Viewing 40 posts - 481 through 520 (of 764 total)
  • Shamima Begum – trafficked, or terrorist?
  • dissonance
    Full Member

    There are two camps; those who think she’s an innocent child trafficked away, indoctrinated and kept against her will. And those who think that’s a load of rubbish.

    Oddly enough this is also a load of rubbish.
    Some people think she is entirely innocent.
    Others, like me, really dont know but feel the best place to test it is in court with the help of psychologists/police/intelligence professionals and then a judge and jury to make the decision.
    Not a home secretary wanting to appear tough.

    But to discourage others and to avoid setting a precedent for future Jihadis returning to the UK.

    A great deterrent, perhaps, for those people with the possibility of dual nationality but not so much for anyone without or who doesnt know they have dual citizenship/forgot to claim it.
    I would go for a more generic option personally.

    dissonance
    Full Member

    Or probably both. Take your pick

    The problem is even if he has seen more evidence (given he doesnt mention it I would have my doubts) doesnt address the key problem.
    Its that it sits outside the criminal justice system and is by personal choice of the home secretary.
    Its not putting the security of the nation first. Its putting the whims of a politician first.

    ernielynch
    Free Member

    he has seen/been briefed by the security services and knows alot more about her that the combined minds of this forum.

    You know that the suggestion it is all just a ruse by Shamima Begum so that she can come to the UK to commit acts of terrorism is laughable, don’t you?

    The whole sorry saga has its basis in the ambitions of a dark skinned second generation immigrant Home Secretary, who was desperate to become Prime Minister, trying to prove to the Daily Mail and its readers that he could be totally relied on to pander to their bigotry.

    It’s not easy being an ambitious brown Tory – you have to prove yourself.

    It all has bugger all to do with fighting terrorism.

    kelvin
    Full Member

    Even if there’s intelligence that she could pose a risk to the UK… presumably we have people in the UK with similar intelligence on them, right now. If we can’t handle that situation at home, we have a weak security system here that needs addressing.

    “Javid says so” isn’t good enough for making someone stateless… yes, in UK law it is… but we’d be challenging politicians in other countries making such decisions and pointing to international agreements, laws and commitments… the negative effects of a race to the bottom when it comes to offloading a nation’s responsibilities could increase the risk to us all.

    2
    batfink
    Free Member

    There are two camps; those who think she’s an innocent child trafficked away, indoctrinated and kept against her will. And those who think that’s a load of rubbish.

    Jesus christ, after 13 pages of almost unanimous consensus, you can’t even get that right.

    I’ll make it truly binary for you:

    You either believe that people are entitled to a fair trial prior to sentencing, or you don’t.

    If you believe that they are, then you should support her being brought back to the UK for trial and to face the legal consequences of her actions.
    If you don’t think they are, we find ourselves in middle-school ethics curriculum territory, and so this becomes a different conversation.

    Whether or not what the home secretary did was legal (in the context of international law) is largely irrelevant to most people. What most people are bothered about is what OUR government did to one of OUR citizens, and WHY they did it. back to middle school ethics again: if they have that power (and find out they can wield it without public consequences) then what’s to stop them wielding it again? Against whom?

    5plusn8
    Free Member

     if they have that power (and find out they can wield it without public consequences) then what’s to stop them wielding it again? Against whom?

    This 100%.
    Eg there was talk of starving the Irish during brexit negotiations, Priti Patel – https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/brexiteer-blasted-over-threat-to-starve-ireland-tjp7k76mq.

    Lots of other people on FB and forums asked why we let the Irish “stay” here.
    Many UK citizens came from Ireland or parents, grandparents came from Ireland. All eligible for Irish Cit.
    With populism on the rise, it makes you wonder how fast things could change here.

    pondo
    Full Member

    Another thing that’s scary is that all of the appeals seem to be based around whether the Home Secretary had the ability to make the decision he made, and whether she can return to fight the case – at no point has she ever faced terrorism charges, Javid just made a decision and (thus far) that’s it, she’s gone. IANAL but it seems like the courts, deliberately or otherwise, are testing only the right of the HS to remove citizenship, and not whether it was the correct judgement?

    Again, this could be any of us if the state so chose.

    intheborders
    Free Member

    I know that she’s British. But she’s technically now Bangladeshi.

    Technically?

    Seems that they have an age 21 cut-off, so she’s not.

    You either believe that people are entitled to a fair trial prior to sentencing, or you don’t.

    This, and it applies to EVERYONE along with how we should all be tried if we committed the same offence – no matter how ‘important’ you are.

    MoreCashThanDash
    Full Member

    This, and it applies to EVERYONE along with how we should all be tried if we committed the same offence – no matter how ‘important’ you are.

    So easy to overlook – removing rights from one person removes them from us all.

    ernielynch
    Free Member

    are testing only the right of the HS to remove citizenship, and not whether it was the correct judgement?

    Yeah the court a couple of days ago made it clear that it wasn’t their duty to decide whether Shamima Begum posed a national security risk, only whether the Home Secretary had based his decision on that consideration.

    They were satisfied that he had even if they didn’t necessarily agree with his assessment.

    The whole thing stinks and the issue is a complete mess, but for me the most depressing aspect of this situation is that it is extremely unlikely that it will be resolved by an incoming Labour government.

    Indeed the powers used by the Home Secretary in this clear breach of natural justice have their origins in a Labour government.

    The only difference I can see a Labour government making is that some people will be more reluctant to critise injustices when Labour are in power, which actually makes it easier for them to get away with it.

    Depressing, truly.

    chrismac
    Full Member

    Javid says so” isn’t good enough for making someone stateless… yes, in UK law it is… but we’d be challenging politicians in other countries making such decisions and pointing to international agreements, laws and commitments

    Totally agree with this. THe challenge is how. Will a change of government change it? I have my doubts as why would a Home Secretary want to not be able to do this.  Its easier to do nothing than change the law and the political flack from the right that would come with it

    Scienceofficer
    Free Member

    trafficked, or terrorist

    Both I think. She appears neither contrite or sincere in interview. Like she’s reading badly from a script.

    tjagain
    Full Member

    what actual evidence of terrorist activity is there?  she was trafficed and “married” to somone. ( presumably raped multiple times) and has spent most of the time in a refugee camp while the children she has had and all her friends die

    Did she ever get to bomb hurling?  Nothing I have ever seen suggests so

    ernielynch
    Free Member

    trafficked, or terrorist

    Both I think.

    So presumably you don’t agree with the British government’s decision to ban her from the UK?

    I mean, why would any other country in the world accept a British born and radicalised terrorist?

    Scienceofficer
    Free Member

    I was answering the OPs actual question.

    I don’t agree with the government’s decision. Aside from what it means for human rights for the rest of us more generally, it leaves a potentially dangerous actor still in play.

    ernielynch
    Free Member

    Yeah that’s the point –

    If she is a terrorist she needs to be hauled back here to face the consequences. She is the UK’s problem.

    If she is not a terrorist she needs to be allowed back to the UK. It is her birthright.

    Whether she is a terrorist or not is irrelevant.

    Cougar
    Full Member

    Yes, you keep saying this. So assuming you’re not just a man on the internet but the chairman of a court higher than the one that decided she is technically entitled (and the commission that agreed with them). Why don’t you have the decision overturned? Or tell their lawyers that they are mistaken.

    I understand if you mean that you don’t agree with the decision, or that you just don’t like it. But to present it as fact is misleading. The UK government found a crafty way to revoke her citizenship as they found she was <i>technically </i>entitled to Bangladeshi citizenship. That there is the fact. Whether you or Bangladesh like it or not. Technically it’s Bangladesh who are potentially leaving her stateless as the UK moved first so tough tits. And ranting that they’ll execute her if she arrives is just childish temper tantrums

    You keep smashing on about this “technically.” What do you suppose it means? That she is Bangladeshi, really, it’s just that no-one wants to admit it?

    She is – or perhaps “was” is a more appropriate word – technically entitled to Bangladeshi citizenship in much the the same way that I’m technically entitled to a giraffe. Conclusion, you can shoot my dog in the head and I should go knocking on the doors at Whipsnade asking where my giraffe is?

    Cougar
    Full Member

    What crimes is she alleged to have committed anyway?

    A good question. Perhaps we should find out, some sort of “trial,” like we do with every other alleged criminal?

    Certainly none in the UK surely? So why bring he back to face justice? For what?

    Because, well, because of exactly what you just said.

    If she’s been up to no good in the Islamic State or Syria then surely that’s for them to deal with?

    Why?

    If a Bangladeshi national had been “up to no good” in the UK, should it be for us to deal with or should we be able to send them back to Bangladesh?

    And, uh… you do know that “the Islamic State” isn’t a geographical place, right?

    ernielynch
    Free Member

    Certainly none in the UK surely? So why bring he back to face justice? For what?

    Because it is illegal in the UK to be engaged in acts of terrorism overseas.

    Well it is according to the Crown Prosecution Service, and they are pretty red-hot on subject:

    https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/terrorism-guidance-relation-prosecution-individuals-involved-terrorism-overseas

    ernielynch
    Free Member

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/feb/26/surge-in-number-of-britons-fighting-to-hold-on-to-their-citizenship

    Yesterday, a former intelligence officer for the Canadian security services, which employed a double agent to smuggle Begum into Isis territory, condemned it as a “travesty of justice”.

    Huda Mukbil, who worked with MI5, said the verdict defied belief. “They even recognise she was a child and was trafficked into Syria; there was a breach of duty on behalf of the state [the UK] to make sure she doesn’t leave the country,” she said.

    It really isn’t a good look when a former senior officer with the Canadian Security Intelligence Service – which was involved (with the UK’s full knowledge) with smuggling children into Syria for sexual exploitation by ISIS, describes a UK court ruling as a “travesty of justice”.

    Still, I guess that as long as the Opposition don’t pursue the matter, or barely comment on it (I don’t believe that the current Shadow Home Secretary has ever bothered commenting on the case) Tory Home Secretaries have little to worry about – the actual truth is unlikely to be known by the wider public.

    5plusn8
    Free Member

    A word on logic and thought.

    This

    What crimes is she alleged to have committed anyway?

    And this

    Certainly none in the UK surely? So why bring he back to face justice? For what?

    In the same statement, disagree with the argument to deprive her of her citizenship.

    She has not committed a crime in the UK , so why can the UK punish her?
    EG your 17 your old son is accused of having sex with a 16 year old girl whilst on holiday in America.
    He returns to the UK before the accusation comes to light, he cannot be extradited to the US, because it is not a crime in the UK.
    Or should we deprive him of his citizenship because it is alleged he committed a crime abroad, perhaps he even admits he he had sex with her?

    Can you see that your statements do not add up? They are logical failures.
    You cannot have a punishment without a crime, and you admit you very charitably think she has not committed a crime.
    Those of us who are less charitable think she may have committed a crime, but in order to find out we think she should be dragged back to her home country and tried and if necessary, punished here and rehabilitated back into the society she has wronged.

    jambourgie
    Free Member

    The UK isn’t punishing her. She denounced the UK and left to join the Islamic State. She’s in a pickle entirely of her own making. Just cos IS went tits up isn’t the UK’s fault. She isn’t a UK citizen so how can she be brought back here to face justice?

    MoreCashThanDash
    Full Member

    It’s **** Groundhog **** Day on this thread…

    jambourgie
    Free Member

    😁

    It is indeed. Round and round and round we go.

    ernielynch
    Free Member

    She denounced the UK

    I have never heard of a statement where Shamima Begum denounced the UK, have you got proof to back up this claim.

    And I have no idea why you think “she’s in a pickle entirely of her own making.” How on earth do you believe that a child from Bethnal Green managed to leave the UK illegally and travel across controlled borders thousands of miles away on her own?

    It turns out that she only managed to do it with help from Western intelligence. She should have been stopped at Gatwick airport.

    jambourgie
    Free Member

    EG your 17 your old son is accused of having sex with a 16 year old girl whilst on holiday in America.
    He returns to the UK before the accusation comes to light, he cannot be extradited to the US, because it is not a crime in the UK.
    Or should we deprive him of his citizenship because it is alleged he committed a crime abroad, perhaps he even admits he he had sex with her?

    Read through this a few time and perhaps I’ve missed the bit where after committing the heinous crime of having sex with a girl one year younger than himself, our laddo denounces the west and everything it stands for and goes off to join a murderous terror group in the middle east whilst also becoming a potential danger and threat himself.

    If you’re looking for a similar case that actually exists in the real world, then there’s this splendid young fellow Jack Letts

    I don’t see many of the terminally outraged sticking up for him. Perhaps there aren’t too many virtue signalling points to score from sticking up for a white male…

    ernielynch
    Free Member

    So you can’t find any evidence that Shamima Begum denounced the UK, as you claim.

    Was it something that you read in the Daily Mail perhaps?

    Edit: Btw denouncing the UK isn’t a crime, it happens every day on this forum. If it was STW would have been shut down a long time ago and hundreds of STWers would likely have lost their UK citizenships.

    jambourgie
    Free Member

    So you can’t find any evidence that Shamima Begum denounced the UK, as you claim.

    Was it something that you read in the Daily Mail perhaps?

    She did it by her actions old chap. Not that I should need to say it when it’s so glaringly obvious…

    You must be getting cross when the old “wah wah, you read the Daily Mail!” taunts start 😂

    I’ll have you know the only newspapers I have historically taken were The Guardian and The Sunday Sport.

    5plusn8
    Free Member

    I didn’t know about Jack Betts, but I woudl apply the same to him, he should not have stripped of his citizen ship.

    She isn’t a UK citizen so how can she be brought back here to face justice?

    She was, and should have been, how can you not see that?

    ernielynch
    Free Member

    You must be getting cross

    I actually enjoy the entertainment value of your comments, I mean you’re not very good are you?

    All you can come up with is crass comments which sound as if they have come straight out of a Daily Mail columnist’s rants.

    Personally I’m lovin it….. keep it up! 🤗

    jambourgie
    Free Member

    I’ll have you know the only newspapers I have historically taken were The Guardian and The Sunday Sport.

    I feel a bit ashamed admitting to that on a public forum. Can I just clarify that I only had The Guardian delivered for about a year as I was quite young and that’s what a lot of my friends read.

    jambourgie
    Free Member

    She was, and should have been, how can you not see that?

    She was indeed!

    Right, as others have pointed out, this is just going round in circles. It’s a lovely day, off out on the bike.

    ernielynch
    Free Member

    It’s a lovely day

    It’s a crap day – it’s bleeding freezing out there. And grey.

    Are you ever right about anything Jambo?

    TiRed
    Full Member

    Letts had dual nationality. And in this game the country that renounces it first wins the “not my problem” game. Begum had “access to” dual nationality. We all have access to lots of things that we don’t take up and are not punished for subsequently. The law is deciding whether the “not my problem” game was valid on account of “access to” rather than “had”.

    It’s a crap day. Covid positive for the fourth time and a terrible night of sinus pain, cardiac pain, and vomiting. COVID loves me 🥲

    ernielynch
    Free Member

    Covid positive for the fourth time

    Bleedin’ell no way!!!😳

    Yeah covid obviously luvs you – you should be the subject of research!

    MoreCashThanDash
    Full Member

    Yeah covid obviously luvs you – you should be the subject of research!

    When they say “do your own research” this is not how it’s meant to happen!

    Look after yourself, God knows we can’t afford to lose the only one on the forum capable of reasoned, evidenced debate.

    1
    ernielynch
    Free Member

    So it turns out that that Shamima Begum’s lawyer has quit as Shamima Begum is only allowed to be represented by a special advocate who is not allowed to speak to her once the hearing begins.

    He claims that it is impossible for Shamina Begun to get a fair hearing and that government ministers are deliberately placing obstacles in the way.

    I would have thought that if she deserves nothing else she at least deserves a fair hearing. Even the Yorkshire Ripper was entitled to that.

    5
    dyna-ti
    Full Member

    Poor girl is just a scapegoat, a political pawn.

    .

    There are those in our government, and currently in power and inhabiting Downing st, who have caused far more harm to the UK than this girl.

    2
    nickc
    Full Member

    Poor girl is just a scapegoat, a political pawn.

    Undoubtedly, she is also, in many ways the author of her own downfall. I feel sorry for her, her life is by any standard a personal tragedy.  

    5
    brownperson
    Free Member

    Undoubtedly, she is also, in many ways the author of her own downfall

    No more so than any other 15 year old child who does something stupid. We’ve all done stupid things; mostly they don’t result in our citizenship being stripped by a racist government.
    The only authors of Shamima’s ‘downfall’ are the UK government, who have pandered to xenophobia and fear-mongering as part of their greater vision of divide et impera.

    I would have thought that if she deserves nothing else she at least deserves a fair hearing. Even the Yorkshire Ripper was entitled to that.

    To deny her a fair trial under UK law, is to undermine the entire institution of Law itself. It basically states that if you are of a particular minority heritage, you cannot expect the same rights as others. If such an act were taking place in another country, you can guarantee that there would be universal condemnation of that nation by our press. History condemns such nations which carried out such practices. The one positive that can be taken from this, is that the legions of ‘Lefty Lawyers’ will be working tirelessly to restore what’s left of our legal system, and ways to further protect UK citizens from future abuses of power. Such people are thankfully more intelligent than the majority of politicians, so there is hope that sanity, common sense and human decency will prevail.

Viewing 40 posts - 481 through 520 (of 764 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.