Shamima Begum

[Notorious PIG]

As much as I don’t care for this ungrateful traitor and wouldn’t bat an eyelid if she rots, I think the fairest and best thing for everyone’s safety - both the public’s and Shamima’s - is for her to be locked up indefinitely in a UK prison. And if she is genuine, she’d jump at the chance. Just a couple problems with that. 1. I doubt she’s genuine or remorseful anyway, and 2. Once back on British soil, she and her legal team and her sympathizers/fans/do-gooders will campaign non stop for her release.

It seems that the UK is responsible for her (not that she deserves it)…I could be wrong here but think she can only get Bangladeshi citizenship if she applies for it and realistically the Bangladeshi government can and would reject her application.

 

[JoeBloggs]

But…. Being immature at 15 is something we can all relate to. The fact that you didn’t do exactly the same thing as her isn’t the point, or course you didn’t. Young boys in the U.K. are groomed by gangs to commit violent crime at this age though, that’s a more similar comparison. We don’t expect a 15 year old boy to have the skills and tools to get away from being groomed by a drug gang- that’s victim blaming.


She can’t be tried under that if it’s only just been made law though can she? What she did was 7 years ago

In my eyes she is not a victim.

 

[WilmaHun]

She can’t be tried under that if it’s only just been made law though can she? What she did was 7 years ago

She would be tried under whatever law is current at the time she’s being tried! It’s irrelevant that what she did was 7 years ago!

I’m stunned from reading comments on articles/ social media posts sharing her interview that there are a lot of people out there who sympathise with her! Generally I consider myself quite open minded and I always try to give people the benefit of the doubt but I cannot fathom how anybody can sympathise with this woman. Whether she was 15 or not when she went there; the way she conducts herself now speaks volumes. In interviews she shows not an ounce or remorse, she comes across cold, emotionless, calculated and doesn’t speak well at all. She does not strike me as sorry!

 

[NeverEnough]

As much as I don’t care for this ungrateful traitor and wouldn’t bat an eyelid if she rots, I think the fairest and best thing for everyone’s safety - both the public’s and Shamima’s - is for her to be locked up indefinitely in a UK prison. And if she is genuine, she’d jump at the chance. Just a couple problems with that. 1. I doubt she’s genuine or remorseful anyway, and 2. Once back on British soil, she and her legal team and her sympathizers/fans/do-gooders will campaign non stop for her release.

It seems that the UK is responsible for her (not that she deserves it)…I could be wrong here but think she can only get Bangladeshi citizenship if she applies for it and realistically the Bangladeshi government can and would reject her application.

If she doesn’t apply for Bangladeshi citizenship it’s neither here of there in a legal sense. At the time her UK citizenship was stripped she would qualify for Bangladeshi citizenship. She still would. Therefore by not applying she has rendered herself stateless by her own inaction and the UK bears no responsibility for her. If the Bangladesh government refuse to grant citizenship to someone qualified when she has no other options available it’s them who are in violation of international law not the UK.

Begum’s lawyers and whoever is funding them (I hope it’s not the tax payer) took this too the Supreme Court and it was found the government acted completely properly.

My understanding of the position that Begum has taken regarding her Bangladeshi citizenship is she is afraid of the death sentence. An entirely odd position to take for someone who expressed supreme confidence in her innocence. She has also expressed her desire for her day in court and I’m unclear as to why that day in court can only be in the UK. Surely any trial in Bangladesh would be under the system of Islamic law which would surely be her preference? Is she implying that any trial in Bangladesh would be unfair. What an odd position for a devout Muslim to take.

And why would any IS member (which she indisputably was) suddenly be squeamish about the death sentence given the organisations reputation for summary internet posted execution. I guess when it’s her life on the line her deeply held religious principles waver. One rule for the faithful, another for unbelievers? Sounds like a pretty textbook religious bigot to me. See also the ISIS Beatles.

The irony (hypocrisy is such an ugly word) of Shamima Begum citing the minutiae of democratic justice as a reason to be brought back to the UK is breathtaking given the absolute contempt in which democracy is held in large swathes of the Muslim world. ISIS in particular. If you don’t have UK citizenship you don’t benefit from the checks and balances that are in place to protect you. Particularly if you commit a crime in a lawless hellhole like ISIS held Syria.

So just in case I haven’t made my position clear it is thus. F**k the nasty little hypocritical bigot and let her rot in the squalid consequences of her own actions with only her invisible friend in the sky for company. After all surely a Jihadi is under the divine protection of the almighty. Right?

 

[Very traditional]

There are hundreds like her who have come back. She just happens to be the famous one.

And many of them who have done far worse than her (not that I condone running off to join Isis!) - there are men who actively fought for Isis who have returned, the only reason the government have made her stateless is as you say because she's the famous one due to the fact she was 15 and in a group of 3 when she left. The government have to be seen to make a stand.

I think technically she is our problem, she is British whether we want her to be or not, Bangladesh wouldn't have accepted her application I'm sure (although I think she should have made it, for appearance sake if nothing else), why would or should they take responsibility for her? I think I feel that she should be returned to British but to serve a prison sentence but then as said above how long would she be in prison for with all of the human rights people who seem to be supporting her? I wouldn't feel comfortable if she lived in my street but then how do I know that someone else who's done the same or holds the same views doesn't already live on my street? It's a mess.

 

[Moth]

no, she COULD have applied for it, she didn't have it already

No, that's incorrect. Children of Bangladeshi citizens automatically become Bangladeshi citizens at birth. This applies even if the child also has citizenship of another country i.e in this case the UK. They retain Bangladeshi citizenship unntil the age of 21 when they have to apply to renew it and cannot continue to be dual nationals. Shamima Begum was 19 when the decision was taken to deprive her of British citizenship. SIAC held that she was not made stateless by the decision because she still held the Bangladeshi citizenship that she aquired at birth.

In previous cases, people deprived of British citizenship won their appeals at SIAC because they were over 21 when the deprivation decision was made it was held that they had lost their birth acquired Bangladeshi citizenship when they didn't renew it at 21.

 

[NeverEnough]

And many of them who have done far worse than her (not that I condone running off to join Isis!) - there are men who actively fought for Isis who have returned, the only reason the government have made her stateless is as you say because she's the famous one due to the fact she was 15 and in a group of 3 when she left. The government have to be seen to make a stand.

I think technically she is our problem, she is British whether we want her to be or not, Bangladesh wouldn't have accepted her application I'm sure (although I think she should have made it, for appearance sake if nothing else), why would or should they take responsibility for her? I think I feel that she should be returned to British but to serve a prison sentence but then as said above how long would she be in prison for with all of the human rights people who seem to be supporting her? I wouldn't feel comfortable if she lived in my street but then how do I know that someone else who's done the same or holds the same views doesn't already live on my street? It's a mess.

I see no difference in the stance taken against Jack Letts and Shamima Begum.

Jack Letts - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Both have an alternative citizenship and both have been stripped of their citizenship in an entirely legal way. Those that have been brought back have no such alternative citizenships available so in this case the government have no choice.

She is also not British. She has been stripped of her nationality. And citizenship is dependent on recognition by the legal authority hence some people born in the UK aren’t British and some people born overseas are, as set out in the British Nationality Act 1981 and subsequent amendments.

British Nationality Act 1981 - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Can it be argued that the British government effectively dumped the problem of Begum and Letts on Bangladesh and Canada respectively? Absolutely! There is no doubt in my mind that’s exactly what they did. But dumped they are and the onus is now on Canada and Bangladesh to accept them or be in violation of international law by rendering them stateless. The UK won the hand washing Olympics in these cases.

No, that's incorrect. Children of Bangladeshi citizens automatically become Bangladeshi citizens at birth. This applies even if the child also has citizenship of another country i.e in this case the UK. They retain Bangladeshi citizenship unntil the age of 21 when they have to apply to renew it and cannot continue to be dual nationals. Shamima Begum was 19 when the decision was taken to deprive her of British citizenship. SIAC held that she was not made stateless by the decision because she still held the Bangladeshi citizenship that she aquired at birth.

In previous cases, people deprived of British citizenship won their appeals at SIAC because they were over 21 when the deprivation decision was made it was held that they had lost their birth acquired Bangladeshi citizenship when they didn't renew it at 21.

Great summary.

 

[Moth]

Joining and actively supporting a prohibited organisation. Sentence range between 10-14 years. Details here.

Longer jail terms and stricter monitoring as new terror laws gain Royal Assent

The biggest shake-up of terrorist sentencing and monitoring in decades has been granted Royal Assent today (29 April 2021) – giving the courts, police and security services greater powers to protect the public.

www.gov.uk

She can't be prosecuted under laws that were not in place when the offence was committed. Membership of a proscribed organisation was an offence when she left the UK to join IS and the new law increases the sentences.

I'm not sure whether those higher sentences could be retroactively imposed. Under the old sentencing guidelines, unless she was found to be a "prominent" or an "active" member of ISIS the Sentencing Council guidelines for "all other cases" was for a range between a high level community order and 4 years imprisonment with the starting point being 2 years. This was supplemented by guidance that custodial sentences are reserved for the most serious offences. The sentence is also to be mitigated if the offender has not committed previous offences, is of previous good character, the offender became involved through coercion, intimidation or exploitation or exploitation and age / lack of maturity where it reflects the responsibility of the offender. Under those circumstance, I would suggest that that even if convicted of membership of IS, it is quite possible the Shamima Begum would not face any time in custody at all.

 

[Notorious PIG]

If she doesn’t apply for Bangladeshi citizenship it’s neither here of there in a legal sense. At the time her UK citizenship was stripped she would qualify for Bangladeshi citizenship. She still would. Therefore by not applying she has rendered herself stateless by her own inaction and the UK bears no responsibility for her. If the Bangladesh government refuse to grant citizenship to someone qualified when she has no other options available it’s them who are in violation of international law not the UK.

Begum’s lawyers and whoever is funding them (I hope it’s not the tax payer) took this too the Supreme Court and it was found the government acted completely properly.

My understanding of the position that Begum has taken regarding her Bangladeshi citizenship is she is afraid of the death sentence. An entirely odd position to take for someone who expressed supreme confidence in her innocence. She has also expressed her desire for her day in court and I’m unclear as to why that day in court can only be in the UK. Surely any trial in Bangladesh would be under the system of Islamic law which would surely be her preference? Is she implying that any trial in Bangladesh would be unfair. What an odd position for a devout Muslim to take.

And why would any IS member (which she indisputably was) suddenly be squeamish about the death sentence given the organisations reputation for summary internet posted execution. I guess when it’s her life on the line her deeply held religious principles waver. One rule for the faithful, another for unbelievers? Sounds like a pretty textbook religious bigot to me. See also the ISIS Beatles.

The irony (hypocrisy is such an ugly word) of Shamima Begum citing the minutiae of democratic justice as a reason to be brought back to the UK is breathtaking given the absolute contempt in which democracy is held in large swathes of the Muslim world. ISIS in particular. If you don’t have UK citizenship you don’t benefit from the checks and balances that are in place to protect you. Particularly if you commit a crime in a lawless hellhole like ISIS held Syria.

So just in case I haven’t made my position clear it is thus. F**k the nasty little hypocritical bigot and let her rot in the squalid consequences of her own actions with only her invisible friend in the sky for company. After all surely a Jihadi is under the divine protection of the almighty. Right?

BIB: I stand corrected.

I agree though, she’s the biggest hypocrite going, wants to flee to the UK even though in that interview she asserts that all she ever wanted to do was to be a good, pure Muslim and lead a strict Muslim life etc…then why not seek refuge in a Muslim country? Why’s the first choice the UK?

 

[Linkylu]

She came across as so disingenuous. I do not believe a word of it and it is all a meal ticket back here. She knows she'll walk free, get a flat and money along with probably a new identity.

if she wants to help and advise the UK she can do so via Skype or FaceTime - from where she is! Looks like she has some PR person or somebody advising her these days. Once she’s back here she’ll probably get all the things you mention, while other needy UK citizens sit on an endless accommodation waiting list

 

[Moth]

And many of them who have done far worse than her (not that I condone running off to join Isis!) - there are men who actively fought for Isis who have returned, the only reason the government have made her stateless is as you say because she's the famous one due to the fact she was 15 and in a group of 3 when she left. The government have to be seen to make a stand.

I think technically she is our problem, she is British whether we want her to be or not, Bangladesh wouldn't have accepted her application I'm sure (although I think she should have made it, for appearance sake if nothing else), why would or should they take responsibility for her? I think I feel that she should be returned to British but to serve a prison sentence but then as said above how long would she be in prison for with all of the human rights people who seem to be supporting her? I wouldn't feel comfortable if she lived in my street but then how do I know that someone else who's done the same or holds the same views doesn't already live on my street? It's a mess.

That is not correct. The UK government has revoked the British citizenship of others but by definition since they are not 'famous' (i.e. the media has largely ignored their cases), you don't know about it. In fact the government policy seems to be to revoke citizenship in every case where it can be argued the decision to do so is legal. They have lost some of those cases on appeal. The people that have returned to the UK could not be deprived of their citizenship.

She's not British any longer because her citizenship has been revoked. She didn't need to apply for Bangladeshi citizenship, she already had it.

If she were to return to the UK, she would have to be charged, tried and found guilty. Her sentence would be in accordance with the law. That has nothing to do with 'human rights people'.

 

[Very traditional]

That is not correct. The UK government has revoked the British citizenship of others but by definition since they are not 'famous' (i.e. the media has largely ignored their cases), you don't know about it. In fact the government policy seems to be to revoke citizenship in every case where it can be argued the decision to do so is legal. They have lost some of those cases on appeal. The people that have returned to the UK could not be deprived of their citizenship.

She's not British any longer because her citizenship has been revoked. She didn't need to apply for Bangladeshi citizenship, she already had it.

If she were to return to the UK, she would have to be charged, tried and found guilty. Her sentence would be in accordance with the law. That has nothing to do with 'human rights people'.

Well that's me well and truely corrected

 

[Bubblesandflowers]

I think Shamima also forgets the tit she put her classmates through. The whole year group were watched by police for over a year. Lots of anti-terrorism questioning. More lesson observations by people who weren't teachers. R.E was very very heavily watched. It felt like every innocent classmate was under suspicion too.

P.S knowing that if she returned would potentially return to my area makes me sick.

 

[NeverEnough]

if she wants to help and advise the UK she can do so via Skype or FaceTime - from where she is! Looks like she has some PR person or somebody advising her these days. Once she’s back here she’ll probably get all the things you mention, while other needy UK citizens sit on an endless accommodation waiting list

Absolutely. If she appears on UK TV from where she is the facilities for this are clearly available.

If her goal is now to protect the next generation from radicalisation then surely one of the most effective ways to do that is to serve as a to the point example as to what the real world consequences will be. And that those consequences are permanent. By keeping her where she is the UK government is helping her fulfil her fondest wish.

 

[Merpedy]

I'm usually one for human rights and whatever but after seeing her struggling to say sorry any sympathy I could have ever had for her just disappeared

Sure she was 15 and sure she was probably groomed, but to be groomed by ISIS of all groups... you have to be engaging with some shady stuff to be noticed by someone like that. They're not going to look at a random kid and go 'yeah they look like a great fit for our little group!'

I've seen people mentioning the failure of school/teachers (prevent and what not) and the parents, so honestly I would love to know what happened and how she was groomed step by step out of pure interest

 

[AlanBanan]

What makes me laugh is that she said she went along with her friends as if it was some sort of peer pressure scenario.

like, peer pressure is having a cigarette in the bike sheds during lunch because all of ur friends are doing it, not joining a bleeping terror cell

 

[NeverEnough]

I'm usually one for human rights and whatever but after seeing her struggling to say sorry any sympathy I could have ever had for her just disappeared

Sure she was 15 and sure she was probably groomed, but to be groomed by ISIS of all groups... you have to be engaging with some shady stuff to be noticed by someone like that. They're not going to look at a random kid and go 'yeah they look like a great fit for our little group!'

I've seen people mentioning the failure of school/teachers (prevent and what not) and the parents, so honestly I would love to know what happened and how she was groomed step by step out of pure interest

One of the great truths in life I have learned over the years is that any individual or group which claims to be misunderstood (like Shamima) are in fact usually perfectly understood, they just don’t like the consequences of that understanding.

And another is that if you need to start on a campaign to change hearts and minds there is usually an initial reason for that negative perception, and that reason is rarely anything good.

 

[AllSeeingEye123]

Jihadi bride Shamima Begum tells pals she will never name Brits who joined ISIS

JIHADI bride Shamima Begum told pals she will never name the Brits who joined IS. Begum, 22, last week said she posed no threat and could help fight terrorism if allowed back to the UK. But p…

www.thesun.co.uk

If she wants to be a decent person why wouldn't she let on what she knows? If she's not as bad as she's made out to be what good would she be with her wanting to help the government?

 

[Lulu Goss]

I watched the documentary mentioned on here tonight.

The women in the camp mostly come across as entitled and only sorry that they are now negatively affected. They're able to talk about Isis and the awful things that were happening with little emotion, until they speak about when it all collapsed and they were then directly affected - then suddenly there are tears and self pity.

It didn’t change my mind at all, I still don’t think they should just be allowed back. I do feel sorry for the children living there though, although I’m not sure what the solution is.

 

[emm]

I watched the documentary mentioned on here tonight.

The women in the camp mostly come across as entitled and only sorry that they are now negatively affected. They're able to talk about Isis and the awful things that were happening with little emotion, until they speak about when it all collapsed and they were then directly affected - then suddenly there are tears and self pity.

It didn’t change my mind at all, I still don’t think they should just be allowed back. I do feel sorry for the children living there though, although I’m not sure what the solution is.

What was the documentary?