Viewing 40 posts - 161 through 200 (of 764 total)
  • Shamima Begum – trafficked, or terrorist?
  • dissonance
    Full Member

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

    Probably not. Extradition is about whether something has committed a crime in your country not whether they are a citizen.
    I guess it would depend on whether the law required the person to be a citizen (traitor or similar) but even then I think it would be “they were at the time of the offence”.

    Cougar
    Full Member

    Hm. Did I use the wrong word?

    I thought that as a British citizen we could ask / demand Bangladesh send her back, now we can’t? I don’t really understand this stuff TBH.

    pondo
    Full Member

    She can’t go to Bangladesh, pretty sure they’ve said they’ll execute her. Besides, she doesn’t speak the language and has never been there before.

    Edit – ah, I’ll tone that down – they’ve said she won’t be allowed in and will face the death penalty if she did. Which is not the same as pledging to execute her, but still – it’d put me off.

    IHN
    Full Member

    TiRed linked to this when it was on live yesterday, but it’s now on BBC Sounds. I listened to the first one yesterday, I think it’s going to be an eye-opener.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/brand/p08yblkf

    We soft liberal types have to ensure that we are still nice and forgivingfair to those that we disagree with.

    I can live with that.

    v8ninety
    Full Member

    Wherever posters are falling on the traitor-victim continuum, it’s very telling that there hasn’t been a single argument, elegant or course, in favour of the removal of Begum’s citizenship. That is a shocking indictment on the state of our government, and makes me think that if STW is an echo chamber it’s one of decency and humanity. I’m glad I’m within it.

    I do wonder if Javid, in possession of all available details of possible charges and legal opinion on probable outcomes given the evidence available, took the decision to render Begum stateless because there’s a very good chance that she would not be found guilty of anything at all and the Tories couldn’t risk losing that sort of face to the dirty right gutter press and it’s baying readership?

    I’m also of the opinion that he took the decision knowing full well that it was illegal and will be overturned in the fullness of time, but did it to kick the can down the road and make it somebody else’s problem. If/when the decision is found to be illegal, I hope (forlornly) that Javid is held criminally accountable for effectively the most cynical and disgusting abuse of (absolute) power against a minor that you could possibly think up.

    ernielynch
    Free Member

    I’m not all over the place Ernie.

    Yeah you are. You claim that Shamima Begum could possibly be described as a traitor, and then you yourself point out that the last person found guilty of treason was someone that was hanged in 1946.

    Initially I thought you were using the term “traitor” in a non-legal sense, which still made it an inappropriate term to use, but then you emphasis that you are using it in the legal sense of the term, which makes it even more inappropriate to use.

    You are using the term in the same context as it was used in the case of Lord Haw-Haw FFS. Who btw wasn’t even British, he was born in the USA, both his parents were Irish, he became a German citizen in 1940, and the British passport that he had previously secured he wasn’t even entitled to have. His conviction for treason was in fact illegal and the only reason it happened was to satisfy public opinion – which is possibly the only similarities between him and the case of Shamima Begum.

    TiRed
    Full Member

    it’s very telling that there hasn’t been a single argument, elegant or course, in favour of the removal of Begum’s citizenship.

    When you made the mess, it’s your responsibility to clear it up. The decision will be found to be illegal and she’ll be back to face justice. I have no issue with that whatsoever. Whether a trafficked victim of grooming or not, it’s for the courts to decide not a Home Secretary. I thought that it was a disgusting decision personally. That’s before you count the cost of the death of one British citizen (her remaining child who died).

    ernielynch
    Free Member

    I think Ernie’s whataboutery….

    What you dismiss as whataboutery is a vital aspect of justice cougar. It provides fairness and equality.

    And the whole concept of “legal precedent” is entirely based on whataboutery.

    To dismiss equality in the eyes of the law and whataboutery in a fair justice system is absurd.

    boblo
    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.

    Nice attempt at oversimplification there but no, it’s not that binary. There are some who think she may be guilty or innocent (‘we’ absolutely don’t know) but should be allowed to come back to her home Country to face whatever is in store for her under the Rule of Law. No flaying/burning at the stake etc, just the usual legal process which doesn’t involve arbitrarily (and illegally) making her Stateless.

    If she’s innocent through manipulation (or whatever) this should form part of her defence.

    ernielynch
    Free Member

    There are some who think she may be guilty or innocent (‘we’ absolutely don’t know) but should be allowed to come back to her home Country to face whatever is in store for her under the Rule of Law.

    Yup, that’s me. I certainly believe that a 15 child can be held responsible for breaking the law and should face the consequences if necessary.

    But if Shamima Begum is guilty of anything I have no reason to believe that it was high treason or some sort of hanging offence.

    I certainly don’t think that she should be stripped of her birthright to satisfy the bigotry of Daily Mail column writers.

    pondo
    Full Member

    There are some who think she may be guilty or innocent (‘we’ absolutely don’t know) but should be allowed to come back to her home Country to face whatever is in store for her under the Rule of Law.

    I’ve said this before but no-one will disagree with that – it is however a seperate issue from the question of “trafficked or terrorist”.

    5plusn8
    Free Member

    There are some who think she may be guilty or innocent (‘we’ absolutely don’t know) but should be allowed to come back to her home Country to face whatever is in store for her under the Rule of Law. No flaying/burning at the stake etc, just the usual legal process which doesn’t involve arbitrarily (and illegally) making her Stateless.

    If she’s innocent through manipulation (or whatever) this should form part of her defence.

    Not at all, I consider this approach to be part of the soft liberal view, my objection is to the removal of her citizenship. We show our civlization by bringing her back and putting her through the legal system. As you correctly said, she has not had a trial so we don’t really know what happened. Lets bring her back and let the system do its work.
    The current status is politcally driven, illegal, amoral, populist scumbaggery.
    The dividing line is those who would include her in our society, and those who think it is fine to just metaphorically drop her in the ocean.
    The more we reject anyone who we do not agree with, the more problems we create. She is one of us, and needs to be treated accordingly.

    Edukator
    Free Member

    So the STW majoity view is that Begum should be allowed back, good. What about the others for whom no effort is being made?

    https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/two-british-nationals-repatriated-northeast-syria-camps

    Poor excuses from the government. It contrasts starkly with other events when military operations are undertaken to recover British citizens.

    pondo
    Full Member

    So the STW majoity view is that Begum should be allowed back, good. What about the others for whom no effort is being made?

    I wouldn’t expect opinion to be vastly different.

    boblo
    Free Member

    the question of “trafficked or terrorist”.

    Aye but that’s a single sentence and a very short thread: ‘We don’t know’

    pondo
    Full Member

    [/endthread] :)

    5plusn8
    Free Member

    Aye but that’s a single sentence and a very short thread: ‘We don’t know’

    Indeed, even if she is a terrorist, we still need to try her as a peer.

    ernielynch
    Free Member

    So the STW majoity view is that Begum should be allowed back, good. What about the others for whom no effort is being made?

    Presumably if the very high profile case of Shamima Begum is satisfactorily resolved the whataboutery it will generate, aka as legal precedent, will greatly help others in similar circumstances.

    5plusn8
    Free Member

    the whataboutery it will generate, aka as legal precedent

    Exactly.

    Daffy
    Full Member

    Yeah you are. You claim that Shamima Begum could possibly be described as a traitor, and then you yourself point out that the last person found guilty of treason was someone that was hanged in 1946.

    I’m really not.

    Initially I thought you were using the term “traitor” in a non-legal sense, which still made it an inappropriate term to use, but then you emphasis that you are using it in the legal sense of the term, which makes it even more inappropriate to use.

    Why? I provided evidence to back up my side – where’s yours or am I just arguing with opinions?

    You are using the term in the same context as it was used in the case of Lord Haw-Haw FFS. Who btw wasn’t even British, he was born in the USA, both his parents were Irish, he became a German citizen in 1940, and the British passport that he had previously secured he wasn’t even entitled to have. His conviction for treason was in fact illegal and the only reason it happened was to satisfy public opinion – which is possibly the only similarities between him and the case of Shamima Begum.

    Again, I’m not, and congratulations for finally reading something. The only reason this case was mentioned was that it was the last case of treason and you implied that others during the cold war had been found guilty, which they weren’t- that’s it. Other than the term, its potential modern application isnt at all similar. The law surrounding its use and its potential application are still uncertain.

    I linked to the modern argument for the use of treason and thus traitor. I was aware of this growing trend in western democracies and law to differentiate between terrorism and treason. Hence why I said, “traitor maybe”

    ernielynch
    Free Member

    Again, I’m not, and congratulations for finally reading something.

    I was fully aware of the doubts concerning whether Lord Haw-Haw was actually British, but thanks for your congratulations anyway.

    Although I still completely fail to see the connection between Shamima Begum and someone who was hung nearly 80 years ago.

    A much better comparison, if you really want to make one, is the case of my local Tory councillor, Maria Garland, who lives two road away from me.

    Maria Gatland joined the Provisional IRA not as a 15 year old child but as an adult woman. Unlike Shamima Begum Maria Gatland was a rather more significant figure in the Provisional IRA, she actively helped them to secure weapons to commit acts of terrorism against the UK.

    Maria Gatland has never been punished for her membership and involvement in a terrorist organisation which, unlike ISIS, specifically targeted the UK.

    Unlike Shamima Begum Maria Gatland’s guilt is unquestionable – she doesn’t deny her active involvement in a terrorist organisation which targeted the UK. In fact she has even written a book about her involvement in the Provisional IRA.

    Maria Gatland has never been denied entry into the UK. She hasn’t even had her Conservative Party membership withdrawn ffs. She currently stands in elections as a Conservative Party candidate – despite the fact that as a grown adult woman she became an active member of an anti British terrorist organisation, to emphasis the point.

    Maria Gatland is white and middle-class.

    Make what you will of that blatant hypocrisy.

    pondo
    Full Member

    Do we have an argument here between two people who pretty much agree?

    Edukator
    Free Member

    White middle clas and female. The majority of those who quit Europe to join ISIS or fight against Bashar were male. Seems sexist that attention is given mainly to female cases. Begum is and isolated female who left whilst under 18 just as there are many males in the same situation.

    The case of ex-IRA is not comparable as there’s been an amnesty.

    hels
    Free Member

    Interesting point re IRA.

    There has been significant rapprochement around events that happened in Ireland – the Good Friday Agreement for example, and prisoner releases that followed. None of that as far as I know has happened with ISIS. This could be more a factor than the class/race of the individuals in these two examples.

    ernielynch
    Free Member

    Nah, Maria Gatland’s involvement in a terrorist organisation that targeted the UK was known to the authorities long before the Good Friday Agreement.

    The Good Friday Agreement was in 1998. Maria Gatland was writing articles about her involvement in the Provisional IRA for the Observer newspaper in 1972.

    Edit: Just to add – people who come to Maria Gatland’s defence, eg the Tory Party, claim that she was a young woman who was misled and made the wrong choices.

    Maria Gatland was an adult 21 year old when she became an active member of a terrorist organisation. Shamima Begum was a 15 year old child when along with some friends she went to Syria.

    Edukator
    Free Member

    I was mainly refering to her current position she not the only person to go from the IRA to politician and even MP.

    ernielynch
    Free Member

    she not the only person to go from the IRA to politician and even MP.

    Which further highlights the hypocrisy of the Shamima Begum case.

    I think she is probably the only member of the Tory Party though. Apparently what Gatland did wasn’t as bad as what Shamima Begum did. Begum loses her birthright, Gatland doesn’t even lose her Tory Party membership.

    Daffy
    Full Member

    Gatland is Irish, not British. She joined the Provisional IRA, left and, if you believe the accounts, informed on them and was hidden by special branch. She was a member for less than a year.

    She IS/Was a terrorist and later become traitor (in the eyes of the PIRA) and an informer to the British. Why would we deny her entry?

    It’s almost the exact opposite of the Begum case.

    ernielynch
    Free Member

    Gatland is Irish, not British.

    How on earth do you know that she doesn’t hold a UK passport? Have you got a link?

    She was a member for less than a year.

    Is there any evidence that Shamima Begum even joined ISIS, let alone became actively involved?

    an informer to the British.

    So Shamima Begum’s “crime” boils down to her not being able to provide the UK government with useful information?

    Daffy
    Full Member

    How on earth do you know that she doesn’t hold a UK passport? Have you got a link?

    SHe was born in Dublin to Irish parents – she may have a British passport now, but that’s totally irrelevant.

    Is there any evidence that Shamima Begum even joined ISIS, let alone became actively involved?

    She admitted this during her interviews with the press.

    https://www.thenationalnews.com/world/uk-news/2023/01/11/shamima-begum-says-she-knew-she-was-joining-isis/

    So Shamima Begum’s “crime” boils down to her not being able to provide the UK government with useful information?

    No. Her crime is, perhaps, leaving the UK to actively fight against the UK in a war/action in which we were an active participant.

    boblo
    Free Member

    Derailed by argumentative pedants desparate to have the last word. Welcome to STW… 🙄

    Daffy
    Full Member

    Fair.

    ernielynch
    Free Member

    It’s not derailed. You can carry on talking about whether Shamima Begum was trafficked or a terrorist as much as you want, there’s nothing stopping you.

    Apart from perhaps the fact that there isn’t much left to say.

    The hypocrisy surrounding this story is a legitimate area of concern. In fact the first post on this thread after the OP makes that very point:

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

    I’m sure that fact that Rhianan Rudd is white and has an Anglo-Saxon name is just a “coincidence”.

    funkmasterp
    Full Member

    Regardless of whether she was trafficked or a willing participant she should be returned to the UK and given a trial if necessary. I think one of the main issues is that she doesn’t come across as remorseful or particularly likeable when interviewed. Sadly how you come across in the media accounts for a lot. It shouldn’t but it does.

    For what it’s worth I think she was trafficked. She doesn’t seem particularly bright and therefore could’ve been an easy mark. Sounds like she has been through hell and back and needs some real support. Instead she’s become a pawn in some weird government and media game.

    dyna-ti
    Full Member

    She admitted this during her interviews with the press.

    I doubt she had any real choice in that. She became property to be handed to whomever isis fighter they put her with.

    jambourgie
    Free Member

    Trafficked, or terrorist? Neither really in my opinion. But it’s kind of hard to feel sorry for her. If she’s not even remorseful herself then who even cares? If a tree falls in the woods… If there’s no public appetite to bring her back then why bother exerting the effort. She wanted to leave for Islamic State, she in an Islamic State – Syria. Have fun x

    theotherjonv
    Full Member

    just a reminder, that a 15 year old ‘made that decision’. Maybe younger, she was 15 when she went IIRC.

    Daffy
    Full Member

    And a pair of pre teens were convicted of torturing and killing a small boy.

    They were held responsible for their actions. Should she be treated any differently?

    funkmasterp
    Full Member

    They were held responsible for their actions. Should she be treated any differently?

    she’d need to be tried in a court with all that entails. Pretty tricky to do when you’ve had your citizenship taken away. Reinstate it, bring her back and present any evidence of terrorist activity to see if it warrants prosecution.

    theotherjonv
    Full Member

    ^ that exactly. I was responding to the ‘she wanted to live in an Islamic state, she’s in one now’ comment.

Viewing 40 posts - 161 through 200 (of 764 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.