Shamima Begum – trafficked, or terrorist?

I care more about how we prevent nutjobs going off to murder or support the murder of people and how we appropriately and legally deal with those who return.

One solution that might work as a deterrent is to make sure they arent able to return

Citation needed.

I read that in two ways: Either make sure they are dead, or strip them of citizenship. I am not sure which you are suggesting, but neither of them will stop the problem of motivated/brainwashed people leaving the UK and going off to fight against something they believe is wrong.

One thing stripping citizenship (and killing to some extent) does is remove any option of returning to a normal life if they decide that what they are doing is wrong, false or has been a mistake. Paraphrasing Sun Tsu here, but always leave your enemy one way out. If you don’t then they fight like they have nothing left to live for.

I am in no way saying that people that have gone off to fight with the Taliban should be welcomed back with open arms and a pat on the back, but I am saying that they should be subject to the law of the land, fairly and without bias.

FWIW, I think she should have her citizenship restored so that she can come back and can contest any charges that are made against her.

Given that she had a legal right to Bangladeshi citizenship they should we not all be ranting

They dispute that and really its irrelevant. I am primarily concerned about the rules of our country and that we deal with people in a fair and legal way. If she has committed a crime then lets imprison her but the removal of citizenship on the whim of a home secretary should be rather concerning to everyone.

As a side note I cant really blame the Bangladesh government for not being overly keen bearing in mind she was born and raised here. For us to shrug our shoulders and go “your problem now” is dubious in itself.

I will leave any ranting though about the legal right or not of her to Bangladeshi citizenship to Bangladeshi citizens/potential citizens by birth.

should we not all be ranting at Bangladesh for not following international law and accepting her right to citizenship

Why do you believe that Bangladesh isn’t following international law in accepting her right to citizenship?

I don’t know of any international law which forces countries to accept as citizens people who weren’t born there.

What is absolutely certain is that Shamima Begum was a British born UK citizen.

This has bugger all to do with Bangladesh, and quite why Bangladesh should accept a British citizen who you appear to be accusing of terrorism I find hard to fathom.

Pretty sure that SIAC recognised she would likely be killed if she went to Bangladesh, even as they rubber-stamped the HO removing her British citizenship. I hope that the way to beat extremism is not to replicate it.

Why do you believe that Bangladesh isn’t following international law in accepting her right to citizenship?

I dont see a great deal of difference  between the UK government removing her citizenship and Bangladesh saying they would deny her application out o dh and when she was young enough to be entitled to citizenship. Both countries are washing their hands of responsibility for her decision to join a terrorist group

She has never even been to bangladesh IIRC.  Why should a third country take her?

Bangladesh don’t have any respondsibility for that.

Both countries are washing their hands of responsibility for her decision to join a terrorist group

I would suggest one of those countries is rather more justified, what with her never having lived there, but again it is mostly irrelevant.

I am rather less fussed about what Bangladesh does or doesnt do because I am not a citizen of that country.

I do care more about the UK because I live here and I assume you do as well (if you are Bangladeshi then go ahead and rant about their actions).

I dont want our home secretaries being able to remove citizenship at will. Maybe have it with a proper legal process with a jury and then it as a possible punishment (even then I think I would be opposed outside of cases where citizenship was gained by fraud but willing to be convinced otherwise) but not as a ministers choice to be deployed as a political tool.

It should perhaps be pointed out that one of the reasons why Shamima Begum was stripped of her citizenship might have been precisely to stop her being prosecuted in a UK court.

This article is from 2015, just a few months after Shamima Begum left for Syria, it is well worth a read:

https://www.dailysabah.com/investigations/2015/12/03/self-styled-canadian-spy-with-daesh-link-faces-26-years-in-prison

Al-Rasheed’s case garnered international attention when it was discovered he was responsible for smuggling Shamima Begum, 15, Amira Abase, 15, and Kadiza Sultana, 16 – three British teenagers who left their London homes in early February to join DAESH.

The girls’ case had epitomized how a small population of youth in European countries are being brainwashed to join the militant group, which rose to prominence after capturing several regions in Syria and Iraq.

Footage from a hidden camera released by Turkish media had shown al-Rasheed speaking to the three girls, giving them instructions on how to travel to Syria.

More importantly, it was revealed that al-Rasheed, at least according to his statement to police, was working for the Canadian intelligence service. 

Canada is a member of Fives Eyes. You can be absolutely certain that Canada shares all its intelligence on matters relating to ISIS with the UK,  ESPECIALLY  intelligence which directly involves UK citizens.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Eyes

Allowing Shamima Begum to return to the UK could be very embarrassing indeed to the UK/Five Eyes as the manner she was groomed and sent to Syria would undoubtedly be offered as evidence if she was prosecuted in a UK court.

In which case how much better to make certain that she either dies or never returns to the UK. Her other two companions are already dead.

It should also be remembered that the UK is actively involved in attempting to overthrow the Syrian government. Consequently the UK government was quite supportive of ISIS until ISIS started operations in Iraq – in contrast the UK government supports the government of Iraq.

The whole mess surrounding Islamic extremism, terrorism, and wars, has at its root cause Western interference. Many of those most wanted on terrorism charges were once backed, financed, and trained, by Western governments, the most obvious example being Osama bin Laden, although I believe it might also have been the case with Abu Hamza who was mentioned on the previous page.

I dont want our home secretaries being able to remove citizenship at will. Maybe have it with a proper legal process with a jury and then it as a possible punishment

But the highest court in the land has ruled that removing her citizenship was legal and no further consideration should be given until it is shown its safe for the UK if she re enters the country. So the full proper UK legal process has been followed and decision reached. You might not agree with that decision, fair enough, but the law has been followed

Errmmm – apart from its a clear breach of international law and of the UKs treaty obligations

Actually not the highest court albeit the ECHR is not in this land.

You might not agree with that decision, fair enough, but the law has been followed

And yet there you are accusing Bangladesh of breaking international law without providing a shred of evidence.

In the case of the UK there is reasonable grounds to assume a miscarriage of justice imo. Miscarriages of justice aren’t overturned by saying “You might not agree with that decision, fair enough, but the law has been followed”.

They are overturned by not accepting the court’s decision.

One solution that might work as a deterrent is to make sure they arent able to return

Ie, make it someone else’s problem (assuming you’re not suggesting murdering her).

Turn that around. Say we have a terrorist in the UK who is a Bangladeshi national. We want to send her home to face trial but Bangladesh is refusing to accept her.

Do you still think “making sure they aren’t able to return” is a great approach? You can’t have it both ways.

You might not agree with that decision, fair enough, but the law has been followed

I never said it hadnt so not sure why you brought it up?

Now do you think its a good thing that a minister can revoke citizenship?

Or would it be better that if we were going to do it then have it done in court in the same way that other punishments are decided.

No it wouldn’t be better if citizenship was revoked by a court.

The overwhelming majority of people on this forum cannot have their citizenship revoked by anyone

And yet somehow the UK  judicial system manages to cope perfectly well should they commit a crime.

Why should it be different for the daughter of an immigrant?

Racism and bigotry goes to the very heart of this case and letting the courts decide who deserves a fair trial and who doesn’t deserve a fair trial is not the solution.

If a UK citizen commits treason, or actively incites violence, or commits acts of terrorism, then the law can deal with them perfectly well,

Shamima Begum should be treated in EXACTLY the same way as someone whose parents and grandparents were born in the UK.

No ifs and buts.

No it wouldn’t be better if citizenship was revoked by a court.

I was just wondering if that would help them see why people have problems with the current situation.

As above I dont agree with the removal of citizenship outside of when someone only got it due to a fraudulent application. So not applicable here. I could possibly be persuaded as to why it needs extending but havent seen any good arguments yet.

The irony is (for those who like to see it purely as left v right) that Shamima Begum could not have been stripped of her citizenship during the time of Margret Thatcher’s premiership.

Shamima Begum has been denied her citizenship as the result of changes made in the wake of  9/11 by Tony Blair and his Home Secretary David Blunkett who decided to pander to the tabloids and a new surge in islamophobia.

Deprivation of citizenship – by stealth

When David Blunkett informed Abu Hamza of the decision to deprive him of his British citizenship in April 2003, there hadn’t been a similar situation since the case of William Joyce, aka Lord Haw-Haw, in the aftermath of the Second World War, after his prosecution for treason for broadcasting for the Nazis.

After 1983, the only basis on which you could be deprived of British citizenship under the 1981 British Nationality Act was if you had obtained it by fraud, false representation or concealment of a material fact. If you were born British, you could not be deprived of citizenship. That is no longer the case. 

I would suggest one of those countries is rather more justified, what with her never having lived there, but again it is mostly irrelevant.

I would argue the other country is more justified as she left to join the Islamic State, which is kind of traitory.

What would the response be if the boot was on the other foot and the government of Bangladesh revoked her citizenship because she was entitled to UK citizenship?

Well, they didn’t did they. You snooze you looze 😁

Joyce was born in the US and brought up in Ireland. Was he ever a Brit? Hamza was Egyptian and only British by marriage, Begum was born here. I do think it’s a mistake to get too consumed by the technicalities, governments do want they want.

The term ‘traitor’ seems to being banded about but is that really viable ?. The Portland spy ring were actively giving info to the Russians, and while they received 15 years in prison, at a time when the death penalty was still in being, they if anyone could be classed as traitor, given one of who was a naval attache`

This is more political than anything.

Personally I can’t see that she’s guilty of anything other than belonging to a terrorist organization. Certainly an individual cannot be held responsible for the actions of others, so whatever atrocity isis committed, she as an individual is not guilty of it.

To be fair, I’m not sure treason is appropriate. She wasn’t working against UK interests or the Crown directly, and the Terrorism Act is a little more clear cut for acts in this arena, hence why it was enacted.

Personally I can’t see that she’s guilty of anything other than belonging to a terrorist organization.

Me neither. And who cares anyway. She gave this country and the western way of life the finger and **** off to join IS. Now she wants to come back which frankly is taking the piss. She seemed in good health in the BBC doc and is in an Islamic country (Syria) so she’s alright. If it discourages others from doing it then it’s worth it. So what if it’s ‘political’. So what if the dual nationality thing doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.  I don’t really care if the government broke every international law in the book to get it done. What’s the point in bringing her back to ‘face justice’? For what? Why bother? If she wants to come to the UK that badly she can jump on a dingy like everyone else. No problem with that. Just as long as it’s known that she’s not bloody welcome.

I don’t really care if the government broke every international law in the book to get it done.

Just this once or can they ignore any others if deemed expeditious?

Case by case basis.

If she wants to come to the UK that badly she can jump on a dingy like everyone else.

You have obviously given up any attempt to engage in rational debate Jambo.

Not entirely surprising I guess bearing in mind how weak your argument is.

Case by case basis.

What could go wrong….

What could go wrong….

He could reproduce…

No argument is being put forward. I don’t seek to convince you that I AM RIGHT.

It’s merely an emotional response. The way I see things in the absence of reams of court papers.  I don’t really care that much about it all. Just making conversation.

I suppose if it were an argument it would be summed up as thus: IS were shitheads and if you’re mates with them then I think you’re a dick and you can do one.

And who cares anyway. She gave this country and the western way of life the finger and **** off to join IS. Now she wants to come back which frankly is taking the piss.

Well I suppose that’s one way to look at things.

I tend to see it as her current position ultimately being the result of failures by various agencies within the UK. Hence she is the UK’s responsibility.

IIRC she was apparently being groomed from the age of about 13(?) So in my book it wasn’t a sudden ‘oops’ one night and a 15 year old girl with full agency slipped off to live her terrorist dream. She was Brainwashed, trafficked and gifted to some fundamentalist nutbar. A handful of years later she’s spent her formative years being further brainwashed and living in war zones, she’s given birth to and lost children of her own and now ended up in a refugee camp.

Had she just been groomed and trafficked within the UK we’d be discussing how heavily to punish her abusers and which safeguarding body ballsed up, not how to wash our hands  of her because conveniently she ended up outside our borders…

The simple truth is teenagers are dickheads, I definitely was at 15 and so was Shamima Begun. The major difference is there were enough barriers for a white, middle-class boy like me to prevent my inherent stupidity from landing me in the kind of irreversible life ruining situation she did.

I’ve got kids now, not far off the age she was when ISIS went to work on her, the idea of some bastard weedling their way into their brains, installing death cult ideology and coaching them on how to evade authorities and travel across borders so they can be abused and probably killed is frankly terrifying. As is the lack of empathy and understanding some people on here display at times…

Lets be clear as well, if she ever makes it back to these shores, she’s going straight into a cell, she’s going to face terror charges and at least a decade behind bars. Hopefully during that time our wonderful penal system can try to de-radicalise her and undo some of the damage caused by the state’s earlier failures. But a return to the UK isn’t a cushy option for her now, if she ends up as a functioning member of UK society by the age of 35, if at all, it would be a miracle.

It’s merely an emotional response.

What are you, 15 or something?

IS were shitheads and if you’re mates with them then I think you’re a dick and you can do one.

IIRC she was 15 years old at the time, I dunno how many 15yos you know, but they are mostly prone to doing stupid things, and easily lead.

She was a minor, as in not an adult who can make her own choices.

Yet she was able to find the cash to buy a plane ticket to a country that’s not the easiest to travel to. Get on the plane as an unaccompanied minor and travel there. That’s all sounds very planned and deliberate and not a silly teenage spur of the moment thing.

I don’t really understand why so many people seem keen to have someone who is known to have terrorist sympathies and a hate for this country want to welcome her back with open arms

Yet she was able to find the cash to buy a plane ticket to a country that’s not the easiest to travel to. Get on the plane as an unaccompanied minor and travel there. That’s all sounds very planned and deliberate and not a silly teenage sort of the moment thing

If you stopped and thought about it you would realise that you are in fact pointing out how implausible that is.

She was a naive child who had led a very sheltered life in the company of women and brought up to believe that her role was to obey.

You obviously didn’t bother to read the link I posted earlier but it gives an insight of how she probably ended up is Syria:

https://www.dailysabah.com/investigations/2015/12/03/self-styled-canadian-spy-with-daesh-link-faces-26-years-in-prison

<span style=”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’; font-size: 16px; background-color: #eeeeee;”>If she wants to come to the UK that badly she can jump on a dingy like everyone else. No problem with that. Just as long as it’s known that she’s not bloody welcome.</span>

You were in Liverpool last night, weren’t you.

For your edit:

I don’t really understand why so many people seem keen to have someone who is known to have terrorist sympathies and a hate for this country want to welcome her back with open arms

Can you explain how wanting her to face the consequences of any crimes she might possibly have committed is the same as “to want to welcome her back with open arms”?

Can you also perhaps explain why she should be treated completely differently to someone whose parents were both born in the UK? Because you know that is exactly what you are saying.

Obviously you believe that British born citizens whose parents were born overseas are  second class British with less rights.

Are there other disadvantages do you believe that British citizens born to foreign parents should face?

Edit: Can you also explain this as well please?

a hate for this country

What is that based on? Anyone who leaves the UK proves that they hate it? Anyone who commits a crime proves that they hate the UK?

Or does this only apply to black and brown Brits?

I don’t really care if the government broke every international law

Sounds like you might have more in common with ISIS than you think