British IS girl has had her baby

[BrizzleMint]

She's had her baby - a son.

Cabinet minister Jeremy Wright told BBC's Andrew Marr programme that the baby's nationality was "not straightforward".

The culture secretary, who was previously attorney general, said the first priority was establishing the health of her and her baby.

She didn't give two pins for Syria's rule of law? Yeah, of course you're concerned for Syria

You're so concerned for Syria that you expect them to deal with British problems like this woman and her baby...

SS situations are entirely different and its offensive to argue otherwise. The baby is not being 'sacrificed' any more than the other babies in that camp, but the difference is their parents did not support the organisation that displaced them.

*Chose to have a baby?

How many 19 year old child brides of ISIS have the autonomy to make decisions about their own bodies?*

She left this country with the express intention of becoming a jihadi bride. Fully aware that meant a rapid arranged marriage and most likely children.

Nobody rational would have made the choice to go.

That’s akin to saying nobody rational would ever commit murder. Ergo all murders are irrational victims and deserve sympathy.

Finding, what is so odd about saying she did not care for Syria's law she didn't. I believe she should be imprisioned, here or there. However, that is not why she wants to come back. She wants to come back so that she can live in freedom and comfort with her child. Why should she? She did not want Syrian children to have the same rights. But hey, make me out to be racists, it's easier for you, isn't it?

The child is at risk in that camp - like it or not.

You keep talking about the parents as though that makes any difference to Britain's responsibility towards a British baby.

It's not offensive to refer to SS!

Is it uncharitable to want DNA evidence that she’s the mother of the baby? No

I haven't once said I think she should come back and face no consequences! Can you find my post where I said that?

Is it uncharitable to wonder what is the evidence that she had other children?

She didn't care about Syrian law but that isn't relevant to whether she comes back or her child comes back.

She's a British potential criminal in a foreign country and no different to any other foreign criminal here or abroad. It's for the courts to decide how much risk she poses and deal with her accordingly. Not for mobs

I don't care what she is, she has shown no remorse or regret so can stay there and rot as far as I'm concerned. Nor do I think her child should be brought to the UK. Women and their children who are in refugee camps because of the actions of ISIS should have priority being brought to this country.

Is it uncharitable to wonder what is the evidence that she had other children?

Well if you are so am I. I wouldn’t trust a word that came out of her mouth without proof.

Unfortunately it doesn't work like that in law. A British baby would have priority.

I doubt those who are suddenly concerned for the Syrian babies in the same camp would want the UK to take them all

I didn't say you did. I said, that is what she wants! FFS. The SS comparision is offensive. Babies were part of the mantra of IS, she knew it would happen and made that active choice. That baby is not in danger because of factors outside of her knowledge or control. Even as a minor she had no ANs that effected her ability to understand the implications of her choices and she has confirmed these choices as an adult. Furthermore, there are numerous babies, whose parents were displaced by IS in those camps, why don't we rescue them? She did not want to come back before life got hard, so why should she have the luxury of an escape route now?

I would. I have worked extensively with refugee charities, our area took in lots of babies, children and families from Kosovo. I would gladly assist as many as we can.

It's not offensive but if you're offended - fine.

You said you didn't want her back because her baby would have more rights than yours as a consequence. Now you're saying Syrian babies should have priority over hers?

Each country priorities its own - its the way it is in international law. She won't be rescued. It's up to her to make her own way back but they can't be denied entry.

I have never advocated going in an rescuing her!

There is a difference between compassion and being a psuedo philosphical virtue signalling twunt.

Excuse me?

Was that necessary

We don’t agree. I think kids who’ve been radicalised deserve compassion, help and to have British law applied to them for their and others protection. I also believe the newborn is an innocent of British decent so is entitled to British protection.

You don’t.

That doesn’t make me a twunt. And I don’t think speaking to me like that helps your argument.

This is a pointless argument against people who have no regard for the rule of law and think it should only apply in certain cases.

At its worst, Its thinly veiled racism towards a newborn baby whose crime is that its parents made bad decisions.

Are you always so patronising Apple?

Racism, the favourite castigation of anyone who can't handle people disagreeing with them. Apart from being ridiculous it's just lazy.

It's difficult to think of any other reason why a newborn baby would be referred to in such disparaging tones.

Only when faced with extraordinary rudeness and ignorance. I’m afraid mob mentality brings it out in me.

Are you always so rude to people who don’t share your militant opinions?

Does it make a huge difference whether you perceive her as a 'victim' or not?. What does it change? She was fifteen. Even if she made this choice willingly it was - as has turned out - a decision based on very faulty logic. The ability of teenagers to reason is not fully developed and they tend to see things in black and white and can suffer from dogmatic reasoning. That is just fact. Scientific fact. Its partly why so many seemingly well intentioned causes and charities target the young, they make great activists. I can remember us at school getting coach trips to fairs where we were pretty much ambushed by WWF among other things (and before someone says it I am not comparing WWF to Isis merely pointing out that children are more suspectible to being roped into causes)

But let's say she did it with entirely bad motives fully aware of what it entailed. She was still 15 at the time. If she committed a serious crime in this country at 15 her age would be taken into consideration.

And sometimes you have to learn the hard way and it isn't until it hurts that you realise you made a bloody stupid decision. Even if she came to her senses fairly early on, it is highly unlikely she'd be able to leave without her husbands permission. What funds would she have? She likely would try and double down on her beliefs to survive.

It comes down to the fact that she is British and as such she has the same rights we all do. That might be distasteful but it's fact. I must say this case has really made me appreciate what being British really means in a whole new way. We're so lucky to have such protections in law.

There’s a world of difference between the impulse to care about the world’s wildlife and the desire to throw in your lot with a bunch of psychopaths. ISIS didn’t make a secret of their activities.

In fact, most recruitment to the sorts of causes you mention relies on young people’s desire for justice and kindness. It’s a stretch to reframe ISIS to fit in with that.

I don’t understand why people are so vile to this child. It’s not even a full day old, fgs.