Shamima Begum

[Metal Biker]

Yes. The first bit is stupid beyond belief, as if a victim of grooming can never be in denial of what's happened or defend their abuser, and the second bit you've bolded is you justifying statutory rape.



This is something you said. No one is inventing anything by pointing out how disgusting it is.

As a summary of her opinions, not an opinion of my own. That's the problem with text (and when you have red mist clouding your rationality, you'll only see things how you want them to appear).

A simple ask for clarification could have avoided all that confusion.

 

[Metal Biker]

This is very simple. Do you think a 15 year old child can consent to sex and marriage and having children with a 24 year old. Yes or No?

No fake quotes, no "summarising her statements", yes or no?

No absolutely not. A child of 15 cannot consent to sex and marriage and having children.

Begum however believes so, even now at age 21.

 

[domalino]

No absolutely not. A child of 15 cannot consent to sex and marriage and having children.

Begum however believes so, even now at age 21.

Right, so you agree she was raped.

And we know for a fact that as a child she was contacted by an older woman online who told her and her friends how to get to Syria and sold them on it with the express purpose of getting her there where she would be raped and married off.

So we can all agree she was trafficked for sex as a child.

Which is the thing you jumped in to argue about an hour ago.

So now we can all accept she is a victim of crime as well as possibly a perpetrator or accomplice.

 

[Metal Biker]

Right, so you agree she was raped.

And we know for a fact that as a child she was contacted by an older woman online who told her and her friends how to get to Syria and sold them on it with the express purpose of getting her there where she would be raped and married off.

So we can all agree she was trafficked for sex as a child.

Which is the thing you jumped in to argue about an hour ago.

So now we can all accept she is a victim of crime as well as possibly a perpetrator or accomplice.

I agree she was raped, Begum does not.

I also know that she contacted an older woman about how to arrange going to Syria because her and her friends approved of what was going on there and the regime they had. Just like Wales with their knock on try, the older woman wasn't exactly going to talk her out of it.

The fact is the IS life appealed to 15 year old Begum and her friends. She is a victim of a crime perpetuated by an IS member. She then, as an adult, was complicit in crimes against others, and it is that that I and others are judging her on. Her willing, complicit acts that perpetuated violence against others whilst she was an adult that even today shows no remorse or regrets for.

 

[domalino]

I agree she was raped, Begum does not.

I also know that she contacted an older woman about how to arrange going to Syria because her and her friends approved of what was going on there and the regime they had. Just like Wales with their knock on try, the older woman wasn't exactly going to talk her out of it.

The fact is the IS life appealed to 15 year old Begum and her friends. She is a victim of a crime perpetuated by an IS member. She then, as an adult, was complicit in crimes against others, and it is that that I and others are judging her on. Her willing, complicit acts that perpetuated violence against others whilst she was an adult.

Abuse victims often think they're not abused. That's irrelevant. As is yesterday's rugby.

As for the rest, the developed world agreed a long time ago that you're guilty of the crimes you commit, not the crimes of any and everyone under your banner. Not all germans committed the holocaust, not all American soldiers were guilty of My Lai. Not all Britons in Afghanistan are responsible for Alexander Blackman's war crime.

Shamima Begum is not guilty or responsible for every crime committed by ISIS, which is what you're trying to attribute to her. She's guilty for the crimes she committed and she should be tried for those crimes.

 

[Metal Biker]

Abuse victims often think they're not abused. That's irrelevant. As is yesterday's rugby.

As for the rest, the developed world agreed a long time ago that you're guilty of the crimes you commit, not the crimes of any and everyone under your banner. Not all germans committed the holocaust, not all American soldiers were guilty of My Lai. Not all Britons in Afghanistan are responsible for Alexander Blackman's war crime.

Shamima Begum is not guilty or responsible for every crime committed by ISIS, which is what you're trying to attribute to her. She's guilty for the crimes she committed and she should be tried for those crimes.

Exactly, and those crimes were committed in Syria, so it is Syrian justice she should face and serve time there. She committed no crimes in the UK so does not need to be extradited.

Its the Sacoolas conundrum.

 

[domalino]

Exactly, and those crimes were committed in Syria, so it is Syrian justice she should face and serve time there. Its the Sacoolas conundrum.

If the Syrians can provide her with a fair trial then fine.

But that doesn't justify revoking her British citizenship, leaving her stateless or refusing to allow her to contest that in person.

 

[Vic]

Abuse victims often think they're not abused. That's irrelevant. As is yesterday's rugby.

As for the rest, the developed world agreed a long time ago that you're guilty of the crimes you commit, not the crimes of any and everyone under your banner. Not all germans committed the holocaust, not all American soldiers were guilty of My Lai. Not all Britons in Afghanistan are responsible for Alexander Blackman's war crime.

Shamima Begum is not guilty or responsible for every crime committed by ISIS, which is what you're trying to attribute to her. She's guilty for the crimes she committed and she should be tried for those crimes.

Now you've done it. Thread diversion onto how colonial atrocities were "of their time" and no reflection on all the good things we did for the colonised.

 

[Metal Biker]

If the Syrians can provide her with a fair trial then fine.

But that doesn't justify revoking her British citizenship, leaving her stateless or refusing to allow her to contest that in person.

She revoked it herself. She declared publicly she was not a British citizen, destroying her passport. What are we supposed to do, force someone to be British when they don't want to be?

 

[Vic]

Exactly, and those crimes were committed in Syria, so it is Syrian justice she should face and serve time there. She committed no crimes in the UK so does not need to be extradited.

Its the Sacoolas conundrum.

"Syrian justice"? What exactly is now "Syria" never mind Syrian justice?

 

[Vic]

She revoked it herself. She declared publicly she was not a British citizen, destroying her passport. What are we supposed to do, force someone to be British when they don't want to be?

If we had wanted to put her on trial here, would you have been arguing that she shouldn't be able to escape justice just by saying she wasn't British?

 

[Ancient Citizen]

What do you think is the risk she would pose to the public if she was brought back here? Hate her if you like and condemn her to hell but it is surely disingenuous to suggest she poses a risk to anyone rather than she offends our very moral sensibilities

The naivety here is off the scale. Just look at what the court said, and the reasons they rejected this appeal. They even censured the appeal court for deciding that they should be the ones setting policy, not the Home Secretary. Why do you think they did both these things?

 

[domalino]

She revoked it herself. She declared publicly she was not a British citizen, destroying her passport. What are we supposed to do, force someone to be British when they don't want to be?

Yes. If the British government doesn't recognise the sovereignty of the Islamic State, then her destroying her passport and declaring to be a citizen of Daesh is about as relevant as declaring yourself a citizen of Narnia.

You can't just renounce citizenship, you have to have multiple citizenships already or be in the process of getting another.

Shamima Begum was doing neither, revoking he citizenship was an illegal political stunt and will eventually be put right.

 

[Ancient Citizen]

Shamima Begum still a national security threat, UK supreme court told

MI5 assessments read out at start of appeal over revoking of Isis recruit’s citizenship

www.theguardian.com

The Supreme Court, the Home Office, MI5, why are the British taxpayer funding these institutions when all we need on such matters are the Bluemoon analysts? :)

Aye, all the answers to the world’s problems lie in here.

 

[Metal Biker]

Yes. If the British government doesn't recognise the sovereignty of the Islamic State, then her destroying her passport and declaring to be a citizen of Daesh is about as relevant as declaring yourself a citizen of Narnia.

You can't just renounce citizenship, you have to have multiple citizenships already or be in the process of getting another.

Shamima Begum was doing neither, revoking he citizenship was an illegal political stunt and will eventually be put right.

Bangladeshi or Stateless? A Practical Analysis of Shamima Begum’s Status

By Ryan Corbett. Legal practitioner and researcher currently based in Paris, France. Her focus is citizenship and refugee law, including how citizenship law can lead to migration issues. She has ex…

internationallaw.blog

The UK stripped a total of 104 people of citizenship in 2017 alone, nearly ten times the number in 2016. With an increasingly transitory population in a world where international law constrains the actions of states very little with regard to citizenship, we should be concerned about individuals who are rendered stateless, either de facto or de jure. The words and actions of states with regard to implementation of their own citizenship laws, and not only the laws themselves, ought to be given significant weight if we are to truly address the issue of statelessness.

However, as neither the laws of the UK nor international instruments make this distinction, the SIAC likely will examine only the laws of Bangladesh. In accordance with past practice, the SIAC likely will determine that the law states Begum is a Bangladeshi citizen, and, regardless of the statements or actions of officials, that the UK is legally allowed to strip Begum of her UK citizenship, since she would not be rendered de jure stateless. However, they should make a holistic determination based on laws, policies, and public statements of Bangladesh and recognise that she is in effect stateless.

It won't.

 

[domalino]

Bangladeshi or Stateless? A Practical Analysis of Shamima Begum’s Status

By Ryan Corbett. Legal practitioner and researcher currently based in Paris, France. Her focus is citizenship and refugee law, including how citizenship law can lead to migration issues. She has ex…

internationallaw.blog

It won't.

That's great, plenty of other legal commentators think otherwise (including Bangladesh).

I know, why don't we settle this dispute in a British court?

 

[Metal Biker]

That's great, plenty of other legal commentators think otherwise (including Bangladesh).

I know, why don't we settle this dispute in court?

We will, in Syria. Or Iraq, if you prefer.

 

[Ancient Citizen]

You know, you're right.

I shouldn't have said she was conned, because actually she was groomed and sex trafficked as a child.

Thats the actual, factual definition of what happened. She was contacted by an older woman online who's job it was to groom new children to join ISIS and after being convinced that what she was doing was right because she was a stupid, gullible child, she was trafficked and raped and married to an adult when she was a 15 year old child below the age of consent and then she was raped again and again and was put up with all the other children and young women getting raped and threatened with death if they left.

See the post from @ metal biker above.

 

[domalino]

We will, in Syria.

Why would a Syrian court be involved in a British nationality dispute?

You're tying yoursleves in knots again. You wanted he tried in Syria for actions taken in Syria, you can't now refuse a court case in Britain over actions taken in Britain (stripping her citizenship)

 

[Metal Biker]

Why would a Syrian court be involved in a British nationality dispute?

You're tying yoursleves in knots again. You wanted he tried in Syria for actions taken in Syria, you can't now refuse a court case in Britain over actions taken in Britain (stripping her citizenship)

I'm talking about her first facing justice for what she did in Syria, crossed wires.

She has no entitlement to British citizenship anymore. She doesn't want it anyway, she just wants to come to the UK to avoid her captors.

My question to you is, why are you so passionate about a person like Begum, who despises homosexuals, thought nothing of Yazidi women being treated like sex slaves to be beaten and abused, to return to the UK to regain her citizenship when she renounced it, doesn't want it (she just wants to return to the UK) and does not agree with the morals and values this country stands for? Is she the sort of citizen you want?