Viewing 40 posts - 121 through 160 (of 764 total)
  • Shamima Begum – trafficked, or terrorist?
  • 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.

    ernielynch
    Full Member

    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.

    Daffy
    Full Member

    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.

    dissonance
    Full Member

    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.

    ernielynch
    Full Member

    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?

    MSP
    Full Member

    error

    TiRed
    Full Member

    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.

    chrismac
    Full Member

    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

    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

    Daffy
    Full Member

    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/

    pondo
    Full Member

    The reason she could have her UK citizenship revoked is because she also has Bangladeshi citizenship.

    She doesn’t.

    mrmonkfinger
    Free Member

    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.

    chewkw
    Free Member

    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?

    dissonance
    Full Member

    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.

    jamj1974
    Full Member

    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.

    csb
    Free Member

    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”.

    csb
    Free Member

    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.

    This is untrue and needs challenging. She has been left stateless which is the illegality.

    ernielynch
    Full Member

    Link to the modern use of Treason in International Law:

    https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/vjtl/vol42/iss5/2/

    You are all over the place Duffy. I will remind you of what you said:

    Trafficked or Terrorist? Neither. Traitor maybe.

    You said that Shamima Begum could possibly be described as a traitor.

    And you fully acknowledge that no one has been found guilty of treason since Lord Haw-Haw was hanged in 1946, and now that you are using the modern term of Treason in International Law.

    So you are saying that a 15 year old girl was possibly guilty of a crime that no one else has been found guilty of for nearly 80 years? Get a grip FFS.

    And why does her alleged support for terrorism make her possibly guilty of treason but it doesn’t make this white British terrorist boy guilty of the same crime:

    https://www.cps.gov.uk/cps/news/youngest-british-terrorist-sentenced-neo-nazi-manuals-stash

    In your desperate attempt to prove racism

    Yeah right, it’s got **** all to do with racism 🙄

    jambourgie
    Free Member

    The reason she could have her UK citizenship revoked is because she also has Bangladeshi citizenship.

    So I keep hearing, through her parents I believe. Yet Bangladesh doesn’t want her either. So it’s sour grapes because the UK binned her off first and now Bangladesh can’t otherwise she’d be stateless so is claiming that she never was Bangladeshi/dual nationality in the first place. Is that the crux of the argument?

    ernielynch
    Full Member

    Yet Bangladesh doesn’t want her either.

    IMO the whole Bangladeshi thing is a complete red herring, she is a British born British citizen. But even if you want to go down that road she is not entitled to Bangladeshi citizenship :

    Bangladesh’s nationality laws say that any individual who has parents with Bangladeshi citizenship is automatically deemed entitled to citizenship.

    The law, however, states that this entitlement expires if the individual has not claimed it before the age of 21.

    It is a fact which the British courts fully accept:

    https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/british-man-unlawfully-left-stateless-over-travel-syria-returns-uk

    N3 citizenship was restored in 2018 by the Special Immigration Appeals Committee (SIAC), which rejected the government’s argument that he was entitled to Bangladeshi citizenship and had not therefore been left stateless.

    N3 was born in Bangladesh but was entitled to British citizenship by birth, and he grew up in the UK. SIAC ruled that his right to claim Bangladeshi citizenship had expired at the age of 21.

    Shamima Begum is 23 years old.

    jambourgie
    Free Member

    IMO the whole Bangladeshi thing is a complete red herring, she is a British born British citizen. But even if you want to go down that road she is not entitled to Bangladeshi citizenship :

    Right, I see. Thanks. Sounds like the UK Gov will have to take her back eventually then but are kicking the can down the road because they know the voters will kick off.

    boblo
    Free Member

    Who on earth is she going to appeal to to reinstate her Nationality? Who has jurisdiction? International Courts of Justice mebbies?

    ernielynch
    Full Member

    because they know the voters will kick off.

    I’m not convinced of that at all. If she has her British citizenship which she is fully entitled to restored and she returns to the UK to face British justice who is going to complain?

    I can’t imagine a “stop this madness, Shamima Begum must not be held legally accountable for any crimes she might be guilty of” campaign by the Daily Mail, for example.

    I expect all loyal British subjects to have profound faith in British justice! It’s probably the best in the world. Surely.

    ernielynch
    Full Member

    Who on earth is she going to appeal to to reinstate her Nationality? Who has jurisdiction?

    According to my link above the Special Immigration Appeals Committee.

    They have already rejected the government’s argument in a very similar case.

    boblo
    Free Member

    K. I assumed it’d be outside of the UK’s processes.

    Can’t imagine why she’d want to if everyone is so sure she’s got zero chance of a fair trial… I’d have thought her life here would be pretty shitty tho mebbies slightly less shitty than one in Syria…

    csb
    Free Member

    She’d get a fair trial here. And life after whatever sentence she got would be far better than one in a land she doesn’t know (and infinitely better than living in a refugee camp!).

    ernielynch
    Full Member

    I think she stands a very good chance of a fair trial. Despite the suggestion what she did as a 15 year old child is not of the magnitude of what Lord Haw-Haw did.

    A couple of days ago a child got convicted of killing a 14 year old when he was 16

    https://news.met.police.uk/news/teenager-pleads-guilty-to-murder-in-croydon-460029

    I’m sure that he got a fair trial. I don’t think what Begum is possibly guilty of is any worse than that. I can’t see that the publicity makes much difference. I don’t even know what specific crimes she would be charged of. Organising terrorism? I don’t think so. It’s hard to be prejudicial when you don’t even know what they are accused of. Plenty of high profile terrorist cases have been fairly judged.

    fatmountain
    Free Member

    It’s a tragic story. Groomed, trafficked and abused. What a disgraceful country the UK is. All that and stories which suggest the intelligence services knew exactly what was happening and may have been directly involved. At 15, the law considers you unable to make decisions over your own body, drive, join the army, or vote; yet perfectly able to make a responsible decision to join a terrorist network?

    Anna-B
    Free Member

    Definition of grooming from the nspcc website as follows:

    “What is grooming? Grooming is when someone builds a relationship, trust and emotional connection with a child or young person so they can manipulate, exploit and abuse them. Children and young people who are groomed can be sexually abused, exploited or trafficked.”

    Quite clear. She was a child who was groomed and trafficked.

    Fraser guidelines and Gillick competency is case law used when a child under 16 wants to make their own decision, usually regarding medical intervention, which contradicts what their parent or carer would decide.

    Of course the case is very different but:

    “- their understanding of the issue and what it involves – including advantages, disadvantages and potential long-term impact
    – their understanding of the risks, implications and consequences that may arise from their decision
    – how well they understand any advice or information they have been given”

    If someone had sat down with shamina prior to her joining isis and gone through the above with her, would she have been found to be “gillick competent”? Very much doubt it.

    muddyjames
    Free Member

    Whether or not the treatment is right or wrong could part of the rationale for removal of citizenship be to send a message to others thinking of going the same way.

    Whilst being tried here might not be a smooth ride for a ‘perpetrator’, I suspect it would be seen as an easier/fairer ride than being left in another country.

    Cougar
    Full Member

    The whole citizenship issue is as much a travesty for Bangladesh.

    Imagine if roles were reversed. A Bangladeshi national came to the UK to join a terrorism organisation, we want to send her back where she came from deport her, but Bangladesh revokes her citizenship so we can’t and we’re stuck with her. Can you imagine the headlines? The gutter press would be dining out on it for years.

    We can’t have it both ways. If we want to enjoy the ability to return criminals to their points of origin then we have to reciprocate. She is – was – a British citizen. Like it or not she’s our mess to deal with.

    vazaha
    Full Member

    What i have never quite understood about this story is why, given that ‘we’ seem to have decided that she is somehow terribly dangerous, have decided that ‘someone else’ should now take her.

    If you pull the pin from a grenade, you can’t just then hand it to someone else and ask them to deal with it.

    Cougar
    Full Member

    Because there is a percentage of this country that doesn’t want brown doctors here, let alone brown terrorists.

    I don’t know. I think Ernie’s whataboutery around “white terrorists” is a bit of a misdirection, but he’s right in that it’s difficult to believe that race hasn’t at least been a contributory factor here. I’d be surprised if the decision to revoke her citizenship (breaking international law) wasn’t driven by an attempt to point-score with public opinion.

    tjagain
    Full Member

    I think as much as race its religion thats the problem.  If she had “run away” to join a terrorist group based on “christianity” would the reaction have been the same?

    Daffy
    Full Member

    I’m not all over the place Ernie. Terrorism can be applied and proven in a number of ways, domestic, incitement, etc. the difference between the two cases you outline above is that one person was promoting terrorism against certain groups inside and outside of the UK based on race, religion, etc. The other is of someone actively taking up arms against their own country.

    The law journal I linked to (which you obviously didn’t bother to read fully) talks about RENEWED interest in charges of treason SPECIFICALLY for cases which have similarities to this case. The thought behind charges of treason is specifically to separate them from domestic terrorism, particularly when action is not nationally directed. And yes, the application of treason as a charge is additionally supposed to reinforce national identity.

    Again, skin colour has nothing to do with it, neither does religion, at least not specifically. The issue here is about what IS were/are, what she knew about it and her intent when joining them.

    Let me put it in another context: if someone from Ukraine decided to actively join and support Russian forces engaged in Ukraine, would they be a terrorist or a traitor?

    tjagain
    Full Member

    One persons terrorist / traitor is anothers freedom fighter

    Mandala?  Gerry Adams?  Jomo Kenyatta?

    Edit:  Im not saying Begum was right just that the terrorist / traitor label is not easy to define

    5plusn8
    Free Member

    The dividing line on this thread is clear, some of us are prepared to empathise with a 15 year old girl caught in a cultural web and fed huge amounts of misinformation. I think we see crime as a result of society and want to rehabilitate and show criminals that civilisation is the way forward, and the other half are a bit old testament and want to write off anyone who transgresses. We soft liberal types have to ensure that we are still nice and forgiving to those that we disagree with.

    pondo
    Full Member

    I think as much as race its religion thats the problem. If she had “run away” to join a terrorist group based on “christianity” would the reaction have been the same?

    I suspect you’re right – I linked to it on page one but there was an item on the BBC recently about a young girl who was groomed by right-wing extremists, who went as far as downloading bomb-making instructions. Her prosecution was halted because she’d been exploited (albeit far later than it should have been – a reflection of the goverment’s gross mishandling of the criminal justice system), but it stands in stark contrast to the Shamima Begum case.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-63736944

    Cougar
    Full Member

    I think as much as race its religion thats the problem. If she had “run away” to join a terrorist group based on “christianity” would the reaction have been the same?

    I doubt it.

    To the “send them back where they came from” brigade, having a complexion associated with the Indian Subcontinent and being Muslim are synonymous. You’re one of “them” not one of “us.” The only time these roasters care about religion is when they can squawk about sharia law, Muslim rape gangs or banning Christmas. They probably think Begum is a [the four-letter short form of Pakistani].

    Consider:
    Brown person runs away to join a Christian terrorism group.
    White person runs away to join a Muslim terrorism group.
    What do we suppose the media narrative would be in either case?

    dissonance
    Full Member

    The whole citizenship issue is as much a travesty for Bangladesh.

    Yes thats one of several reasons to object to the removal of citizenship part.
    She was born and raised in the UK so just shrugging and going “its your problem now” to some country she has limited interaction with is more than a tad dubious.

    Cougar
    Full Member

    I’ve just thought,

    Does that mean that even if we wanted to extradite her, we no longer could?

Viewing 40 posts - 121 through 160 (of 764 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.