Ship of Fools: Committee for Public Safety? AKA the Home Office

Thread: Committee for Public Safety? AKA the Home Office Board: Hell / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=005604

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

I am becoming ashamed to be British.

I never voted for them. I wouldn't vote for the Nasty Party, as our new unelected Prime Minister once called them. She who ran the Home Office before her apotheosis.

On the letters page today, Giles Fraser has told of a couple in his parish who were planning their wedding, but because the groom was non-EU had to go through the registry office, not the church banns process.

Six Home Office personnel turned up while the couple were still asleep, ransacked the house for papers, leaving it trashed and with the groom (14 years in this country with no problem) and did not tell the bride where he was being taken.

Fraser guessed where, and went to Becket House (ironic?) where he was not allowed to speak to the groom, who was then taken to a place on the Isle of Portland which has had a censorious review from the Inspector of Prisons, citing violence and denial of access to legal advice.

This is in denial of Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which this country helped draft. (And probably the original Magna Carta, too - but that got scrapped.)

Fraser quietly ranting

On the same page are letters about the commitment made in Parliament, in response to Alf Dubs (who has got into the Lords despite not being a candidate for the B Ark in HitchHikers Guide to the Galaxy)) to bring over unaccompanied children from Calais. A commitment which has had nothing at all done about it. These are not children who are on the cusp of adulthood, and might be agents of Daesh, but undisputed primary age children who are at the mercy of traffickers and worse.

And, for a slight change, about the Foreign Office's inability for some reason to try to bring back a dual nationality woman from Saudi who is held prisoner by her father with the support of the Saudi government.

There is also a letter accusing the Guardian of supporting the complained of attitude of abuse in politics by selling T-shirts quoting Nye Bevan calling the Tories vermin.

I'm not supposed to speak to people like that. It isn't answering that of God in them. But what will?

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

The first bit sounds very much like the US. [Frown]

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:

And, for a slight change, about the Foreign Office's inability for some reason to try to bring back a dual nationality woman from Saudi who is held prisoner by her father with the support of the Saudi government.

I rather thought that one of the principles of dual nationality was that the possession of one nationality wasn't of any use to you in claims against the government of the other nationality.

From your description, the treatment of this woman, a Saudi citizen, is in accordance with Saudi law. We may naturally deplore such treatment, but it's far from obvious to me that we should be able to do anything about it.

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

Didn't mention that she grew up here, in Swansea, where her mother and siblings still are, and had spent all of her life here before being taken to Saudi by her father.

Here's a piece. Amina al-Jeffrey

It seems a good idea for women from such regimes to remove their citizenship, if there is a process for doing it.

Posted by M. (# 3291) on :

To be honest, I'm not sure what the Foreign Office is supposed to do. The courts have ordered her father to bring her home, and if he doesn't, presumably he could be arrested for contempt of court if he comes back to the UK (where his wife and other children are). But as I understand it, and I've only been reading accounts in the press like anyone else, Saudi Arabia doesn't recognise dual nationality.

M.

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :

Yes. They can't actually enforce this. Under Saudi law the father has to agree to letting his daughter go back to Wales and if he doesn't agree there's an end of it. All they can do at this end is make it clear that this is the position and if he refuses to comply, there's nothing they can do except that if he ever tries to come back to Britain he'll be considered in contempt of court and dealt with accordingly. I don't see him either agreeing to let her go or else to attempt to visit Britain any time soon.

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

OK, let the FCO off the charge. Horrid situation, though. A pity we need to keep the Saudis sweet, isn't it?

[ 06. August 2016, 08:15: Message edited by: Penny S ]

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
OK, let the FCO off the charge. Horrid situation, though. A pity we need to keep the Saudis sweet, isn't it?

Is it a question of "keeping the Saudis sweet", or just a question of recognizing a country's jurisdiction over its own citizens within its own borders?

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

I think the phrase you're looking for is "valued trading partner". [Roll Eyes]

Friends have had recent experiences with the FCO. Bluntly put, if you're not doing business, they're not going to help you.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:

quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
OK, let the FCO off the charge. Horrid situation, though. A pity we need to keep the Saudis sweet, isn't it?
Is it a question of "keeping the Saudis sweet", or just a question of recognizing a country's jurisdiction over its own citizens within its own borders?

we recognise a country's jurisdiction more rigorously when they are a valued trading partner.

It has become clear that money is the sole driving force of this government. Any idealogical recognition of sovereignty is totally dependent on this. Mainly because this government are money-grabbing, moral-free fuckers.

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

But if people are also recognised citizens of another state, and have been moved into the second state without agreement to stay there, why should the first state go along with recognising the second state's sovereignty when it denies the first state's interest in those people and colludes in their abduction and imprisonment?

Perhaps we should make it clear to people applying for dual citizenship that the other party totally ignores that, so there's no point in having it, and they should never, ever visit the state of their citizenship if they want their human rights to be observed.

After all, it's really very important that we should sell them arms to bomb the hell out of civilians in a neighbouring small poor state, isn't it? Oh, and allow them to buy out housing in our capital city.

[ 07. August 2016, 12:11: Message edited by: Penny S ]

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
But if people are also recognised citizens of another state, and have been moved into the second state without agreement to stay there, why should the first state go along with recognising the second state's sovereignty when it denies the first state's interest in those people and colludes in their abduction and imprisonment?

That's a huge generalization. You can't just decide to derecognize another country's sovereignty just because one girl has raised objections to what her father has decided for her. You're looking at it totally from a Western perspective. From his point of view he didn't want her coming under the influence of a culture whose moral values were quite different to his own and which he presumably as a traditional Saudi father found hard to accept. Parents do usually want their children to grow up in a way the parents feel is best for them. You may not agree with his take on the subject but according to the terms of his own culture he was trying to be a parent who didn't want his daughter sliding into permissiveness, sex before marriage and that sort of thing, and I don't doubt that his approach will probably have resonated with a lot of other Saudi fathers.

quote:
Perhaps we should make it clear to people applying for dual citizenship that the other party totally ignores that, so there's no point in having it, and they should never, ever visit the state of their citizenship if they want their human rights to be observed.

That would be silly. Dual citizenship isn't recognized in all countries, but the majority of visits by dual nationals to either of their home countries are usually trouble-free.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:

Perhaps we should make it clear to people applying for dual citizenship that the other party totally ignores that, so there's no point in having it, and they should never, ever visit the state of their citizenship if they want their human rights to be observed.

Most people don't apply for dual citizenship, but acquire it by birth. In the case of Miss al-Jeffrey, she is a Saudi citizen because her father is a Saudi citizen, and she's a British citizen from birth too (she was born in the UK to parents who were settled there).

Saudi law doesn't recognize dual citizenship - as far as Saudi law is concerned, this is the daughter of a Saudi man, and so she is a Saudi citizen. Her claims, and the UK's claims, that she is British are irrelevant.

Saudi law is important here because she's in Saudi Arabia.

And I would generalize your last statement - it is always important to understand the legal system of a country before you visit it. In the case of Miss al-Jeffrey, this would require her, aged 17, to tell her father that she wasn't going to Saudi Arabia with him because she didn't trust him and didn't trust Saudi law. That's quite a lot to expect of a 17-year-old.

Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :

Sovereign nations have the right to make and enforce their own laws however good, bad or indifferent other nations think they are. As Leorning Cniht pointed out, it’s important to be aware that behaviour that is acceptable in the West may be illegal in the East. This is a great example.

Once Miss al-Jeffrey is on Saudi soil, she becomes subject to Saudi law. According to the father, she was seen kissing a man in public. That’s illegal over there IIRC, but foreigners usually get fined and deported.

As al-Jeffery is a Saudi citizen it becomes even more complicated. What's happening to her is not illegal there. Her father is her guardian.

It’s a horrible situation, but for once, this isn’t entirely the UK government’s fault and what they can do is very limited. They can hardly send the SAS round!

Tubbs

[ 08. August 2016, 10:57: Message edited by: Tubbs ]

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

Tubbs wrote:

quote:
It’s a horrible situation, but for once, this isn’t entirely the UK government’s fault and what they can do is very limited. They can hardly send the SAS round!

Thing is, if I'm understanding this case correctly, under Saudi law, it's actually the father who makes the final decision about what happens to the daughter.

So, you can lobby the Saudi government all you want, but as long as that law remains on the book, there's really nothing they can do to force the father to free the woman, even if they wanted to.

Basically, this is like a Brit takes his teenaged daughter with Saudi/British citizenship to live in the UK, and proceeds to feed her bacon for breakfast every day before sending her to school in a tank top and minskirt. People in the KSA may be apalled at that, but they pretty much just have to accept it.

Posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger (# 8891) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:

quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
OK, let the FCO off the charge. Horrid situation, though. A pity we need to keep the Saudis sweet, isn't it?
Is it a question of "keeping the Saudis sweet", or just a question of recognizing a country's jurisdiction over its own citizens within its own borders?

Like we did in Iraq?

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

Isn't consistency in government policy wonderful.

Back to the Home Office, the same consistency is evident in the development of schemes to encourage immigration to the Scottish Highlands, which are subsequently scrapped resulting in families who have settled into local communities (as per the intention of the scheme) facing deportation.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger:

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:

quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
OK, let the FCO off the charge. Horrid situation, though. A pity we need to keep the Saudis sweet, isn't it?
Is it a question of "keeping the Saudis sweet", or just a question of recognizing a country's jurisdiction over its own citizens within its own borders?
Like we did in Iraq?

I'm not sure what your point is. It's not like I was holding up the Iraq War as an example of how statecraft should be conducted.

The fact that we can find major cases of states violating other countries sovereignty doesn't mean that we need to endorse the minor ones.

Posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger (# 8891) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:

quote:
Originally posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger:

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:

quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
OK, let the FCO off the charge. Horrid situation, though. A pity we need to keep the Saudis sweet, isn't it?
Is it a question of "keeping the Saudis sweet", or just a question of recognizing a country's jurisdiction over its own citizens within its own borders?
Like we did in Iraq?
I'm not sure what your point is. It's not like I was holding up the Iraq War as an example of how statecraft should be conducted.

The fact that we can find major cases of states violating other countries sovereignty doesn't mean that we need to endorse the minor ones.

Bushnblair decided they didn't like a country's leader, so instead of recognising that country's right to manage its own affairs, they removed the leader.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger:
Bushnblair decided they didn't like a country's leader, so instead of recognising that country's right to manage its own affairs, they removed the leader.

So you're proposing that the UK goes to war with Saudi Arabia over Miss al-Jeffrey?

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger:

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:

quote:
Originally posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger:

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:

quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
OK, let the FCO off the charge. Horrid situation, though. A pity we need to keep the Saudis sweet, isn't it?
Is it a question of "keeping the Saudis sweet", or just a question of recognizing a country's jurisdiction over its own citizens within its own borders?
Like we did in Iraq?
I'm not sure what your point is. It's not like I was holding up the Iraq War as an example of how statecraft should be conducted.

The fact that we can find major cases of states violating other countries sovereignty doesn't mean that we need to endorse the minor ones.
Bushnblair decided they didn't like a country's leader, so instead of recognising that country's right to manage its own affairs, they removed the leader.

Uh-huh. But I've been against governments pressuring other governments for better treatment of dual-citizens since the last century. Was I supposed to change that opinion just because bushnblair did something worse in 2003?

Posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger (# 8891) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:
Originally posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger:
Bushnblair decided they didn't like a country's leader, so instead of recognising that country's right to manage its own affairs, they removed the leader.
So you're proposing that the UK goes to war with Saudi Arabia over Miss al-Jeffrey?

No, I'm proposing that the relevant authorities don't just shrug their shoulders and say it's nothing they can do anything about.

Posted by chive (# 208) on :

Having looked at my British passport it states:

quote:
British nationals who are also nationals of another country cannot be protected by Her Majesty's Representatives against the authorities of that country.

Yes it's a shitty situation but unfortunately international law dictates which jurisdiction applies and it's not the UK. Small print is important. It's not a case of the consular authorities not wanting to help, it's a legal inability.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0