should have?) been executed as a war criminal, enemy of the state, or whatever. For some reason it pleased the authorities to understand the falsely obtained passport as proof of citizenship; and they executed him instead for Treason; whereas he was in fact a glowing example of citizenship in the country of which he really was a citizen - Germany. Maybe it was simply more expeditious to think of him as British and execute him; rather than having to go through international tribunals etc? Come to think of it, I wonder what he made of being hung for a traitor to a country he never 'belonged' to!
I don't suppose, ultimately, it really matters what the pretext is for his punishment as he was, of course, guilty of what he really had done in working against Britain, as he did. It was just an interesting example of past citizenship flim-flam that occurred to me as I was reading this thread.
I think the compassionate thing to do with the rather unhinged remark about hanging King George VI is to ignore it!
To pick up on something from earlier on: I think it was Sojourner who said something along the lines that Shamima Begum was born in the UK. Just to clarify, being born in the UK does not of itself make someone a British citizen. I realise it’s a tangent, as I understand that Begum is/was a citizen, but I think it might be different in other countries.
MMM
'swot uh sed ennit?
Who's talking about George VI? A fine king, none finer. Unlike his brother...
Firstly, there’s no particular reason to assume that every murderer will kill again. No reason to assume they harbour any hatred towards anyone else in the world. With someone who hates the entire country and (almost) everyone in it, and has taken significant steps to join a group that seeks to destroy it, the likelihood of them still wanting to kill us all if given half a chance is much stronger.
Secondly, criminals who are here in the country are a different issue than ones who are elsewhere. Especially if the reason they are elsewhere is because they renounced (de facto) their citizenship in order to become a citizen of another country (de facto) that now no longer exists. We would be going to a significant amount of trouble to bring someone to the country only to then either incarcerate them for a very long time or run the risk of them acting on their beliefs and killing some of us. Is it really worth it?
I completely agree. But she is the tip of one very expensive, high vis, politically impossible iceberg. It's done. I didn't want it, don't like it, but it's done.
How is it a crime in the UK for a citizen of another country to make anti-UK propaganda from a third country?
On the Joyce treason point, it's always struck me as special pleading to claim that he was somehow not guilty because he wasn't really a British subject. It may be that his fraudulent application for a UK passport meant that the UK would have been entitled to repudiate him had it chosen to do so. However, by purporting to have been British, and by claiming a British passport, even if wrongfully, he had hoist himself by his own petard. It is an entirely reasonable answer to any attempt after the event to deny guilt simply to say, "Hard luck, chum. You can't have it both ways".
Applying this to Shamima Begum, if she wants to push her claim that she is still a UK national and so entitled to return, then it strikes me as completely wrong to suggest that she should not have been bound both before and during her absence from UK soil by all the obligations that rest on UK nationals. Those include not engaging with or conspiring with the Queens enemies and not sewing people into suicide suits.
The UK government has exercised a choice whether to let her return. At the moment it has said no. Some shipmates are arguing that has not got that choice. There is though, a choice for her. If she wishes to be a foreigner, then she must remain one and make her future elsewhere. If she wishes to return and is ever allowed to do so, then she must bear full responsibility for her actions, accept that responsibility and not try and wriggle out of it.
Incidentally, even a non- national can lay themselves open to prosecution if they indulge in treasonable or similar activities, particularly if they do so in UK territory, just as UK citizens can't claim to be exempt from foreign security laws when they are in those countries. Being a UK citizen does not entitle me or anyone else to claim the right to go to Paris or Washington and engage in espionage against France or the USA with impunity just because I don't happen to owe loyalty to the French or USA state.
Cheaper than maintaining a Royal
They make a profit. In social capital above all.