Blogger’s Note: The BBC and Guardian are firmly entrenched apologists for the Bourgeois State, its Liberal Democracy, and its capitalist system. It is ironic in that the BBC exists on a forced license fee which every household must pay or face prosecution. Despite the working class comprising the vast majority of the money paid – the BBC persists in only representing that small (Bourgeois) portion of society that currently controls the means the production. Therefore, the BBC fully opposes Socialism, and supports every US-inspired reform of UK culture – including Neo-Nazism in the Ukraine and Christo-fascist-inspired rioting in Hong Kong. The Guardian used to be genuinely left-wing – but is today purely a Trotskyite rag agitating for the working class to settle for predatory capitalism. This is the dialectical reality we currently have to live within.
When British citizens were invited to the UK brom colonies in the British Empire during the 1950s and 1960s, the UK possessed a fully comprehensive Welfare State founded in 1948 (funded by ongoing taxation – but initially financed by the Labour government granting India its Independence in 1947) – which we could afford as we are one of the richest countries in the world. When colonial migrants arrived – they received exactly what every Mainland British citizen received – and their was very little antagonism or agitation. Indeed, this arrangement was demanded at the time by the European Human Rights Commission (EHRC) – the EHRC being partly founded through Soviet input post-WWII. However, since 1979, a succession of right-wing UK governments have slowly but surely stripped the Mainland UK of its Socialist institutions – with this process being accelerated after the fall of the USSR in 1991.
Today, the Mainland British people continue to pay a very high percentage of income tax but receive a very small return for this massive investment in the State. This money is now used by the UK government as hand-outs to countries such as Neo-Nazi Ukraine and Zionist Israel. But here is the issue – when migrants are brought over to the UK to boost whatever US foreign policy is being currently pursued – EHRC legislation demands that they still receive the 1950s and 1960s standards of support and care – even though UK citizens no longer receive this type (or level) of help. More to the point, these latest waves of migrants have no connection with the UK and tend to arise from completely different socio-economic conditions. The left and far-left should be campaigning for British Socialism to be fully restored (including council housing, free education and a comprehensive NHS) but it is so dilapidated that it is dead in the water (if everyone received the same – there would be little or no friction between migrants and indigenous populations).
This has left the right and far-right calling for the UK to leave the EHRC and stop completely all Socialist redistributing mechanisms – on top of banning all migrants. As and when the far-right attain political power – further vulnerable groups (such as the Disabled) would be attacked. Now, bear in-mind that right-wing UK governments have brought-in hundreds of thousands of Neo-Nazi Ukrainians and Hong Kong Rioters using EHRC legislation in recent years – whilst a single “Hindu” Tory Minister in one of those governments decided to withdraw the citizenship of a 15-year old British Muslim girl who was sex trafficked to ISIS in Syria. The right-wing and far-right not only want to withdraw from the EHRC to prevent the application of Socialistic redistribution – but it also wants to prevent the rescuing of a sex-trafficked British girl simply on the grounds that her skin is not White! The silence from the left and far-left is deafening. ACW (16.1.2026)
The European court of human rights has questioned the UK government over its 2019 decision to remove Shamima Begum’s British citizenship.
Lawyers in Europe have asked how Begum’s treatment complies with the UK’s responsibilities to victims of trafficking.
The intervention has encouraged Begum’s lawyers and fuelled Conservative and Reform accusations of meddling by foreign judges and their calls to leave European human rights treaty.
In 2015, as a 15-year-old schoolgirl, Begum left her east London home and travelled with two friends to live under territory held by Islamic State (IS). She was “married off” to an IS fighter with whom she had three children, all of whom died in infancy.
In 2019, the then home secretary, Sajid Javid, revoked her citizenship on grounds of national security, in a decision upheld in the court of appeal last year and backed by the current government.
Campaigners and Begum’s lawyers argue she was the victim of child trafficking. Begum, now 26, remains stateless in a Syrian refugee camp.
A document published by the European court this month confirms that Begum is challenging Javid’s decision under article 4 of the European convention on human rights – a prohibition of slavery and forced labour.
The case was lodged in December 2024, after she was denied the chance to challenge the removal of her British citizenship at the UK’s supreme court.
Among four questions posed by judges in Strasbourg to the Home Office, they asked: “Did the secretary of state have a positive obligation, by virtue of article 4 of the convention, to consider whether the applicant had been a victim of trafficking and whether any duties or obligations to her flowed from that fact, before deciding to deprive her of her citizenship?”
Birnberg Peirce Solicitors, which is representing Begum, said the court’s communication “presents an unprecedented opportunity” for the UK and Begum to “grapple with the significant considerations raised in her case and ignored, sidestepped or violated up to now by previous UK administrations”.
One of the lawyers, Gareth Peirce, said: “It is impossible to dispute that a 15-year-old British child was in 2014-15 lured, encouraged and deceived for the purposes of sexual exploitation to leave home and travel to [IS-controlled] territory for the known purpose of being given, as a child, to an [IS] fighter to propagate children for the Islamic State.”
She added: “It is equally impossible not to acknowledge the catalogue of failures to protect a child known for weeks beforehand to be at high risk when a close friend had disappeared to Syria in an identical way and via an identical route.
“It has already been long conceded that the then home secretary, Sajid Javid, who took the precipitous decision in 2019 very publicly to deprive Ms Begum of citizenship, had failed entirely to consider the issues of grooming and trafficking of a school child in London and of the state’s consequent duties.”
Pierce said the challenge came as the current government had made protections for victims of grooming and trafficking a national priority.
A Home Office spokesperson said any decision made to protect national security would be robustly defended. They added: “The government will always protect the UK and its citizens. That is why Shamima Begum – who posed a national security threat – had her British citizenship revoked and is unable to return to the UK.”
The shadow home secretary, Chris Philp, said Begum had “no place” in the UK because of her support for violent extremists. In a post on X, he wrote: “It is deeply concerning the European Court of Human Rights is now looking at using the ECHR to make the UK take her back.”
Also on X, Richard Tice, Reform’s deputy leader, wrote: “ECHR can jog on….none of their business …just another reason why we must leave this foreign court.”
SANGHA KOMMUNE (SSR) 