To wonder why Sajid Jarvis was so quick to remove Shamima Begum’s British nationality

[MrsSchadenfreude]

But has done nothing about removing Asma Assad’s? Asma Assad is a dual British-Syrian National, so why not deprive her (and her kids) of British nationality? I can’t quite believe that the government hasn’ Done this. Why on Earth not?

“I thank god Labour party aren't in power, as Jeremy Corbyn would be letting all of ISIS in and offering them therapy and tea and sympathy along with that joker Diane Abbott.”

Yep. You’re absolutely right.That’s exactly what they would do. What a political analyst you are!

The trouble with this debate is should v can.

I do not think the UK government should have done this. I agree with posters saying that we should shoulder the responsibility of accepting, possibly prosecuting and certainly monitoring Ms Begum, perhaps for life. But I accept that many others can disagree with me without being nasty or racist.

But the argument about whether the government has acted within the law is sterile. There plainly is a lawful option to strip citizenship. There’s no sensible argument about that. Whether it has been correctly applied in this case (and the expert commentary I’ve seen suggests it has) is a matter of detailed legal scrutiny. We can’t sort that out here - unless a poster wants to self-declare as an expert in public international law and immigration law.

Either way, I doubt that any government in the present circumstances should be criticised as being vindictive or arbitrary. That’s not how cases like this work.

Oyster where’s your evidence she was groomed and raped.

This awful vile person joined a death cult that openly promoted beheading, mass rape of women and children. She put her name down for an english speaking husband between the age of 20 - 25.

Yes I am Bertrand I am aren't I . It is quite obvious from the news headlines really!

As for the stupid argument that people with dual citizenship are second class citizens. Absolute bollocks. My DH has dual citizenship, if he joined a rape obsessed murdering cult I’d be packing his bags.

Maryso

That makes much more sense to me. I can't get my head around treating jihadis waging death and destruction like naughty teens running off to magaluf and stripping off.

Oyster where’s your evidence she was groomed

Oh, I don't know - the fact that she was convinced by age 14 that she wanted to marry a man straight away, rather than wait until it was legal for her to do so?

She was underage. Below the age of consent. Legally a child.

As to grooming, she’s admitted to having been influenced by, among other things, beheading videos.

Corrupted, maybe; groomed, not so obvious.

Legally a child.

‘Child’ depends on legal context. Under-18 is not the necessary definition of a child.

“I can't get my head around treating jihadis waging death and destruction like naughty teens running off to magaluf and stripping off.”

But nobody is doing that.As far as I can see, all people are saying is hat she should be dealt with in this country, nowhere else, and stripping her of her citizenship is a worrying precedent.

It’s not a precedent.

Never mind that her local imams say she will be a danger to Muslim youth. All some people can see is her wretchedness. Do these same people feel anything for the Yazidis and other victims of unspeakable atrocities? When will the families who watched their sons beheaded, daughters aged 9 taken for sex slaves, for the sole reason that Daesh chose to target them for genocide, see justice?

Sharmima Begum will remain in the Middle East for the rest of her days. She will be forced to look into the eyes of all the people whose lives Daesh have destroyed, and pay for her part in it. She will be lucky if it is an Iraqi court. Any returning Daesh similarly should be sent to stand trial in the middle East. Not to do so will be effectively saying that they are worth less than we in the west. If found innocent then we can talk about deradicalisation.

By what reason could we possibly have first dibs on Sharmima Begum or any Daesh? We are way back in the queue, and if you do not see this, you must be blind.

KissingInTheRain Sat 23-Feb-19 17:59:04

‘Child’ depends on legal context. Under-18 is not the necessary definition of a child.

Under 16 is quite definitely the necessary definition of under the age of consent. Even in the case of a jihadi bride.

after 2006
the Secretary of State can withdraw citizenship if this is conducive to the public good. ^According to the UK Home Office, between 2006 and 2014, 27 deprivation orders were issued on grounds that
they were conducive to the public good.^

Can anyone read this without being scared shitless? If "conducive to the public good" is not to be defined as any one specific crime or behaviour, it can mean anything the government of the day wants it to mean. There are anti-semites out there working to become socially accepted and politically viable. There are homophobes, racists, all sorts. We have no idea how this could be used!

Mitz I suggest you read the recent blog in the spectator.

The age of sexual consent is irrelevant to the age of running off to join ISIS.

I agree maryso.

Loads of posters over loads of threads on this girl have said....teens make mistakes.

This is far more than that

Don’t be silly Cory. She’s entitled to dual nationality. We don’t need filth like her on the UK.

"Sharmima Begum will remain in the Middle East for the rest of her days. She will be forced to look into the eyes of all the people whose lives Daesh have destroyed, and pay for her part in it"

In other ways, war-torn Syria can be forced to provide permanent house-room, with all the security risks that entails, not only to her but to all other jihadis too? She is not the only jihadi in that refugee camp: together, with no resources to keep them imprisoned and under control, THIS is where they are a security risk.

NOONE is saying she should not stand trial in Syria (if Syria are able to provide a trial). We are only saying that Syria should not be forced to house her beyond any punishment they may choose to inflict. Because that is what withdrawing her citizenship does: it means they can never get shot of her.

Bangladesh has culture of marrying girls early, maybe it wasn't such a strange Idea for her, maybe moves to looking for a husband had already started... And that's why she ran off... who knows

Cory they won’t house her. They will throw the book at her and she deserves it. Anyone ignoring the smirk when the Manchester bombing were brought up?

Imissgmichael Sat 23-Feb-19 18:20:52

Don’t be silly Cory. She’s entitled to dual nationality. We don’t need filth like her on the UK.

She is entitled to apply for Bangladeshi nationality. Bangladesh have already said they're not going to give it to her.

Why should they? She has never been to the country and would pose at least an equal danger there.

If the country where she grew up and where she was radicalised have a right to wash their hands off her, why should that not apply even more so to a country which she has never even visited? If she is not good enough for the UK, why on earth would she be good enough for Bangladesh? Are they worth less? Does their security matter less?

Imissgmichael Sat 23-Feb-19 18:23:26

Cory they won’t house her. They will throw the book at her and she deserves it.

Do you mean execute her? Because I see no other way in which they will not be landed with the costs.

Anyone ignoring the smirk when the Manchester bombing were brought up?

a) she is a brain-washed teenager
b) there will have been other, more powerful jihadi women watching her- she will say what she is expected to say

“If found innocent then we can talk about deradicalisation.“

Innocent of what?

She is entitled to apply for Bangladeshi nationality. Bangladesh have already said they're not going to give it to her.

Apparently not. Bangladesh automatically gives citizenship to the children of Bangladeshi parents, until 21. No need to apply. She is - according to immigration solicitors who’ve commented in the media - already a Bangladeshi citizen by right.