Does seem a bit harsh to be fair, but perhaps she’s being sacrificed as a deterrent for others thinking of doing this
A deterrent for people thinking of being groomed and trafficked ?
Excellent point, well made 🙂
If radicalising people is an offence then being radicalised makes you a victim of that. If being radicalised is all your fault and you bear the responsibility yourself regardless of your age or how easy a target you were, then why is radicalising people wrong? Can't really be both.
^ is a good point that I hadn't thought of
I think the poor woman has suffered enough, and showing some sympathy and forgiveness for youthful error might demonstrate that we are a mature society and that there is a way back for people.
And enough of the trafficked vs terrorist - women have plenty of dichotomies we have to navigate (e.g. virgins or sluts) can we acknowledge the nuance here please?
If radicalising people is an offence then being radicalised makes you a victim
Change 'radicalising' to 'recruiting' and 'victim' to 'recruit' and there's your answer...
Can’t really be both.
It can since the person being radicalised, probably, still has some choice in the matter. They arent a blank canvas and there will be those who rejected the attempts.
The "probably" is there because some will have been highly vulnerable and hence should be considered innocent whereas others may have not needed anything more than the invitation.
Thats why we need the legal process to be allowed to go through its steps rather than this mess.
showing some sympathy and forgiveness for youthful error might demonstrate that we are a mature society
Or just what a soft touch we collectively are...
trafficked vs terrorist women...
Nothing to do with gender, would/should be the same outcome for any gender.
I haven’t much sympathy for what Begum did even as a 15 year old and her alleged lack of full remorse after ISIS fell.
She's unlikely to express remorse until she's had the necessary de-programming/counselling to counter the 2 years of radicalisation received at a formative stage of her mental growth before she went abroad.
Change ‘radicalising’ to ‘recruiting’ and ‘victim’ to ‘recruit’ and there’s your answer…
Hmm. You can change the language, but recruiting/radicalising 15 year old girls to run off to Syria to become recruits/victims and have sex with people they'be never met still puts the blame on the recruiter/radicaliser, in my book.
Taking trafficking and coercion aside, I don't understand the legalities of these cross border situations.
I mean morally there's a huge issue with predators going to other countries where age of consent is lower in order to have sex with 'underage' people. But what law are they breaking and what gives a country a legal right to prosecute their citizens for obeying laws of another land while there. Are there specific differences for these kinds of offences?
My daughter is at Uni with an 18 y.o American student. Age for drinking in the US is 21. This kid can go to pubs and bars in the UK and drink according to British laws, at no risk of being prosecuted on returning home because US law says 21.
A deterrent for people thinking of being groomed and trafficked ?
I am fairly confident that is not what was meant. A deterrent to others thinking of joining ISIS seems the more likely to me.
Although this thread asks the question whether Shamima Begum was trafficked or a terrorist no one on here can answer that imo, only a court of law with the full facts can.
The only reasonable question that can be answered concerning this case imo is whether the British born British citizen was stripped of her birthright to placate tabloid inspired bigotry.
And in answer to that question I would not hesitate to point an accusing finger at the UK government and proclaim GUILTY!
Edit: That was supposed to be a vague reference to the Dreyfus Affair btw - another famous case which threw up issues concerning someone's alledged lack of loyalty and their race...."j'accuse"
I don't think your US student was "trafficked" to drink warm beer LOL but keep up with the false equivalence, it powers the hate on the internets.
false equivalence
Huh? I thought it was just an interesting question?
I don’t think your US student was “trafficked” to drink warm beer LOL but keep up with the false equivalence, it powers the hate on the internets.
Whoa there!! - sorry if you have the wrong end of the stick, it's a genuine don't know the legalities issue, not an attempt to justify it.
Of course, 100% without doubt it isn't the same morally and I'm 100% against trafficking, recruiting, grooming, whatever the word is of kids to other countries, or for predators travelling to other countries to take advantage of laxer laws.
I don't know why -> from a legal standpoint <- some laws apply to citizens abroad and others don't. Can someone put me right, rather than attack over a misreading.
IS and what they were doing was all over the news at the time. Destruction of ancient site, killings, kidnappings, beheading of journalists on YouTube, rape and atrocities. She knew it was a terrorist organisation, literally everyone except IS was saying that. She chose to ignore the overwhelming evidence of what was going on and willingly fly out to the desert to join them, to fight with them, to lie with them and to actively support them...
I'm not sure you can call that decision naïve.
Whilst I think there should be a significant penalty for, what is essentially treason, I'm not sure that exile without trial should be allowed...unless, perhaps, the evidence is overwhelming. Is it? It could be?
Trafficked or Terrorist? Neither. Traitor maybe.
IS and what they were doing was all over the news at the time. Destruction of ancient site, killings, kidnappings, beheading of journalists on YouTube, rape and atrocities. She knew it was a terrorist organisation, literally everyone except IS was saying that. She chose to ignore the overwhelming evidence of what was going on and willingly fly out to the desert to join them, to fight with them, to lie with them and to actively support them…
I’m not sure you can call that decision naïve.
Situation doesn't sound dissimilar to voters for [insert populist political parth here]...
IS and what they were doing was all over the news at the time.
Have you ever met a 13-15 year old? They don't listen to Radio 4, don't read papers, don't watch Channel 4 news or News at 10. In short, they are not exposed to what we would call relatively reliable sources of information on current affairs. If that void is filled by bad people on their social media channels they don't stand a chance. Just like 13-year old boys and Andrew Tate.
Have you ever met a 13-15 year old
There's a fair range there. The lower can still be very childlike and the latter very much an adult. It depends on the individuals.
I suppose that's the crux of it. It's difficult for 'us' to believe as a 15 year old, she did not/could not have known at least some of what she was getting into...
Off topic but im gonna say big hats off to TJ for the Echo Chamber Thread.
It has made lots of people pause, consider and restrain- before piling in 😉
very noticeable in this thread where it could have escalated quickly.
I have only seen one person make sweeping generalisations so far.
*puts kettle on.
Mind yer backs, Refs turned up... 🙃
People susceptible to grooming are a small % just as those pensioners who fall for some scam to take their money which would be obvious to most people what is going on.
Which side you fall on in whether she was groomed or knew what she was doing (when nobody knows) just gives away the type of person you are.
Trafficked or Terrorist? Neither. Traitor maybe.
The war was the Syrian government v ISIS, not the UK government v ISIS. In fact the UK government was fully supporting the overthrow of the Syrian government, despite banning any UK citizen from fighting in the war in any way.
She might have fallen foul of UK law but unless she is Syrian I can't see how she can be accused of being a traitor.
And it's a bit much to accuse someone of being a traitor to Britian when the British government is so quick to deny that they are British.
Do you expect a 15 year old girl to have more loyalty to Britian than Britian has to her?
Have you ever met a 13-15 year old?
Slight OT: Does this also apply to 16 year olds?
Extreme examplw but in the space of 48 hours a person can go from being 15 to 16 and be deemed legally capable about making a decision around consent, and as some would like, to vote, with there being no discernable change or maturing.
My point circles back to generalising doesn't work in this instance as in the matter of (suspected) criminality; she has been accused of a crime but cannot face her accusors.
She shouldn't have been flung into limbo, but investigated and questioned to assess levels of culpability/victimhood and suitable outcomes implemented as required by the investigation.
Stripping citizenship without open investigation is lazy and stinks.
The war was the Syrian government v ISIS
It really wasn't.
ISIS was in Syria, Iraq and other states and there was a US led coalition against them (which included the UK) which flew over 13k sorties. You can't really declare war on terrorists, but we were very much engaged in combat and anti-terrorism actions against them.
You can't claim that by helping them, she wasn't in some small way harming/threatening the UK. Did they use her in propaganda, did they use her knowledge of the UK to help in some way? Did she encourage/recruit others? Traitor.
Trafficked or Terrorist? Neither. Traitor maybe.
Honestly, the accusation of her being a traitor to me implies more blind nationalism than one of being a terrorist.
She may or may not be gullible/trafficked/groomed etc*, a full and proper investigation should determine the circumstances, including whether or not she should be held accountable under the law for her actions, which would inform next steps.
I'd guess it'd be very easy for any lawyer to claim that there's little chance of a fair trial. She's already been tried by all the right wing media in addition to being used by the Government as a political football.
Ironically enough, in stripping her of her citizenship for some quick "appeal to the bigots" points, the Government have actually made the problem worse rather than making it go away.
There isn't a way out of this.
U-turn, give her back her citizenship (and deal with the outraged howlings of the Daily Wail), bring her back here and - what...?
Trial would be unfair due to the previous media coverage.
She could be bounced around various what's left of the social care network, constantly at risk from whichever rag journo/far-right nutcase tracked her down.
She could be chucked back to her home, ripe for more abuse and with zero job prospects - who the hell would employ someone like that?!
The alternative is leave her in Syria to an unknown but probably not very nice fate.
You can’t really declare war on terrorists, but we were very much engaged in combat and anti-terrorism actions against them.
So how come British people alledgedly engaged in terrorism who are brown can be called traitors but white British people who are found guilty of terrorism are never called traitors?
You cannot be a traitor to Britian if you are white Anglo-Saxon but you can easily if you look foreign?
That doesn't sound right.
The revoking of citizenship is obviously illegal and disproportionate. Whether she's groomed or a wrong 'un, that's probably for courts to decide, I'm not sure exactly how to draw the line.
The citizenship thing is just idiotic nonsense though. Chum for the racists.
No, it's a simple fact of law. She was engaged in actions against the UK or its allies. As a citizen of the UK, her actions, however small they were, are therefore traitorous ones. Whether she was a terrorist, for me is harder to prove. Was she associated with terrorists? Sure. Did she commit or help plan any acts of terrorism? Don't know.
Small point, but it stood out for me in the short clip I heard from her as I drove to work this morning.
She was talking about being 'attacked' by people in the UK because she threatened "their" way of life. Interesting to me that she didn't use "our" but then I can get obsessed by the minutiae of language use sometimes.
Could be just her way of phrasing things, could be an indication of her radicalised mindset, could be an entirely accurate way of putting it when talking about other people. I don't know, just jumped out at me as odd while I was listening.
FWIW, I think the humane way to deal with this is to reinstate her citizenship, and then any deradicalisation / condemnation / whatever can get under way without the elephant in the room getting in the way.
Whether she’s groomed or a wrong ‘un, that’s probably for courts to decide, I’m not sure exactly how to draw the line.
I don't think they're mutually exclusive, an individual can be both, to be supported and held accountable thats what sentwnce plans/probation/de-radicalisation is for. Being groomed can form part of plea of mitigation/defence to be tested in court.
But the government have always been very vague about exactly what acts she has allegedly been involved in beyond the act of joining a banned organisation.
There isn’t a way out of this.
U-turn, give her back her citizenship (and deal with the outraged howlings of the Daily Wail), bring her back here and – what…?
Of course there is. The next Labour government in about 18 months time restores her birthright, she returns to the UK and stands trial for any offensives she might have committed as a child.
I don't think there would be a problem with her getting a fair trial. Plenty of people on here can't agree whether she is guilty or not, which is generally the situation before a trial.
So how come British people alledgedly engaged in terrorism who are brown can be called traitors but white British people who are found guilty of terrorism are never called traitors?
You cannot be a traitor to Britian if you are white Anglo-Saxon but you can easily if you look foreign?
That doesn’t sound right.
Erm - William Joyce was white. I'd happily try BoJo, Gove, Mogg and Farage for treason. They (like her) knew the lay of the land and actively engaged in actions harmful to the UK for their own benefit. Skin colour is totally irrelevant.
Trial would be unfair due to the previous media coverage.
I am not sure about that. Even just on this thread there are plenty reserving judgement about whether she is actually guilty of a crime or not and wanting it to be tested in court.
I am open to being persuaded either way. Its just the stripping of citizenship which I find highly distasteful for several reasons.
Erm – William Joyce was white
Are you seriously suggesting that an example of someone who was white and accused of being a traitor nearly 80 years ago is relevant? lol
William Joyce was not accused of terrorism and it's debatable whether he was even British.
There are loads of examples of white British being accused of treason, in fact pretty much every case that has ever occurred. You don't even need to go back 80 years, there are far more recent cases such as Soviet spies.
You specifically said terrorism. You suggested Begum was possibly guilty of supporting terrorism which would make her a traitor.
When was the last time a white British terrorist was called a traitor? Why is that label reserved for dark skinned Brits?
Why do non-white Brits need to be more loyal than white Brits?
error
I am open to being persuaded either way. Its just the stripping of citizenship which I find highly distasteful for several reasons.
Exactly this. I am not party to the information that would be provided in a trial. But I think that due process should be followed. And so does the would-be defendant.
It seems the echo chamber isn’t in disagreement, which suggests common decency and natural justice, which is not served by removal of citizenship.
I think it is all a bit more nuanced than it is made out to be. It is illegal under international law to make someone stateless. The reason she could have her UK citizenship revoked is because she also has Bangladeshi citizenship. Ive never understood how people can hold dual nationality but thats for a different debate.
She has also admitted that she went to join ISIS
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-64222463
/a>
which makes it all a bit more complicated when it comes to her claiming her innocence hence my view that the truth is somewhere between the 2 extemes
Are you seriously suggesting that an example of someone who was white and accused of being a traitor nearly 80 years ago is relevant? lol
Lol all you want, he was the last person convicted of treason. The others were spies and were convicted under other offences.
There are loads of examples of white British being accused of treason, in fact pretty much every case that has ever occurred. You don’t even need to go back 80 years, there are far more recent cases such as Soviet spies.
In your desperate attempt to prove racism, you missed the circumstance and the law they were convicted under. Spies were convicted of espionage and so offences against official secrets act as they were employed by the UK. They were held in case of future value.
Link to the modern use of Treason in International Law:
https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/vjtl/vol42/iss5/2/
The reason she could have her UK citizenship revoked is because she also has Bangladeshi citizenship.
She doesn't.
which makes it all a bit more complicated when it comes to her claiming her innocence hence my view that the truth is somewhere between the 2 extemes
Yeah but that's kind of the whole point of doing a (criminal) investigation, establishing facts and who dun wot and so on.
I think it is all a bit more nuanced than it is made out to be.
That, very much.
We're not exactly going to get the whole, honest, truthful picture from e.g. the Daily Mail, are we? Even the more impartial news sources don't know everything.
I’m not sure you can call that decision naïve.
I call that being brainwashed or groomed but more likely brainwashed. i.e. being sold the utopia. A bit like joining a cult but in a massive scale.
Bear in mind we all "love" cult but some are just more extreme than the others.
Mao in his cultural revolution is an example.
She was talking about being ‘attacked’ by people in the UK because she threatened “their” way of life. Interesting to me that she didn’t use “our” but then I can get obsessed by the minutiae of language use sometimes.
There is a cultural and a religious divides there by the sound of it when referring to "theirs", because she gives the impression that either she cannot fit in or others don't fit into her worldviews (probably only happened after being brainwashed).
As I said 3 years ago, what can she do if she returns? Start a war by herself?
I would ask her the following questions:
What is her world views now?
Did she do right or wrong?
Will she accept defeat and bear all the responsibilities herself?
Has she learned enough of the true nature of human beings?
Is jihad internal or external to self?
What has she learned from Islam?
The reason she could have her UK citizenship revoked is because she also has Bangladeshi citizenship.
The Bangladeshi government disagrees about her having citizenship.
Ive never understood how people can hold dual nationality but thats for a different debate.
I expect several people on this thread do (including myself). In many cases its just that one of your parents countries have automatic citizenship rights for their children.
There was a case in Australia where an MP was forced to resign since their MPs are required to have only Australian citizenship and he, unknowingly, had got New Zealand citizenship automatically from his dad.
which makes it all a bit more complicated when it comes to her claiming her innocence hence my view that the truth is somewhere between the 2 extemes
Definitely. Which is why we have courts and the justice system. Currently though its just the whim of the tory minister.
Either way - her British citizenship was removed illegally under international law.
No one should have their citizenship forcibly revoked. The whole situation is of the UK governments making.
Whatever happened and I personally perceive that she was groomed, she was treated differently because of her race and this action was taken because it was and is populist.
She was talking about being ‘attacked’ by people in the UK because she threatened “their” way of life. Interesting to me that she didn’t use “our”
There is more than 1 way of life in the UK...
Regardless, this would be correct English if it was "they attacked me because their way of life was threatened".
