Readers respond to the supreme court decision that Begum will not have her citizenship restored<\/p>
Every day it seems the Guardian serves up another reason for being ashamed to be British. On Friday, it was the case of Shamima Begum (Shamima Begum loses fight to restore UK citizenship after supreme court ruling<\/a>, 26 February). It makes it particularly difficult that I\u2019m tutoring someone who is hoping to take an A-level in British politics. All the books list human rights and explain how carefully protected they are in our system. Article 5 is supposed to protect the right to liberty and freedom from arbitrary detention. Yet the supreme court is unable to protect Begum\u2019s rights against a home secretary who is operating a policy based on pandering to public opinion in return for (hoped-for) votes.<\/p> We are told that legal protections are particularly important in difficult cases \u2013 that is, cases where an individual presents as unpleasant or undeserving. Begum was a teenager who took the extraordinary step of leaving her country to defend something she believed was deserving of her support. But even if she left with the firm intention of terrorising her fellow citizens, does this mean she should be deprived of her rights? It is a matter not of what Begum deserves but of what our national honour, and our constitution, deserve. This has been increasingly in doubt in recent years, with the government threatening to renege over the Northern Irish border agreement; not to mention the Chagos Islands and our participation in rendering citizens to be tortured during the \u201cwar on terror\u201d.
Jeremy Cushing<\/strong>
Exeter<\/em><\/p> Continue reading...<\/a>\n