Shamina Begum, a 20-year-old mother, get right to return to UK to challenge citizenship revocation?

...the United Kingdom has revoked the citizenship of Shamina Begum, a 20-year-old mother who asked to come back to the UK after giving birth to a baby boy in a Syrian Refugee camp. While the UK government refused to allow her and her child in, the baby died.....

Denial of Right To Be Heard & a Fair Trial

It is unconscionable and unjust that anyone is deprived of one’s citizenship and/or nationality. It is even more shocking when they have not been accorded the right to be heard and to a fair trial. In addition, any decision should be made by the courts – not merely an administrative order of some Minister, in this case the Home Secretary.

The Court of Appeal, amongst others, said

Concluding, Lord Justice Flaux said: “Notwithstanding the national security concerns about Ms Begum, I have reached the firm conclusion that given that 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 judge added: “Fairness and justice must, on the facts of this case, outweigh the national security concerns.”

Shamima Begum, pic from The Guardian report

See earlier related posts:-

Shamima Begum - Can government be allowed to revoke your citizenship/nationality? 

END DISCRIMINATION: RESPECT HUMAN RIGHTS AND RESTORE SHAMINA BEGUM’S UK NATIONALITY

 

Shamima Begum wins right to return to UK to challenge citizenship decision
Appeal court partially overturns earlier ruling that backed Home Office

Dan Sabbagh Defence and security editor

Thu 16 Jul 2020 10.40 BSTLast modified on Thu 16 Jul 2020 11.31 BST

British security sources have argued that Shamima Begum poses a security risk. Photograph: BBC News

Shamima Begum, the 20-year-old woman who left east London as a schoolgirl to join Islamic State, should be allowed to return to the UK to challenge the Home Office’s decision to revoke her British citizenship in person.

The court of appeal partially overturned an earlier ruling by the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (Siac) this year, which held that she had not been illegally rendered stateless while she was in Syria because she was entitled to Bangladeshi citizenship.

Concluding, Lord Justice Flaux said: “Notwithstanding the national security concerns about Ms Begum, I have reached the firm conclusion that given that 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 judge added: “Fairness and justice must, on the facts of this case, outweigh the national security concerns.”

The court of appeal also said Siac had failed to consider the evidence properly when it had made its initial decision to revoke Begum’s citizenship, because it had not assessed the “risk of transfer to Iraq and Bangladesh and mistreatment there”.

Flaux and the two other judges on the court, in a unanimous ruling, concluded that Siac should hear the citizenship case again – although the court acknowledged Begum may be at risk of being charged with terror offences if she does return.

The government said it would appeal against the ruling and apply for the court’s judgement to be stayed until then. A Home Office spokesperson said: “This is a very disappointing decision by the court. We will now apply for permission to appeal this judgment, and to stay its effects pending any onward appeal.”

Begum left Bethnal Green in London with two teenage friends in 2015 to join Isis, when the terror group was at its height. Four years later, after its territorial defeat, she was found in a Syrian refugee camp, nine months pregnant.

Sajid Javid, the home secretary at the time, stripped her of her British citizenship later that month, arguing she had the right to become a Bangladeshi citizen, the birth country of her parents. Begum had never visited Bangladesh.

That prompted a high-profile legal battle in which Begum’s lawyers also argued she could not properly defend herself because she remained in a camp in north-east Syria, unable to properly contact her lawyers.

Begum’s child Jarrah died shortly after Javid’s decision was announced. She has said she had two other children while living under Isis, but they also died. In February she was pictured living in a heated tent in the al-Roj camp in Syria.

British security sources argue Begum represents a security risk, and that she was a member of al-Hisba, Isis’s morality police, during which time she carried a Kalashnikov rifle and had a reputation for strictness. Begum also allegedly “stitched suicide bombers into explosive vests”.

Begum’s lawyer, Daniel Furner of Birnberg Peirce solicitors, said the ruling would allow the young woman to “give her side of the story”. He added: “The court itself noted the ‘obvious’ difference between interviews given to journalists, and instructions provided to a solicitor in court proceedings.

“Ms Begum is not afraid of facing British justice, she welcomes it. But the stripping of her citizenship without a chance to clear her name is not justice, it is the opposite.”

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/jul/16/shamima-begum-wins-right-to-return-to-uk

CIVIL SOCIETY STATEMENT - 9/4/2019

Media Statement  9/4/2019

END DISCRIMINATION: RESPECT HUMAN RIGHTS AND
RESTORE SHAMINA BEGUM’S UK NATIONALITY

We, the undersigned individuals, organizations and groups are appalled that the United Kingdom has revoked the citizenship of Shamina Begum, a 20-year-old mother who asked to come back to the UK after giving birth to a baby boy in a Syrian Refugee camp. While the UK government refused to allow her and her child in, the baby died.

It was reported that the Home Office sent Begum’s family in UK a letter informing her that Home Secretary Sajid Javid had made an ‘…order “removing her British citizenship” on Tuesday [19/2/2019]. The document, addressed to Begum’s mother, said the decision was taken “in light of the circumstances of your daughter…” (Independent, 20/2/2019)

Denial of Right To Be Heard & a Fair Trial

It is unconscionable and unjust that anyone is deprived of one’s citizenship and/or nationality. It is even more shocking when they have not been accorded the right to be heard and to a fair trial. In addition, any decision should be made by the courts – not merely an administrative order of some Minister, in this case the Home Secretary.

The fact that the UK government knows that Begum is in a Syrian Refugee camp, not in the United Kingdom, and that she had been asking the government to help her and her baby get home, made this act of citizenship cancellation even more outrageous. The tragic death of her child, who was born a British citizen and may have been saved had he been allowed into the UK with his mother, is unconscionable.

The Home Secretary allegedly made his decision “…in light of the circumstances…” but Begum has not been heard, therefore the ‘circumstances’ may not be true – they have certainly not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Fifteen-year-old Begum, with a couple of friends, allegedly left the UK and travelled to Syria. She then allegedly got married to a man from Holland. They allegedly had children, and this is now her third child. Her other children apparently are also no longer alive. Her ‘husband’ was allegedly involved in ISIS and/or a terrorist group. There are allegations that Begum herself may have supported terrorist agendas, beliefs, ideology and may even have participated in their activities.

There can be many allegations, but allegations are irrelevant when it comes to the administration of justice, especially when the end result is the possible deprivation of liberty, or worse, the loss of nationality. Allegations need to be proven beyond reasonable doubt especially when it comes to cancelling one’s birth right. Begum was a citizen at birth. She was not granted her nationality by any subsequent act of government.

What we have heard and seen in the media may have influenced the government of the day. There is always the possibility of bias, selective ‘quotes’ and/or selective reporting that may invite wrong conclusions.

The government, on the other hand, must be more thorough and just, especially if the end result is the expulsion of a person from the UK, the only country that Begum belongs to, the separation from her family there, and now the death of a new born.

At present, there is no crime in UK law that prescribes that the penalty is the revocation of citizenship. Even the worst of criminals, such as convicted mass murderers like the Yorkshire Ripper keep their nationality.

A mother, wife, child or relative of a person convicted of a crime should never be considered guilty simply because of family ties or association. If Shamina Begum did break UK law, then she should be brought back to the UK and accorded a fair trial. If convicted, then she should be sentenced as a citizen in accordance with the law.

DISCRIMINATION – Different treatment based on parentage

Discrimination is also a major concern if different treatment is being accorded to a class of citizens who are assumed to be or maybe entitled to dual nationalities through parentage, or even marriage. Would other citizens of the UK, with no migrant heritage, be treated in the same way ending up with the revocation of their UK citizenship?

‘...Speaking after he revoked her British citizenship, [Home Secretary,] Sajid Javid said he would not take a decision that would leave an individual with nowhere to go… Although he has not commented directly on the case, Mr Javid appeared to confirm earlier in the week the government felt able to take such action – which would prevent her from returning to the UK – because she is a dual national or has the right to citizenship elsewhere. Under international law, revoking someone's citizenship is only permissible if it does not leave that person stateless...’ (Sky News, 21/2/2019).

It must be noted that Begum does not hold dual citizenship, which is permitted in the UK, but is a UK citizen from birth. The Home Secretary’s order would thus now make her stateless. Bangladesh has already stated that Begum does not have any right to Bangladeshi citizenship.

The position adopted by the UK is clearly discriminatory. It sets a frightening precedent for millions of people born in the UK to immigrant parents. They can now lose their citizenship whilst those born to British-born parents cannot.

It is most disturbing to find out that there has been a significant escalation of removal of citizenship. This was highlighted by the Windrush scandal where Commonwealth citizens who had lived in the UK for decades were deported if they could not show documentation proving their citizenship.

Removal of Citizenship has increased by 600% in a year. Over the past 10 years, 150 people have been deprived of UK nationality. Fourteen people were deprived of citizenship in 2016, and 104 in 2017. (Independent, 21/2/2019).

This is another result of the ‘racist policy’ to create a ‘hostile environment’ against anyone assumed to be an immigrant from the ‘New Commonwealth’ (i.e. people from countries with mainly non-white populations) put in place by Prime Minister Theresa May when she was then Home Secretary.

Child Rights Convention – Removing A Mother’s Nationality Is Not In The Best Interest Of A UK Child Citizen

Begum’s son was born days before her citizenship was revoked and was therefore a UK citizen.  The government’s action was against the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), amongst others, as it deprived him of his mother and of his right to be breastfed by her.  It was certainly not in the best interest of the child. His subsequent death is a tragedy that may have been avoided had his rights been prioritized. Shadow Home Secretary Diane Abbott questioned whether stripping Begum of her nationality “made it impossible for her to fulfil her duties as a mother and bring her baby home to a safe place.”

Therefore we

Call on the UK government to forthwith revoke the Home Secretary’s order removing Begum’s UK citizenship/nationality, and immediately bring her back to the UK as per her request;

Call on the UK Government to respect human rights, including the rights of the child as contained in the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC); and

Call on the UK to abolish laws and/or policies that can result in discriminatory treatment against citizens based on factors including parentage.

Charles Hector

Selma James

Nina Lopez

For and on behalf of the 16 organisations and 27 individuals listed below

Endorsers

Association of Human Rights Defenders and Promoters - HRDP in Myanmar

Disabled People Against Cuts

English Collective of Prostitutes

Global Women’s Strike

Haiti Action Committee, US

International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network, UK

Legal Action for Women

MADPET (Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture)

Marvi Rural Development Organization, MRDO

North South Initiative

Payday men’s network

Peter Tatchell Foundation

Single Mothers’ Self-Defence

WH4C (Workers Hub For Change)

Women of Colour GWS

Women for Justice and Peace in Sri Lanka

Individuals

Ahmed Aydeed, solicitor

Hannah Baynes, solicitor

Sara Callaway, Women of Colour GWS

Chris Callender, solicitor

Professor Tom Cheesman

Louise Christian (Human Rights lawyer)

Elizabeth Cross

Dr Jonathan Fluxman

Anthony Gifford QC

Teresa Hayter

Charles Hector, advocate and solicitor

Toufique Hossain, solicitor

Selma James, Global Women’s Strike

Lorry Leader

Nina Lopez, Legal Action for Women

Barbara Le Fevre

Daniel Machover, Hickman Rose solicitors

David Malone, barrister

Anna Mazzola, writer

Bhatt Murphy, solicitor

Jacqueline McKenzie, immigration and asylum lawyer

Sally Middleton, Birnberg Peirce & partners solicitors

Giorgio Riva

Akua Rugg

Jane Ryan

Rachel Zeng, human rights defender

Benjamin Zephaniah, poet, musician