UK Politics : Groundhog May

[A Horse Named Stranger]

Hardly surprising, I think there's always that tacit understanding, that she will see that Brexit shitshow through and let some unsoiled Tory pick up after the inevitable mess.

[Maltaran]

10 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Hardly surprising, I think there's always that tacit understanding, that she will see that Brexit shitshow through and let some unsoiled Tory pick up after the inevitable mess.

How many unsoiled Tories are there? And would the membership vote for one over Boris or JRM?

[Heartofice]

1 hour ago, john said:

Why would Begum being absolved of all blame (I don’t think that is mormont’s position but I’ll let him speak for himself) mean that there isn’t other degrees of blameworthiness in other situations?

I’m trying to discern what it is about her situation that means she had no agency in her actions, which would make her different to anyone else who had been groomed or coerced. 

[Heartofice]

13 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Hardly surprising, I think there's always that tacit understanding, that she will see that Brexit shitshow through and let some unsoiled Tory pick up after the inevitable mess.

To be fair to her she has stuck around when most people would have ‘done a Cameron’ by now

[A Horse Named Stranger]

Just now, Maltaran said:

How many unsoiled Tories are there? And would the membership vote for one over Boris or JRM?

Unsoiled is a relative term. For the Tory base I guess anybody having put enough distance between them and May('s deal) will do.

So all the huff and puff from BoZo or Reese-Twat will do. You know the principled conservatives, not the sell outs.

I mean, you know the situation is bad, when the best you can hope for is PM Michael Gove.

[redriver]

16 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Unsoiled is a relative term. For the Tory base I guess anybody having put enough distance between them and May('s deal) will do.

So all the huff and puff from BoZo or Reese-Twat will do. You know the principled conservatives, not the sell outs.

I mean, you know the situation is bad, when the best you can hope for is PM Michael Gove.

Best I can hope for is Gove chokes on a lump of Brazilian steak.

[Knight Of Winter]

5 hours ago, john said:

Because she’s British. The British state is not a reasonable person in the street with moderate ideas on fairness and justice.  It’s an enormous apparatus of interconnecting rights and responsibilities between its citizens.  There are ways to deal with criminals, to deal with those espousing hate, to deal with problem teenagers.  The only reason not to do so for apparent reasons of national security, is for political expediency.  Arguably the state has already failed in its responsibility to her, lets not continue to do so.

That's a fair argument.  In fact, this (and similar) line of reasoning are perhaps the best counter-arguments I've heard, and these make me continue thinking over and over again about Begum's case. I'd just add that these interconnecting rights and responsibilities between its citizens fall short on Begum's part, but on the other hand UK does hold its part in her demise and should take its part of responsibility.

[A wilding]

Sorry, late reply again, but I did want to comment on this:

10 hours ago, Knight Of Winter said:

However, if you look at justice from conceptual pint of view, that's where things start to get awry for Begum. Most people would equate justice with things like reciprocity, fairness, equality, avoiding harm etc. and her position leaves a lot to be desired here.

What she's basically saying to the UK is this: Yes, I still hold many ISIS beliefs. I support ISIS knowing that this organization has been downright dangerous for your safety. And I want you all to invest time, money and effort to take me back in. In fact, I'm asking for the benefits of the British state (healthcare for myself and my son, education, fair process before the court of law...) while supporting terrorist organization based on murder, slavery and misogyny - in short, everything that Britain is fighting against.

How is that fair? How is that just?

The justice concepts of reciprocity and equality are do do with symmetrical relationships between equals or near equals. In this case we are considering the decidedly unequal relationship between a UK citizen and the UK state. In that relationship we have moved on from an "eye for an eye". When someone is found guilty of torturing a little child to death, as in the UK news today, then the state does not torture them to death in return.

However wrong her beliefs and attitudes are and however much she fails to support UK values, it is disturbing that she may be stripped of her citizenship without due process. Indeed I can think of several prominent UK citizens whose beliefs and attitudes are pretty disturbing and who are actively working to undermine the benefits of the the UK state, and with less excuse of youth and naivety, but there is sadly no question of revoking their citizenships. We are not that sort of society.

As for fairness and avoiding harm, there are plenty of legal avenues to punish her and limit her ability to cause harm. For example, if she were to return then her son, who is surely entitled to the benefits of the UK state, would certainly be taken away from her. Incidentally, I wonder if anyone ever made that clear to her?

 

Edit: And I see from reading further that John has already made much the same point.

[john]

2 hours ago, Heartofice said:

I’m trying to discern what it is about her situation that means she had no agency in her actions, which would make her different to anyone else who had been groomed or coerced. 

I’m not sure she is different to anyone who has been genuinely groomed or coerced.  It’s just that her lack of agency in her situation seems relevant to her portion of guilt.  A kid that grows up Muslim in a Middle East war zone and ends up joining ISIS possibly lacks agency too, but she isn’t deliberately targeted in a radicalisation programme designed as a blow to the enemy. She’s just a victim of circumstance.

Ultimately there is no free will and we’re all just agents of chance but that’s not very useful when considering the extent of guilt of terrorist sympathisers.

57 minutes ago, A wilding said:

Edit: And I see from reading further that John has already made much the same point.

Don’t worry about that, I enjoyed your reasoning.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

10 hours ago, redriver said:

Best I can hope for is Gove chokes on a lump of Brazilian steak.

On a general note, yes. But the other Tories look so horrible, that they make Gove look like a sensible choice. I mean, which one from that burning clown car would you put in charge?

[SeanF]

2 hours ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

On a general note, yes. But the other Tories look so horrible, that they make Gove look like a sensible choice. I mean, which one from that burning clown car would you put in charge?

Nadine Dorries.

[Derfel Cadarn]

During a press conference in Slovenia, our Foreign Secretary, Hunt, referred to Slovenia as a 'former Soviet vassal state'...

 

[Knight Of Winter]

17 hours ago, A wilding said:

The justice concepts of reciprocity and equality are do do with symmetrical relationships between equals or near equals. In this case we are considering the decidedly unequal relationship between a UK citizen and the UK state. In that relationship we have moved on from an "eye for an eye". When someone is found guilty of torturing a little child to death, as in the UK news today, then the state does not torture them to death in return.

However wrong her beliefs and attitudes are and however much she fails to support UK values, it is disturbing that she may be stripped of her citizenship without due process. Indeed I can think of several prominent UK citizens whose beliefs and attitudes are pretty disturbing and who are actively working to undermine the benefits of the the UK state, and with less excuse of youth and naivety, but there is sadly no question of revoking their citizenships. We are not that sort of society.

As for fairness and avoiding harm, there are plenty of legal avenues to punish her and limit her ability to cause harm. For example, if she were to return then her son, who is surely entitled to the benefits of the UK state, would certainly be taken away from her. Incidentally, I wonder if anyone ever made that clear to her?

Just to be clear, I wan't advocating eye for an eye principle to be applied on Begum. Since we were discussing justice on an abstract level, I just listed some keystone concept that most people would relate to it

I hear your concerns about mob justice, about Begum losing her citizenship without due process - but I don't think that's what's happening here. My quick research told me that due process for losing a citizenship consists of Secretary of State waging whether someone is a security risk. If and when that happens, Begum has the right to appeal, which her family will undoubtedly use in her name. With all the political power plays and public opinions happening in this case, due process seems to be observed.

And since we've agreed that justice is the keystone concept here, the rest of my most will follow moral (not legal, practical or political) argument; justice-based argument - if you will.

The way I see things, Begum has de facto (although not de jure) renounced her British citizenship. That's what her punning off to ISIS actually represents. She rejected values and laws of UK and chosen those of ISIS. If ISIS actually completed its objective, held some territory and became internationally recognized country - she would have requested and received ISIS citizenship. However, it was not to be. Thankfully, ISIS is now on the brink of defeat, which puts everyone involved in an awkward spot. UK is stuck with a (former) citizen it does not really want, and Begum is stuck with a country she does not feel a part of. Sort of lose-lose situation for everyone.

So this, I feel, would be a best approach to this situation: treat Begum as if she was another immigrant, one of many seeking British citizenship. Because, the fact that she once was a British citizen matters little from a moral point of view. Meanwhile, immigrant seeking citizenship more or less always follow the similar procedure: if they show willingness to accept local laws and values - they're approved. Otherwise, they're rejected.

A small digression - I was reminded of a similar case from year or two ago. Basically, Muslim woman requested French citizenship and passed all the tests. On a citizenship award ceremony, she refused to shake hands with male clerk. Clerk then refused to grant her citizenship, citing that gender equality is one of French core values and she was obviously not down with it. The case went all the way up to Supreme court, which upheld clerk's decision. Now, Begum's case oozes with similarities, the only differences being that her crime is wa(aaa)y greater and her past status as a British citizen (which I, again, think it matters little morally).

Now, has Begum demonstrated such a willingness? Sadly, not. In fact, if unrelated immigrant, with sentiments same as Begum's, requested British citizenship today, he'd be rejected in a heartbeat. Someone whose reaction to man's severed head is "Well, he was the enemy of Islam" is not fit, IMO, for British citizenship. UK, along with many other European countries - has quite a bloody history. It waged many wars, did numerous atrocities, oppressed whole nations, killed and enslaved millions of people; all to arrive at a core set of values which make cornerstone of its society today: human rights, democracy, gender and race equality, secularism, due process etc. Even if they're not completely realized (for example, sexism and racism still exist) - they're something for they strive for, every day of every month of every year in the last decades. They're long and hard fought for, their price was paid in blood - and UK is damn right not to throw them all away to accommodate one unrepentant terrorist supporter.

I'm not at all against "reconciliation" between Begum and UK, for her coming back to UK and getting her citizenship back. But she needs to make a first move; she needs to reject ISIS ideology and show willingness to abide by some basic UK values. She needs to realize that being a citizen balances certain rights (such as right to British healthcare she wants and needs) with certain responsibility (such as responsibility not to support terrorist who stand for slavery and murder). For now, Begum is not quite getting the second part of equation. I earnestly hope this will change in the near future - to benefit of her, her son (who, I absolutely agree, is entitled to benefits of the UK state) and her family.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

7 hours ago, SeanF said:

Nadine Dorries.

That's the all brown women lookalike Nadine Dorries? The one who said, no deal doesn't mean a crash, because of the transition period?

Spoiler

No deal, means no transition. But don't tell her.

That's the miracle of the trash bin aka the Tory party, no matter who you pick from there, you will inevitably end up with a piece of garbage. But srsly, why not go full Mogg then? Yes, I know, he doesn't want the job.

[A wilding]

Perhaps surprisingly, I agreed with the French decision to refuse the handshake woman citizenship. And if Begum was not a UK citizen I would entirely agree with not letting her apply for UK citizenship or even come to the UK.

However she is (or was) already a UK citizen. And however it may match the letter of current UK law that a politician can arbitrarily strip a UK national of her citizenship and bar her from returning to the UK, thus forcing her into conducting an difficult and expensive long distance legal case if she wants to get it back, I personally don't think it is justice, however much she might be said to have "de-facto" rejected the UK.

An interesting parallel might be made with the IRA terrorists of a generation or so back. They certainly rejected the UK and committed a whole range of crimes. Yet as far as I know nobody ever considered stripping their rights as UK citizens from them.

 

Oh, and Nadine Dorries (Against sex education for girls, alumni of I'm a Celebrity...Get Me Out of Here) for PM? Now I know I am in bizarro world.

 

[A Horse Named Stranger]

24 minutes ago, A wilding said:

Oh, and Nadine Dorries (Against sex education for girls, alumni of I'm a Celebrity...Get Me Out of Here) for PM? Now I know I am in bizarro world.

I think the I am celebrity bit is actually a qualification for the tv drama Brexit. :)

Although, season one is already over under the working title.

I am Brexiter get me out of Goverment.

[Chaircat Meow]

1 hour ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

That's the all brown women lookalike Nadine Dorries? The one who said, no deal doesn't mean a crash, because of the transition period?

  Hide contents

No deal, means no transition. But don't tell her.

That's the miracle of the trash bin aka the Tory party, no matter who you pick from there, you will inevitably end up with a piece of garbage. But srsly, why not go full Mogg then? Yes, I know, he doesn't want the job. 

What an absolute joke you are as a poster. 

There are many decent Tories who would make good PMs, such as Ruth Davidson, Amber Rudd, David Gauke, Sam Gyimah, Rory Stewart or Ken Clarke. 

[A Horse Named Stranger]

Just now, Nothing Has Changed said:

What an absolute joke you are as a poster. 

There are many decent Tories who would make good PMs, such as Ruth Davidson, Amber Rudd, David Gauke, Sam Gyimah, Rory Stewart or Ken Clarke. 

Ken Clarke, or Jo Johnson would make decent Tory PMs. But they have no chance of getting the job in the current Tory party, do they?

[Chaircat Meow]

1 minute ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Ken Clarke, or Jo Johnson would make decent Tory PMs. But they have no chance of getting the job in the current Tory party, do they?

The membership has gone rabid. The situation is very bad indeed. 

[A Horse Named Stranger]

I mean, Soubry's parting words were something along the line. The conservative party is lost, it's Bluekip now. So going with her argument, I don't think your distinction between party and membership will hold through the next election cycle.