Shamima Begum

[monga]

She’s on license, there’s clear evidence of her involvement with ISIS .

First female British Isis member jailed in UK is freed from prison

Former finance student took her 18-month-old son to Syria in 2014 after calling for people to fight for Isis on social media

www.independent.co.uk

 

[Polythene Pam]

He made the original comments very soon after the initial decision to deprive Shamima Begum of her citizenship and his reasoning was that the Home Secretary should have taken account of the fact that she had a new born baby. He also talked about the legal options to deal with her if she returned to the UK. Clearly the situation and his understanding of it has changed since then. Whether that's enough to justify his opinion that she shouldn't be allowed to return only he knows.

He wasn't leader of the Labour Party when he made the original comments I suspect.
He's right to question the decision making process. The whole thing is legally iffy, even if its not technically illegal.
The Tories love to paint Corbyn as a terrorist sympathiser so it doesn't surprise me that Keir is distancing himself from anything that could be portrayed as such.

 

[Moth]

Sajid said they know things they're not releasing to the public which is why she's not coming back.

That may be true but of course the problem (if you think it's a problem) is that the national security risk can never be proved or argued in court. The decision is at the discretion of The Home Secretary. It therefore depends whether you trust the Home Secretary to make a fair and balanced decision.

The decision needs to be fair and balanced because as the recent SIAC judgment makes clear. "National security is not an absolute imperative. It does not trump everything else. It must be weighed against fundamental rights and entitlements"

The recent judgment handed down by SIAC also appears to suggest that security services considered anyone who had travelled to Syria to join ISIS to be a 'national security risk'. Whether they are considered a high or low risk can simply turn on how long the person was there and not necessarily the actions that they undertook. In an assessment subsequent to the deprivation of citizenship decision it was stated "Even if Ms Begum’s activities were limited to her being a housewife, she would still pose a risk to national security".

Sajid Javid took the decision to deprive Shamima Begum of citizenship on 19th February based on information provided to him on 18th February. However on 15th February responding to the article and video of Shamima Begum asking to be allowed to return to the UK he was quoted in The Times as saying "My message is clear - if you have supported terrorist organisations abroad I will not hesitate to prevent your return". It is argued by some that this demonstrates that he had already made up his mind to deprive her of citizenship before being briefed on the risk to national security and that the government was operating a general policy of depriving citizenship whenever possible.

I guess it comes down to whether you choose to believe Sajid Javid's suggestions of secret intelligence on her specific activities both then and now. He may well be telling the absolute truth but as I know someone who had contact with him in a previous ministerial role I am also of the opinion that he is more than capable of lying through his teeth if he thought it would further his career.

 

[Polythene Pam]

That may be true but of course the problem (if you think it's a problem) is that the national security risk can never be proved or argued in court. The decision is at the discretion of The Home Secretary. It therefore depends whether you trust the Home Secretary to make a fair and balanced decision.

The decision needs to be fair and balanced because as the recent SIAC judgment makes clear. "National security is not an absolute imperative. It does not trump everything else. It must be weighed against fundamental rights and entitlements"

The recent judgment handed down by SIAC also appears to suggest that security services considered anyone who had travelled to Syria to join ISIS to be a 'national security risk'. Whether they are considered a high or low risk can simply turn on how long the person was there and not necessarily the actions that they undertook. In an assessment subsequent to the deprivation of citizenship decision it was stated "Even if Ms Begum’s activities were limited to her being a housewife, she would still pose a risk to national security".

Sajid Javid took the decision to deprive Shamima Begum of citizenship on 19th February based on information provided to him on 18th February. However on 15th February responding to the article and video of Shamima Begum asking to be allowed to return to the UK he was quoted in The Times as saying "My message is clear - if you have supported terrorist organisations abroad I will not hesitate to prevent your return". It is argued by some that this demonstrates that he had already made up his mind to deprive her of citizenship before being briefed on the risk to national security and that the government was operating a general policy of depriving citizenship whenever possible.

I guess it comes down to whether you choose to believe Sajid Javid's suggestions of secret intelligence on her specific activities both then and now. He may well be telling the absolute truth but as I know someone who had contact with him in a previous ministerial role I am also of the opinion that he is more than capable of lying through his teeth if he thought it would further his career.

The man has been absolutely desperate for a shot at Number 10 for years. I find it hard to believe that didn't play a part in the decision making process.
Banishing a national hate figure is an easy win.

 

[monga]

The man has been absolutely desperate for a shot at Number 10 for years. I find it hard to believe that didn't play a part in the decision making process.
Banishing a national hate figure is an easy win.

Where is he now?

 

[Polythene Pam]

Where is he now?

He's on the back benches and stepping down at the next election after 2 failed attempts at becoming leader of the party/PM.

 

[Emsie]

That may be true but of course the problem (if you think it's a problem) is that the national security risk can never be proved or argued in court. The decision is at the discretion of The Home Secretary. It therefore depends whether you trust the Home Secretary to make a fair and balanced decision.

The decision needs to be fair and balanced because as the recent SIAC judgment makes clear. "National security is not an absolute imperative. It does not trump everything else. It must be weighed against fundamental rights and entitlements"

The recent judgment handed down by SIAC also appears to suggest that security services considered anyone who had travelled to Syria to join ISIS to be a 'national security risk'. Whether they are considered a high or low risk can simply turn on how long the person was there and not necessarily the actions that they undertook. In an assessment subsequent to the deprivation of citizenship decision it was stated "Even if Ms Begum’s activities were limited to her being a housewife, she would still pose a risk to national security".

Sajid Javid took the decision to deprive Shamima Begum of citizenship on 19th February based on information provided to him on 18th February. However on 15th February responding to the article and video of Shamima Begum asking to be allowed to return to the UK he was quoted in The Times as saying "My message is clear - if you have supported terrorist organisations abroad I will not hesitate to prevent your return". It is argued by some that this demonstrates that he had already made up his mind to deprive her of citizenship before being briefed on the risk to national security and that the government was operating a general policy of depriving citizenship whenever possible.

I guess it comes down to whether you choose to believe Sajid Javid's suggestions of secret intelligence on her specific activities both then and now. He may well be telling the absolute truth but as I know someone who had contact with him in a previous ministerial role I am also of the opinion that he is more than capable of lying through his teeth if he thought it would further his career.

Such a sensible post.
I'm minded to believe that he was trying to prove his purpose and leave a legacy but I have no proof of this
For me, if she's a risk, she's a risk. I just don't see how leaving her unmonitored allievates that risk.

 

[Yel]

Watched the BBC interview and the first 7 parts of the podcast.

She's certainly holding back a lot and has been shown to tell quite a few lies. Almost certainly is not being honest with what she was up to for all those years.

She probably should be brought back but there's lots of things that should happen in this world. She probably will be eventually, and I'm sure that'll suit the torys if it's delayed until labour are in power. There seems to be limited unverified reports of her at a training camp. Must be hard to have the evidence to prove either way. There's no doubt been people far more dangerous let into the UK.

She must genuinely want to come back or else she would have left the semi-secure camp. Although she seems to only want to be held to account of joining Isis and then being a stay at home wife.

My overwhelming feeling is so much time and energy is spent on one high profile person. Could be better spent elsewhere.

 

[Moth]

... It is argued by some that this demonstrates that he had already made up his mind to deprive her of citizenship before being briefed on the risk to national security and that the government was operating a general policy of depriving citizenship whenever possible...

And just to add weight to the suggestion that deprivation of citizenship is being used as a blanket policy by this government, it's been revealed in The Guardian that in the 9 months between January and September 2022 there were 354 other people who appealed a revocation decision. 75 people won their appeal. It should also be borne in mind that the 2022 Nationality and Borders Act made it even easier for the government to strip people of their British citizenship.

Surge in number of Britons fighting to hold on to their citizenship

After the Shamima Begum decision, figures show dramatic increase in challenges to Home Office

www.theguardian.com

 

[Polythene Pam]

And just to add weight to the suggestion that deprivation of citizenship is being used as a blanket policy by this government, it's been revealed in The Guardian that in the 9 months between January and September 2022 there were 354 other people who appealed a revocation decision. 75 people won their appeal. It should also be borne in mind that the 2022 Nationality and Borders Act made it even easier for the government to strip people of their British citizenship.

Surge in number of Britons fighting to hold on to their citizenship

After the Shamima Begum decision, figures show dramatic increase in challenges to Home Office

www.theguardian.com

I don't know how anyone can be unconcerned about this kind of punishment without trial. Our justice system is built on principles like being innocent until proved guilty and open justice and these principles protect us all.

I find it so strange that people in this country are crying out in support for such draconian measures as citizenship being arbitrarily removed (and yes it is arbitrary, as it is literally for the Home Secretary to decide and they do not need to show their working to anyone, they only need to have the support of the PM). This is all happening in the same country that grew a strong anti-lockdown movement and insisted that we leave the EU because it felt oppressed by an organisation it was a contributing member to. It's so bizarre.

This government has slowly been tightening the reigns on protests of any kind that don't suit its agenda. Whose to say my citizenship won't be removed if I show support for BLM or anything else "woke". Dual nationals aren't just brown Muslims. There are thousands (maybe even millions, who knows) of us.

Edited to add: there are 731,316 dual nationals in the UK. I guess there will be more that have a claim to another Nationality also.
---

Watched the BBC interview and the first 7 parts of the podcast.

She's certainly holding back a lot and has been shown to tell quite a few lies. Almost certainly is not being honest with what she was up to for all those years.

She probably should be brought back but there's lots of things that should happen in this world. She probably will be eventually, and I'm sure that'll suit the torys if it's delayed until labour are in power. There seems to be limited unverified reports of her at a training camp. Must be hard to have the evidence to prove either way. There's no doubt been people far more dangerous let into the UK.

She must genuinely want to come back or else she would have left the semi-secure camp. Although she seems to only want to be held to account of joining Isis and then being a stay at home wife.

My overwhelming feeling is so much time and energy is spent on one high profile person. Could be better spent elsewhere.

I have just been listening to the podcast series the Times brought out in 2020. It makes a pretty good case for bringing her home, although it is balanced.
There are escapes every day from the camps. Some women have ended up back in London, others have run off to rejoin isis. Why risk either of those things happening? Even if there isn't sufficient evidence to charge her they could make it a condition of her return that she is monitored for life.
If our security services are so inept that they can't handle that, none of us should feel safe in the UK.

 

[Moth]

I don't know how anyone can be unconcerned about this kind of punishment without trial. Our justice system is built on principles like being innocent until proved guilty and open justice and these principles protect us all.

I find it so strange that people in this country are crying out in support for such draconian measures as citizenship being arbitrarily removed (and yes it is arbitrary, as it is literally for the Home Secretary to decide and they do not need to show their working to anyone, they only need to have the support of the PM). This is all happening in the same country that grew a strong anti-lockdown movement and insisted that we leave the EU because it felt oppressed by an organisation it was a contributing member to. It's so bizarre.

This government has slowly been tightening the reigns on protests of any kind that don't suit its agenda. Whose to say my citizenship won't be removed if I show support for BLM or anything else "woke". Dual nationals aren't just brown Muslims. There are thousands (maybe even millions, who knows) of us.

Edited to add: there are 731,316 dual nationals in the UK. I guess there will be more that have a claim to another Nationality also.
---

I have just been listening to the podcast series the Times brought out in 2020. It makes a pretty good case for bringing her home, although it is balanced.
There are escapes every day from the camps. Some women have ended up back in London, others have run off to rejoin isis. Why risk either of those things happening? Even if there isn't sufficient evidence to charge her they could make it a condition of her return that she is monitored for life.
If our security services are so inept that they can't handle that, none of us should feel safe in the UK.

Not only is this government continuing to plough it's way to authoritarianism but unfortunately it is doing so with the full or at least apathetic support of a substantial section of the population.

Banishment without due process, suppressing the rule of law, banning strikes, banning protests, voter suppression, denying access to justice ... it just goes on and on and some people positively love it ... until it affect them.

 

[emm]

Watched the BBC interview and the first 7 parts of the podcast.

She's certainly holding back a lot and has been shown to tell quite a few lies. Almost certainly is not being honest with what she was up to for all those years.

She probably should be brought back but there's lots of things that should happen in this world. She probably will be eventually, and I'm sure that'll suit the torys if it's delayed until labour are in power. There seems to be limited unverified reports of her at a training camp. Must be hard to have the evidence to prove either way. There's no doubt been people far more dangerous let into the UK.

She must genuinely want to come back or else she would have left the semi-secure camp. Although she seems to only want to be held to account of joining Isis and then being a stay at home wife.

My overwhelming feeling is so much time and energy is spent on one high profile person. Could be better spent elsewhere.

Totally agree, especially about the tories trying to push this until jt becomes a Labour issue. What would she do if she did escape the camp though? She has no right to be there, couldn't work or support herself etc.

 

[Polythene Pam]

Totally agree, especially about the tories trying to push this until jt becomes a Labour issue. What would she do if she did escape the camp though? She has no right to be there, couldn't work or support herself etc.

Leaving her with zero options will likely drive her back into the arms of isis. Women in the camps who are not supported by family are forced to rely on isis, even if they are disillusioned with the cause.

 

[emm]

Leaving her with zero options will likely drive her back into the arms of isis. Women in the camps who are not supported by family are forced to rely on isis, even if they are disillusioned with the cause.

Exactly, she is much more of a danger there

 

[Polythene Pam]

This will all come home to roost one day. She can't be held in the camp forever. She entered Syria illegally anyway and is now stateless. She'll have to go somewhere.

 

[monga]

I think he’s looking for a three bed semi and a dog

Shamima Begum’s ISIS husband reveals the ‘shy’ schoolgirl had ‘weird questions’

Shamima Begum’s ISIS fighter husband has described how the couple met for “10 minutes max” before deciding to get married.

www.standard.co.uk

She wouldn’t even kill a cockroach ….

 

[emm]

I think he’s looking for a three bed semi and a dog

Shamima Begum’s ISIS husband reveals the ‘shy’ schoolgirl had ‘weird questions’

Shamima Begum’s ISIS fighter husband has described how the couple met for “10 minutes max” before deciding to get married.

www.standard.co.uk

She wouldn’t even kill a cockroach ….

It's funny how he wants them to be together when she has described sex with him as rape, has she said she wants to be with him still too?

 

[monga]

It's funny how he wants them to be together when she has described sex with him as rape, has she said she wants to be with him still too?

He said the doctors had no cause of death for his children, his daughter used to go and beg for food from her mother with a bowl, he said he thinks the child died of starvation because her bones were visible…how could she not feed her children solid food? I was under the impression they died soon after birth…They’re both clearly liars it’s hard to know what to believe.

 

[Polythene Pam]

He said the doctors had no cause of death for his children, his daughter used to go and beg for food from her mother with a bowl, he said he thinks the child died of starvation because her bones were visible…how could she not feed her children solid food? I was under the impression they died soon after birth…They’re both clearly liars it’s hard to know what to believe.

I think both of her sons died as newborns but her daughter was 2 or thereabouts.

 

[Merpedy]

It’s hard to find much on starvation in ISIS from 2015 onwards but around 2019, when ISIS was falling apart, stories did come out about malnutrition:

Syria’s Isis children cling to life

The boy lay alone on a hospital bed, barely alive. He was about two years old, and starved so thin that his ribs jutted out like the wings of a bird from his bony chest. His head was shaved because of lice, and on one side of his skull an ugly wound seeped. One eye opened and rolled downwards as a

www.thetimes.co.uk

Starved infants, wounded children and women crowd Syrian hospitals after ISIS defeat

HASAKA, SYRIA (REUTERS) - The paramedics' log at al-Hol camp in eastern Syria lists the injuries and ailments of infants rushed from the battlefield to its crowded, dirty clinic: malnourishment, stunted growth, broken leg. Read more at straitstimes.com.

www.straitstimes.com

I think she mentions in the podcast that they moved out of Raqqa while she was pregnant because the husband realised that it was going to fall and didn’t want to stay there. So much for loyalty to ISIS. It would suggest to me that they probably didn’t have endless food to access at that point though

I also love that no one asks him why he didn’t feed the children while he seems to be implying blame on Shamima.