Returning jihadists.

[Cunt]

It's why it seems more respectful to me, to officially shoot her. And I'm not really in favour of state killing.

Thing is though, what else should you do with someone who declared war on your society? Pretend they need support instead of a more honest answer?

[laklak]

Send 'em to the organ banks!

[Cunt]

Send 'em to the organ banks!

That is a very progressive view to hear, from you.

[Scot Dutchy]

Isn't it against the UNHCR or something to render someone stateless? We're only doing it in Australia for those with dual or other citizenship.

The claim is that she had a dual British/Bangladeshi citizenship. Since there was no public hearing, the Home Office didn't need to present any evidence to support that claim. Meanwhile, both she and her lawyer claim that she did not have dual citizenship. I expect there will be an appeal lodged if it hasn't been already.

She is "married" to a Dutch guy and when the baby was alive wanted to bring them here which was rejected. Their "marriage" is not valid and now with the dead baby it is even less tenuous.

[rainbow]

It's why it seems more respectful to me, to officially shoot her. And I'm not really in favour of state killing.

Thing is though, what else should you do with someone who declared war on your society? Pretend they need support instead of a more honest answer?

Logically, she should've been brought back and tested for sanity.

If sane, charged and punished, if not, kept in a hospital for the criminally insane.

[Alan B]

Has the Dutch guy had his citizenship revoked?

[Rum]

It's why it seems more respectful to me, to officially shoot her. And I'm not really in favour of state killing.

Thing is though, what else should you do with someone who declared war on your society? Pretend they need support instead of a more honest answer?

Logically, she should've been brought back and tested for sanity.

If sane, charged and punished, if not, kept in a hospital for the criminally insane.

There is little doubt she was sane. There are large numbers of Muslims in this country who have sympathy with the aims of the likes of Isis, even if the majority would not be willing to act upon it. Whether she was actually legally responsible, given she was 15 when she ran away is another matter. I would have thought she would be retreivable, but who knows.

For the moment it is academic. She’s shut up in a refugee camp in some hell hole for now.

[Scot Dutchy]

Has the Dutch guy had his citizenship revoked?

No Alan but the Foreign Office will not help with his return. He has to get himself to a consulate where he would be further helped but he does realise he will go straight to gaol for 6 years (he was sentenced in his absence as he skipped the country) but now the child is dead his appeals will be ignored as will those of the girl. There are hundreds of jihadists waiting to return many as young as she is.

[Alan B]

And some people are considering 'repatriation' for this lot?


And this:

[Scot Dutchy]

They are all going to be good citizens and cause no trouble.

[NineBerry]

General declaration of Human rights article 15.

[Brian Peacock]

Indeed.

[Rum]

General declaration of Human rights article 15.

The British government may have been playing it fast and loose, but they were of the view she had joint Bangladeshi citizenship. Her father is and in fact is there currently. So technically they were not contravening article 15.

They accepted the kid was British however. Not that it did the poor mite much good.

[JimC]

They have made their bed...

[NineBerry]

A lot of the Europeans going to fight for the IS had only single European citizenship. Their European home counties will have to deal with those people anyway.

Trying to remove the citizenship from someone who grew up in a European country just based on the technicality that person has another citizenship is trying to evade your responsibility.

Those jihadis grew up in your country. You are responsible for them.