What would you suggest be done with her and her baby, bearing in mind that they are currently in a refugee camp in Syria and that her husband, a Dutch convert to Islam, has recently surrendered to a group of Syrian fighters (apparently not the Syrian Army but rather some rebel group)?
The British (and U.S.) governments might put her under permanent surveillance wherever she is.
Well, it depends on whether she has the right to request the Bangladeshi citizenship, or whether she actually has the citizenship just by being born to Bangladeshi citizens. If she automatically has the citizenship, (even if she has never been in that country and doesn’t actually have their passport), then UK has the right to take away her citizenship. (Whether it is right thing to do or not may be a different matter, but taking away her citizenship will jot make her stateless. But if she just might be eligible for Bangladeshi citizenship and doesn’t have it automatically, then I don’t think UK can take the British citizen status away from her.
No, of course the people didn’t want the child to die, but the child’s death is the result of Begum’s actions, not the politicians or FSU posters. The child died because his mother decided to move to a country without a proper medical care or any sanitary conditions. The child didn’t die because she lost her citizenship. Losing her citizenship didn’t magically transport her to a refugee camp; she managed to get there herself. While I feel really sorry for the poor child, I don’t feel any guilt that she is stuck there.
emoticon for things that people write here on FSU. In your case, however, I must make an exception.
That still doesn’t change anything on the fact that if the mother didn’t support terrorists amd didn’t travel to join them, she would be in the UK giving birth to child with much better medical conditions. Did the politicians put her in the refugee camp? You seem to select only parts that are convenient for you, without accepting that no one else transported her where she is now. Compassion sounds great, but she made her choices. And the sad thing is that she doesn’t even understand that those were the wrong choices.
I very seldom use the
The only reason why the baby ever was born was because his mother left the U.K. and met the baby's future father. To say that the baby died because of the very events that gave him life is ridiculous.
The mother then gave birth in a refugee camp in Syria and tried to go back to the U.K. with her son, who, like her was a British citizen. Instead of being compassionate and trying to get them out, the British Government revoked the mother's citizenship and refused to let her return home. And, as far as I can see, it made no attempt to bring the baby back to the U.K., as the mother's family wished, and where his relatives would have cared for him.
ETA: Being compassionate does not mean not prosecuting someone for her crimes. She should be prosecuted if she ever steps foot on British soil.
How exactly do you think Britain should have worked withBegum and Begum’s parents to find the best solution to give the baby the best chances for survival? Please be more specific. According to the law, Britain could not remove the child unless there would be child care proceedings and the Local Authority that initiantes it needs to have enough evidence to meet the threshold, or unless the birth mother decides to place the child voluntarily into care (under voluntary accommodation). Begum gave plenty of interviews so if she really thought about the best interest of the child and wanted the child to get to Britain, she had plenty of opportunities to do so. Unfortunately nothing indicated that she intended to be separated from the child. And I can imagine the outbreak of public outrage if the Local authority initiated child care proceedings without having any evidence that the mother is causing her child significant harm. The law is based on the assumption that the best place for the child us in the child’s family.
She expressed the wish to return to the UK with the child. She didn’t express that she wants the child to return ASAP, even if it would mean the child would return without her. She had all those interviews, she had plenty of opportunities to request that and she didn’t. Personally, I think she was a bit selfish and thought more about her needs than the needs of her child; it seemed to me that she wanted to use the child as her ticket to the UK, rather than thinking how to get the child from those awful life conditions ASAP.
You seem to have a lot more faith in TPTB than I do.
I completely agree with you. The UK government was under intense pressure from the public and their decision seems to be very reactive and pandering to me. Plus there is always an undercurrent of punishing women harder than men for the same behavior in many country's justice system and you can see it here.
) and not another countries. I hope we do the right thing, but I don't have much faith that we will given the current state of affairs here. I don't think stripping of citizenship is the right thing. Punishment for acts committed is.