Shamima Begum – trafficked, or terrorist?

chrismac knows exactly what he’s doing, shit stirring

No I’m not I’m just waiting for some real evidence to support the claims. All the links so far show no evidence to support the claim just speculation and assertions

Over the last 50 years? I’m guessing we haven’t been stripping their British citizenship.

Over the sample selection of cases posted by brown person for citizenship removal which was from 2005-2022.

From my admittedly limited knowledge, the IRA were predominantly Irish, not British. Difficult to strip someone’s citizenship when they’re not actually a citizen of your country. As for the paramilitaries, that’s if possible, even more complicated. Nationalism, possibly supported (though not acknowledged) by the government, who committed crimes on British soil, but who aren’t actively working against the state, but are a danger to the public and who demonstrably can’t be stripped of citizenship.

I cannot believe anyone still thinks Begum is anything but a victim in this. Radicalised then trafficked as a child into a “marriage” that I guess she had little choice in. Borne 3 children two of which have died then illegally stripped of her citizenship and made stateless.

She has been used as a political pawn to appease racists and islamophobes

It’s as if an election was coming up.

Thank you for making abundantly clear how utterly infantile your argument is.

No too cases are ever identical, so there is no racism. You must be very clever.

Can you find a case where a white British citizen was radicalised as a child, forced to live abroad, given little contact to their friends and family. Then when realised their mistake tried to return home? She was a vulnerable child.

It might have helped her case had she shown a little remorse, but at the age of 21, calling the Manchester attacks “justified” and stating that beheadings in IS weren’t at all a concern to her, doesn’t particular help her case of returning to society.

1. Was she naive in 2015/16 when she decided/was convinced to go? Maybe. Quite possibly.

2. Did she at any point reach out to request a return whilst IS were at the height of their power? Not to my knowledge.

3. Did she only try to return when it all collapsed? It seems so.

4. Did she later (4-5y later) show any contrition? No.

You’re all saying that 1 justifies 2-4.

I don’t know if she’s a threat, but evidence (3-4) suggests that she could be.

I genuinely don’t know the law about citizenship, the government and their machinations, so can’t say whether she should be excommunicated or face trial, but several courts have now upheld decisions. I do believe that the government (and to a lesser degree the courts) are using this to set a very public example, but if it’s legal, then it’s legal. If it’s legal due to badly written law, then that’ll have to altered, but the verdict will stand until it is.

I genuinely don’t believe it’s a racist agenda (either the case or the law) but is/could be a nationalist one to help the Conservatives appeal to their base.

Anyway, those are just my thoughts, I don’t want to get into an argument over it, as frankly, I don’t know enough, so I’ll be happy to have other peoples hopefully more informed opinions.

You know nothing about the specifics of those cases

I wasn’t commenting on the ‘specifics’.

This unfortunately leads to observer bias. Your personal history leads you to to look for racism and assume racist motives. It’s zebras and horses.

This falls into ‘victim blaming’. It was a simple question, as yet unanswered. Are you considering your own ‘observer bias’ as you put it?

Whilst there undoubtedly is racism, be that conscious or otherwise, you constantly shout racism, when it’s often nationalism at the core. The two concepts do overlap (quite substantially) but are distinct.

Thanks for ‘splaining that to me. I ‘constantly shout racism’, do I? Or merely call it out when I see it?

When I see Conservative policies. I see nationalism (which I still see as a bad thing) whereas you, with your history see racism.

This is why my question was so pertinent. Because perception in this context is based on experience and knowledge. The thing with racism, is that like sexism, like homophobia and other forms of xenophobia, it doesn’t have to be overt in order for it to exist. Because YOU can’t see something, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. My wife often reminds me of my unconscious sexism, because as a man, I cannot have the same experience as a woman. So what I do is try to listen, and moderate my behaviour accordingly. I don’t think I’m particularly bad, but we can all improve. Women will suffer from sexism from the moment they are born, so it’s vital to keep challenging such behaviours. With racism, my experience draws from over half a century of prejudiced and discriminatory behaviours, practices and how these are institutionalised within our society. With sexism, I, as a man, do not always recognise nor am affected by it. So it’s about learning to understand the experience of others, even if you’ll never be in their position yourself. If someone is talking about their experience of racism, it’s not a great move to deny their experience, to try to dismiss it as ‘imagined’, or to waffle on about zebras and horses.

The experience of racism is complex and multifarious. It affects everyone differently, of course. The racism I experience may be very different to that suffered by a black woman, or a Jewish person, or someone from Poland. I would never speak to their experience. But what is common, are the insidious little things that percolate through daily life; the casual comments the way people look at you, the micro-aggressions, the discriminatory treatment in the workplace, shops and pubs. The things you can’t ‘prove’, yet you know exist. The knowledge and experience you gain over a lifetime. The government will have taken great care, and spent a lot of time and money, to ensure something like the Nationalities and Borders Act isn’t overtly ‘racist’. But that doesn’t mean it isn’t inherently racist.

https://www.lawsociety.org.uk/topics/immigration/nationality-and-borders-act#:~:text=The%20Nationality%20and%20Borders%20Act%20makes%20wide%20changes%20to%20the,establishing%20someone%20is%20a%20refugee

You see the name, skin colour and religion as the driving force behind what’s happening to SB, I don’t.

So I ask again; what is your experience of racism as a non-white British citizen?

To be fair to Brownperson, him (I’m guessing him, apologies if that’s wrong) saying “this wouldn’t have happened if she was white” is not very different to my Jemima Baker from Bath analogy, and no-one jumped down my throat.

Interesting, that.

So I ask again; what is your experience of racism as a non-white British citizen?

I have none in that specific category, but have seen businesses, through policies, enable overt racism in their own workforce. I left that organisation (and that sector) because of it.

I am also extremely conscious of unintended bias, indeed we’re trained to recognise it every year in my organisation. I try to be better, to be inclusive, to understand.

Your tone in all of the topics you contribute to is condescending (‘splaining) and accusatory (what’s your experience) – I guess this is what you call “calling out”? Your hammer approach of you’re not a minority so don’t and can’t and will never understand often isn’t helpful.

I’ll bow out here as I don’t think it’s helping either understanding or the discussion.

Your tone in all of the topics you contribute to is condescending (‘splaining) and accusatory (what’s your experience) – I guess this is what you call “calling out”? Your hammer approach of you’re not a minority so don’t and can’t and will never understand often isn’t helpful.

What you see as ‘condescension’ is a response to how you, in my perception, seek to diminish the value of my experience. This is something that people fighting against xenophobia of all types struggle against. This is why such work makes such glacial progress. If you aren’t the subject of such xenophobia, then no, you cannot talk to the experience of those who are. Because you cannot ever know what it feels like to suffer it. That’s not to say you cannot empathise, nobody is saying that. But simply saying ‘well no it’s not racism because I don’t see it’ is really really unhelpful. It’s not about you. Sometimes it’s about listening, not talking. Voices of minorities aren’t heard enough as it is. They need amplifying and listened to.

I’ll bow out here as I don’t think it’s helping either understanding or the discussion.

I see it as an opportunity to discuss the experience of racism, so on that score, I think it’s been quite constructive, ultimately.

Isn’t the danger there though, that if you repeatedly tell people who are trying hard to understand racism, that they simply can’t because of their background, that they will eventually stop trying?

It’s like Vietnam.

Isn’t the danger there though, that if you repeatedly tell people who are trying hard to understand racism, that they simply can’t because of their background, that they will eventually stop trying?

That’s not what I’m doing at all. I’m just asking people to try to appreciate that those with lived experience of racism might just have a particular level of insight that others may not. And to try to just listen, instead of needing to flex their egos.

As someone with no experience in the matter, and deferring to yours, what’s it like to be banned?

I’m all ears.

As if.

I’ve got a mate/riding buddy called Asif, he’s Muslim.

He’s definitely not a terrorist though, works for the Met police as a call handler.

Edit: He goes on the pro Palestinian demos in London – the cycling ones (Big Ride for Palestine)

I’m just asking people to try to appreciate that those with lived experience of racism might just have a particular level of insight that others may not.

How do you know others haven’t experienced racism. You are assuming that you are unique and the only one who has and therefore your experience must be more valid than anyone else’s.

1. Was she naive in 2015/16 when she decided/was convinced to go? Maybe. Quite possibly.

Of course she was **** naive, she was fifteen **** years old. Persuading a child (she was a child, remember) to do something like this, with false promises of what is going to happen and making sure they don’t tell friends or family is grooming, short and simple.

I don’t know if she’s a threat, but evidence (3-4) suggests that she could be.

So, again, for the gagillionth time, if there is evidence she’s a wrong’un, let her come back and try her on that evidence. Not letting her come back is, frankly, just **** cowardly.

It just **** stinks.

Lacking the eloquence of some here and written in a crude manner.
I’m in the bring her back and try them here fairly camp. Otherwise she and others will live in an extremist echo chamber and extremism will flourish.
Back here her plight will fuel further extremism here and further alienate many.

Of course, you could double down and claim I’m ‘wrong’ in asserting that the UK Nationality and Borders bill is racist, but as someone with 50+ years of suffering racism as a non-white British citizen, I’ll go with what I know to be fact. If it’s all the same.

I’m not about to “double down” and I don’t doubt that you’ve suffered racism, for that I can only apologise as far as I can on behalf of my colour. But I read them all and none of those links you’ve supplied back up your claim.

I’m in the bring her back and try them here fairly camp.

She’s got no chance of a fair trial here or anywhere else. No other country wants her either.

Ironically, by making such a stink about it, stripping her of citizenship etc to make a political point, there’s now a complete dead end. She can’t be tried fairly – no jury in the land would be fair and objective given the media sensationalism. Any trial result either way will bounce around the appeal courts for decades, costing millions.

Meanwhile she’s living as a nothing in a detention camp in Syria. I couldn’t really care one way or the other what becomes of her but in attempting to score political points, the Government have created this situation and now, not for the first time, find out that this has consequences and – much as they want to – they can’t just wash their hands of it and wish the problem away.

I can’t see why she would not get a fair trial. It is perfectly reasonable imo to assume that a jury could come to a conclusion on whether she was trafficked or a terrorist based on the evidence put before them at a trail.

There are plenty of high profile cases which have extensive news coverage that still go to court.

much as they want to – they can’t just wash their hands of it and wish the problem away.

Sure they can. And that’s exactly what they’ll do. There’s always another dead cat, anyone know what Harry and Meghan have been up to lately? We’re living in era of Squirrel! Politics.

No other country wants her either.

I wonder why that might be….

perhaps Canada might like to have her if reports that they smuggled her to Syria in the first place are true

I can’t see why she would not get a fair trial. It is perfectly reasonable imo to assume that a jury could come to a conclusion on whether she was trafficked or a terrorist based on the evidence put before them at a trail.

Probably because the government know damn well that any criminal trial would fail given that:

A) She was a minor at the time
B) It would be pretty easy to assert she was trafficked/groomed

No other country wants her either.

I wonder why that might be….

This really is the problem with making people stateless.

Despite what the racists may think about the colour of her skin, she is British-born. She is our problem. We may have washed our hands of her but that doesn’t automatically make her someone else’s responsibility, be that Canada (seriously?) or Bangladesh or whoever.

If roles were reversed and we had someone from another country stuck here after being groomed by a terrorist cell, unable to be deported back home because her country of birth had gone “**** her and **** you, you can keep her, we don’t want her back” there would be a national outcry. And rightly so.

Short of sticking her on the next moon rocket we can’t have it both ways.

She should be brought home to face trial, and I rather suspect that the reason she hasn’t is – political point-scoring aside – because they know full well that the courts will declare her a victim.

Why not Canada. If as reported she smuggled from the UK to Syria by a member of Canadian intelligence then why shouldn’t take some responsibility for the impact of those actions. Without the help of Canadian intelligence she might well still be in the UK

No other country wants her either.

I wonder why that might be….

Because she’s a British citizen it should be us her gives her a recognised state.

I don’t know what her motives were, or her crimes if any, but I know she’s British so she’s our problem and should be dealt with here.

I’m not one, but I imagine every brown person is thinking, if they can do that to her, they can do that to me.

I don’t know what her motives were, or her crimes if any, but I know she’s British so she’s our problem and should be dealt with here.

Well, exactly… She was born in the UK, so she should be tried for any alleged crimes under UK law. Citizenship shouldn’t be allowed to even come into it…

…but heaven forbid the tories lose face by allowing a failed criminal trial to take place!!

As someone else said, or alluded to, under the next labour government, if they are more sensible about it, the tories can use it to whip up even more racist sentiment among the populous whilst pointing the finger at labour for being terrorist sympathisers or whatever.

She is being used as a political football, and that is shamefull. If there’s evidence she comitted crimes, she should go to trial just like anyone else would.

Why not Canada. If as reported she smuggled from the UK to Syria by a member of Canadian intelligence then why shouldn’t take some responsibility for the impact of those actions. Without the help of Canadian intelligence she might well still be in the UK

No, one of the links in the chain that got her into Syria was an informant for Canadian intelligence, and is now resettled over there. The rest of the trip she was told what to do by a former friend who had gone already and filled her head with lies about how great it was. The whole sorry saga is really well covered in the BBC Monster podcasts, my view of her changed quite dramatically when presented with an awful lot of facts that really don’t match up with the government/Press sensationalism

Without the help of Canadian intelligence she might well still be in the UK

they’ve apologised profusely

Well as long as they have said sorry I suppose that’s ok.

The U.K. government is quite good at trying to extradite citizens to the USA who haven’t even been to the country but because it was done on the internet.

Why not Canada.

Uh, because she isn’t Canadian?

If the UK/Canada roles were reversed, she was born Canadian and the UK had played whatever role you’re suggesting Canada has in all this, you’d be happy for her to come here?

You’ve thought this through, haven’t you.

The U.K. government is quite good at trying to extradite citizens to the USA

Trying, or succeeding?

I can only apologise as far as I can on behalf of my colour

There’s no need for you to do that; your colour isn’t an issue at all. Racism is the issue, and that’s all about using things like skin colour as a means of discriminating against people within a structure of social power.

But I read them all and none of those links you’ve supplied back up your claim

Well, they do to me, and for others, but perhaps this more of a subjective thing:

Amnesty International

The Good Law Project

Greenpeace

The London Assembly

Fire Brigades Union

Positive Action In Housing

Jewish Voice For Labour

There are many other organisations that consider the N+B Act ‘racist’. And I’m sure most people would agree that such organisations might have a pretty good handle on what racism is.

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2022/01/exclusive-leading-uk-charity-heads-condemn-the-nationality-and-borders-bill-as-overtly-racist

She’s got no chance of a fair trial here or anywhere else

I don’t believe this is true at all. As has already been pointed out, she has every chance of a fair trial in the UK. The reality is that her coming back to the UK and standing trial would be a massive embarrassment to the government, as she’d likely not be convicted of much if anything at all. The fact she’s been groomed and trafficked would soon destroy any case against her for ‘terrorism’. The tories cannot afford to allow her any access to actual justice, especially not in an election year. Which is more than enough reason to allow her back to have her day in court. Anyone who genuinely thinks she is a ‘threat’ to the safety of our nation is a deluded idiot. Even the tories don’t actually believe that. But whilst there are enough idiots that do, they’ll keep her out for as long as they need their votes. That’s what it really boils down to.

I’m not one, but I imagine every brown person is thinking, if they can do that to her, they can do that to me.

Yep. It’s now clear there is a tiered citizenship system. Citizenship should be one thing, and we should all be equal within it. But we aren’t. Which undermines society in the sense that we are not all equal under law. And that’s not something that I’m comfortable about.

When even the foul Rees-Mogg calls it a “fundamentally racist policy” it’s impressive that people here will still defend it.

There’s no need for you to do that; your colour isn’t an issue at all.

That’s magnanimous of you to say. Nonetheless, I feel… maybe guilty is the wrong word, it’s not my fault. Let’s go with “embarrassed.”

Well, they do to me, and for others, but perhaps this more of a subjective thing:

I’ll have a read and get back to you, thanks.

The reality is that her coming back to the UK and standing trial would be a massive embarrassment to the government

Good? 😁

as she’d likely not be convicted of much if anything at all.

Even that being the case, it’s a resolution rather than it all just rumbling on and on with various factions having various opinions of varying degrees of credulity and/or unpleasantness.

The tories cannot afford to allow her any access to actual justice, especially not in an election year. Which is more than enough reason to allow her back to have her day in court.

100% on the money there.

When even the foul Rees-Mogg calls it a “fundamentally racist policy” it’s impressive that people here will still defend it.

Who’s defending it, sorry? One poster is suggesting she should go to Canada because who the **** even knows, she likes moose or something. But if anyone has defended it – “it” here being the decision to make her stateless, I found the JRM quote you’re referring to – then I’ve either missed it or forgotten.