World News
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News [email protected]
Politics [email protected]
World Politics [email protected]
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
view the rest of the comments
Yeah the fact that the state can just remove citizenship is very questionable but literally no sane person should have anything to do with ISIS.
Under UK law they're not allowed to remove citizenship if it would render the person stateless. However, when the UK was investigating whether they'd have to take her back (and they really didn't want to), they realized that she [has? is entitled to?] Bangladeshi citizenship, something that neither she nor the Bangladeshi government was aware of. So they stripped her of her UK citizenship and said that she was now Bangladesh's problem. Bangladesh (to put it politely) disagrees, so she remains in a Syrian camp.
She was radicalized on UK's soil. But they want Bangladesh to deal with the consequences, based on a mere technicality? That's disrespectful, underhanded and sly, to put it mildly.
She's literally British. She was raised here and it's the sole citizenship she holds. What we are doing is illegal and a shirking of our responsibilities to Syrian people, Bangladeshi people, and her. If she's a criminal and an extremist, it's our job to accept her back and deal with that. If she was an adolescent who made a series of terrible errors, endured the most traumatic things, and is genuinely repentant, it's our job to accept her back and deal with that.
Yeah but since when has the UK government cared about doing illegal things. If you gave them two possible options they would automatically pick the illegal one just on principal.
For anyone reading this comment and assuming it's facetious, may I please direct your attention to the Rwanda asylum "plan"?
The whole thing was literally thought up in a 10 minute session with Boris Johnson to try to distract from the fact that he was having parties during the time he was telling everyone else to be in lockdown, because he is and always was a brainless bellend. It was literally a plan that was never thought out and was created entirely to distract the media, and then unsurprisingly it didn't work. For some reason Rishi then decided that he would revive it, despite the fact that it was thought up by an idiot in a panic.
As I understand it international law bans making a person stateless. Bangladeshi law says that any person born of Bangladeshi parents is automatically viewed as Bangladeshi / dual nationality until their twenty first birthday. Any time prior to that age you can apply for full or dual nationality but if you do not your Bangladeshi citizenship rights will lapse at 21. The UK’s legal argument is that as she was below this age when her UK citizenship was stripped she was not made stateless… they don’t care if Bangladesh takes her or not. They just had to prove that by revoking her UK citizenship the UK didn’t break international law.
That's still skirting responsibility. Banking on a technicality. I'm pretty sure that this is not what the UN intended when they made such a provision. If the UK wants to disown her, they should be ready to accept responsibility for it too.
Yeah, maybe so, but regardless of my own personal view I just wanted to clear up the legal argument surrounding the case. The ethics and morality behind it is not really for the court to decide.
The reason she had her citizenship removed was because the UK government concluded that she was safe in Syria, after all she's a member of ISIS right so what's going to happen to her? Or at least that was the given justification.
She would have done a lot better waiting for the government to change, and then asking. Everything she has done has been mined numbingly stupid, I don't think she's very bright. Why the hell would you expect a massively right-wing government to be sympathetic, utter madness.
JSYK it’s “mind numbingly” not “mined numbingly”