Home › Forums › Discussion Forum › Elections Aftermath: Was our 2019 Vote & the EU Referendum Rigged? #TORYRIG2019 › Reply To: Elections Aftermath: Was our 2019 Vote & the EU Referendum Rigged? #TORYRIG2019
The UK has just sunk to another level of extreme hypocrisy that screams massive injustice. Perhaps best expressed in a biblical passage that essentially says, “You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.” The Chinese persecute the Uighurs, the Russians are not giving Alexey Navalny a far trial, but the Brits are simply above reproach! Somehow the British people have become so blind to the reality of grotesque injustice perpetrated by this vile Tory regime that we are incapable of demonstrating genuine humanity. The danger is that this steady dehumanization of those targeted by our Government will warp the opinions of the general public with regard to cruelty and injustice; this is an integral part of moving the UK towards the full acceptance of an authoritarian Fascist dictatorship. The establishment of scapegoat sectors within our population is promoted by the far-right and our rabid Tory Party: gypsies, migrants, Muslims who will be next?
The public demonstrated genuine sympathy for a number of young teenage girls after discovering that had been groomed by a notorious paedophile gang in Rotherham. The child sexual exploitation scandal where widespread and prolonged sexual abuse was ignored for far too long, was eventually investigated and our legal system tried to put things right. It might be politically incorrect to point this out, but in light of our inappropriately disproportionate response to a more recent incident of grooming that few seem to care about, these victims predominantly white. The teenagers who were groomed and exploited were considered victims and treated with sympathy. But the UK Government is essentially claiming that the three teenage schoolgirls who were apparently ‘groomed’ by a former pupil at their school, after that fellow student moved to Syria, couldn’t possibly have been innocents led astray by their youth and naivety because… well because… well what? Because they were Muslim of Bangladeshi descent?
All three girls were minors and while some might claim that their plight was basically a family matter the same can be said of other young people who gall prey to the Siren call of predators or radical extremist groups. Often parents are blissfully unaware that their children have been targeted and in our workaholic society, supervision of minors has become greatly reduced. Within a community that already feels unfairly targeted in this country, demonized by the tabloid press, and regularly facing unfair prejudice, it becomes far easier for extremists to preach their message of hate. The three girls might not have been fully aware of what they were doing, but in this case an article in the Independent claims, “that they were aware enough; they could not, at that stage, be saved from themselves,” and “Anyway, once with Isis in Syria, they were ranged with the enemy and no longer the UK’s responsibility.” Really? If that was your child you would move heaven and earth to rescue them from their misguided decision, we all would.
The trio were brainwashed into believing that there was good reason to join the Califate, what drove that decision we do not know. After arriving in Raqqa the three schoolgirls were married to Isis fighters, but if at some point the enormity of their decision finally dawned on them there was no way back; they were not free to leave and return to England. Kadiza Sultana was reportedly killed in an airstrike at Amira Abase hasn’t been seen since; the third schoolgirl also reportedly died in Syria. When Shamima Begum was discovered in a refugee camp she was heavily pregnant with her third child after having lost two other children during the fighting. These were children she gave birth to while still a teenager in a war zone under heavy bombardment, but there is no compassion extended to her, despite the fact that by this time she would have had no alternative but to remain until she was captured. I cannot comprehend the complete lack of compassion for a young woman whose suffering has paid for her errors.
By the time she was interviewed by a film crew, her baby had been born and she desperately wanted to return to the UK to protect her third child from the ravages of the camp. But, the then Tory Home Secretary, Sajid Javid, blocked her return, showed no mercy towards her or her innocent baby who soon died. Javid was able to ramp-up the nationalist hysteria in this country to score political kudos. The hateful British tabloids dehumanized this traumatized, grieving mother signalling their approval of increased ‘othering’ towards Muslims in this country. At a time when the Media had created a massive fantisemitism storm to break apart the Labour Party, they were actively supporting prejudice and persecution of another sector of our population. This is the exact path followed by the Nazis in order to dehumanize Jews in Germany that eventually led to the Holocaust. I can imagine how vile and toxic the sick tabloid headlines will be after this latest Supreme Court ruling against Begum; it makes me deeply ashamed to be British.
In the Canary Article entitled, “Shamima Begum loses British citizenship in landmark test case,” they elaborate on the implications of this shocking decision. They say that “Shamima Begum has failed to restore her British citizenship after the Supreme Court ruling that she’d lost her case. 21-year-old Begum was infamously groomed as a 15-year-old child. She was a minor when she entered Syria and also when she married an ISIS fighter. All three of her children have since died. Begum was born in the UK. The government has cited her Bangladeshi heritage as proof of her claim to statehood in Bangladesh. However, Bangladesh’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs has refused entry and citizenship for Begum. ‘Begum hasn’t been allowed to return to the UK over the course of the trial’.”
The Canary say, “According to the Guardian: Lord Pannick QC, representing Begum, said [he] was unable to put her side of the case properly from al-Roj detention camp where she is held. He told the court she would be at risk of physical harm if she spoke by mobile phone to her British lawyers. This latest ruling has sparked concerns of civil liberty and human rights.” Calling it a “Threat to democracy, The Canary reached out for comment to civil rights organization Liberty. Liberty lawyer Rosie Brighouse said: ‘The right to a fair trial is not something democratic Governments should take away on a whim, and nor is someone’s British citizenship. If a Government is allowed to wield extreme powers like banishment without the basic safeguards of a fair trial it sets an extremely dangerous precedent. The threat to democracy is apparent in this case, as Brighouse continued: The security services have safely managed the returns of hundreds of people from Syria, but the Government has chosen to target Shamima Begum.”
The Canary report, “This approach does not serve justice, it’s a cynical distraction from a failed counter-terror strategy and another example of this Government’s disregard for access to justice and the rule of law. The Canary also spoke to Muhammad Rabbani, managing director of advocacy organization CAGE, who said: The Home Office deliberately circumvents the right to a fair trial for those exiled and stripped of their citizenship by only doing so when they are not in the country. National security is used as a ruse to suspend long established legal norms. Rabbani pointed to politically motivated decisions as the reason for Begum’s treatment: The Supreme Court has not only upheld the Home Office’s politically motivated decision to deny a girl who was groomed as a child the right to return home but has provided cover for the deeply racist citizenship deprivation policy, and failed to address how the secret SIAC [Special Immigration Appeals Commission] fundamentally upend any semblance of a fair trial.”
The Canary voice, “Concerns for the future” after “Several commenters also considered the implications of the case: The implications of the Shamima Begum case for people, like myself, whose parents were born abroad and who are theoretically eligible for citizenship of those countries is so grim and disturbing. Are we lesser-class UK citizens because we are of immigrant descent? Apparently so!” Sirin Kale Tweeted: “POC in this country know that if Shamima Begum can have her citizenship stripped away, a contradictory statement, then it can happen to any one of us. This ruling has set an incredibly dangerous precedent for us and I hope people who are happy about the ruling realize this.”
Sade Tweeted: “Labour councilor Shaista Aziz asked who was responsible for Begum: A 15 year old school girl and her two friends from a high performing school in East London ended up running away to join a terrorist entity after being groomed online. How and why did this happen? How and why were these young girls failed by Britain? Begum is a British problem.” Shaista Aziz Tweeted: “Others drew comparisons to cases that didn’t see defendants stripped of citizenship. Even if you don’t care about the way a 15 year old girl was groomed and exploited, you should care about allowing a state to break international law as they see fit. Because once that precedent is set, you are naïve if you think that it won’t impact your life too.”
Ife Tweeted: “Precedent Stripping Begum’s citizenship is yet another sign that Britain won’t allow international condemnation to stop it from behaving callously. If some people, in this case UK-born citizens with dual citizenship, can have their citizenship revoked, ‘citizenship’ itself is under attack?” Conditional citizenship for some is conditional citizenship for all. We should all be gravely concerned. Under the Tories ‘Hostile Environment’ immigration policies the Home Secretary, now the ruthless bully, Priti Patel, has been scaling up deportations and a number were rushed through over Christmas. The Government claim to be only deporting serious criminals who pose a threat to our security and have no legal right to be here, but in reality, the Tories have created a system where even minor charges can strip citizenship away from people who have lived here since childhood, worked, contributed and paid taxes, but they are deported destitute and vulnerable in a place where they have no connections.
In the Left Foot Forward Article entitled, “Immigration lawyers: Attempts to strip Shamima Begum of citizenship are likely to be illegal,” they say that, “Begum was born, bred and radicalised in the UK. Javid will not succeed in stripping away her citizenship, argue two immigration lawyers.” That was back in early 2019, but today her appeal has been placed in a permanent state of limbo as she remains trapped in a refugee camp. This isn’t just grossly unfair to Begum it places a massive unfair burden on the Kurdish liberation forces who are trying to manage, feed and shelter a huge number of foreign fighters and their dependents in camps in the north of Syria. The UK wants to be able to deport those with even the most tenuous claim to another national heritage who may have fallen foul of our laws, but we do not want to accept prisoners from overseas: typical British ‘cake and eat it’! Begum accepts that she will need to face trial for possible participation in atrocities overseas: she need rehabilitation not further torment.
Left Foot Forward reported that the Lawyers, “Danielle Blake and Ruth Mullen are experienced immigration lawyers for the Immigration Advice Service, and have represented various complex immigration and asylum cases, including British citizenship applications.” They say that “The legal basis for depriving Shamima Begum of her UK citizenship is found in the Immigration Act 2014. Firstly, the Secretary of State must determine that in his opinion the person has behaved in a way which justifies them being stripped of their British citizenship; secondly, he must be sure that they will not be rendered Stateless, that is, they must hold dual nationality. With regards to Shamima Begum, Sajid Javid argues that she is entitled to Bangladeshi citizenship. However, Bangladesh has responded robustly, asserting that they have no responsibility for Shamima and that they will not avail her of citizenship.”
Left Foot Forward reported in 2019 that, “Articles appearing in mainstream media seemed to imply that she will have an easy ride in achieving Bangladeshi citizenship, an opinion that the Bangladesh government clearly does not agree with. If the laws of Bangladesh are as strict as those in the UK, original documents, such as birth certificates and passports for both herself and her parents, could be asked for. They could even go as far as demanding a DNA test, a process all too familiar to those in the UK who have applied for British passports for their foreign-born children. If Bangladesh succeed in denying Shamima Begum a passport then Sajid Javid’s attempts to cancel her citizenship will automatically fail.”
Left Foot Forward reported, “There is also the very obvious issue of Shamima Begum’s current location. She is not living in a modern city, with easy access to public transport or consular buildings. She is living in a refugee camp, with the bare minimum essentials for survival, and her only communication with the outside world thus far has been via a handful of journalists.” At the time of writing, Begum had just given birth and they commented that “Shamima’s newborn son – a British citizen by descent and innocent of any crime, must also surely be considered. It is hard to see how Shamima’s son will be able to benefit from a UK future without having to give up any relationship with his mother. Once within UK jurisdiction, he would have access to lawyers who could invoke a whole array of laws which seek to protect the best interests of the child. However again, this will be hard to access from a refugee camp.” These points soon became irrelevant as the baby died soon after birth, another traumatic loss for Begum.
Left Foot Forward said that, “Whatever crimes she has committed, Shamima Begum is a British citizen, culturally and by birth. Sajid Javid may feel as though he has triumphantly fulfilled the wishes of the British public by denying her the right to return to the UK. But offloading offenders onto another country and deeming them to no longer be our problem is a practice the UK has not undertaken for around 100 years and would most likely tumble in front of a well organized legal challenge. The Bangladeshi Government played no part in educating Shamima Begum and the people of that country played no part in her upbringing or her development, so it would not make legal sense for them to take responsibility for her. Regardless, Shamima’s interview from within the refugee camp, dismantled by the press into juicy soundbites, has provided the backdrop to her trial by social media.” The vile tabloid press were not kind or forgiving towards her at that time right after losing a third child’ what does that say about us?
Left Foot Forward claim, “The laws regarding British nationality are hugely complex. This is an area of immigration that has gone through many changes over the years, mostly due to the high levels of discrimination that previously went unnoticed and unchallenged. Previously, a child had no claim to a British passport if only his mother was British: women were not allowed to pass on their citizenship.” They say, “A child born out of wedlock to a British father could previously only apply to register up until the age of 18, after which they would have just been considered unlucky. These are rules that have only been amended in the last five years. Shamima Begum’s situation is one that currently falls under a still existent discriminatory rule, as it is only people who have foreign-born parents who can have their citizenship taken away from them.”
Left Foot Forward report that, “If a white British Islamic convert with British parents were to commit the same crime and then decided to return, yes, they would face punishment, but their re-entry to the UK could not be denied, and it is unlikely it would be lobbied for or discussed at length in various news outlets. Shamima was born, bred and radicalized in the UK. She is surely a symptom of a home-grown problem. Her innocent baby must also be considered. The law, as it is, provides for two different types of citizenship, one which is immutable, and one which can be stripped away. The discriminatory effect of it is chilling.” Over the past couple of years, this Tory Government have been pushing the boundaries of who can be stripped of their citizenship and deported. But at the same time, we want to preach about the injustices perpetrated in other countries in our holier than thou rants.
In the Canary Article entitled, “Here’s how you can support the campaign to stop the deportation of Osime Brown” they highlight another desperate case of injustice. They say that “Osime Brown, a Black 21-year-old autistic man with learning disabilities, is facing deportation from his home in Britain to Jamaica. He was imprisoned in 2018 under the joint enterprise act for the theft of a mobile phone and lost his leave to remain. The Home Office now intends to deport Brown from his home in Britain to Jamaica, a country he left when he was four years old. Throughout his tumultuous life, Brown has been systematically failed by the services that were supposed to protect him – the education, health and social care, and criminal justice systems. Brown has a learning disability, has high support needs, and now suffers from anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder as a result of his distress.”
The Canary report that “Regarding the Home Office’s plan to deport her son to Jamaica, Brown’s mother said: He doesn’t have anybody there. He hasn’t been back to Jamaica, he doesn’t know Jamaica. When he found out the Home Office wanted to remove him he said: “Mum, is there a bus that I can come back on?” His removal would be a death sentence. She told the Independent: He wouldn’t cope. If he can’t even cope here, how is he going to cope in an environment and a culture he doesn’t know? He would be exploited because of his vulnerability. 34 MPs have signed a letter calling on home secretary Priti Patel to halt the planned deportation of Brown, saying: If Osime is deported, it is our and his mother’s belief that he will die. #StopTheDeportation”
The Canary say “Brown’s family have taken to social media to call for a twitterstorm at 7pm on 25 February to raise awareness about his case and stop the planned deportation: They have shared a useful thread on how people can get involved in the online campaign:
JUSTICE FOR OSIME BROWN (Official Account @FreeOsimeBrown Please don’t forget about the #TwitterStorm happening for #OsimeBrown this evening from 7pm onwards (UK time) Please read the thread below for all ways you can take action this evening. #StopTheDeportation #OsimeNeedsHisFamily #JusticeForOsimeBrown”
The British like to preach to others about their human rights abuses, only modifying such criticism when it stands in the way of lucrative arms sales as with their Contracts with Turkey, Saudi Arabia and the Israeli Governments. When it comes to assessment of our own human rights violations there is no tolerance for any reprimand or call to modify our conduct. The UK Government wanted to make an example of ruthless cruelty in the case of Shamima Begum, just as they have with the so-called serious criminals we are kicking out of the country. We have abandoned Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe after the PM’s gaff extended her sentence. The extradition hearings for Julian Assange are an extension of his torture by UK authorities called out by the UN. But the UN has also criticized this Tory Government for human rights abuse of the disabled in this country; all ignored. This is not a society I feel proud to be a part of; we must Protest, Challenge, Investigate and seek justice to remove this Tory Government. DO NOT MOVE ON!