Good Idea From Mrs May?

[FredPuli43]

Theresa May has announced that she intends to have the law changed so that terrorist suspects can have their British passports removed even if that means they are stateless. She tried to do this in the case of an Iraqi who had been granted asylum here but then rewarded us by fighting for the enemy. The Supreme Court held that, while he could get the Iraqi government to issue a new Iraqi passport, he would be rendered stateless unless and until he did so. That was beyond her powers [The Times, today, Tuesday]

[youngmafbog]

Jake, I take it you live in somewhere where they are not likely to blow you up?

You dont work in London do you? so pretty easy to say those comments.

I dont hate Muslims, I have Muslim close friends, much as I had Irish friends during the troubles. but i still want my security to be paramount and above the ideologies of a few right-on liberals. You may be interested to know my Muslim friends also think this, but then they are not radicals and steer clear of radical mosques and teachings.

[Peter Pedant]

The defect is modern law education is that International Law is not on the undergraduate agenda and this means people like Jack Straw and Mrs May make basic mistakes like this one.

Displaced and stateless persons were such a problem in 1945 that it was agreed by treaty (which Mrs May would have unilaterally to abrogate) that countries would not make people stateless.

So she can't

Idi Amin in Uganda all those y ago tried and couldnt
and in ZIm - that bastion of law and order the Nationality Law dictates that if you dont come and vote (for Mugabe) you lose you passport and nationality - and under this analysis he cant either.

Straight question of 'Do Ministers have to obey the Law ?'
and the answer is Yes

[Peter Pedant]

youngma Jake, I take it you live in somewhere where they are not likely to blow you up?

are you serious ? Twenty or thirty y ago you /one was far more likely to get blown up than now.... by the IRA. The number of deaths from terrorism per y is peanuts compared to road accidents. I think you are more likely to shot by a neighbour than blown up by anything

[FredPuli43]

Curious about International Law not being on the syllabus Peter. Thinking about it, I did Comparative Law ("Private International Law") but no Public International Law at all. So, I was well-equipped to tell everyone about what law applied when the Duke of Wellington's family got land in Spain, and what domicil meant, but nothing about such matters as you refer to.

It is possible to me stateless and be lawfully here. Spike Milligan was famously stateless ; he was, late in life, granted Irish citizenship; because of an anomaly resulting from the Republic becoming independent.

[FredPuli43]

^be stateless" not "me stateless". I am British through and through !

[FredPuli43]

And. yes, Peter, we get about 600 murders and manslaughters a year. The majority of murder victims are known to the murderer. Don't know how many victims of terrorism we get on average per year, but it must be a very small number. So it is reasonable to assume that we are more likely to be killed by a neighbour, assuming we define neighbour as one who is not literally next door, and perhaps even then.

The difference is that our neighbours do not have the belief that they should kill anyone who doesn't agree with there principles.

[Peter Pedant]

Hi Freddie
ah no - - lawyers distinction - not unlawful to be stateless
but unlawful to make someone stateless

being stateless - wearing scarf around your head and rooting around in dustbins

making someone stateless, - big car and office, fancy pen to sign the order making X stateless, then fill out claim to heat stables in second home using same pen

as you can see - from these Further particulars - two completely different situations.

I am astounded to hear that Spike was stateless - and doubtful even tho he might have Said It Himself. A lot ot the time de Oirish have a choice of nationality ( so if he were Oirish but didnt know it either thro ignorance or the disease of the mind he suffered from, was he stateless or just er ignorant ? ) as a result of our glorious Empire, the Treaty of 1922, the fact that around 200 000 joined up and fought for King George VI and the second fact that the border is undefended.

The only thing on Lauterpacht I can find is this:
http://www.lcil.cam.ac.uk/sites/default/files/LCIL/documents/papers/Guillaume.pdf
wh wd be useful for any student writing an essay on -
" the function of the ICJ in the 2000s. "

[jake-the-peg]

YMB

Your reasoning always revolves around you personally doesn't it?

You think everybody else thinks that way too and so you accuse me of self interset because you simply can't conceive of anyone acting on a bigger picture than self-interest

You don't think such a law could ever negatively affect you

I'm sure these people thought similarly


http://www.buzzfeed.com/annanorth/5-men-who-have-been-falsely-accused-of-terrorism

People are wrongly accused all the time and not just terrorism

Fraud
http://abarristerswife.wordpress.com/2013/05/21/exhibit-d-the-fraudster/

Paedophillia
http://abarristerswife.wordpress.com/2013/05/14/exhibit-c-the-paedophile/

Murder
http://abarristerswife.wordpress.com/2013/05/05/exhibit-b-the-murderer/

The 'Where there's smoke there's fire' mentality is shockingly niave

[sfby]

//The terror suspect who escaped hidden under a burqa must have done something to attract the attention of the authorities – otherwise he wouldn’t have been under surveillance - and would have had no reason to abscond. Frankly, if the security of this country is at risk, to my mind his ‘rights’ do not take precedence.//

You mean like Jean Charles de Menezes?

[emmie]

that was the exception to the rule, however the security services have already stated how many plots they have managed to foil, and this is from those inside this country, not people who jetted in to murder innocents, they cannot clarify how exactly many terror suspects there are in Britain, but according to numerous reports there are several thousand living right here.

[Peter Pedant]

Closer reading reveals:

there is a govt belief that removing someone's passport
is possible without rendering them stateless...

actually I would agree with this.....[ they would still be British Subjects ]

however it does interfere with freedom o fmovement between treaty countries....