Revoking citizenship in order to combat terrorism: a critical review

/ babettestolk / Een reactie plaatsen

A growing threat of terrorism has caused various states to sharpen anti-terrorism legislation. Correspondingly, citizenship laws have been adjusted as well. Numerous countries, such as the United Kingdom or the Netherlands, revoke the citizenship of a person if they are seen as a terrorist. While the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) states that “everyone has right to a nationality” (Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948), in practice people remain stateless, due to these anti-terrorism measures. In this essay, I will argue that nations should not deprive people of their citizenship in order to protect their respective populations. Moreover, I will substantiate my claim by illustrating that firstly, de facto, people can become stateless, which I will portray using the case of Shamima Begum, and secondly, populations are not protected, since statelessness results into an inability to locate a person, thus the threat is not diminished.

According to section 40 of the 1981 British Nationality Act (BNA), citizenship can be revoked if it is ‘conducive to the public good’ (BNA 1981. Section 40.2). Thus, in the United Kingdom, a citizen that is perceived as a threat, for example a terrorist, which The United Kingdom Terrorism Act of 2000 defines as an act that involves the use of threat to influence the government or advancing political, racial or ideological causes (Terrorism Act 2000. Section 1.1), moreover, terrorism entails serious violence against a person, property, endangering a person’s life, creating a risk to the health and safety of the public or interfering with or disrupting an electronic system (idem. Section 1.2), can lose its citizenship. However, citizenship may not be revoked, if this results in the statelessness of a person (BNA 1981. Section 40. 4A). Furthermore, in article 15 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) it states that “everyone has a right to a nationality” (Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948). Consequently, while states can deprive you of a citizenship, a person cannot become stateless, according to national law as well as the UDHR.

UK-born woman Shamima Begum is de facto stateless, which illustrates that the BNA is flawed. Begum went to Syria at age fifteen in 2015 with the intention to join ISIS (Bowcott 2020). As a consequence, the British government revoked Shamima Begum’s British nationality, stating that, since she has parents from Bangladesh, she has the right to a Bangladeshi passport and would thus not be stateless (ibid.). However, if Begum decides to go to Bangladesh she would most likely be hanged, due to her affiliations with ISIS (ibid.) Notwithstanding, The UK government does not have the authority to “interfere with nationality decisions of other states, and standards do not guarantee reacquisition of previously held nationality” (Mantu 34: 2018). Consequently, Shamima Begum remains de facto stateless and has lost an appeal earlier this year against the Home Office to regain her British citizenship (ibid.). Furthermore, Begum cannot appeal to her human rights of the UDHR as it is not legally binding and in European treaties, that countries such as the UK have ratified, reducing statelessness is mentioned, but these have little impact. (Hage, Waltermann and Akkermans 2017: 300). Therefore, Shamima Begum remains stateless, and thus her human rights are violated.

Additionally, the term ‘terrorist’ is contested. Shamima Begum is viewed as a terrorist, or at least as a threat, by the United Kingdom and Bangladesh, and revoking her citizenship is ‘conducive to public good’. Meanwhile, she resides in a refugee camp in Syria (Bowcott 2020) and it remains unclear if she is participating in any terroristic activities. Although she does not fit into the aforementioned description of a terrorist, the Terrorism Act of 2006 states moreover, that the encouragement (Terrorism Act 2006. Section 1.), preparation (idem. Section 5.)  and training of terrorism (idem. Section 6.) is an offence. There is currently no evidence that Begum still has affiliations with ISIS, merely that she resides in Syria (Bowcott 2020), thus it remains unknown whether she is violating the aforementioned Terrorism Act and is a threat. However, Shamima Begum’s journey to Syria and marriage to an ISIS fighter (Bowcott 2020) results in a status as, what the UN Security Council Resolution in 2014 introduced as: a ‘Foreign Terrorist Fighter’ (FTF) (Nyamutata 2020: 9). This is defined as: “individuals who travel to a State other than their State of residence or nationality for the purpose of the perpetration, planning or preparation of, or participation in, terrorist acts or the providing or receiving of terrorist training, including in connection with armed conflict” (United Nations 2014: 6). As Matthias Borgers states: “it can be difficult to ascertain the degree to which specific behaviour in a specific case has the ability to seriously damage a country or an international organisation” (Borgers 2012: 73), therefore, it is difficult to determine if Begum is indeed still a threat, however, the UK continues to see her as an FTF and thus a threat to the security of its population. Consequently, Begum remains stateless.

The case of Shamima Begum illustrates how revoking citizenship conflicts with human rights apparent in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Her status as FTF has little evidence and in practice Begum is unable to become Bangladeshi. Therefore, it is not only unclear if the reason for revoking her citizenship is still justified, her human rights are violated. This portrays the complexity of citizenship law and illustrates that revoking citizenship should not be allowed in order to protect other citizens. Furthermore, Begum’s case shows that the law the BNA incorporated that should protect the human rights stated, namely that citizenship can merely be revoked if the respective person does not become stateless, is flawed, in reality, people, such as Shamima Begum, are unable to receive citizenship elsewhere. Moreover, as Shamima Begum resides in a refugee camp, the circumstances to prepare for her trial are challenging. She receives information via her parents and while she has been able to speak to a lawyer, legal aid has not been of the same quality as it would be if she resided in the UK (Bowcott 2020). This might endanger her right to a fair trial. Article 6 of the European Convention for Human Rights (ECHR), which the UK has ratified (coe.int), states that everyone is entitled to “adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence” (art. 6.3b ECHR). Her statelessness could thus also lead to a violation of her human right to a fair trial.

In addition to the violation of Begum’s human rights, the reason to revoke her citizenship, namely to protect the population of the UK is ambiguous. Although Begum is not in the UK anymore, if she is a threat, she has not disappeared. Due to her stateless status, she is not convicted, nor in prison, but remains free. Moreover, the UK does not know where Begum is and she was “discovered by journalists” (Bowcott 2020). Consequently, the threat that the UK is trying to diminish is not only still present, but also unlocated. Thus, if Begum decides to plan a terroristic attack on the UK, she could still do so, which would not be the case if she would go to prison in the UK, while remaining a British citizen. The United Kingdom liberates itself from any responsibilities of its former citizens, including sentencing any wrongdoings.

The issue of statelessness that Shamima Begum’s case exemplifies, is not restricted to the United Kingdom and Shamima Begum. In the Netherlands, for example, a similar approach regarding terrorists is implemented. Minister Madeleine van Toorenburg stated “They have distanced themselves from the Netherlands, thus we distance us from them” (Kouwenhoven 2019) and almost the entire second chamber agreed with her (ibid.). This illustrates that many more countries have taken a similar stance regarding citizenship and terrorism and all the aforementioned problems that come forth out of revoking someone’s citizenship apply to other states as well. Theresa May has stated that “citizenship is not a right, but a privilege” (Bridle 2020), which allows citizenship to become ‘weaponized’ (Bridle 2020), and as this essay illustrates, the punishment of revoking citizenship proves insufficient. It is thus attitudes that May’s and Toorenburg’s statements exemplify, that are part of the issue.

In conclusion, Shamima Begum’s case illustrates that revoking citizenship in order to protect the respective population is not the most optimal manner to diminish the threat of terrorism. Citizens can become stateless, even though this violates the UDHR as well as the BNA. Moreover, the human right to a fair trial is possibly violated due to the status of statelessness. Additionally, although these rights are violated and in theory people cannot become stateless, the UDHR is not legally binding and the BNA if flawed. Furthermore, revoking citizenship in order to protect the respective population is an insufficient measure to increase security and diminish terrorism. ‘Banning’ a terrorist does not result in their disappearance, rather in their unlocated presence. In order to combat terrorism is it thus crucial to change attitudes towards citizens that choose to take part in terroristic actions and punish these citizens in their respective countries.

Bibliography

(coe.int) Council of Europe Portal. Chart of signatures and ratifications of Treaty 005 (2020). https://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/full-list/-/conventions/treaty/005/signatures. Consulted on June 24 2020.

(legislation.gov.uk) United Kingdom Parliament (2020). Section 40: British Nationality Act 1981, Ch.61 Sec. 40.  http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1981/61/section/40. Consulted on June 15 2020.

(legislation.gov.uk) United Kingdom Parliament. Section 1: Terrorism Act 2000. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/11/section/1. Consulted on June 23 2020.

(legislation.gov.uk) United Kingdom Parliament. Terrorism Act 2006 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/11/section/1. Consulted on June 23 2020.

(un.org) United Nations Security Council. Implementation of Security Council resolution 2178 (2014) by States Affected by foreign terrorist fighters. (2014). https://www.un.org/sc/ctc/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/FTF-Report-1-3_English.pdf. Consulted on June 24 2020.

Borgers, M.J. (2012). “Framework Decision on Combating Terrorism: Two Questions on the Definition of Terrorist Offences.” New Journal of European Criminal Law, 3(1), 68-82.

Bowcott, O. (2020). “Shamima Begum loses first stage of appeal against citizenship removal” The Guardian, February 7.  https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/feb/07/shamima-begum-loses-appeal-against-removal-of-citizenship. Consulted on June 15 2020.

Bowcott, O. (2020). “Shamima Begum’s UK citizenship should be restored, court told” The Guardian, June 11. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/jun/11/shamima-begums-uk-citizenship-should-be-restored-court-told. Consulted on June 24 2020.

Bridle, J. (2019) “Shamima Begum’s case shows us citizenship can never protect our rights”, The Guardian, March 5. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/mar/05/shamima-begum-citizenship. Consulted on June 24 2020.

ECHR.COE.INT (2020) General presentation. Strasbourg: European Court of Human Rights.

Hage, J., Waltermann, A. and Akkermans, B. (2017). Introduction To Law. 2nd ed. Maastricht: Springer.

Kouwenhoven, A. (2019) “Niet meer als terrorist gezien, wel je Nederlanderschap kwijt” (Not seen as a terrorist anymore, still losing your Dutch citizenship). NRC, January 7. https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2019/01/07/niet-meer-als-terrorist-gezien-wel-je-nederlanderschap-kwijt-a3128192. Consulted on June 23 2020.

Mantu, S. (2018). “‘Terrorist’ citizens and the human right to nationality.” Journal of Contemporary European Studies, 26(1): 28–41.

Nyamutata, C. (2020). “Young Terrorists or Child Soldiers? ISIS Children, International Law and Victimhood.” Journal of Conflict and Security Law. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcsl/krz034. Consulted on June 24 2020.

United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) (1948). The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/#:~:text=Article%2015.,right%20to%20change%20his%20nationality.. Consulted on June 15 2020.

The dark side of communities

/ babettestolk / Een reactie plaatsen

I wrote this for the magazine of my study association and thought it might be nice to share it here as well. 

When we hear the word ‘community’ our minds wander to communities we are a part of ourselves. We are students at the University of Amsterdam, we are Political Scientists, we are part of a study association and so on. Often, communities can give us a sense of identity and belonging. People connect with one another and find similarities that bring them closer together. International students may find a sense of home in a community of students that also come from afar, and the same might be true for communities of Dutch students. While communities have numerous positive aspects, they do not necessarily lead to good outcomes. In this article, I am exploring the negative side of communities and I question if we should be forming communities or groups at all.

First of all, communities often lead to separation of groups. This may sound contradictory, but let me explain. It is visible on a small scale in our own beloved university: international students and Dutch students rarely mingle. As a Dutch student who grew up in Germany, I believe I fall in between the groups of international students and Dutch ones, which allows me to look at the two groups more objectively. Since international students have another layer that comes with studying: namely moving away from the country they grew up in, their experiences differ from Dutch students. It is normal that they form clusters, international students can recognize certain experiences that nationals might not have had (yet). Furthermore, the language barrier is present. It is always easier to speak in your native tongue. It seems logical that there is a clear distinction between internationals and Dutch students, however, this creates a rift within the university. Dutch students are not a part of international groups and vice versa. Consequently, dialogue between the two groups starts to diminish and the two groups are living alongside each other, rather than with one another.

This separation of groups leads to polarisation, which is my second point. While polarization of international and national students in a university provide a good example to illustrate my point, the urgency of the problem is not visible. Who cares that internationals and Dutch people do not mingle, right? Well, this polarization that communities bring about, is also visible in the rest of the world. It is easier to stick to the people that understand us, and that have similar experiences and similar opinions on certain matters. It feels comfortable and takes less effort. If we both believe that we should close our borders and put fences up, or if we both believe that climate change should be taken seriously, conversations will flow more easily. Instead of a heavy debate, we can just agree with each other. The community then becomes an echo chamber in which we find comfort, but lose any critique on our views or beliefs.  Forming groups can thus seclude us to our own opinions and in this we might become strangers to each other. This sense of alienation seep through the larger community that we are part of, namely being citizens and this will then cease to exist; solidarity is lost. This claim needs some nuance of course. Communities are not the sole reason that polarization exists in modern democracies. Economic inequality and a sense of social injustice are more likely to be the root of polarization. However, the feeling that we are being treated unjustly is fuelled if we surround ourselves with people who are of the same opinion. If we constantly agree with each other, we will also constantly think that we are right.

Lastly, by forming groups we are likely to fall into ‘identity politics’. This means that we prioritize issues that relate to our identity, which can lead to several problems. As a woman we would want a president to be a woman as well, but this is then the only aspect we focus on. Instead of the actual skills needed to be president, we thus only focus on gender. Communities are often based on aspects of our identity, such as our sexual orientation, race or gender which provides thus a good base to practice these identity politics that can be harmful.

For a democracy to maintain healthy it is of importance that the world becomes less polarized and issues are looked at separately from our identities. Forming communities is not helping these two issues, rather it worsens them. The question remains if the benefits of communities, which I am not denying exist, outweigh the negative consequences of polarization. I argue that this is true: we lose our individuality and critical thinking in groups, however this does not mean that communities should cease to exist. Mainly, because this is an impossible task to enforce in a society filled with humans that naturally form groups and are social animals. A more feasible solution and also crucial solution is that conversations do not disappear. We need to live with each other, not next to each other and dialogue is a necessity in order to do this. So, next time you are standing at a Borrel in café de Havelaar and you hear some Dutch next to you, engage in a conversation, rather than looking for your international friends. And who knows, you might find a whole new community!

 

Refractions

/ babettestolk / Een reactie plaatsen

The light creates a
bright square on my bed
How tempting to
lay in the sun for a while

The warmth cradles my body
and my eyes shut automatically

Later, I move into my window frame
and open my eyes to read stories
that have never existed
but feel universal

My cheeks have turned red
Freckles have dotted all over my nose

In Dutch the splitting of light
is called the breaking of light

and as an unexpected rainbow
colours my ribs
I wonder if ‘breaking’ can be good
How can a rainbow be anything but good

after all?

An orange-pink-red flame

/ babettestolk / Een reactie plaatsen

Escapril has started! 30 days, 30 poems! Follow @babettehelena_s on instagram to read my attempts!

Here is the first one (prompt: dawn)

Light seeps through and
breaks the notion of the night
time is visible again

and somewhere
it is dusk,
the sky might look the same:
an orange-pink-red flame

there is a second of similarity,
which leaves us a little lost

is the day almost starting
or will the night soon defrost?

insights

/ babettestolk / Een reactie plaatsen

I keep forgetting
your ‘normal’ isn’t
mine.
I keep forgetting
the colours you see
aren’t the same.
I keep forgetting that
I am stuck inside
my head,
while you wander freely
in yours.
I keep forgetting that
when my hands are cold
yours are not,
and I keep forgetting
that you too
will see raindrops fall
when clouds turn grey

Ships in the night

/ babettestolk / Een reactie plaatsen

Originally a Dutch poem. Read the Dutch version here

We pass each other
like ships in the night,
a nod
nothing more.

We wonder
where the other will go
while it is
still so dark outside

and the sea is enormous.
but the weak lights
of our ships
do not give us enough directions
to go anywhere at all

so we sail
back and forth
and pass each other
over and over

flavourlessly flat

/ babettestolk / Een reactie plaatsen

I would like to break
let there be ruptures in my skin
I want to feel dry eyes
and no air to breathe, while I spin.

Stick needles in my back
filled with feelings that I can’t carry
Poison me, let me die and vomit
until all I cough up is blood coloured like cherry

And I cough and I cough and I cough

But even though I never add salt
my body is filled with a liquid version of it.

And I can’t break
I still breathe
I can’t cough
tears will not leave

And blood circulates my body
like it has done for years

my skin remains plain

no emotions, it appears.