On 9 February 1933, Irishman James Gralton was denaturalised and deported from what was then the Irish Free State. He had spent some years in the US, but he was born in County Leitrim in Ireland, to Irish parents, returned often and never renounced or even questioned his citizenship.
Gralton was never charged with a crime, but he was a communist. These days, critics of communism tend to concentrate on the genocidal inhumanity of Soviet Russia and North Korea, but, in Ireland in 1933, communism was understood as atheism. The Roman Catholic bishops who were co-running the country found this intolerable.
Gralton was also guilty of organising regular dances in a venue he built, called Pearse-Connolly Hall after the Irish republican activist and poet, Patrick Pearse and Irish republican activist and founder of the Irish Labour Party, James Connolly. Young people from the area would gather, have fun and listen to Gralton’s speeches on uniting the workers.
Protests organised by Roman Catholic priests quickly turned ugly. There were a series of violent demonstrations and someone got shot. On 9 February 1933, Gralton was arrested, judged to be fundamentally un-Irish and deported to that celebrated hotbed of communism, the United States of America.
In 1933, the unstated but incontestable criteria of Irishness included being Roman Catholic, and eschewing both fun and organised labour—both of which were obviously not quite as antithetical to Irish values and interests as the Roman Catholic bishops would have liked. There’s nothing inherently wrong with having aspirational values, but problems arise when there are real-world consequences for failing to meet unachievable goals.
It is almost impossible for a modern democracy to codify or legislate the values of any nation such that ethnically or so-called culturally pure citizens of that nation can be identified. The recent public denaturalisation of Shamima Begum has brought to light the more immediate question of what it means to be English.
Shamima Begum was born in England in 2000, but left at the age of fifteen, with two of her friends, to join ISIS in Syria. She had three children, all of whom have died. She was discovered by an English reporter while pregnant with her last child in a Syrian refugee camp. She said she wanted to have her baby in England, but seemed relatively unrepentant about her sojourn with ISIS. She has since claimed that she was brainwashed by ISIS and wants a second chance.
On the 19 February of this year, Shamima Begum’s English citizenship was revoked. The English government has stripped many people of citizenship, but usually such people have been guilty of serious crimes and they have all had alternative citizenships. Begum has not been charged with any crime and the government of Bangladesh, where the Home Office claims she has citizenship, has officially stated that “Ms Shamima Begum is not a Bangladeshi citizen.”
For the first time in British history, someone who hasn’t been charged with a crime has been made stateless by the British government, in violation of both British and international law. If she hasn’t committed a crime, what has she done to incur the harshest penalty the Home Office has to deliver?
Begum, who was not involved in any combat or terrorist activity herself, appears to have been denationalised for nothing more a political opinion, formed during her early teenage years. More than one person has suggested that, if Begum were a white girl, the narrative would be more clearly one of grooming and abuse.
Right-wingers might believe that this denaturalisation sends a message to would-be terrorists. In fact, it sends a message that, if you’re brown and English, your citizenship is conditional. The vast majority of denaturalised English citizens are non-white—not because non-white people are more likely to commit crimes, but because non-white people are more likely to have traceable foreign extraction or dual nationality.
In fact, study after study demonstrates that crime is decreasing everywhere, and there seems to be an inverse correlation between immigration and crime rates, for reasons as yet unclear. In England, heavily publicised stories about crime rates among the Muslim population tend to be promulgated exclusively by right-wing media, perhaps because the stories are a combination of misleading statistics and outright lies.
If there is a rise in crime associated with Muslim immigrants, it comprises attacks on them by far-right groups. Study after study shows a genuinely worrying and demonstrable rise in all forms of racism in England, especially racism targeted at Jews and Muslims and those who, in the right-wing imagination, look like them. Unfortunately, those who seem most concerned about anti-Semitism seem least concerned about anti-Muslim bigotry and vice versa.
Ironically, xenophobic attitudes towards people who don’t pass this specious, casuistical purity test contribute to the kind of alienation that leaves many young people vulnerable to radicalisation. Predictably, those most likely to hold xenophobic opinions are least likely to do research on the psychology of radicalisation—or any research at all. But no one born in a democracy wakes up in the morning intent on blowing themselves up on the Metro for no reason.
Begum was clearly involved with people and activities proscribed by English law. She should therefore be given a trial and sentenced according to its results. The point of a justice system is that it applies to everyone equally. Militantly promoting her deportation on the basis that she is evil scum is playing right into the hands of ISIS (or their inevitable replacements), who are, by their own admission, constantly looking for ways to convince Western countries to reject their Muslim citizens, as they are actively encouraging Muslims everywhere to reject Western values.
Broken English
There will always be problems in nailing down what exactly it means to be British (or Irish or American), because no one seems able to determine what exactly British (or Irish or American) values are—not even those who seem to have a strong emotional attachment to them.
In 2002, the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act made it a legal requirement for those seeking naturalisation as British citizens to pass a test on English culture and language called “Life in the United Kingdom.” This evolving series of questions has faced consistent criticism, mostly because it is almost impossible for native English people to pass it. On one occasion, the entire editorial staff of the New Statesman failed the test. It seems perverse to expect recent immigrants to know more about the English experience than university-educated journalists, whose job it is to explain matters of public interest.
It’s possible that the idea of nation states with discrete national characters is nonsensical. Almost everywhere, wherever two countries border, the people living on the border share more with each other than with the general populations of their countries, culturally if not ideologically. In Belgium, the Flemish people share more with the Dutch than they do with the Walloons (who share more culturally with the French). The people of Aragon and Navarre in northern Spain share more culturally with the people of Occitania in southern France than they share with Sevillians. The people of Minnesota share more culturally with the people of Ontario than they do with Texans or Californians. And so on.
Face Values
There are similar problems in nailing down what a phrase like Western values means. To you and me, it may be a shorthand for freedom and democracy and all that good stuff. To many people in other parts of the world, Western values means something more sinister.
In Iran, for instance, there are people alive today who remember the international political catastrophe referred to by the CIA as Operation Ajax, which mostly involved overturning the first democratically elected government in the history of Iran because they wanted to re-negotiate the fees paid by Anglo-American Oil—hence beginning the current round of political malefaction in that part of the Middle East.
When the Vietnamese Foreign Minister, Nguyen Co Thach, was asked why, after the Khmer Rouge attacked in 1978, he didn’t go to the UN instead of invading Cambodia, he famously said: “Because during the last forty years we have been invaded by four of the five permanent members of the Security Council.”
If we want Muslims (or anyone else) to embrace our Western values, it’s going to be a hard sell if these values include bombing their countries, stealing their resources and acting surprised when they refuse to be grateful for our interventions.
The idea that citizenship of any country—but especially of a democracy—should be dependent on holding the correct opinions or political outlook, is self-evidently ludicrous. I can only assume that every human rights lawyer in England is currently descending on the Home Office to take the Shamima Begum decision apart for the benefit of future generations.
The entire concept of nationality as a monolithic grouping of characteristics, behaviours or values (as most people, including anti-racism advocates, seem to believe) is incoherent. Those values seem to change over time as the zeitgeist demands. In other words, nationality appears to be something we do to people rather than something that happens to them.
Ireland’s Own
In a recent survey, two thirds of Irish people agreed that Ireland is too politically correct, but a more recent study claims that Ireland ranks among the worst places for racism in the workplace, at least among EU countries, and the land of a hundred thousand welcomes has “a worrying pattern of racism” in general.
When the Irish government announced, earlier this year, that a disused hotel in the small of Rooskey, County Leitrim, around twenty kilometres from where James Gralton was born, was to be repurposed as a Direct Provision centre (i.e. a place where refugees are housed while their asylum applications are processed), the site was subject to two separate arson attacks and the plans had to be scrapped.
The government was also forced to abandon plans to house thirteen female asylum seekers in a hotel on Achill Island, after on-going protests gave rise to safety concerns for the already vulnerable women.
In these dark times of nascent right-wing ethno-nationalism in civilised democracies, we should remember that not only is the concept of race unscientific, but the concept of nationality is not entirely coherent either.
In 2016, the president of Ireland issued a posthumous apology for the deportation of Jimmy Gralton, calling it “wrong and indefensible.” He remains the only Irish person to have been deported from Ireland in the history of the country.
22 comments
What a spurious linkage of half considered ideas, special pleading and motivated reasoning,
Early on we get;
“If she hasn’t committed a crime, what has she done to incur the harshest penalty the Home Office has to deliver?
Begum, who was not involved in any combat or terrorist activity herself, appears to have been denationalised for nothing more a political opinion,”
But later we get;
“Begum was clearly involved with people and activities proscribed by English law.”
Weasel words. If I buy a sandwich from a man who cheats on his income tax then I am involved with people and activities proscribed by English law. More weasel words;
“…seemed relatively unrepentant about her sojourn with ISIS.”
A sojourn is a temporary stay, Begum stayed with ISIS for three years right until their bitter end, why intimate that she was only with them temporarily ? Begum was a member of a murderous international terrorist organization whose crimes, not only but especially against women and ethnic or religious minorities must be acknowledged.
There are plenty more like that but time presses and I don’t wish to write a whole article on your lack of moral fortitude, but I can’t leave this one alone;
‘The idea that citizenship of any country—but especially of a democracy—should be dependent on holding the correct opinions or political outlook, is self-evidently ludicrous.”
Absolutely No. I find terms such as “self evidently ludicrous” are often used by people who have no logical basis for a dogmatic belief. A nation or any group is held together by bonds of reciprocal obligations. What if your political opinion is Treason? Attempting to destroy the state or aiding the enemy in time of war ? Those conditions definitely apply to ISIS. The nation has no obligation to protect or provide for those who seek its destruction. That is just feeding the cancer.
People who are guilty of treason are still generally not denaturalised. You may have missed the point of the article.
“People who are guilty of treason are still generally not denaturalised. You may have missed the point of the article.”
True, they were traditionally shot or, earlier, hung, drawn and quartered. In this case the government seems uninterested in prosecuting this person but they would rather she chose to live somewhere else just the same. Here in Canada it seems we’re accepting our returning jihadis back with open arms and unconditional love.
I should hope we can all agree at least that shooting or hanging people is not a good look for a civilised society regardless of the crime.
“shooting or hanging people is not a good look for a civilised society regardless of the crime”
Singapore has no drug problem because if you are caught trying to smuggle drugs into Singapore they hang you. Thus almost no one tries it, saving both their own lives and the lives of the thousands who would otherwise die by drug addiction if more ‘humane’ laws were in force. So no, I don’t think we can agree on that or at least not a priori. OTOH we have the situation in America where hundreds die, many of them innocent, and little is achieved.
I have always found the phrase “not a good look” a very strange one,
Red pants with an orange shirt is not a good look. When dealing with weighty issues like the death penalty something more logically substantial is required. Are we to believe that the effectiveness of an action is determined wholly or substantially by the perception of that event in the minds of a beholder ? Does perception create reality ? It looks bad so it must be bad ?
Executions especially public executions are certainly very ugly events. They have been used to terrify the population into submission. However the person killed is then dead and dead for all time. They are not coming back, regardless of whether it looks good or not.
Why don’t you say;
“I should hope we can all agree at least that shooting or hanging people is MORALLY WRONG for a civilised society regardless of the crime.” ?
Then consider all the murderers who were executed in the U.K. prior to 1965 and all those executed as a result of the Nuremberg trials of 1946. Would that have any effect on what we call a “civilized society” or “regardless of the crime” ?
I strive for a morality that doesn’t just LOOK good, but IS good.
Touche.
Your disingenuous attempt to fact-check my choice of wording tells us nothing about the value or lack thereof of my article. I have a facility for a turn of phrase. I’m not going to moderate it to mollify anyone who seems determined to jump to the worst conclusion from my words. If you want to argue the substance of my article, please feel free to do so.
“anyone who seems determined to jump to the worst conclusion from my words”
That is rather overly sensitive. Jake offers you a chance to clarify an important point. Too much of Correctness is about appearances and on this point you announce yourself as being concerned with just that. You’re entitled to use pithy language of course, but in a world where most of what we hear, especially on political issues, is nothing but spin and appearance and posturing, surely the point can be made that we should be looking for more substantive reasons for deciding on a policy like capital punishment? No, it doesn’t look good, but surely there are more important questions to ask? What is your take on this? It’s the same with the jihadette in question — we can ask how her denaturalization looks,or we can ask more substantive questions, as you have.
My position on the death penalty is that of most Western democracies: that there is no justification for it under any circumstances. I’m not interested in getting into a discussion about it, as it’s more or less irrelevant to the point of my article. Maybe I’ll write an article some time for which that discussion would be relevant and we can get into it then.
“I’m not interested in getting into a discussion about it, as it’s more or less irrelevant to the point of my article.”
I agree, but the salient point is that you were critiqued as to your statement that the appearance of the thing is what matters, and you reacted dismissively which IMHO was not warranted. I remarked that there is too much posturing about appearances generally. What are your views on that, broader point?
Dear Barry
Your article made me revaluate my position regarding this particular case. Had she been a naturalized citizen I would still be in favor of denaturalization, but she was born and raised in the UK. I’m not a constitutional expert but I am pretty sure that in my country (Portugal) you can’t be denaturalized. Another argument that helped me swing was the fact that she joined ISIS when she was a teenager. According to the most recent neuroscientific data, the human brain fully matures at around 26 years of age (mine probably much later if I take into account some of the dumb stupid things I did after that age…) not before. So, if I’m of the opinion the right to vote shouldn’t be granted before 18 I can’t really hold her fully responsible for the terrible mistakes she made when she was a teenager. Basically we are stucked with all of them, they are our people (Europeans) either we like it (I don’t) or not. I have no illusions, the vast majority hasn’t learn anything with the experience, but we can’t shove them under the rug.
“That is just feeding the cancer.”
Exactly. And since the agenda is that the patient die, we can expect more of the same.
The major issue to me is one of due process. Removal of citizenship is not a trivial punishment. In this case it has been imposed with no hearing and therefore no opportunity to hear the case and no allegation of a crime as such. The punishment has bene imposed simply bu the order of a minister. This cannot be allowed to happen in a country which claims to be subject to the rule of law. I am quite sceptical about the claims in the article about racism however it is important that no one is punished except in accordance with law and after a hearing in which the allegations and eivdence against them is presented and they have an opportunity to present a defence.
Thsi case is to me a shocking exampel of the government acting beyond their powers and against the rule of law. FOrtunately it is being challenge din court an dit is difficult to see how the goverment can prevail.
I have no great sympathy fo rteh girl concerned but let her be charged with an actual crime, prosecuted and if found guilty punished or however distatsteful it may be, allowed to return to her family.
I see where you’re getting confused about race. The concept of race has no biological basis. That’s just a matter of fact. However, people are still judged on the colour of their skin. Therefore, racism is definitely real, and we should work to eliminate it, even if the concept of race isn’t.
As for the rest of your comments, I didn’t mean anything more or less than what I wrote, and I don’t have much to add to that. If you want to draw conclusions that I specifically didn’t, you should feel free to do so.
The concept of race is absolutely valid in science. Evolutionary theory depends on the idea that species diverge — races develop and then species. But what is interesting is that folks can say there is no such thing as race, but there is such a thing as racism. This is like saying there is no such thing as witches, but witchcraft is real. Race is whatever racism considers it’s subject. If folks notice that Finns and Hutus are rather different in a hundred ways, you can call that racism if you like, but the thing that is noticed is thus, ipso facto, race otherwise we couldn’t call them racists, could we?
Ray Andrews,
Are you sure that “the concept of race is well defined in science”? I don’t see that there has ever been a scientific definition of race. You have encorporated the term ‘race’ into what you call “evolutionary theory” falsely in my opinion. Genera, not race, is surely the word you should be using when talking about divergence of species.
“Genera, not race, is surely the word you should be using when talking about divergence of species”
But Genera is one step up from species. Race, or subspecies, is one step down. It has become PC to claim that evolution no longer applies to humans and that there is no divergence between the races — indeed the denial is so complete that the Correct deny that there are races at all, as above. May as well say there are no breeds of dogs. It goes to show you that the left has been post-truth longer than the right has.
Race is a confusing area, personally I think culture is indisputably a more significant difference between groups of people despite its mutability. However I don’t think racism whether motivated by culture or physical appearance was a factor in this. I do believe there was a desire to be seen to do something to people ho had left to join IS or similar groups and a tacit acknowledgement that there was little or any legal basis to do so unless they had evidenct hey had participated in violence or had prepared to do so. I believe it was simply short sighteed expediency that someone settled on the idea of removal of citizenship which could only be performed to those who had at least the appearance of dual citizenship. Naturally this is far more likely to apply to those whose families are recent immigrants. No racism, just a short sighted desire to seek to work around the law and appeal to those who think something must be done.
“The idea that citizenship of any country—but especially of a democracy—should be dependent on holding the correct opinions or political outlook, is self-evidently ludicrous.”
Why is it self-evident? Help me see why it is so obvious that people of any belief whatsoever should be welcome in Britain. In particular help me understand that western democracies should embrace those who’s stated goals are the overturning of democracy, the extermination of infidels and the imposition of fundamentalist Islam.
“In these dark times of nascent right-wing ethno-nationalism in civilised democracies,”
But wait, does not the author claim that it is self-evidently ludicrous to suppose that there are any values which might be held to be antithetical to democracy? If we must love and welcome unrepentant jihadis, on what basis would we judge right-wing ethno-nationalism to be ‘dark’? Is the author perhaps only flying the rainbow flag of universal tolerance when it suits him, and hauling it down when it does not?
“not only is the concept of race unscientific,”
That’s good news. So all race based affirmative actions and hiring quotas, etc, are to be abolished then.
Your argument might be taken seriously if I felt their was any chance you’d look to make stateless native born citizens of a democracy on the basis of views antithetical to democracy rooted in political views of both extreme right and the extreme left.
I see no call for those who believe in an authoritarian ethno nationalist state to have their citizenship removed, despite them often being quite open about a willingness to use violence to achieve their ends. Same goes for many Stalinists/Leninists.
No one need have anything but contempt for Islamism and Jihadists, but it’s telling that one apparently gets dealt with by the rule of law, the other is to be made stateless.
I wonder if we can guess what the difference is.
I agree. The state acting without due process is quite shocking, as AJ mentions — if that is actually the case here. Nevertheless I detect that the author does consider some values superior to others while at the same time stating that it is self-evident that such value judgments are wrong.
And notwithstanding that everyone is entitled to due process, I would point out that few Leninists are just now trying to return to countries that they had previously denounced, burning their passports, having fled from the wreckage of a Leninist state in which it was policy to kill all non-Leninists, they returning unrepentant and still advocating the death of all non-Leninists.
A comparable situation might have been if some hundreds or thousands of Maoists had left for Cambodia in the 70’s to join in the purifying work of the Khmer Rouge and were subsequently returning, but with their doctrines unchanged. That is, one might see this situation as an exceptional one in which returning jihadis are indeed to be dealt with outside of normal procedure. Thus:
“I see no call for those who believe in an authoritarian ethno nationalist state to have their citizenship removed”
These folks, having not left the country to murder and torture, and having not burned their passports, the issue of their return to the country simply does not arise. I’d say that’s the difference.