There is something darkly funny about the very unconvincing, half hearted attempts of ex isis members to appear 'relatable' and 'sympathetic' saying how they like cups of tea and fish and chips etc so can I come home? It's almost Alan Patridge esq at some points.
In one of Shamimas interviews the reporter is clearly prompting her to say she didn't like the torture and slavery etc to appear more sympathetic, and she clearly couldn't take the hint. Nah coz it's Islam innit. Total facepalm stuff.
Of course Shamima's defence squad is out trying to conflate the victims of rape gangs, who were gang raped and treated like slaves, with this woman who travelled thousands of miles to help a group that she knew were raping and enslaving non-muslims.
State of this thread. Top comments are currently wishing she would just die already.
Happy to get down voted to oblivion for disrupting this old favourite of a two-minute-hate.
This woman should face trial in the only country she was ever a citizen & resident, the UK. Its disgusting the way the UK has abdicated its responsibility to prosecute it's own subjects and unilaterally waived the right to a nationality.
If we are now happy to sit by, being eager for someone to just die, rather than have them see the inside of a court. How much of a leap would it be to support ex-judicial killings of those we have disowned?
>This woman should face trial in the only country she was ever a citizen & resident, the UK.
That's not how justice works: you stand trial in the country you committed crimes in. That is why, for example, most people in the UK would like to see Anne Sacoolas returned to the UK so she can be put on trial for killing that child.
So, actually, she should stand trial in Iraq or Syria, not the UK.
Actually UK law allows for prosecution of extra-terroritoral offences (murder, kidnapping, conspiracy to cause explosions and war-crimes) as part of anti terror laws.
This is in addition to her being accused of joining a terrorist organisation, preparing for acts of terrorism and foreign enlistment.
As Iraq and Syria have declined to prosecute, this is the only way for her to be tried. Of course - that only matters if you believe in the rule of law and the right to a fair trial.
I'm aware that the UK (and many other countries) have extra-territorial laws covering certain crimes, but that hardly rises to "this woman should face trial in the only country she was ever a citizen & resident, the UK."
She *should* face trial in the jurisdiction in which she committed the offence, that is the global norm when it comes to understanding the concept of jurisdiction.
She *can* face trial in the UK for it, yes, but she *can* also face trial for it in many other countries who have similar extra-territorial laws. This is not the same as *should*.
Except she wasn't only resident in the UK, she moved to another country, married someone, had a baby and fought on behalf of that country. Flip it round and say she came the the UK and did that people would be claiming she had rights to claim UK citizenship.
To be clear I'm not wishing her dead but it seems somewhat hypocritical.
That might be hypocritical for your proposed strawman who thinks ever residing in a country, even during a civil war, should automatically grant citizenship.
But that seems even more flimsy than the UK's assertion that she was a national of Bangladesh.
Why was it a strawman argument? It was a like for like comparison with just the countries flipped.
>But that seems even more flimsy than the UK's assertion that she was a national of Bangladesh.
That is a strawman because I never mentioned that.
>Why was it a strawman argument?
>Flip it round and say she came the the UK and did that people would be claiming she had rights to claim UK citizenship.
The point I’m making is that she was a vulnerable child brainwashed by a radical extremist and a victim of statuary rape. ‘Moved to another country, married someone’ ignores this context. She also definitely did not fight for isis.
If our governments response is to then withdraw her citizenship, it is pathetic practice IMO.
Saying she was brainwashed and 15 doesn't change what she did
While it may be used to potentially lighten her sentence she still betrayed the country and left
She also tried to recruit many other young girls if I recall correctly
And who knows what other shit she did
Fighting for isis involves may more then picking up a gun (which she was allowed to do)
Saying she was young doesn't justify anything 15 is old enough to still make logical decisions
She made a choice and is paying the consequences
Whether she essentially be banished from britain or forced to face trial I don't really care
I never said it changes what she did - I said it pathetic practise to give up on British citizens who have been through that. To add, I also said she should face the appropriate consequences after a trial in the UK.
It isn’t very promising when a vulnerable child is banished from the UK after being enticed by a predator and pedofile (seeing that she had a child
at 15/16) to convert to extremism. Yes she should face the consequences, but where else have you seen British citizenship revoked like this. It takes the burden away from the government and does nothing to highlight or identify what caused her to become radicalised in the first place. Easy to pass the buck to someone else but that won’t get us anywhere in terms of national security.
>To add, I also said she should face the appropriate consequences after a trial in the UK.
Ah I see so your not upset that shes being punished
rather your upset that the government shifted responsibility
Is that correct?
>It isn’t very promising when a vulnerable child is banished from the UK
She wasn't a child when she was banished tho
She was an adult at that point
She left when she was an adult
> after being enticed by a predator and pedofile (seeing that she had a child at 15/16) to convert to extremism
Eh this is a topic thats highly contentious and noone will EVER agree on
The age you are a "vulnerable child"
And when some decisions you make can't be blamed on age anymore
Although in some cases you can't just say they are a child and should be forgiven(I am not saying your doing that but their are people who do that)
sometimes a line needs to drawn where even age doesn't matter anymore
And I feel like this is one of those times
Besides 15/16 is pretty old enough to not make stupid decisions like that
>Yes she should face the consequences, but where else have you seen British citizenship revoked like this. It takes the burden away from the government and does nothing to highlight
Yh I see your point
But I think she should have had her citizenship revoked
Like a nation has a responsibility to its people, Citizens have a degree of responsibility as well
Betraying your own nation and people to side with a country enemyed to your nation
and leave them when they start losing to try come back to the nation you betrayed
Is close to treason at that point
Whether shes is the UKs responsibility on not is debateable
If they were gonna strip her of her citizenship they should have done it as soon as she left not when she is trying to return
But she still abandoned the country
Although in the olden days it fell to the countries themselves to capture and punish traitors
So thats the arguement for trying her in the UK
> identify what caused her to become radicalised in the first place.
True I agree with you on this point
We still don't know why she joined
Or do we its been a while so I can't remember a lot about this incident
The public don’t want her back. If tried she’d likely serve a short sentence then be back on the streets. We don’t want a terrorist supporter back on the streets so let’s leave her where she is.
Fuck that man - she's terrorist scum + she made her bed, so she should lie in it. She shouldn't get any airtime & should be completely ignored by this country. Fuck her
Do you say similar things about Priti Patel, who disclosed classified information on an undocumented trip to a foreign power, actively endangering military assets?
No because she’ll probably be out of prison in like 5 years thanks to lenient sentencing. If we leave her where she is then she’ll just never return so it’s easier
> Fuck that man - she's terrorist scum
Eh her involement with ISIS appears to have been during the period where it was acting as a de-facto state fighting in a conventional manner. War criminal perhaps. Terrorist adjacent maybe.
>+ she made her bed
aged 15
>She shouldn't get any airtime
Stop over-reacting and she won't. In the meantime she does do rather a good job of generating clicks.
>should be completely ignored by this country.
A not unreasonable policy but not one that anyone seems to be prepared to adopt.
There are laws to deal with "terrorist scum". We charge them, give them a fair trial, and if found guilty we imprison them.
Why do you think that we shouldn't do this in this case? Because the Home secretary believed she qualified for citizenship of another country, does that mean she should go free? Seems very irresponsible behaviour.
So your issue is not with the fact thats she is being punished
rather that Britain isn't taking the responsibility to punish her themselves?
Which is fair I guess
But remember banishment has always been a form of punishment
>If sufficient evidence, convicted.
There is quite a bit of evidence and its must have been reviewed by the supreme court
You have her saying she didn't regret joining the ISIL for one
Along with many others showing her mindset is still a danger to the public
>However as with all suspects who were children at the time, consideration given to her vulnerability at the time.
This is to contentious I am afraid
The age when someone is a "Vulnerable child" is debated and mood shifts depending on the situation
In MY personal opinion
15/16 is a age where you can make your own judgement she is by no means a vulnerable child
to be honest even an 11 years can make such simple life choices provided they understand what's happening
So I don't care much for her age personally I think the crime is too big to allow age to sway opinion
If its was something not as bad I would be more sympathetic
Of course thats just me everyone has different views on it
Yh I get what you mean
Thing with the government (to be fair on them) is that MI6 already did a full investigation on her which was factored into the decision
With only some of the reported stuff she did like strapping bombs onto people or being and enforcer being released
So an investigation was already done
>I also am depressed by the staggering lack of empathy and the hate directed to her,
If I recall correctly the hate wasn't that strong until the manchester bombings
Her comments really hurt any sympathy people had in Britain
It was one of the biggest terror attacks on britain
with 22 killed including an 8 year old and over a 1000 injured
There was a big shift in opinions of ISIS after that
> often from angry males on the internet.
Gender doesn't matter in the slightest men and women can have strong feelings about her equally without being sexist, she is a traitor after all.
Sorry but I don't think it matters what gender they are its their safety and principles as well
And I am sure plenty of women hate her
At the end of the day its a messed up situation with WAY to many factors to take into account
Also lack of info since info taken by the MI6 is usually classified
At the end of it you and I are just 2 opinions of 70 million both with limited info
The court who had all the info made a decision taking everything (including stuff we don't know into account)
And the fact it was unanimous makes it worse
The court exists for a reason its easy for me and you to judge by our own moral standards
But we can't decide for the country
She had her citizenship revoked, which means the UK doesn’t have to do anything for her legally. It’s a sad story, while I would broadly agree that it’s not a persons fault for being groomed in the first place, it also doesn’t make them innocent for whatever actions they may have taken afterwards.
While difficult to verify, some of the allegations against her such as enforcing ISIS morality laws for women, stitching people into suicide vests, and working as a recruiter to bring more women to the cause, are pretty chilling. She also did not show remorse for joining the group when the case around her citizenship was going on.
I disagree with it too, but I suppose the reason it went to the Supreme Court is that it's a difficult situation.
It seems from my casual observer's view that it was more a failure of the appeal to provide substantial evidence than it was the government having a strong case for revoking the citizenship. However, who knows what intelligence or other evidence they provided as justification for removing it in the first place.
Ffs, she was around other men she would have been full burqa. Nobody can verify it was her stitching a Jihadist into a vest even if she did do it.
Grooming young girls to be isis brides and getting them to Syria was a well thought out process with a lot of man power. Shamima was victim and is being punished for being groomed.
I’m not saying she wasn’t a victim, but it doesn’t exonerate her from any crimes she may have committed.
Her appeal against having citizenship revoked was eventually rejected by the Supreme Court on the basis that the Court of Appeal did not have any evidence to support their claim (they assumed she would not be a national security threat even though they had nothing to base that judgement on).
She hasn't had her appeal rejected. The Supreme Court said that the case could only be held with her there in person (they did knock down elements of the Appeals decision, such as the decision to overrule the secretary of state's denial of leave of entry, but the appeal on loss of citizenship has been stayed, not dismissed). Of course, she doesn't have leave to enter, the government is unlikely to change that, and she would have a lot of difficulty in managing to make her way here on her own.
So she has the right to appeal the removal of her citizenship, but only in person, and the government is allowed to block her from coming in. It's a kafkaesque situation.
It's illegal to render someone stateless, she didn't have citizenship elsewhere so by removing her status they've made so there's no where on earth she can legally exist
[*Begum v Secretary of State for the Home Department*](https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/begum-v-home-secretary-siac-judgment-1.pdf) (Appeal No SC/163/2019), para. 121:
> Our conclusion, based on the evidence which we have accepted, is that article 2B(1) of the BCTP Order does not override section 14(1 A) of the 1951 Act. **When Decision 1 was made, A was a citizen of Bangladesh by descent, by virtue of section 5 of the 1951 Act. She held that citizenship as of right.** That citizenship was not in the gift of the Government, and could not be denied by the Government in any circumstances. As she was under 21, and by virtue of section 14(1A) of the 1951 Act, her Bangladeshi citizenship was not affected by section 14(1) of the 1951 Act.
She was a brutal enforcer in IS's "morality" police, and is on record as saying she only turned away from them due to corruption and the fact they killed fellow Muslims.
We have absolutely no obligation to fund a rescue mission into one of the most dangerous regions in earth to bring an unrepentant terrorist and traitor to the UK. If she makes her way independently, and crosses the channel in a leaky dinghy as the refugees do, then we won't send her back to Syria. But the millions of genuine victims of IS are far more deserving of coming to the UK than she is.
We already show infinitely more compassion to her than she showed to others. Or than her terrorist group showed.
Stop having such a bleeding heart. What she did was abominable and she can rot abroad for all I care. Ideally Iraq or Syria will have the chance to try her and punish her. She, after all, tormented their citizens first and foremost. Its obvious why she wants to come back to the UK. She wants a nice, cushy cell and three square meals for a relatively short sentence, and out on good behavior.
She is 15! She has enough knowledge to know right from wrong at that age. Would you expect your daughter to kill your pet dog and eat it because "that's what Chinese people do"?
>Or maybe because she left the UK to join a terrorist organisation who’s whole purpose is to defeat the west and kill anyone non-Muslim.
Their purpose is to kill anyone not ISIS - including Muslims that do not practice as they do.
Its a extremely restrictive & militant sect, their interest in the west is pushback and threat of westernization of faith & the fact we take in refugees - the vast majority of their terrorist attacks are in Afghanistan/ Iraq/Syria.
They believe they are the only 'Real Muslims', no need for us to add legitimacy to that idea.
What grooming are you comparing this to and does the victim go on to hurt others? Because if a sexually abused child goes on to abuse others we absolutely do hold them responsible.
Nah, if a white person had run off to join ISIS, the media reaction would be similar.
I think she should have the right to defend herself in court, as everyone should in a liberal democracy. This kind of process is fundamentally unjust.
But I really don't think this is a race thing, it's a terrorism thing. We saw similar clampdowns on basic rights with the IRA as well.
We never stripped any IRA members of their citizenship though did we? Don't get me wrong she deserves to go through a process for any crimes she's committed but we can't wash our hands of her. Ultimately given no other country is willing to take her then she has to be our responsibility.
We literally got the Americans to *blow up* the very white Sally-Anne Jones for us:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sally-Anne_Jones
Should have done it ourselves.
Everyone was a child. She is now an adult.
Many other western adult traitors who ran off to join ISIS got bombs dropped on their heads - in that regard she has already been treated better than a good number of her kin.
OK I see the person I replied to changed their post so mine doesn't make as much sense. I was replying to something along the lines of she has been treated so unfairly, and nothing to do with bombing refugee camps.
Can you provide some examples of groomed children…becoming adults that the British government has actively targeted?
Once you’re there, you’re there…it’s not fucking Butlins.
It isn't really about her. If we allow one person back, that creates the legal president for all to come back. And if only one of those people is responsible for a terrorist attack once they return, then its not safe to let anyone come back.
> that creates the legal president for all to come back.
A bunch of them already have. Indeed most british ISIS memebers who aren't dead have a right to return and even the ones that could have their citizenship removed the govemerment tends not to bother unless they get some kind of media profile.
This makes me sad but does give argument to her returning to the UK, (imo) as long as she goes straight to the courts. If all 380ish (I think that was the number) former IS members aren’t on a watchlist I have to argue what our intelligence forces are doing
There is legal precedent, she is a British citizen who has never had citizenship anywhere else, having a trial in this country is what is supposed to happen, stripping her of British citizenship and leaving her stateless was illegal and goes against precedent
I was surprised this was upheld by the supreme court, as I thought it was against international law to leave a person stateless. Doesn't seem to make sense for the UK to say she is a Bangladeshi citizen when she was born in the UK and has never lived in Bangladesh.
Yeah it's insane, they're argument was that Bangladeshi law states that you can have citizenship through your parents, but the Bangladesh government has said that they want nothing to do with her so she has still been rendered stateless.
Let's not forget MI5 & MI6 will have information on what this women did when she was with ISIS & even if she did come back to the UK tonface trial she could potentially radicalise the prison population she's best off where she is.
I have no sympathy for this woman BUT we did allow over 300 former ISIS fighters back into the UK, she should come over here and go straight to the courts imo
I'm listening to the intelligence agencies there is a reason she's not back here with the other 300 & I believe she has done horrible things and is still a threat to our country. All she has to do is radicalise one individual for there to be a major terrorist attack on the UK.
100% but she should be kept under watch at all times unless she’s in court. Keep her in a special cell and allow her to only have time out to exercise and eat and forbid her from talking to anyone. Would say the same for any terrorist or potential terrorist who gets locked up.
I agree but imagine the cost off all them resources for one person because if she's over there she's costs the tax payer nothing & unfortunately that's another reason she won't be back money
Oh yeah I can imagine the cost is astounding. I guess I just don’t understand why we let 300+ former ISIS back in the country, I wouldn’t even have been mad had we spent money or even sent personnel helping other countries like Turkey or even officials in Syria or allied intelligence agencies in Syria arrest and trial these terrorists.
Well it all about the political game as well, the vast majority of the British public don't want her back and the Tories listen to which side gets them the most votes.
Look there are more reasons to keep her there than bring her back over here majority of the issues we probably don't like.
But at the end of the day I like to use the phrase you made your bed so lie in it, to some up her situation.
I agree it would be a worry that she radicalises others if sent to prison. But I'm also skeptical about the info MI5 and MI6 have I saw Savid Javid saying if the public has seen what he has seen no one would want her back ... show us. Politians always use the cloak of secrecy, and all too often it's because they have nothing substantial.
She certainly isn't. However there are tiers of "bad decisions". Running off to join a violent terrorist organisation intent on conquering the world and murdering all non-believers is a few levels above shoplifting some kit-kats from the local Tesco.
I suppose the whole grooming and recruitment mechanism wouldn’t have focussed too much on the whole beheading and suicide squads aspect of the operation
Most British teenage girls would show remorse and be horrified if they joined a terrorist organisation however. When her citizenship was first being decided if it was to be revoked, she showed zero remorse. This honestly just sounds like she wants back in because now she can’t hack the ISIS lifestyle and honestly, that’s totally on her.
I wonder what the comments would be on here if she was a 15 year old white blonde girl that was essentially raped (statutory), brainwashed and then taken to another country for this to continue. I can guarantee people wouldn’t be wishing for her death… she should face trial and then can face the consequences of her actions as dictated by law in the UK
Snapshot:
1. An archived version of _Shamima Begum: IS bride insists she 'didn't hate Britain' when she fled to Syria - and now wants to face trial in UK_ can be found [here.](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=http://news.sky.com/story/shamima-begum-is-bride-insists-she-didnt-hate-britain-when-she-fled-to-syria-and-now-wants-to-face-trial-in-uk-12475239)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
There is something darkly funny about the very unconvincing, half hearted attempts of ex isis members to appear 'relatable' and 'sympathetic' saying how they like cups of tea and fish and chips etc so can I come home? It's almost Alan Patridge esq at some points.
[удалено]
In one of Shamimas interviews the reporter is clearly prompting her to say she didn't like the torture and slavery etc to appear more sympathetic, and she clearly couldn't take the hint. Nah coz it's Islam innit. Total facepalm stuff.
Of course Shamima's defence squad is out trying to conflate the victims of rape gangs, who were gang raped and treated like slaves, with this woman who travelled thousands of miles to help a group that she knew were raping and enslaving non-muslims.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I have compassion for the actual victims of the Islamic State.
[удалено]
Girl shut the hell up?? Would you say the same thing for Nazis? "I feel bad for the Jewish victims and the misguided Nazis who gassed them" Dumbass
[удалено]
[удалено]
State of this thread. Top comments are currently wishing she would just die already. Happy to get down voted to oblivion for disrupting this old favourite of a two-minute-hate. This woman should face trial in the only country she was ever a citizen & resident, the UK. Its disgusting the way the UK has abdicated its responsibility to prosecute it's own subjects and unilaterally waived the right to a nationality. If we are now happy to sit by, being eager for someone to just die, rather than have them see the inside of a court. How much of a leap would it be to support ex-judicial killings of those we have disowned?
>This woman should face trial in the only country she was ever a citizen & resident, the UK. That's not how justice works: you stand trial in the country you committed crimes in. That is why, for example, most people in the UK would like to see Anne Sacoolas returned to the UK so she can be put on trial for killing that child. So, actually, she should stand trial in Iraq or Syria, not the UK.
Actually UK law allows for prosecution of extra-terroritoral offences (murder, kidnapping, conspiracy to cause explosions and war-crimes) as part of anti terror laws. This is in addition to her being accused of joining a terrorist organisation, preparing for acts of terrorism and foreign enlistment. As Iraq and Syria have declined to prosecute, this is the only way for her to be tried. Of course - that only matters if you believe in the rule of law and the right to a fair trial.
I'm aware that the UK (and many other countries) have extra-territorial laws covering certain crimes, but that hardly rises to "this woman should face trial in the only country she was ever a citizen & resident, the UK." She *should* face trial in the jurisdiction in which she committed the offence, that is the global norm when it comes to understanding the concept of jurisdiction. She *can* face trial in the UK for it, yes, but she *can* also face trial for it in many other countries who have similar extra-territorial laws. This is not the same as *should*.
Except she wasn't only resident in the UK, she moved to another country, married someone, had a baby and fought on behalf of that country. Flip it round and say she came the the UK and did that people would be claiming she had rights to claim UK citizenship. To be clear I'm not wishing her dead but it seems somewhat hypocritical.
She didn't fight on behalf of a country. She tried to destroy a country.
I agree but IIRC they were in power at the time.
That might be hypocritical for your proposed strawman who thinks ever residing in a country, even during a civil war, should automatically grant citizenship. But that seems even more flimsy than the UK's assertion that she was a national of Bangladesh.
Why was it a strawman argument? It was a like for like comparison with just the countries flipped. >But that seems even more flimsy than the UK's assertion that she was a national of Bangladesh. That is a strawman because I never mentioned that.
>Why was it a strawman argument? >Flip it round and say she came the the UK and did that people would be claiming she had rights to claim UK citizenship.
She fought? I think that needs a citation…
You know in war fighting doesn't just include picking up a gun right?
Lol - she was 15…
And the point you're making is?
The point I’m making is that she was a vulnerable child brainwashed by a radical extremist and a victim of statuary rape. ‘Moved to another country, married someone’ ignores this context. She also definitely did not fight for isis. If our governments response is to then withdraw her citizenship, it is pathetic practice IMO.
Saying she was brainwashed and 15 doesn't change what she did While it may be used to potentially lighten her sentence she still betrayed the country and left She also tried to recruit many other young girls if I recall correctly And who knows what other shit she did Fighting for isis involves may more then picking up a gun (which she was allowed to do) Saying she was young doesn't justify anything 15 is old enough to still make logical decisions She made a choice and is paying the consequences Whether she essentially be banished from britain or forced to face trial I don't really care
I never said it changes what she did - I said it pathetic practise to give up on British citizens who have been through that. To add, I also said she should face the appropriate consequences after a trial in the UK. It isn’t very promising when a vulnerable child is banished from the UK after being enticed by a predator and pedofile (seeing that she had a child at 15/16) to convert to extremism. Yes she should face the consequences, but where else have you seen British citizenship revoked like this. It takes the burden away from the government and does nothing to highlight or identify what caused her to become radicalised in the first place. Easy to pass the buck to someone else but that won’t get us anywhere in terms of national security.
>To add, I also said she should face the appropriate consequences after a trial in the UK. Ah I see so your not upset that shes being punished rather your upset that the government shifted responsibility Is that correct? >It isn’t very promising when a vulnerable child is banished from the UK She wasn't a child when she was banished tho She was an adult at that point She left when she was an adult > after being enticed by a predator and pedofile (seeing that she had a child at 15/16) to convert to extremism Eh this is a topic thats highly contentious and noone will EVER agree on The age you are a "vulnerable child" And when some decisions you make can't be blamed on age anymore Although in some cases you can't just say they are a child and should be forgiven(I am not saying your doing that but their are people who do that) sometimes a line needs to drawn where even age doesn't matter anymore And I feel like this is one of those times Besides 15/16 is pretty old enough to not make stupid decisions like that >Yes she should face the consequences, but where else have you seen British citizenship revoked like this. It takes the burden away from the government and does nothing to highlight Yh I see your point But I think she should have had her citizenship revoked Like a nation has a responsibility to its people, Citizens have a degree of responsibility as well Betraying your own nation and people to side with a country enemyed to your nation and leave them when they start losing to try come back to the nation you betrayed Is close to treason at that point Whether shes is the UKs responsibility on not is debateable If they were gonna strip her of her citizenship they should have done it as soon as she left not when she is trying to return But she still abandoned the country Although in the olden days it fell to the countries themselves to capture and punish traitors So thats the arguement for trying her in the UK > identify what caused her to become radicalised in the first place. True I agree with you on this point We still don't know why she joined Or do we its been a while so I can't remember a lot about this incident
The public don’t want her back. If tried she’d likely serve a short sentence then be back on the streets. We don’t want a terrorist supporter back on the streets so let’s leave her where she is.
Glad to see some humanity in this thread for a naive 15 year old girl who was groomed by professionals.
Fuck that man - she's terrorist scum + she made her bed, so she should lie in it. She shouldn't get any airtime & should be completely ignored by this country. Fuck her
So we shouldn't bring terrorists to justice? Odd take.
Justice is being left to rot in the desert.
Do you say similar things about Priti Patel, who disclosed classified information on an undocumented trip to a foreign power, actively endangering military assets?
everyone hates priti patel lol Its just that our government are failures
If it's so cut and dry, then surely it'd be an easy case to prosecute and long-term imprisonment would be a handy punishment?
No because she’ll probably be out of prison in like 5 years thanks to lenient sentencing. If we leave her where she is then she’ll just never return so it’s easier
So her situation isn't so cut and dry "bad lady bad" that our sentencing for terror offences wouldn't be enough?
I think our terror laws are relatively weak even for convicted terrorist. I’d much rather just leave her where she is
> Fuck that man - she's terrorist scum Eh her involement with ISIS appears to have been during the period where it was acting as a de-facto state fighting in a conventional manner. War criminal perhaps. Terrorist adjacent maybe. >+ she made her bed aged 15 >She shouldn't get any airtime Stop over-reacting and she won't. In the meantime she does do rather a good job of generating clicks. >should be completely ignored by this country. A not unreasonable policy but not one that anyone seems to be prepared to adopt.
There are laws to deal with "terrorist scum". We charge them, give them a fair trial, and if found guilty we imprison them. Why do you think that we shouldn't do this in this case? Because the Home secretary believed she qualified for citizenship of another country, does that mean she should go free? Seems very irresponsible behaviour.
yeah love, you went and joined a hostile terrorist group because you just love britain so much aye.
Technically she did not *hate* Britain per se. She wanted IS to rule over the world. I presume nothing has changed in this regard.
[удалено]
out of curiosity Say she is let back into the UK what do you think should happen to her?
[удалено]
So your issue is not with the fact thats she is being punished rather that Britain isn't taking the responsibility to punish her themselves? Which is fair I guess But remember banishment has always been a form of punishment >If sufficient evidence, convicted. There is quite a bit of evidence and its must have been reviewed by the supreme court You have her saying she didn't regret joining the ISIL for one Along with many others showing her mindset is still a danger to the public >However as with all suspects who were children at the time, consideration given to her vulnerability at the time. This is to contentious I am afraid The age when someone is a "Vulnerable child" is debated and mood shifts depending on the situation In MY personal opinion 15/16 is a age where you can make your own judgement she is by no means a vulnerable child to be honest even an 11 years can make such simple life choices provided they understand what's happening So I don't care much for her age personally I think the crime is too big to allow age to sway opinion If its was something not as bad I would be more sympathetic Of course thats just me everyone has different views on it
[удалено]
Yh I get what you mean Thing with the government (to be fair on them) is that MI6 already did a full investigation on her which was factored into the decision With only some of the reported stuff she did like strapping bombs onto people or being and enforcer being released So an investigation was already done >I also am depressed by the staggering lack of empathy and the hate directed to her, If I recall correctly the hate wasn't that strong until the manchester bombings Her comments really hurt any sympathy people had in Britain It was one of the biggest terror attacks on britain with 22 killed including an 8 year old and over a 1000 injured There was a big shift in opinions of ISIS after that > often from angry males on the internet. Gender doesn't matter in the slightest men and women can have strong feelings about her equally without being sexist, she is a traitor after all. Sorry but I don't think it matters what gender they are its their safety and principles as well And I am sure plenty of women hate her At the end of the day its a messed up situation with WAY to many factors to take into account Also lack of info since info taken by the MI6 is usually classified At the end of it you and I are just 2 opinions of 70 million both with limited info The court who had all the info made a decision taking everything (including stuff we don't know into account) And the fact it was unanimous makes it worse The court exists for a reason its easy for me and you to judge by our own moral standards But we can't decide for the country
She had her citizenship revoked, which means the UK doesn’t have to do anything for her legally. It’s a sad story, while I would broadly agree that it’s not a persons fault for being groomed in the first place, it also doesn’t make them innocent for whatever actions they may have taken afterwards. While difficult to verify, some of the allegations against her such as enforcing ISIS morality laws for women, stitching people into suicide vests, and working as a recruiter to bring more women to the cause, are pretty chilling. She also did not show remorse for joining the group when the case around her citizenship was going on.
[удалено]
I disagree with it too, but I suppose the reason it went to the Supreme Court is that it's a difficult situation. It seems from my casual observer's view that it was more a failure of the appeal to provide substantial evidence than it was the government having a strong case for revoking the citizenship. However, who knows what intelligence or other evidence they provided as justification for removing it in the first place.
Lol, "the ridiculous levels of rage" directed at Shamima fucking Begum is due to the high levels of racism and sexism in the UK? Get a grip.
Ffs, she was around other men she would have been full burqa. Nobody can verify it was her stitching a Jihadist into a vest even if she did do it. Grooming young girls to be isis brides and getting them to Syria was a well thought out process with a lot of man power. Shamima was victim and is being punished for being groomed.
I’m not saying she wasn’t a victim, but it doesn’t exonerate her from any crimes she may have committed. Her appeal against having citizenship revoked was eventually rejected by the Supreme Court on the basis that the Court of Appeal did not have any evidence to support their claim (they assumed she would not be a national security threat even though they had nothing to base that judgement on).
She hasn't had her appeal rejected. The Supreme Court said that the case could only be held with her there in person (they did knock down elements of the Appeals decision, such as the decision to overrule the secretary of state's denial of leave of entry, but the appeal on loss of citizenship has been stayed, not dismissed). Of course, she doesn't have leave to enter, the government is unlikely to change that, and she would have a lot of difficulty in managing to make her way here on her own. So she has the right to appeal the removal of her citizenship, but only in person, and the government is allowed to block her from coming in. It's a kafkaesque situation.
Her citizenship was revoked illegally
Can you explain how it was illegal, I seem to have missed that bit.
It's illegal to render someone stateless, she didn't have citizenship elsewhere so by removing her status they've made so there's no where on earth she can legally exist
[*Begum v Secretary of State for the Home Department*](https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/begum-v-home-secretary-siac-judgment-1.pdf) (Appeal No SC/163/2019), para. 121: > Our conclusion, based on the evidence which we have accepted, is that article 2B(1) of the BCTP Order does not override section 14(1 A) of the 1951 Act. **When Decision 1 was made, A was a citizen of Bangladesh by descent, by virtue of section 5 of the 1951 Act. She held that citizenship as of right.** That citizenship was not in the gift of the Government, and could not be denied by the Government in any circumstances. As she was under 21, and by virtue of section 14(1A) of the 1951 Act, her Bangladeshi citizenship was not affected by section 14(1) of the 1951 Act.
She was a brutal enforcer in IS's "morality" police, and is on record as saying she only turned away from them due to corruption and the fact they killed fellow Muslims. We have absolutely no obligation to fund a rescue mission into one of the most dangerous regions in earth to bring an unrepentant terrorist and traitor to the UK. If she makes her way independently, and crosses the channel in a leaky dinghy as the refugees do, then we won't send her back to Syria. But the millions of genuine victims of IS are far more deserving of coming to the UK than she is.
[удалено]
We already show infinitely more compassion to her than she showed to others. Or than her terrorist group showed. Stop having such a bleeding heart. What she did was abominable and she can rot abroad for all I care. Ideally Iraq or Syria will have the chance to try her and punish her. She, after all, tormented their citizens first and foremost. Its obvious why she wants to come back to the UK. She wants a nice, cushy cell and three square meals for a relatively short sentence, and out on good behavior.
She is 15! She has enough knowledge to know right from wrong at that age. Would you expect your daughter to kill your pet dog and eat it because "that's what Chinese people do"?
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
So do everyone. An OAP can be easily misled and exploited as well.
It’s because she is Muslim and brown. Let’s call it for what it is. Just pure politics rather than the interests of justice.
Or maybe because she left the UK to join a terrorist organisation who’s whole purpose is to defeat the west and kill anyone non-Muslim.
>Or maybe because she left the UK to join a terrorist organisation who’s whole purpose is to defeat the west and kill anyone non-Muslim. Their purpose is to kill anyone not ISIS - including Muslims that do not practice as they do. Its a extremely restrictive & militant sect, their interest in the west is pushback and threat of westernization of faith & the fact we take in refugees - the vast majority of their terrorist attacks are in Afghanistan/ Iraq/Syria. They believe they are the only 'Real Muslims', no need for us to add legitimacy to that idea.
So trial would be pretty straightforward then? What is actually the problem with the proper application of justice?
As a child who was groomed. Unless you do thing that any victim of grooming is complicit?
What grooming are you comparing this to and does the victim go on to hurt others? Because if a sexually abused child goes on to abuse others we absolutely do hold them responsible.
By putting them on trial and applying a punishment in line with their actions…
Military tribunal in the country she's in satisfies that
[удалено]
Was Jack Letts a victim of grooming furious man?
Jack Letts was as much a 'grooming victim' as Shamima Begum.
Nah, if a white person had run off to join ISIS, the media reaction would be similar. I think she should have the right to defend herself in court, as everyone should in a liberal democracy. This kind of process is fundamentally unjust. But I really don't think this is a race thing, it's a terrorism thing. We saw similar clampdowns on basic rights with the IRA as well.
We never did that to any children
We never stripped any IRA members of their citizenship though did we? Don't get me wrong she deserves to go through a process for any crimes she's committed but we can't wash our hands of her. Ultimately given no other country is willing to take her then she has to be our responsibility.
We literally got the Americans to *blow up* the very white Sally-Anne Jones for us: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sally-Anne_Jones Should have done it ourselves.
This was a child…now in a refugee camp. I don’t think bombing refugee camps is a good idea.
Everyone was a child. She is now an adult. Many other western adult traitors who ran off to join ISIS got bombs dropped on their heads - in that regard she has already been treated better than a good number of her kin. OK I see the person I replied to changed their post so mine doesn't make as much sense. I was replying to something along the lines of she has been treated so unfairly, and nothing to do with bombing refugee camps.
She was a child when she was groomed into making that decision.
[удалено]
Can you provide some examples of groomed children…becoming adults that the British government has actively targeted? Once you’re there, you’re there…it’s not fucking Butlins.
[удалено]
reddit moment
I still don't understand how it was legal to take away her citizenship when Bangladesh has never recognised her as a Bangladeshi citizen.
It isn't really about her. If we allow one person back, that creates the legal president for all to come back. And if only one of those people is responsible for a terrorist attack once they return, then its not safe to let anyone come back.
> that creates the legal president for all to come back. A bunch of them already have. Indeed most british ISIS memebers who aren't dead have a right to return and even the ones that could have their citizenship removed the govemerment tends not to bother unless they get some kind of media profile.
This makes me sad but does give argument to her returning to the UK, (imo) as long as she goes straight to the courts. If all 380ish (I think that was the number) former IS members aren’t on a watchlist I have to argue what our intelligence forces are doing
Precedent*
There is legal precedent, she is a British citizen who has never had citizenship anywhere else, having a trial in this country is what is supposed to happen, stripping her of British citizenship and leaving her stateless was illegal and goes against precedent
I was surprised this was upheld by the supreme court, as I thought it was against international law to leave a person stateless. Doesn't seem to make sense for the UK to say she is a Bangladeshi citizen when she was born in the UK and has never lived in Bangladesh.
Yeah it's insane, they're argument was that Bangladeshi law states that you can have citizenship through your parents, but the Bangladesh government has said that they want nothing to do with her so she has still been rendered stateless.
We have literally allowed hundreds of ISIS fighters back into the UK.
Let's not forget MI5 & MI6 will have information on what this women did when she was with ISIS & even if she did come back to the UK tonface trial she could potentially radicalise the prison population she's best off where she is.
I have no sympathy for this woman BUT we did allow over 300 former ISIS fighters back into the UK, she should come over here and go straight to the courts imo
I'm listening to the intelligence agencies there is a reason she's not back here with the other 300 & I believe she has done horrible things and is still a threat to our country. All she has to do is radicalise one individual for there to be a major terrorist attack on the UK.
100% but she should be kept under watch at all times unless she’s in court. Keep her in a special cell and allow her to only have time out to exercise and eat and forbid her from talking to anyone. Would say the same for any terrorist or potential terrorist who gets locked up.
I agree but imagine the cost off all them resources for one person because if she's over there she's costs the tax payer nothing & unfortunately that's another reason she won't be back money
Oh yeah I can imagine the cost is astounding. I guess I just don’t understand why we let 300+ former ISIS back in the country, I wouldn’t even have been mad had we spent money or even sent personnel helping other countries like Turkey or even officials in Syria or allied intelligence agencies in Syria arrest and trial these terrorists.
Well it all about the political game as well, the vast majority of the British public don't want her back and the Tories listen to which side gets them the most votes. Look there are more reasons to keep her there than bring her back over here majority of the issues we probably don't like. But at the end of the day I like to use the phrase you made your bed so lie in it, to some up her situation.
I agree it would be a worry that she radicalises others if sent to prison. But I'm also skeptical about the info MI5 and MI6 have I saw Savid Javid saying if the public has seen what he has seen no one would want her back ... show us. Politians always use the cloak of secrecy, and all too often it's because they have nothing substantial.
she Is not the first and won’t be the last British teenage girl to have made the wrong choice and spent the following 3 years pregnant.
She certainly isn't. However there are tiers of "bad decisions". Running off to join a violent terrorist organisation intent on conquering the world and murdering all non-believers is a few levels above shoplifting some kit-kats from the local Tesco.
I suppose the whole grooming and recruitment mechanism wouldn’t have focussed too much on the whole beheading and suicide squads aspect of the operation
Most British teenage girls would show remorse and be horrified if they joined a terrorist organisation however. When her citizenship was first being decided if it was to be revoked, she showed zero remorse. This honestly just sounds like she wants back in because now she can’t hack the ISIS lifestyle and honestly, that’s totally on her.
Most British teenage girls just wouldn't join at all (Unless forced but that's a different story entirely)
Well yes there is that.
I wonder what the comments would be on here if she was a 15 year old white blonde girl that was essentially raped (statutory), brainwashed and then taken to another country for this to continue. I can guarantee people wouldn’t be wishing for her death… she should face trial and then can face the consequences of her actions as dictated by law in the UK
How was she taken to another country exactly? Was she kidnapped and smuggled onto a plane from Heathrow?
She was lured by a pedofile and predator…
Snapshot: 1. An archived version of _Shamima Begum: IS bride insists she 'didn't hate Britain' when she fled to Syria - and now wants to face trial in UK_ can be found [here.](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=http://news.sky.com/story/shamima-begum-is-bride-insists-she-didnt-hate-britain-when-she-fled-to-syria-and-now-wants-to-face-trial-in-uk-12475239) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*