Shamima Begum

[Peter Griffin]

This is a populist agenda setting dangerous precedent.

Removal of citizenship from a UK born citizen is very troubling regardless of circumstance. Especially when done without any trial.

I’d be fine if she faced life in jail. Removing her citizenship and forbidding entry sets a dangerous precedent. Whats next? What if some whacko gov gets in power and declares BLM or LGBT terrorist organization? Revokes all its members citizenships on a whim without any trial.

There is nothing populist about it, the government applied a pre-existing law which has been upheld by various legal channels. The Supreme Court has ruled that it was well within the government’s rights to remove Begum’s citizenship and stop her from returning to the UK.

Yes, the removal of Begum’s citizenship may set a dangerous precedent, we all want restraints on state power, and do not want to open a can of worms. But like anything there are exceptions to the rule, this is a unique case. And I would argue that Begum herself did far more to destroy her citizenship when she joined and swore an oath to a global death cult.

Since (in fact even before) 9/11, hate preachers like Anjem Choudary who has repeatedly called for attacks on the UK has not had his British citizenship stripped. As well as many other Islamic terror group leaders in the UK who were born here and plotted against this country. This alone should tell you what an unprecedented step the government took against Begum.

As for a "wacko" government getting in power and declaring BLM or LGBT groups terrorists .

 

[bubbadabut]

I saw this on Instagram, what do you guys think?

I think he cannot spell. I'm glad he wasn't my teacher.

 

[Peter Griffin]

THANK YOU. I've said this SO many times on this thread but people can't seem to look outside their own privilege to see this is not just about this girl. It's about ALL of us who do not tick that WHITE British box. This is 100% about setting a precedent for the future.

What has privilege got anything to do with it? Maybe the people on this thread against Begum just do not have sympathy for a person who stabbed her country in the back. And would much rather have sympathy with the enslaved Yazidi women, beheaded Christians and murdered men, women and children in countries where ISIS ran riot.

 

[bunnyboo]

There is nothing populist about it, the government applied a pre-existing law which has been upheld by various legal channels. The Supreme Court has ruled that it was well within the government’s rights to remove Begum’s citizenship and stop her from returning to the UK.

Yes, the removal of Begum’s citizenship may set a dangerous precedent, we all want restraints on state power, and do not want to open a can of worms. But like anything there are exceptions to the rule, this is a unique case. And I would argue that Begum herself did far more to destroy her citizenship when she joined and swore an oath to a global death cult.

Since (in fact even before) 9/11, hate preachers like Anjem Choudary who has repeatedly called for attacks on the UK has not had his British citizenship stripped. As well as many other Islamic terror group leaders in the UK who were born here and plotted against this country. This alone should tell you what an unprecedented step the government took against Begum.

As for a "wacko" government getting in power and declaring BLM or LGBT groups terrorists .

But you're missing the whole point here; in our judicial systems, there should be no "exceptions to the rule".

She has had her citizenship removed without any due process. What crime has she been charged with? What crime has she been properly tried and convicted of? I'm not saying that she didn't commit a crime, but it should be proven that she did beyond any reasonable doubt. Trials in your country (I'm not British) need to meet certain criteria to be considered fair, one of which is the right for a defendant to be present to answer the charges against them. Until such time as that has happened, it should not be at the whim of a politician as to who is and who is not a citizen. Even then it is questionable that someone’s status should be revocable because it is politically convenient or popular.

The question at hand is really much more than this particular woman's issue too. It is a bigger moral and philosophical question that is being addressed for the first time in the era of Universal Declaration of Human Rights. There are a LOT of concerns in the International Legal Community about what precedent it can set and how, if at all, this precedent can be abused unjustly. We should never applaud a western government (or any government, but let's be honest about standards) revoking citizenship. One of the key human rights tenants is that you may not make individuals stateless. This cannot be overstated. This action by the UK government is the first step into the slide of the loss of confidence in the sanctity of citizenship.

What has privilege got anything to do with it? Maybe the people on this thread against Begum just do not have sympathy for a person who stabbed her country in the back. And would much rather have sympathy with the enslaved Yazidi women, beheaded Christians and murdered men, women and children in countries where ISIS ran riot.

Matters of British citizenship can be of concern to people of colour in the UK. Look at how the British government treated the Windrush generation only a few years ago.

 

[Doc]

THANK YOU. I've said this SO many times on this thread but people can't seem to look outside their own privilege to see this is not just about this girl. It's about ALL of us who do not tick that WHITE British box. This is 100% about setting a precedent for the future.

I suspect it would be the same if it were a white girl of Eastern European descent to be honest. The aversion is more towards cultural difference than colour.

 

[User name taken]

I hope that she is kept out of the UK indefinitely , sometimes the government, secret services and media put out a different story ie keeping the plebs quiet and happy. I am putting my faith in it being the former.

 

[idk2]

What has privilege got anything to do with it? Maybe the people on this thread against Begum just do not have sympathy for a person who stabbed her country in the back. And would much rather have sympathy with the enslaved Yazidi women, beheaded Christians and murdered men, women and children in countries where ISIS ran riot.

You mean the same ISIS funded by the British government? Ok.

 

[FrannyGallops]

THANK YOU. I've said this SO many times on this thread but people can't seem to look outside their own privilege to see this is not just about this girl. It's about ALL of us who do not tick that WHITE British box. This is 100% about setting a precedent for the future.

Privilege like that of Jihadi Jack, a WHITE middle class male, who also got his British citizenship revoked after running off to fight for ISIS?

 

[Peter Griffin]

But you're missing the whole point here; in our judicial systems, there should be no "exceptions to the rule".

She has had her citizenship removed without any due process. What crime has she been charged with? What crime has she been properly tried and convicted of? I'm not saying that she didn't commit a crime, but it should be proven that she did beyond any reasonable doubt. Trials in your country (I'm not British) need to meet certain criteria to be considered fair, one of which is the right for a defendant to be present to answer the charges against them. Until such time as that has happened, it should not be at the whim of a politician as to who is and who is not a citizen. Even then it is questionable that someone’s status should be revocable because it is politically convenient or popular.

The question at hand is really much more than this particular woman's issue too. It is a bigger moral and philosophical question that is being addressed for the first time in the era of Universal Declaration of Human Rights. There are a LOT of concerns in the International Legal Community about what precedent it can set and how, if at all, this precedent can be abused unjustly. We should never applaud a western government (or any government, but let's be honest about standards) revoking citizenship. One of the key human rights tenants is that you may not make individuals stateless. This cannot be overstated. This action by the UK government is the first step into the slide of the loss of confidence in the sanctity of citizenship.



Matters of British citizenship can be of concern to people of colour in the UK. Look at how the British government treated the Windrush generation only a few years ago.

"She has had her citizenship removed without any due process".

This is false. This is just saying she can't come to Britain to defend herself in person as she may be a danger to the public. The issue of citizenship is still ongoing. The UK is a nation of laws the governments actions on Begum were taken to court and in this round they won. The idea that the home secretary just signed a piece of paper revoking citizenship and that was it, is just not true.

All her lawyers and representatives have been able to make her case to the various courts including the Supreme Court. She was not able to attend on security grounds and given that she does not deny her actions, combined with the reports from the intelligence agencies, that sealed her fate (her own doing). These laws/procedures have been in place long before she ever joined ISIS, so any notion she is being treated differently is not valid.

"I'm not saying that she didn't commit a crime, it should be proven that she did beyond any reasonable doubt."

She literally gave a TV interview where she admitted to leaving the country to join ISIS and helped support the caliphate (all of which are crimes which carry hefty prison sentences). Even her dad has been shocked at her lack of remorse. Maybe she could come back to the UK and convince a jury of her peers that she went to Syria to buy timeshares. Any trial at this point would just be a show trial.

With the issue being made stateless, you have missed the point and details of the issue:

1. The UK government cannot legally strip someone of their British citizenship if doing so would leave that individual stateless.

2. The UK government contends that Begum holds, or is eligible for, citizenship of Bangladesh. There have been reports that immigration lawyers confirm this position.

3. The Government of Bangladesh, however, stated that Begum does not hold Bangladeshi citizenship and will not be allowed to enter the country.

4. Bangladeshi law states that children of Bangladeshi parents are automatically dual citizens at birth, but that right lapses at the age of 21. Begum is 19.

And it is point 4 that the government are arguing as to why they can strip her of her citizenship. If she did not have dual citizen status the government would lose on point 1.

"Matters of British citizenship can be of concern to people of colour in the UK. Look at how the British government treated the Windrush generation only a few years ago."

The Windrush scandal was horrible and exposed the UK's flawed immigration system. But I am sure people can understand the difference between Windrush and Begum. Windrush generation were victims, Begum is not.

You mean the same ISIS funded by the British government? Ok.

 

[bunnyboo]

"She has had her citizenship removed without any due process".

This is false. This is just saying she can't come to Britain to defend herself in person as she may be a danger to the public. The issue of citizenship is still ongoing. The UK is a nation of laws the governments actions on Begum were taken to court and in this round they won. The idea that the home secretary just signed a piece of paper revoking citizenship and that was it, is just not true.

All her lawyers and representatives have been able to make her case to the various courts including the Supreme Court. She was not able to attend on security grounds and given that she does not deny her actions, combined with the reports from the intelligence agencies, that sealed her fate (her own doing). These laws/procedures have been in place long before she ever joined ISIS, so any notion she is being treated differently is not valid.

"I'm not saying that she didn't commit a crime, it should be proven that she did beyond any reasonable doubt."

She literally gave a TV interview where she admitted to leaving the country to join ISIS and helped support the caliphate (all of which are crimes which carry hefty prison sentences). Even her dad has been shocked at her lack of remorse. Maybe she could come back to the UK and convince a jury of her peers that she went to Syria to buy timeshares. Any trial at this point would just be a show trial.

With the issue being made stateless, you have missed the point and details of the issue:

1. The UK government cannot legally strip someone of their British citizenship if doing so would leave that individual stateless.

2. The UK government contends that Begum holds, or is eligible for, citizenship of Bangladesh. There have been reports that immigration lawyers confirm this position.

3. The Government of Bangladesh, however, stated that Begum does not hold Bangladeshi citizenship and will not be allowed to enter the country.

4. Bangladeshi law states that children of Bangladeshi parents are automatically dual citizens at birth, but that right lapses at the age of 21. Begum is 19.

And it is point 4 that the government are arguing as to why they can strip her of her citizenship. If she did not have dual citizen status the government would lose on point 1.

"Matters of British citizenship can be of concern to people of colour in the UK. Look at how the British government treated the Windrush generation only a few years ago."

The Windrush scandal was horrible and exposed the UK's flawed immigration system. But I am sure people can understand the difference between Windrush and Begum. Windrush generation were victims, Begum is not.

Look, I don't necessarily disagree you on most of the points that you make. But you have to understand that from an outsider looking in, it seems like the British government was happy to push this problem aside by using a string of complexities and technicalities to claim "Oh not our problem, let Bangladesh deal with it". And that's what your post was demonstrating too. Pushing technicalities over and over again. The point stands that if she is denied access to defend herself in court, there is no fair hearing. She has no access to legal advice where she currently is, they've basically stuck up a barrier intended to leave her at a disadvantage and lessen her chances of her appeal being upheld.

She was born in the UK, raised in the UK and educated in the UK. At the end of the day, she isn't Syria's responsibility and unless they plan to detain her, she is the UK's responsibility and the UK should live up to its responsibility and look to detain her. You can't just claim "oh she could get Bangladeshi citizenship" and wipe your hands of the problem all together. The UK likes to tout itself as one of the leaders of democracy. Ask people about what the UK stands for, you'll get various answers, but amongst them you'll get stuff like "freedom", "democracy", "Rule of Law", "fairness" etc. etc.

You have true monsters sitting in jail in the UK. They have committed crimes of a gross nature; they are guilty of child murder, rape, torture and worse. They were however given due process, a trial and a sentencing. Shamima has received no due process and yet the UK is punishing her. She deserves to be punished and held accountable - but after she is investigated, charged and judged by a jury of her peers. If you don't value due process.. well, fair enough, just be honest about it I guess. But I can tell you it's the difference between utter authoritarianism or worse, and a civilised society. Due process is one of the most important rights we have, but it hasn't been afforded to her. She should be investigated and her culpability established. Was she willing, was she groomed, how did it happen what is the context and at that point society can decide how she should be punished?

This entire affair is just another embarrassment for the UK and honestly the attitude of many spectators has been really disappointing. People refusing to scratch even a small amount below the surface and making up their mind without showing much of an understanding of what may have happened in this instance. Did any of you acknowledge that teachers from her school reported that grooming was happening and they were worried about students being radicalised? And what did the British police and social services do? They largely ignored these reports, allowing the problem to get worse. Why aren't we talking about that either? Maybe, if Shamima was afforded a trial then the failings governmental agencies would be brought into question again... I don't know.

I have zero sympathy for this girl. However, this case has nothing to do with how much sympathy we should have, it's about upholding the vital principle of due process and the rule of law.

I realise we will not come to an agreement on this matter. But respectfully, this case has serious legal ramifications and goes way beyond Shamima Begum.

 

[rosdene09]

What has privilege got anything to do with it? Maybe the people on this thread against Begum just do not have sympathy for a person who stabbed her country in the back. And would much rather have sympathy with the enslaved Yazidi women, beheaded Christians and murdered men, women and children in countries where ISIS ran riot.

Don’t know if you have realised but the UK is a very racist place. Imagine growing up as a teenage girl being judged for your religion and race constantly by white people (not all but a majority), having undoubtedly had racial slurs thrown your way, and knowing that when you’re older people will see you for your race and religion first. Not to mention when ISIS cause an attack in the UK the first people that get abuse are Muslims. After growing up in this environment, it is inevitable that you would grow resentment towards this treatment of yourself and family. It is very easy to be groomed as a child online, you’re impressionable and open to new ideas. ISIS do not target women by telling them about bombings and beheading, they aren’t stupid people. They lure them with the promises of feeling included and at home, with the promise of finding a boyfriend and home and sense of community. It’s very clear that as soon as she got there she realised this was not the case and desperately tried to return, but escaping monsters like ISIS is not easy. It is inevitable that things she will have heard there will have stuck with her and made an impression, but surely her choice to leave shows that she was terrified and could not live that life, if she was such an awful person surely she would have enjoyed it there?

The lack of compassion for a child that was effectively lied to and manipulated is astounding on this forum. I will never ever justify the actions committed by ISIS, they are disgusting and genuinely deserve to rot.

I can’t imagine what losing two children and seeing the things she must have seen at such a young age, surely she needs help?

 

[FrannyGallops]

Don’t know if you have realised but the UK is a very racist place. Imagine growing up as a teenage girl being judged for your religion and race constantly by white people (not all but a majority), having undoubtedly had racial slurs thrown your way, and knowing that when you’re older people will see you for your race and religion first. Not to mention when ISIS cause an attack in the UK the first people that get abuse are Muslims. After growing up in this environment, it is inevitable that you would grow resentment towards this treatment of yourself and family. It is very easy to be groomed as a child online, you’re impressionable and open to new ideas. ISIS do not target women by telling them about bombings and beheading, they aren’t stupid people. They lure them with the promises of feeling included and at home, with the promise of finding a boyfriend and home and sense of community. It’s very clear that as soon as she got there she realised this was not the case and desperately tried to return, but escaping monsters like ISIS is not easy. It is inevitable that things she will have heard there will have stuck with her and made an impression, but surely her choice to leave shows that she was terrified and could not live that life, if she was such an awful person surely she would have enjoyed it there?

The lack of compassion for a child that was effectively lied to and manipulated is astounding on this forum. I will never ever justify the actions committed by ISIS, they are disgusting and genuinely deserve to rot.

I can’t imagine what losing two children and seeing the things she must have seen at such a young age, surely she needs help?

Begum herself said she was inspired to join ISIS after seeing videos of fighters beheading people. Once there, she carried a rifle and was part of the ISIS ‘morality police’ enforcing their strict dress code on other women. There are also reports of her stitching people into suicide vests which couldn’t be removed without exploding.
There’s no evidence she thought ISIS were monsters and wanted to return. In fact, she’s been interviewed showing no remorse and saying she still agrees with them. I think you’re confusing her with her friend who also went to be an ISIS bride who died.
If the U.K. is so terrible to poor Shamima and so prejudiced against her religion, she’s welcome to go to Bangladesh, of which she has dual citizenship with Britain and which is 90% Muslim. But she doesn’t want to. I wonder why that is...

 

[Thelife&times]

When Shamima was first found in the camp and interviewed (was it itv?) She could have very easily spoken about grooming, hating life, and not agreeing with the ISIS views. Plus the tragedy of losing two, soon to be three children, would have probably seen her brought back to the UK. She really didn’t help herself in that interview and came across so cold. I believe she is still very radicalised in her views.
Am I right to believe her husband is alive, but in prison?
Are the other two girls confirmed as dead?

 

[Bonnie Bisou]

I thought all 3 of her babies died?

 

[JoeBloggs]

I thought all 3 of her babies died?

Yes seems the third has also sadly passed.

 

[Ohflogoff]

Begum herself said she was inspired to join ISIS after seeing videos of fighters beheading people. Once there, she carried a rifle and was part of the ISIS ‘morality police’ enforcing their strict dress code on other women. There are also reports of her stitching people into suicide vests which couldn’t be removed without exploding.
There’s no evidence she thought ISIS were monsters and wanted to return. In fact, she’s been interviewed showing no remorse and saying she still agrees with them. I think you’re confusing her with her friend who also went to be an ISIS bride who died.
If the U.K. is so terrible to poor Shamima and so prejudiced against her religion, she’s welcome to go to Bangladesh, of which she has dual citizenship with Britain and which is 90% Muslim. But she doesn’t want to. I wonder why that is...

Part of redicalisation and grooming is when the victim idealises their perpetrator(s).

 

[Doc]

Part of redicalisation and grooming is when the victim idealises their perpetrator(s).

But then, you just have a long chain of victims and no accountability, don’t you?

ETA: I think shes our responsibility and we have to deal with her. But I’m not sold on seeing her as a victim.

 

[Cunderthunt]

@Book As someone who has been critical of her on this thread, I find this offensive. My partner isn't british.... but has all of the same values we do. he is an EU national who works in th eNHS and this is exactly the type of abuse he has started to suffer since the brexit vote. What you have said is in no way what i would consider "british values", as I would consider those as tolerance and acceptance of other nationalities, and, in my view, this is what makes the UK great, hence that so many people want to live here. Regarding the NHS, how many employees do you think they would have without foreign nationals?

I really dislike the argument that foreigners save the NHS. Yes, because it has been set it up that way. For example, 24,000 new doctors are needed every year, but there are only 8000 places at U.K. universities to study medicine, (of which many places go to students outside the EEA). Therefore we “have” to import doctors in from abroad.

I also dislike your misuse of the word “abuse”. Somebody’s (entirely reasonable) opinion, that happens to suffer from your own, shared anonymously on a public Internet forum, is not in any way “abuse” of your partner.

 

[emmer_moans]

It’s the lack of remorse in the interviews for me. Obviously it’s heartbreaking she has lost her children, that’s horrid, but at 15 she knew leaving her family, school and country behind was not something a good citizen does. In the interviews she just comes across as a bored person who wants to come back, but she doesn’t seem to show much despair about her actions.

I appreciate she could have been groomed but she shouldn’t get a free pass (and neither should men who go and fight for ISIS).

This will probably drag on for years though. Maybe bring her back and prison for life might be the answer. I don’t know the law so this is just my opinion.

 

[HelloStereo]

"She has had her citizenship removed without any due process".

This is false. This is just saying she can't come to Britain to defend herself in person as she may be a danger to the public. The issue of citizenship is still ongoing. The UK is a nation of laws the governments actions on Begum were taken to court and in this round they won. The idea that the home secretary just signed a piece of paper revoking citizenship and that was it, is just not true.

All her lawyers and representatives have been able to make her case to the various courts including the Supreme Court. She was not able to attend on security grounds and given that she does not deny her actions, combined with the reports from the intelligence agencies, that sealed her fate (her own doing). These laws/procedures have been in place long before she ever joined ISIS, so any notion she is being treated differently is not valid.

"I'm not saying that she didn't commit a crime, it should be proven that she did beyond any reasonable doubt."

She literally gave a TV interview where she admitted to leaving the country to join ISIS and helped support the caliphate (all of which are crimes which carry hefty prison sentences). Even her dad has been shocked at her lack of remorse. Maybe she could come back to the UK and convince a jury of her peers that she went to Syria to buy timeshares. Any trial at this point would just be a show trial.

With the issue being made stateless, you have missed the point and details of the issue:

1. The UK government cannot legally strip someone of their British citizenship if doing so would leave that individual stateless.

2. The UK government contends that Begum holds, or is eligible for, citizenship of Bangladesh. There have been reports that immigration lawyers confirm this position.

3. The Government of Bangladesh, however, stated that Begum does not hold Bangladeshi citizenship and will not be allowed to enter the country.

4. Bangladeshi law states that children of Bangladeshi parents are automatically dual citizens at birth, but that right lapses at the age of 21. Begum is 19.

And it is point 4 that the government are arguing as to why they can strip her of her citizenship. If she did not have dual citizen status the government would lose on point 1.

"Matters of British citizenship can be of concern to people of colour in the UK. Look at how the British government treated the Windrush generation only a few years ago."

The Windrush scandal was horrible and exposed the UK's flawed immigration system. But I am sure people can understand the difference between Windrush and Begum. Windrush generation were victims, Begum is not.



View attachment 457686

I thought her citizenship was revoked two years ago and this is her appeal against that decision?