But even if they were, isn’t it better that we de-radicalise jihadis than just punish them?
The problem is that deradicalisation doesn’t always work, even when the authorities think it has. There have been attacks by people who had been deradicalised and deradicalisation of prisoners failed badly for a long time until the most radical prisoners were removed from the general prison population and we’ve had some returnees from Guantánamo getting involved in questionable activities.
The way I look at it, it’s a gamble. If the gamble pays off, Shamima gets to live a nice comfy quiet and anonymous life, costing the state quite a bit of money for living costs and surveillance but she and her family are content.
If the gamble doesn’t pay off, however, the outcome may well be that either Shamima or someone she radicalises may harm or kill an entirely innocent person or group of people.
Now, in my opinion, I would not view the death of a number of innocent people as anywhere near a reasonable price to pay in return for Shamima coming back to a comfortable western life. I wouldn’t want to take that risk. Shamima has done something very wrong and willingly associated with an evil group doing horrendous things so I don’t find it acceptable that her wish for a comfortable life should trump the safety of a potential victim.
The problem always seems to me about people who want her and others like her here, is that they fail to see the link between cause and effect. They only see the benefits of SB returning and their vision just stops there. Victims don’t exist for them until the point they’re stabbed or blown up. And even when that happens, supporters of these sort of people pretend that it’s all just come out of nowhere and couldn’t have been prevented. Previous examples of that are one of Lee Rigby’s killers who had been involved in terror in Kenya and one of the London Bridge attackers who had been on TV airing his extremist views.
I really object to this idea that only extremists have rights to be protected purely because we don’t know yet who the people they could hurt or kill are until they attack. It means whilst extremists have their rights very much protected, the rest of us just have to hope that we’re not in the wrong place at the wrong time and our right to life lies simply in the hands of jihadists who may or may not take it away.
Just as an example, there have been times before when people have been interned because they were a danger. Oswald Moseley, the leader of the British Union of Facists and his wife Diana Mitford were interned at Holloway during WWII. Her sister Unity would have been as well but she wasn’t because she shot herself in the head when war was declared which left her severely disabled. And ISIS was very much at war with us too.
As far as bringing her back and the prospect of her being tried or imprisoned etc: I don’t have a great deal of faith in the justice system at the moment. Particularly not in its ability to keep people who are a danger locked up. Look at the John Worboys decision and that man who killed three children and impaled them on railings. And John Venables who was repeatedly breaking his parole conditions with the knowledge of his probation officer and only got recalled when the police inadvertently caught him trying to destroy a hard drive full of CSE images when they were actually trying to protect him.
If I genuinely felt that she would come here and be safely managed as a threat I would think it was the best option. But I honestly don’t believe she would be. I think she would be fully lawyered up and on legal aid fighting every single bit of control the state tried to have.
Another reason I don’t want her back here is because of her interviews and the impression I’m getting. She’s not regretful and she’s not remorseful. In fact most of what she says seems calculated to cause maximum offence and as much resistance to her return as possible.
I believe the offence she is causing is intentional. I think if she came back here she would be regularly displaying and crowing every single penny the state spent on her, every concession she got, every right she won. I think a lot of lawyers would be queuing up to make vexatious complaints about every contact she had with the state and demanding compensation and special treatment.
I think she would be just like those poppy burning Muslims or Anjem Choudhury with his ‘Islam will dominate the World’ protestors. I think the intention of ISIS is that she should come here and act as an agent provocateur, sowing division and fomenting anger.
And again, I don’t think any of this is worth gambling with in order to give a woman who joined a murderous cult an easy life.