Should IS bride Shamima Begum be allowed back to the UK? What do the Labour rebels stand for? (E716)
On this episode of Going Underground, we speak to Geoffrey Robertson QC about ISIS bride Shamima Begum, who wants to return to the UK with her newborn baby. He discusses Home Secretary Sajid Javid, the cancelation of her citizenship, and what should be done if she's allowed to return. He also discusses whether or not ISIS, President Assad and Emmanuel Macron should be sent to The Hague. Next, we speak to Chris Williamson MP about the newly formed Independent Group and the Labour MPs who split from the party.
LIKE
Going Underground http://fb.me/GoingUndergroundRT
FOLLOW
Going Underground https://www.youtube.com/user/GoingUndergroundRT
Going Underground on Twitter http://twitter.com/Underground_RT
Afshin Rattansi on Twitter http://twitter.com/AfshinRattansi
on Instagram http://instagram.com/officialgoingundergroundrt
READ MORE: Brazilian Embassy in London:
Unfortunately, the words of Mr. Geoffrey Robertson do not correspond to the truth. In Brazil, the Judiciary is fully independent and due process of law is faithfully observed. All defendants facing criminal prosecution fully enjoy the guarantee of a fair trial and the right to appeal many times against an unfavourable sentence. The specific case of former President Lula has already been analysed by different judges in different levels of jurisdiction. Mr. Robertson’s suggestion that President Lula’s conviction – or that the conviction of any defendant in the Brazilian judicial system – could be politically motivated is completely absurd and detached from reality.
Furthermore, there was no “order from the United Nations” as mentioned by Mr. Robertson. Rather, two (out of the eighteen) experts of the UN Human Rights Committee issued an “interim measure” on the subject. This measure was diligently considered by one of the highest courts in Brazil – the Superior Electoral Tribunal – and, after careful analysis, was ultimately dismissed. Furthermore, the views of the Committee, while meriting thought and consideration by the State concerned, are not binding. The attempt by the Committee to make its views seem mandatory is not supported by the text of the treaty (the “views” of the Committee are forwarded to the State Party, as in article 5.4 of the Optional Protocol I to the ICCPR). The advisory nature of its views is recognized not only by Brazil, but by many other countries that accept to receive the opinions of the Committee.