Shamima Begum

[west didsblue]

We will have to agree to disagree here Rascal. Personally I think that ANY person that goes to support any regime that is keen on blowing us up and barbarically murdering innocent people, is a traitor.
It's a whole different ball game in my book.

She needs to be punished for the laws she has broken after a fair trial, not fobbed off to a random country like Bangladesh.

 

[Rascal]

We will have to agree to disagree here Rascal. Personally I think that ANY person that goes to support any regime that is keen on blowing us up and barbarically murdering innocent people, is a traitor.
It's a whole different ball game in my book.

You know I respect you Macca, but I think you are missing my point.

This removal of citizenship is bigger than Begum and the removal is a lurch to authoritarianism. If you are happy for any dissenting voice to have their citizenship removed then that is fine, but what happens when it is you?


How free are we if we cannot express dissent in what ever form that takes?

Did Begum blow anybody up? did she barbarically murder any one?

Or was it simply dissent against Western ideals?

These are questions I want answered in our courts, under British law, for a British citizen, if we do not have that recourse to justice we are no better than ISIS.

 

[west didsblue]

You know I respect you Macca, but I think you are missing my point.

This removal of citizenship is bigger than Begum and the removal is a lurch to authoritarianism. If you are happy for any dissenting voice to have their citizenship removed then that is fine, but what happens when it is you?


How free are we if we cannot express dissent in what ever form that takes?

Did Begum blow anybody up? did she barbarically murder any one?

Or was it simply dissent against Western ideals?

These are questions I want answered in our courts, under British law, for a British citizen, if we do not have that recourse to justice we are no better than ISIS.

To me the important issue is that the UK used to be a country that could be relied upon to stand up to its international obligations rather than a country that is happy to play fast and loose with international law for short term domestic political reasons. Our status as a serious country with a good reputation is being thrown away and sets a terrible example. We can no longer expect to be taken seriously in our relationships with other countries when it comes to matters of international law.

 

[BlueHammer85]

Even as a lefty I can understand the right wing anger that stems from her case.
It’s one of those where whatever the outcomes I don’t really feel a position to take - yes she was a child and groomed etc but equally she knew what she was doing imo and was on the side of terrorist ISIS.

 

[domalino]

You know I respect you Macca, but I think you are missing my point.

This removal of citizenship is bigger than Begum and the removal is a lurch to authoritarianism. If you are happy for any dissenting voice to have their citizenship removed then that is fine, but what happens when it is you?

Case in point 40 year old man goes to Bangladesh. UK gov strips his citizenship calling him an islamic extremist.

They offer no evidence, the offer no details of the accusation.

He spent 5 years and all his money fighting to get his citizenship back

British man wins back citizenship revoked by Home Office after five-year fight | The National

40 year old was left stranded in Bangladesh for five years until winning his appeal

www.thenationalnews.com

Or this aid worker, who had his citizenship because the government decided you can't be British-Bangladeshi and be an aid worker in the Middle-East without being a terrorist.

Man unlawfully stripped of UK citizenship reunited with family after four years

'N3,' who government wrongly claimed was a Bangladeshi national, released without charge after being questioned for 10 days by police

www.middleeasteye.net

Time and time again, the government is abusing this power, ruining the lives of British citizens with no judicial oversight, and they then have to spend years of their life overturning wrong, illegal or mistaken decisions.

 

[WestGorton]

Very difficult situation but she is British; so even if she comes back to a life in prison due to being a security threat, she is the responsibility of Britain.

 

[Crooked_rain]

Yes.

She and the other two girls she left with are guilty of conspiracy to join a terrorist organisation.

That is a criminal offence committed by three British citizens, within the UK. (Two of whom are now believed to be dead.)

You appear not to appreciate that being deprived of UK citizenship is not a punishment that the Home Secretary hands out, it is a measure designed to safeguard the UK. Punishment is a matter for the courts, not the Home Secretary of the day. You appear to take the view she should not be punished for the crimes she committed, as a British citizen, whilst living in the UK.

That's up to you, but most people think criminals should face justice.

I don’t know why you think I had a particular stance from the post you quoted. I didn’t imply that one way or the other. I was asking a genuine question about if she technically committed a crime by leaving the UK at 15 and joining a group abroad because I didn’t know the exact law on it.

If that’s the case then she obviously should be put on trial if she ever gets back. I’m surprised that’s what they haven’t done.

I personally don’t want people who share her beliefs on terrorism in this country, so I’m not arsed if she never gets back in.

But considering there seems to be a divide, some want her to stay out, some say she left at 15 and is our problem, I always felt the government might see it as a “happy medium” to bring her back but throw the book at her.

I imagine that’s probably what will happen in the end

 

[meltonblue]

Even as a lefty I can understand the right wing anger that stems from her case.
It’s one of those where whatever the outcomes I don’t really feel a position to take - yes she was a child and groomed etc but equally she knew what she was doing imo and was on the side of terrorist ISIS.

The issue I’ve got with it is that’s not really the debate that should be being had, that’s just what it has turned to.

The question really is who is accountable for ensuring that she is held to account for her actions and her ongoing care, be that in a penal system or not. The court decision yesterday was around whether the home secretary’s powers were strong enough to make the judgment he did - and the judgment that he made was based on the risk she posed in the future from letting her back to the uk, not what she has done in the past. As they found that that he did have the powers to enact what he did, despite how scathing they were of the motivations and some of the failings of British services, it doesn’t matter due to that overriding judgment.

In the context of that, then the debate really is if we’re not going to judge her and take accountability, who is and who should? If you flip it round and the Bangladeshi’s had done what our government had done, then the right wingers would be in absolute uproar.

That’s what this is really all about at the minute though - national identity and accountability. We are an outlier in the whole international community in our slowness in repatriating, or in this example renouncing the citizenship, of British people in those camps. For some reason, a lot of people have seen what we’ve done as a punishment. It’s not, it’s absolving us of doing anything at all. A punishment would have been repatriating her and putting her on trial and punishing her for actions.

In that context, anyone that is saying “good” about the outcome of us not repatriating her is basically saying she’s not a British citizen and it’s someone else’s issue to deal with her.

I don’t think people are thinking that, they’re thinking if she hates Britain so much then we’re right to tell her to fuck off and renounce her citizenship, and I completely get how people can think that. It’s ultimately not the question though and it’s the volume of people focussing on that sentiment that makes everyone else think the real motivations behind all of this are political more than anything else.

 

[Crooked_rain]

Maybe she was not, which is why I would like to see her citizenship reinstalled and for her to face the British justice system. We simply cannot allow a Government to dish out performative justice based on political imperative.

If in court it is judged she is a threat to you attending a gig then by all means remove her liberty and let her take her place at His Majesties pleasure. What this thread fails to consider though is, what if she is not a threat and just a misguided young girl whose life choices went disastrously wrong.

You can be misguided and young and make bad choices but still be a threat

She said bombing kids at a concert was justified. She said she had no regrets about joining a terrorist group. She said this at 20, as an adult

So misguided or not, it’s irrelevant. Most terrorists have been misguided by people with influence and made bad choices too. So the question is if she is dangerous like others have been. We don’t know, so is it worth the risk in finding out?

 

[meltonblue]

You can be misguided and young and make bad choices but still be a threat

She said bombing kids at a concert was justified. She said she had no regrets about joining a terrorist group. She said this at 20, as an adult

So misguided or not, it’s irrelevant. Most terrorists have been misguided by people with influence and made bad choices too. So the question is if she is dangerous like others have been. We don’t know, so is it worth the risk in finding out?

The end result of that thought process is wishing we had a judicial system similar to, and believing we have worse national security services than, that of a self governing region of Syria or Bangladesh…

I mean, it’s fine if you think that. It’s also valid for others to point out that would regressing us several generations.

 

[Crooked_rain]

Case in point 40 year old man goes to Bangladesh. UK gov strips his citizenship calling him an islamic extremist.

They offer no evidence, the offer no details of the accusation.

He spent 5 years and all his money fighting to get his citizenship back

British man wins back citizenship revoked by Home Office after five-year fight | The National

40 year old was left stranded in Bangladesh for five years until winning his appeal

www.thenationalnews.com

Or this aid worker, who had his citizenship because the government decided you can't be British-Bangladeshi and be an aid worker in the Middle-East without being a terrorist.

Man unlawfully stripped of UK citizenship reunited with family after four years

'N3,' who government wrongly claimed was a Bangladeshi national, released without charge after being questioned for 10 days by police

www.middleeasteye.net

Time and time again, the government is abusing this power, ruining the lives of British citizens with no judicial oversight, and they then have to spend years of their life overturning wrong, illegal or mistaken decisions.

Other people have lost their citizenship but not got it back. Jack Letts is one, he joined ISIS and hasn’t been allowed back. So it’s not only happening to this girl. Some will say Letts had dual citizenship, but that’s not the point. The UK washed their hands of him like this. What happened from that point on was another matter.

Still. there is a lack of consistency in how these things are handled it seems.

 

[meltonblue]

Other people have lost their citizenship but not got it back. Jack Letts is one, he joined ISIS and hasn’t been allowed back. So it’s not only happening to this girl.

Still. there is a lack of consistency in how these things are handled it seems.

There’s consistency in that we’re pissing everyone else off with our approach with it, Canada are having to repatriate him instead.

 

[bugsyblue]

Lol, ironic ? , i am allowed to agree with the odd thing they do , she made her bed and she can rot in it , go watch all her early interviews , she doesnt give a shit about this country

That’s not the only point though is it. She was born in the UK and has allegedly committed crimes as a UK citizen. Why is it now Syria’s problem?!

 

[domalino]

So the question is if she is dangerous like others have been.

I know I'm repeating myself here but we do know. The SIAC judges saw the government's national security report in the closed hearing and ruled that the case was politically motivated, not security.

We also know that another 350-450 people who joined ISIS are back in the UK regardless of their threat to national security because they weren't interviewed by the media.

 

[ZenHalfTimeCrock]

Shiraz Maher on this. Maher wrote what is probably the definitive study on Salafi-Jihadism (which is outstanding) and is a prominent contributor to the work of the ICSR at King’s College.

He is my ‘go to’ person when it comes to matters related to terrorism as he often alerts his readers to new research and publications of significance.

The sequence of tweets that he has authored here does need to be read in full.

 

[Crooked_rain]

I know I'm repeating myself here but we do know. The SIAC judges saw the government's national security report in the closed hearing and ruled that the case was politically motivated, not security.

We also know that another 350-450 people who joined ISIS are back in the UK regardless of their threat to national security because they weren't interviewed by the media.

The reality is that us in the public don’t really know. We’re not privy to the full facts in terms of her as a danger. It may be politically motivated, that doesn’t necessarily mean she’s not a threat either. It can be a bit of both. I mean there are reports if her sewing people into suicide vests, is or true? I don’t know, you don’t know. Sajid Javid reckons if the public have seen evidence about her he has seen, nobody would want her back, it’s that bad. Is he lying? no idea. At the end of the day she’s said things like blowing up kids at a concert is justified etc, she wasn’t a kid when saying that. So we know she has a dangerous mentality to some degree, we just don’t know the extent of it, is it worth the risk finding out first hand?

I’m sure it is politically motivated to a degree, hence why there’s so much inconsistency when it comes to how they deal with people who come in and out of the country with known links to terrorist groups.

I’d personally take a hard line with all of them.

 

[domalino]

The reality is that us in the public don’t really know. We’re not privy to the full facts in terms of her as a danger. It may be politically motivated, that doesn’t necessarily mean she’s not a threat either. It can be a bit of both.

If only some neutral, qualified parties, like judges, could hear all the evidence in a secret hearing and then make their ruling in an open court…

Everything is in the SIAC write up. The judges rejected the governments rationale for her being a security threat because it was inconsistent with their own rules and policies.

 

[Bluemanc100]

That’s not the only point though is it. She was born in the UK and has allegedly committed crimes as a UK citizen. Why is it now Syria’s problem?!

Weren't the crimes committed in Syria? If she'd committed crimes in the US wouldn't they try her there?

I agree with a previous poster, if she did commit crimes in Syria, let them try her... Then, when found guilty, she'll be nobody's concern

 

[bugsyblue]

Weren't the crimes committed in Syria? If she'd committed crimes in the US wouldn't they try her there?

I agree with a previous poster, if she did commit crimes in Syria, let them try her... Then, when found guilty, she'll be nobody's concern

Weren't the crimes committed in Syria? If she'd committed crimes in the US wouldn't they try her there?

I agree with a previous poster, if she did commit crimes in Syria, let them try her... Then, when found guilty, she'll be nobody's concern

Yes that’s true but then also we tend to deport foreign criminals back to their home country, either after or shortly before the end of their sentence. Syria no longer have that option.

 

[west didsblue]

Weren't the crimes committed in Syria? If she'd committed crimes in the US wouldn't they try her there?

I agree with a previous poster, if she did commit crimes in Syria, let them try her... Then, when found guilty, she'll be nobody's concern

Let’s say Syria was a functioning state and they had tried and convicted her and she had just completed her sentence. Let’s say they still considered her to be a danger to that country so at the end of her sentence they deport her like we often do with foreign criminals. Under international law every country in the world would be entitled to refuse her entry except one. And that one isn’t Bangladesh.

Wanting our country to honour international treaties and adhere to international law isn’t some fringe lefty view.