Shamima Begum – trafficked, or terrorist?

Well it’s irrelevant, regardless of what you, me, or man in Bangladesh says. The UK has found her technically entitled to Bangladesh citizenship and has thus been able to legally strip her of her UK citizenship. And the Appeals Commission agrees with them. These are the facts. This has happened has it not?

I understand that you and others think that it is wrong. But that doesn’t mean it hasn’t happened. I think the key word here is technically.

Perhaps the young lady and her lawyers could try the Bangladeshi decision next.

Perhaps the young lady and her lawyers could try the Bangladeshi decision next.

Why? She has no connection to the country beyond her parents being born there.

She’s never lived there, never had citizenship there. She’s a Brit. She’s our problem.

I don’t know f all about the case but she can’t be the only one. Smells of media manipulation of the masses to me.

Only issue I can see is she now considered a risk to to deep indoctrination (as she went out so young and is now considered “too far gone”) but pressing any charges would be difficult? I have no idea about the law on this or how the other in a similar situation are being dealt with.

Perhaps the young lady and her lawyers could try the Bangladeshi decision next.

Explain why you think that would be appropriate – she is British not Bangladeshi.

She was born in Britian not Bangladesh. Do you know if she has ever been to Bangladesh or even speaks Bangladeshi?

I suspect that your sentiments are basically racist – ie she isn’t proper British because her parents were immigrants from a former British colony.

Although I am happy to hear why you think she might be more Bangladeshi than British.

Why? She has no connection to the country beyond her parents being born there.

I’ve absolutely no idea. You’d have to ask the government lawyers for an explanation. I suspect it’ll be some morally-dubious crafty little technicality.

Explain why you think that would be appropriate

To get out of the Syrian camp she’s in of course. The rest of your post is irrelevant, see the first half of this post.

I’ve absolutely no idea.

Well that is honest and fair self-criticism, I won’t deny that.

Although I am happy to hear why you think she might be more Bangladeshi than British.

She’s clearly British. Not that it matters one iota, my opinion is irrelevant. I imagine all of the government lawyers arguing that she was Bangladeshi also thought she was British.. but they argue something else in order to get the desired result. That’s what lawyers do. Christ, is there some kind of cognitive dissonance going on? Is it me? Do you think OJ’s lawyers actually bel… oh never mind.

I suspect that your sentiments are basically racist – ie she isn’t proper British because her parents were immigrants from a former British colony.

Oh go and have a sit down or something.

She’s clearly British.

So what exactly are you arguing about?

I thought, apparently erroneously, that you were backing the government’s position on Shamima Begum’s case.

It turns out that you actually agree with most other people on this thread and believe that “she’s clearly British”.

Wouldn’t it have been easier to make that point before, or did you suddenly change your opinion halfway through the thread?

She’s more English than Prince Philip ever was.

That will get you lots of hate on the DM 😆

Can I suggest to anyone who’s parents were born abroad that you could be next, and you don’t need to have committed a crime, one can be ‘allocated’.

Oh, and can the incoming Labour Govt start with Priti Patel and Suella Braverman please, just because.

Can I suggest to anyone who’s parents were born abroad that you could be next

I was born abroad to British parents, I was pleasantly surprised my British passport got renewed so quickly.

And yet,

This isn’t the first time a legal challenge by Ms Begum’s lawyers has failed. In February 2020 the same commission rejected her team’s argument that she had been made “de facto stateless” when her citizenship was removed.

It agreed with the Home Office’s position that since she was technically entitled to Bangladeshi citizenship, it wasn’t legally obliged to allow her to keep her UK rights.

– BBC article on their front page.

And yet.

We removed her citizenship. She is now stateless. She would not get Bangladeshi citizenship if she applied for it. It is acknowledged even by the very powers that stripped her of her citizenship that she would very likely be executed should she enter Bangladesh.

All the argument in the world will not change those facts.

She’s a Brit. She’s our problem.

I suspect there’s a low chance of any kind of conviction in UK court, due to her being a minor at the time and the coercion/grooming elements of the case.

That would be embarasing for the establishment, (imagine the headlines in the Express!) so easier just to keep her out.

not read any of this thread, too long, dont want to get in any debates.
my twopenneth, because i have been following her case on the news.

the government released 428 convicted terrorists, including 143 life term terrorists, with the good friday agreement.

but a girl who was 15 at the time of her obvious brainwashed error of judgement, is now denied entry to her own country, because she is deemed a threat, even though she has not commited a crime.

something is wrong with the world i think.

Spot on Ton. She was a bright but silly and exploited kid who escaped one form of oppression for a worse form in the name of liberation. Very mistaken but does not deserve a whole life sentence.

Agree entirely with Ton – a very succinct summary of a complex situation. It stinks… The BBC podcast on it is really interesting by the way…

I suspect there’s a low chance of any kind of conviction in UK court, due to her being a minor at the time and the coercion/grooming elements of the case.

The problem for the UK government isn’t necessarily just the lack of conviction, it is also that a court case would almost certainly expose the fact that she, as a child,, and her two friends, were trafficked for sexual exploitation by a Canadian government agent, all in the name of “intelligence gathering”.

As a member of the intelligence alliance “Five Eyes” the UK will have been kept fully informed of British citizens trafficked into Syria by a Canadian secret service agent.

Which could be very awkward and embarrassing for the UK government. Better she is never made to stand trial in the UK.

Shamima Begum as a child was a victim of traffickers and those who exploited her – both western intelligence and ISIS. Today as a woman she is the victim of disgraceful state-sponsored injustice.

And yet we know that Begum is innocent of any crime because under UK law everyone is innocent, until it is proved that they are guilty.

The BBC podcast on it is really interesting by the way…

I listen to it this afternoon while out on the bike and it is a truly desperate situation that this young girl found herself. She was one year older than my daughter when she left, I can’t begin to believe that she set out to harm anyone and was radicalised in England where she, as a child should have been protected.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/aug/31/shamima-begum-smuggled-into-syria-for-islamic-state-by-canadian-spy

There are certainly other examples of people who have joined IS and returned to the UK(or other countries of birth) ,where they have faced a jail term.

This All-Party Parliamentary Group report is brutally damning:

Press release for the Inquiry by the APPG on Trafficked Britons in Syria

I find the deep frustration of the UK government’s behaviour expressed by the United States government particularly interesting :

The UK’s refusal to repatriate its nationals is causing consternation among our allies, particularly the US. In July 2019, US representatives told BBC News they were “extraordinarily frustrated with Britain’s failure” to take back its detainees.

The current US Coordinator for Counterterrorism and Special Envoy for the Defeat ISIS Coalition, John Godfrey, told the APPG that the “revocation of individuals’ citizenship defers the problem and puts the burden on local partners and the international community, which has neither the mandate nor the tools needed to successfully resolve such cases,” adding that “the US Government urges countries of origin to repatriate, reintegrate and, where appropriate, prosecute and incarcerate foreign fighters and their family members.”

Well that is honest and fair self-criticism, I won’t deny that.

Meow! A little odd comment considering I didn’t offer any opinion against her.

I think more people should admit that they are commenting from a point of absolut ignorance.

Facts:

1. She was a British citizen.
2. She wasn’t a Bangladeshi citizen.
3. We removed her citizenship.
4. She became stateless.
5. This is illegal under international law.

Whether should could apply, be accepted, be executed in Bangladesh is all irrelevant. Personally I really don’t want her back so can live with the consequences of her serious actions but that’s not the law based country I want to live in. Which can’t choose when to apply laws on a citizen by citizen basis.

This is all purely government propaganda, more positive headlines doing this than doing the right thing.

Facts:

1. She was a British citizen.
2. She wasn’t a Bangladeshi citizen.
3. We removed her citizenship.
4. She became stateless.
5. This is illegal under international law.

6. She was trafficked/misled as a minor.

And we’ll summarised @ton.

0. She is non-white.

The problem for the UK government isn’t necessarily just the lack of conviction, it is also that a court case would almost certainly expose the fact that she, as a child,, and her two friends, were trafficked for sexual exploitation by a Canadian government agent, all in the name of “intelligence gathering”.

As a member of the intelligence alliance “Five Eyes” the UK will have been kept fully informed of British citizens trafficked into Syria by a Canadian secret service agent.

Which could be very awkward and embarrassing for the UK government. Better she is never made to stand trial in the UK.

Shamima Begum as a child was a victim of traffickers and those who exploited her – both western intelligence and ISIS. Today as a woman she is the victim of disgraceful state-sponsored injustice.

I’ve read this before somewhere (probably earlier in this thread?) if that is all true, is it the publicising of that potential involvement/complicity of UK/Canadian intelligence in her original trafficking/indoctrination/abuse that is being referred to as a “National Security risk”? If that’s the case it’s even more bloody shameful…

TheBrick Free Member

Meow! A little odd comment considering I didn’t offer any opinion against her.

Even odder is that you think it was aimed at you. It was very obviously aimed at jamboree as I directly quoted him.

that is being referred to as a “National Security risk”?

We, the public, are not allowed to know why she poses a national security risk. The Special Immigration Appeals Commission is allowed to know the details, which is why yesterday’s appeal was in fact semi-secret.

However my understanding is that the SIAC is not allowed to decide whether the Home Secretary’s decision that she poses a national security risk is reasonable, they only need to be satisfied that the decision was based on national security.

They are not allowed to assess how much of a threat Shamima Begum allegedly posses as it is claimed that they lack expertise in matters related to national security.

With the recent revelations, esp the involvement of the Canadians, I am even more repulsed by the outcome now.
The US govt thinks we are arseholes for doing this, not just morally, but also because we push the problem we have created elsewhere. It is seen as shirking our responsibilities.
Effen Torys. Bunch of arses.

we push the problem we have created elsewhere

It has been described as human flytipping – taking our problems and illegally dumping them on other countries.

She was born, raised, and radicalised in the UK, but the UK government is claiming that she is Bangladesh’s problem.

Even odder is that you think it was aimed at you. It was very obviously aimed at jamboree as I directly quoted him.

100% appologies. I am not only clueless but confused. The ease of misunderstandings shown once again.

On subject why has she been singled out above and beyond all the other people who went out? Both adults and other children? Is it 100% media choice / a story that gained popularity and the government has played or did the government push her case into the media as they felt it could be good for titivating some members society?

Facts:

1. She was a British citizen.
2. She wasn’t a Bangladeshi citizen.
3. We removed her citizenship.
4. She became stateless.
5. This is illegal under international law.

Fact:

So far every court that has being asked to judgement on this case, seeing way more of the evidence than we have, has concluded that the government has acted legally and within in its powers set out in Statute

We can argue all day long about whether we agree with either the judgements of the courts or the laws that exist that lead to those judgements.

I suspect there is far more to this than we are allowed to know involving the UK and other five eyes intelligence services which probably has more to do with why they dont want her in a UK court than anything else. That an the political brownie points scored with the Party faithful and the Mail fan club

Translation: the government can do what they want, the courts can’t stop them.

Result: Javid didn’t get to become PM anyway.

So far every court that has being asked to judgement on this case, seeing way more of the evidence than we have, has concluded that the government has acted legally and within in its powers set out in Statute

Has anyone suggested that the Home Secretary did not act within statute? The very fact that it is all perfectly legal under UK law (more questionable under international law) actually makes it even more unacceptable for most reasonable people, not better, as you seem to think.

Also no court appears to have been asked to judge whether Shamima Begum actually poses a national security risk, which forms the whole basis of the government’s argument.

I might not have access to the same intelligence as the current Home Secretary but I am not alone in refusing to believe that someone who was trafficked as a child for sexual exploitation does not pose a national risk which cannot be managed.

I certainly don’t believe that if she does it is somehow another country’s problem.

Has anyone suggested that the Home Secretary did not act within statute? The very fact that it is all perfectly legal under UK law (more questionable under international law) actually makes it even more unacceptable for most reasonable people, not better, as you seem to think.

Exactly, the point is the govt changed the law so they could do this, so of course it is “legal”.

The argument has been made that terrorists considered a threat to the UK are more of a risk when they’re outside our borders and much harder to keep track of.

The law was changed to deal with Abu Hamza I think, and the govts failure to deal with him properly is the source of all the anti EHRC and general anti human rights rhetoric every since. I think we can blame T May for that.

Question – If she was smuggled back to the UK and turned up on a boat in Dover what would happen?

She can’t be deported as technically is now stateless? I guess put in a detention centre? Could she apply for asylum? She hasn’t been convicted of any crime here so why not?

Maybe this is what should happen (not saying its an easy journey, must be horrendous for people).

So far every court that has being asked to judgement on this case, seeing way more of the evidence than we have, has concluded that the government has acted legally and within in its powers set out in Statute

We can argue all day long about whether we agree with either the judgements of the courts or the laws that exist that lead to those judgements.

Inarguable. However:
1 – it’s illegal to make someone stateless.
2 – we removed her citizenship.
3 – she is now stateless.

The “it’s been justified by the courts” argument is a little bit “Lance has never failed a drugs test” for me.

If she can be made stateless because she could potentially apply for citizenship elsewhere, we all can.