Talk:Australian Guantanamo detainee David Hicks gets British citizenship

Active discussions

Article titleEdit

Since the ruling did not automatically make him a british citizen one would have to conclude the headline is incorrect.

You appear to be correct. The article says "After today's ruling, his lawyers will now press the British government to make arrangements for him to take the required citizenship oath and pledge." Would it possibly be better to rename it to something like "Australian Guantanamo detainee wins right to claim British citizenship" ? Or something? - Borofkin 02:31, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
He does in fact become a British citizenship, as Justice Collins has forced a legal default: "Lawyers acting for British Home Secretary Charles Clarke immediately announced that they would take the matter to the Court of Appeal. But Justice Collins refused the British Government a stay of his judgement, meaning that the Government is compelled to proceed with Hicks' citizenship application..."--elliot_k 02:42, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
What is a "legal default"? The Guardian article is titled "Australian terror suspect can become UK citizen", and says in its opening paragraph "An Australian being held as a terror suspect at Guantánamo Bay today won the right to be registered as a British citizen." Both statements imply that he can legally become a citizen, but has not yet done so. - Borofkin 02:54, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
By "legal default" (yeah i did make that one up) Justice Collins has forced the Government is compelled to proceed with Hicks' citizenship application. He has refused an appeal. So technically this means that David gets automatic citizenship...--elliot_k 03:11, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
If he gets automatic citizenship, then why would he need to take the "citizenship oath and pledge"? Automatic means that it occurs without any further intervention. If the British government still has to process his application and Hicks still has to take the pledge, then he isn't a citizen. How about renaming to Australian Guantanamo detainee David Hicks to get British citizenship?
By "legal default" (yeah i did make that one up) I mean that High Court Judge, Justice Collins, has forced the Government to proceed with Hicks' citizenship application. He has refused an appeal. So technically this means that David gets automatic citizenship... As reported in the Age: "Australian Guantanamo Bay detainee David Hicks has won British citizenship and moves are afoot to have him swear an oath of allegiance to Britain within days..." --elliot_k 03:11, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
What happens if the government is successful in their appeal? The judge gave permission for an appeal, he just refused to suspend his decision, so the government is compelled by the court to process the citizenship application. But it is still yet to be processed, so he is still only an Australian citizen. - Borofkin 03:28, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Agreed. Perhaps the title could be: Guantanamo detainee almost a Briton! Feel free to alter the heading as you see fit... Although in fact the headline is indeed correct. We can argue this til the cows come home! --elliot_k 03:48, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sufficiently convinced of my own rightness to change the title. :-) - Borofkin 04:18, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Australian Responses - ABC NewsEdit

Govt 'neutral' about Hicks decision

Ruling no guarantee of Hicks's release

Hicks's citizenship of no concern, Downer says

Return to "Australian Guantanamo detainee David Hicks gets British citizenship" page.