Viewing 40 posts - 521 through 560 (of 764 total)
  • Shamima Begum – trafficked, or terrorist?
  • tjagain
    Full Member

    IMO the reason the tories do not want to put her ontrial is that there is no hope of a conviction for anything much and that the involvement of security forces in her abduction / trafficking will come out and that their narrative of her as a terrorist will be exposed as falsethis was a vulnerable child trafficked to be at best a servant to some truely horrible people

    brownperson
    Free Member

    IMO the reason the tories do not want to put her ontrial is that there is no hope of a conviction for anything much and that the involvement of security forces in her abduction / trafficking will come out and that their narrative of her as a terrorist will be exposed as falsethis was a vulnerable child trafficked to be at best a servant to some truely horrible people

    Is pretty much the reality of it. Also, such a trial would raise questions about the UK Government’s failure to ensure such ‘radicalisation’ of young people isn’t being tackled adequately; this would raise further scrutiny of the government’s failure to invest adequately in education, public services, family support and community relations etc. Shamima is far more a symptom of government and societal failure than actual ‘terrorism’.

    tpbiker
    Free Member

    No more so than any other 15 year old child who does something stupid

    um no..I did some stupid things as a kid, but didn’t ever run off overseas with a terror group..

    that said, I agree she’s being used as a political pawn, and I also agree she deserves a second chance. 

    IHN
    Full Member

    Shamima is far more a symptom of government and societal failure than actual ‘terrorism’.

    Yep

    I think I’ve said it before, but if her name was Jemima Baker, not Shamima Begum, and she was from Bath not Bethnal Green, this whole sorry saga would have been very different from the start.

    brownperson
    Free Member

    um no..I did some stupid things as a kid, but didn’t ever run off overseas with a terror group..

    Do you think her real aim was to bring about the destruction of the West, or just some silly naive fantasy about falling in love with a handsome warrior? She was 15; It’s quite unlikely she’d really considered international terrorism as a career option by that age. She certainly hadn’t considered (or even known about) the actual reality that her quest would result in. Personally, I think bringing her back, and training her to talk to other impressionable young people about the folly of such actions, would serve society far better than wasting millions in taxpayers’ money by continually blocking her any access to legal recourse.

     think I’ve said it before, but if her name was Jemima Baker, not Shamima Begum, and she was from Bath not Bethnal Green, this whole sorry saga would have been very different from the start.

    Precisely. Thank you for pointing that out.

    Coyote
    Free Member

    Personally, I think bringing her back, and training her to talk to other impressionable young people about the folly of such actions, would serve society far better than wasting millions in taxpayers’ money by continually blocking her any access to legal recourse.

    There is wisdom in this. 

    franksinatra
    Full Member

    No-one should be made stateless, it is a basic human right.

    How we treat criminals is a measure of a civilised society.

    nickc
    Full Member

    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.

    When Shamina found herself in the Isis Caliphate, she wasn’t the only girl who’d been trafficked there, in fact hundreds of these poor souls were. She was surrounded by other youngsters realising that they’d been lied to and were planning to, and successfully returning to their homes. Other women have said that Shamina was one of the very few young westerners who didn’t immediately leg it home as fast as they could. The Home sec is entitled to take that into consideration: that she stayed there for 4 years and only when it was clear that the Caliphate had failed that she tried to return home

    To deny her a fair trial under UK law

    Under International law it’s illegal to restore someone’s citizenship solely for the purpose of repatriating them to put them on trail – for obvious reasons. It’s also, weirdly (to me at least when I read it)  not considered a punishment; as it carries no prison sentence or fine, so returning a citizenship can only be the same process as removing it, i.e. someone makes the decision to do so. The person it affects can’t take anyone to court to claim that they’ve been harmed as it carries no punishment.

    Should the Home Sec have made her stateless? IMO probably not, but as the Supreme Court ruled, he was entitled to take the advice of the secret service when making that decision, and that it was a perfectly legitimate one. Like many I suspect I was very surprised that politicians have the ability to take away our citizenship so easily, like I said regardless of whether one thinks she’s a terrorist, its most certainly a tragedy.

    franksinatra
    Full Member

    I was very surprised that politicians have the ability to take away our citizenship so easily

    I agree, but then Matt Hancock thought he could be the person who decides who should live and who should die in a NHS hospital.

    Cougar
    Full Member

    I would have thought that if she deserves nothing else she at least deserves a fair hearing.

    Absolutely. It’s weird but wholly unsurprising that the people opposing this are the same people who were squealing about democracy and sovereignty not so long ago.

    only when it was clear that the Caliphate had failed that she tried to return home

    Did she ever “try to return home” even? I may be wrong, but as I recall this whole situation blew up in the first place over little more than a tabloid journalist happening across her, asking “would you like to return to Britain at some point?” and her answering “yes.”

    nickc
    Full Member

    Do you think her real aim was to bring about the destruction of the West

    This is a red herring. It doesn’t matter. Even if you allow that at 15* she wasn’t smart enough to make a decision to join a terrorist group, when she got there, it would’ve been abundantly clear to her that she’d been lied to and was surrounded by young people in exactly the same situation making exactly that assessment and returning home as soon as they could. Almost uniquely, she stayed. 

    *In the transcript of the Supreme Court it was revealed that she was – according to her school, exceptionally bright, an A* pupil who had every prospect of going to university. The whole thing is such a waste of a young life. 

    Cougar
    Full Member

    our citizenship being stripped by a racist government.

    You know, I’m amongst the first to criticise what passes for our government but I’m not sure as ‘racist’ directly applies here. Rather, them pandering to the racist voters who enabled them into power in the first place, absolutely.

    Is pretty much the reality of it. Also, such a trial would raise questions about the UK Government’s failure to ensure such ‘radicalisation’ of young people isn’t being tackled adequately; this would raise further scrutiny of the government’s failure to invest adequately in education, public services, family support and community relations etc. Shamima is far more a symptom of government and societal failure than actual ‘terrorism’.

    Bang on.

    I think bringing her back, and training her to talk to other impressionable young people about the folly of such actions, would serve society far better

    And, bang on x100.

    She has to come back, she has to face trial, and if she’s remorseful (is she?) then she’d be a brilliant spokesperson to warn other impressionable teens of just how easy it is for a fan/excrement interface is to occur. Anything else is simple hypocrisy, we cannot hold ourselves up as some sort of bastion of the right and the just but only when it suits us.

    crazy-legs
    Full Member

    that said, I agree she’s being used as a political pawn, and I also agree she deserves a second chance.

    I’m not sure there’s a realistic prospect of a second chance – I think that would require a name change, guaranteed anonymity and a move a very long way away.

    She’s got no chance of a fair trial (and as mentioned, trial opens up all sorts of uncomfortable questions for Government about how she managed to slip through the net, become radicalised etc), she’s at risk of reprisals if she’s re-homed anywhere under her current name (and potentially even her appearance), she’s got limited education, no-one really wants her.

    What kind of second chance could she ever have? She’s world famous for all the wrong reasons…

    Taking her citizenship was a stupid move, that’s just made life a lot more complicated but that was all political.

    nickc
    Full Member

    little more than a tabloid journalist happening across her, asking “would you like to return to Britain at some point?” and her answering “yes.”

    A Times journalist and former soldier interviewed her at the settlement camp becasue he discovered that there was a British girl there and he was surprised to learn about it as he thought all the western women had been long repatriated. When he interviewed her he said that it was clear that she’d been trained in resisting interrogation techniques, and was very guarded. Despite the obvious tragedy of the situation she found herself in, she wasn’t (at that point anyway) an innocent. 

    brownperson
    Free Member

    When Shamina found herself in the Isis Caliphate, she wasn’t the only girl who’d been trafficked there

    The assertion she’d been trafficked, rather than travelled entirely of her own volition, invalidates the decision to strip her of her UK citizenship. This is the argument her lawyers wanted to present in court. However, the fact she is being denied a fair trial, kind of goes against our own law, let alone international. As for Sajid Javid taking the advice of the secret service; that’s a load of rubbish and anyone with any sense can recognise this. It’s simply a device used to overrule human decency. The supreme court’s decision rested on a technicality, that the journey was made by her ‘voluntarily’. As she’s never been able to present her own case before any UK courts, this cannot be determined, so that decision was nothing more than subjective, made by a court under political pressure. That many legal experts, including a former supreme court judge have condemned the decision, is damning. The government’s own terrorism adviser, Jonathon Hall KC, has called for her return. But beyond whatever may be deemed ‘legal’ (and that is open for debate), society has to consider was is morally right. I’ve yet to see evidence of this government winning on that score.

    nickc
    Full Member

    invalidates the decision to strip her of her UK citizenship.

    Other young British women were in the very same situation she was, and made the decision to return home much much sooner than she did, and their citizenship wasn’t affected in any way. It’s certainly a tragedy, but Shamina is at the very least, partly responsible for it.

    tjagain
    Full Member

    When he interviewed her he said that it was clear that she’d been trained in resisting interrogation techniques, and was very guarded

    Or she had been brainwashed or she was terrified of the UK press or she knew ISIS folk would be listening in or any one of a dozen other explanations

    Cougar
    Full Member

    society has to consider was is morally right. I’ve yet to see evidence of this government winning on that score.

    To be fair, this is hardly new either. Westminster has been morally bankrupt for years.

    Cougar
    Full Member

    When he interviewed her he said that it was clear that she’d been trained in resisting interrogation techniques, and was very guarded

    Or she had been brainwashed or she was terrified of the UK press or she knew ISIS folk would be listening in or any one of a dozen other explanations

    Or we’re all speculating based on our own preconceptions and none of us have any real idea either way.

    tjagain
    Full Member

    Indeed cougar.  I was merely giving some other possibilities

    What we actually know is very little.  What the government want us to believe is a very different thing.  the reality?  We can only guess but I see a naive child being trafficked, forced to bear children most of whom died and a ruined life.

    Do you believe in redemption?  I do and brownperson gave a very good way she could be redeemed

    nickc
    Full Member

    Or she had been brainwashed or she was terrified of the UK press or she knew ISIS folk would be listening in or any one of a dozen other explanations

    Oh absolutely, Look I don’t think she should’ve been abandoned by the govt, I don’t think she should’ve had her citizenship stripped, but Shamina played her own part in the tragedy that she found herself trapped in. I don’t think for a minute that Javid made the right decision, but she made it very easy for him to make it. 

    nickc
    Full Member

     However, the fact she is being denied a fair trial, kind of goes against our own law, let alone international.

    You’d be the first to complain if this government blithely decided it could break international agreements when it suited them. It’s wholly wrong to restore some-ones citizenship just so you can put them on trial. You must see the damage that would do around the world to the safety of political prisoners, and refugees.

    Again, I think Javid’s decision was a stupid one, but having made it, there’s literally no going back unless she comes back as a welcomed and free citizen.

    brownperson
    Free Member

    You’d be the first to complain if this government blithely decided it could break international agreements when it suited them. It’s wholly wrong to restore some-ones citizenship <em style=”box-sizing: border-box; –tw-translate-x: 0; –tw-translate-y: 0; –tw-rotate: 0; –tw-skew-x: 0; –tw-skew-y: 0; –tw-scale-x: 1; –tw-scale-y: 1; –tw-scroll-snap-strictness: proximity; –tw-ring-offset-width: 0px; –tw-ring-offset-color: #fff; –tw-ring-color: rgb(59 130 246 / 0.5); –tw-ring-offset-shadow: 0 0 #0000; –tw-ring-shadow: 0 0 #0000; –tw-shadow: 0 0 #0000; –tw-shadow-colored: 0 0 #0000; caret-color: #000000; color: #000000; font-family: Roboto, ‘Helvetica Neue’, Arial, ‘Noto Sans’, sans-serif, -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, ‘Segoe UI’, ‘Apple Color Emoji’, ‘Segoe UI Emoji’, ‘Segoe UI Symbol’, ‘Noto Color Emoji’;”>just so you can put them on trial. You must see the damage that would do around the world to the safety of political prisoners, and refugees.

    I’m not sure what argument you’re trying to make here. Are you saying that Shamima would be at risk of torture or death at the hands of the UK state, were she to return here?

    Or we’re all speculating based on our own preconceptions and none of us have any real idea either way.

    In fairness; some of ‘us’ might have a slightly more real idea of the situation, given personal experience, field of work/study etc. Please ensure that you speak only for yourself in this regard. 

    Shamina played her own part in the tragedy that she found herself trapped in

    I feel I need to understand this concept further. Please explain. 

    kelvin
    Full Member

    Are you saying that Shamima would be at risk of torture or death at the hands of the UK state, were she to return here?

    I read it as … “if the UK government could make someone a UK citizen to put them on trial… then other states could do the same, using the UK decision to ignore international agreements about this as a green light for them doing the same”.

    +

    The original decision to remove her citizenship was wrong (by all and any measure I can think of, including the same argument above).

    brownperson
    Free Member

    I read it as … “if the UK government could make someone a UK citizen to put them on trial… then other states could do the same, using the UK decision to ignore international agreements about this as a green light for them doing the same”.

    The principle of ‘non-refoulement’ overrides this for good reason:

    https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Issues/Migration/GlobalCompactMigration/ThePrincipleNon-RefoulementUnderInternationalHumanRightsLaw.pdf

    I can’t find any reason why Shamima can’t be returned, under such a principle.

    Cougar
    Full Member

    You’d be the first to complain if this government blithely decided it could break international agreements when it suited them. It’s wholly wrong to restore some-ones citizenship just so you can put them on trial.

    Was it not wholly wrong to strip her of citizenship in the first place?

    That being the case, are we not “just” remedying this?

    kelvin
    Full Member

    I can’t find any reason why Shamima can’t be returned, under such a principle.

    I agree. If she could be here and safe. But that isn’t that same as making her a UK citizen for prosecution.

    Was it not wholly wrong to strip her of citizenship in the first place?

    Yes. That doesn’t make the mess of that awful decision as simple to address as we’d hope/wish.

    Cougar
    Full Member

    In fairness; some of ‘us’ might have a slightly more real idea of the situation, given personal experience, field of work/study etc. Please ensure that you speak only for yourself in this regard.

    Likewise.

    Your username aside I have no idea what special experience you may be bringing to the table here. If you’ve worked in repatriation with former alleged terrorists then I missed that and can only apologise. We can only go on what you/others divulge here.

    MoreCashThanDash
    Full Member

    Like many I suspect I was very surprised that politicians have the ability to take away our citizenship so easily,

    Some will be even even more surprised when those rules, which seemed fine against “whatever is the unpopular group at the time” also get used against people more like, well, “us”.

    See legal aid “reform”

    nickc
    Full Member

    Are you saying that Shamima would be at risk of torture or death at the hands of the UK state, were she to return here?

    No I’m saying that it at the very least it would  gives the cover to other states who’s citizens are thankfully out of their reach, to act to try to get those citizens back to put them on show trials. 

    feel I need to understand this concept further. Please explain. 

    Because like all the young people who’d been lied to about the caliphate, she could’ve made the decision to come home much sooner when she got there are realised it was a shit hole. When Anthony Lloyd found her, after she’d lived there all that time, she was still saying that she didn’t regret her decision to join Isis, but that she was happy that they’d lost becasue she thought “They weren’t worthy”. She made some other equally stupid comments about it being ok to rape Yazidi women – because they’re Shia… It took Javid a couple of days (I think) to make the very easy decision for him to say “Yeah, you can stay there” Equally Shamina’s husband, a former citizen of the Netherlands, also had his citizenship removed at the same time.

    tpbiker
    Free Member

    I feel I need to understand this concept further. Please explain. 

    it’s been covered numerous times in this thread already. If you choose to not acknowledge that she bares even some responsibility for the situation she finds herself in then I don’t think anyone on here will be able to persuade you otherwise…and further explanation is a waste of time

    brownperson
    Free Member

    No I’m saying that it at the very least it would  gives the cover to other states who’s citizens are thankfully out of their reach, to act to try to get those citizens back to put them on show trials. 

    But if those citizens were seeking asylum in a country that abides by international Law, they’d be protected under that principle of ‘non-refoulement’. So your comment about ‘breaking international agreements’ doesn’t apply in this case. 

    Because like all the young people who’d been lied to about the caliphate, she could’ve made the decision to come home much sooner when she got there are realised it was a shit hole. When Anthony Lloyd found her, after she’d lived there all that time, she was still saying that she didn’t regret her decision to join Isis, but that she was happy that they’d lost becasue she thought “They weren’t worthy”. She made some other equally stupid comments about it being ok to rape Yazidi women – because they’re Shia… It took Javid a couple of days (I think) to make the very easy decision for him to say “Yeah, you can stay there” Equally Shamina’s husband, a former citizen of the Netherlands, also had his citizenship removed at the same time.

    Do you believe that such comments attributed to Shamima suggest that she is of particularly sound mind and has an informed, objective view of the situation she is in? You seem to be trying to justify the actions of the former Home Secretary, an individual that I and I’m sure many others find utterly repulsive and morally reprehensible. Can you explain why please?

    Cougar
    Full Member

    With respect Nick, you’re usually a voice of reason here but you do seem to have made up your mind rather decisively. I wonder whether you’ve read more on this case than I have?

    Any decisions she could have made fly in the face of other allegations around grooming, brainwashing… this is surely just differing opinions rather than objective fact? She may have said blah blah at the time but how much of that was hammered into her?

    How many of us have stuck with shitty relationships, going “yes but I love her/him and I’m sure they’ll change” when it’s way past its sell-by date? I know I have, more than once. Something as relatively simple as an abusive partner, it’s easy for the victim to make excuses for, to leap to defend the indefensible. See my tee-shirt. Now extend that out to an organised terror group deliberately targeting teenagers over a sustained period of months or years… 🤷‍♂️

    Equally Shamina’s husband, a former citizen of the Netherlands, also had his citizenship removed at the same time.

    Utterly irrelevant to anything, n-est-ce pas?

    brownperson
    Free Member

    it’s been covered numerous times in this thread already. If you choose to not acknowledge that she bares even some responsibility for the situation she finds herself in then I don’t think anyone on here will be able to persuade you otherwise…and further explanation is a waste of time

    I haven’t at any point said that I don’t feel she bears any responsibility for her actions. I’m merely trying to understand, not judge. 

    Cougar
    Full Member

    There are two polar options here isn’t there.

    1) She’s a victim.

    2) She’s a shit.

    I think that leaping to either of those conclusions based on the knowledge we have in the public domain is probably a mistake. If I were to guess I’d say the truth is somewhere around 1.5.

    nickc
    Full Member

    I can’t find any reason why Shamima can’t be returned, under such a principle.

    Shamina’s case has been heard by both the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, and the Supreme court made the point that she doesn’t actually have to be in the country to get a fair trail, summed up in para 110 and issued in para’s 90-94 in their Judgement 

    Cougar
    Full Member

    Genuine question: under whose legal jurisdiction does she fall when she’s stateless? The Supreme Court can rule what they like but it doesn’t mean squat if she’s not a UK citizen, surely?

    dissonance
    Full Member

    The Supreme Court can rule what they like but it doesn’t mean squat if she’s not a UK citizen, surely?

    The Supreme court are ruling on whether she is entitled to return to the UK plus some other associated matters as part of her appeal against having citizenship removed. So it does mean rather a lot.

    brownperson
    Free Member

    Shamina’s case has been heard by both the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, and the Supreme court made the point that she doesn’t actually have to be in the country to get a fair trail, summed up in para 110 and issued in para’s 90-94 in their Judgement 

    But that doesn’t relate in any way to the principle of non-refoulement. So I have to question why you’ve brought up something that’s already been discussed on here?
    This article summarises things very well, although it’s still utterly confusing to most people I’d imagine:https://www.statelessness.eu/updates/blog/shamima-begum-supreme-court-judgment-what-are-implications-statelessness-cases

    Genuine question: under whose legal jurisdiction does she fall when she’s stateless? The Supreme Court can rule what they like but it doesn’t mean squat if she’s not a UK citizen, surely?

    There’s a very strong argument that she still is a UK citizen, as the decision to strip her of UK citizenship is invalid as it was based on the wrongful assumption she is a foreign national. She has never made any application even, for Bangladeshi citizenship. This is just a red herring used by the British government to try to get rid of her. It’s not a tactic they could use if her parents were UK born, hence it’s racist, as it discriminates against her unfairly. So Nickc; I will ask again:
    You seem to be trying to justify the actions of the former Home Secretary, an individual that I and I’m sure many others find utterly repulsive and morally reprehensible. Can you explain why please?

    nickc
    Full Member

     Can you explain why please?

    Because justice cuts both ways.
    In the Supreme Court judgement they made the point that the Home Sec was entitled to take inference from the fact that she made the decision to stay there for four years, when all around her people in exactly her situation were legging it home as fast as their little trollies would carry them. Yes she’s been trafficked, and you need to take that into consideration, but you do also need to take into consideration all the things that she does differently to everyone else.  Plus, and again reading the Supreme Court decision transcript is valuable, it makes the point that its seen the secret service assessment of her, and while they point out that its secret and they can’t say what’s in it, they do make the point that is did materially affect their decision, and that importantly; it was entirely consistent and appropriate for the Home Sec  to take their (SIS) advice about her

    Again. I’ll make the point I think Javid made the wrong decision to take away her citizenship, but its also wrong to say she hasn’t had her day in court.

Viewing 40 posts - 521 through 560 (of 764 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.