Shamima Begum cannot return.....

[Lillylolo]

What are your opinions?

I feel that her dual heritage has been used against her, to push her towards Bangladesh.

However, I do feel she is a threat to the general public and it would be incredibly difficult to control/monitor her actions. Which may put the rest of the population at risk.

This is just an open debate. Let’s try not to rip each other apart, more of a healthy debate

@VinylDetective
You generally do not make sound arguments. Just my point of view 🤷🏻‍♀️.

All the bleating about "remorse" is so futile. Who are you to judge how an intensely traumatised young adult should behave or what they should say. The ignorance and bigotry on display in here is alarming. Children who have been radicalised then traumatised do not suddenly morph into high functioning members of society. There is damage to be addressed, and in this case the damage is the responsibility of Britain.

@nothingcanhurtmewithmyeyesshut

What's all this poor child rubbish? She's a fucking terrorist, leave her there to rot.

here here

[quote Thewithesarehere]@VinylDetective
You generally do not make sound arguments. Just my point of view 🤷🏻‍♀️.[/quote]
I don’t give a damn what you think of my judgement. I’m not greatly impressed by yours.

The Home Office saw she was brown....... Yes I’m sure that was it.
The Supreme Court don’t agree with most on this thread. I think I will take their understanding of legality over the armchair experts here.

What I really don't understand is why is SHE the one who the British government's have decided to make an example of?
Why has a girl who left as a child to be married off to a grown man, raped and impregnated with babies who died, become the figure of hate, left stateless, as opposed to the grown men who committed actual terrorist acts and have come home with very little fanfare?

She's our problem, not Syria's and not Bangladesh's either. She's British end of, like it or not we need to take responsibility.

This.

That makes you a bully

What, the fact I put the safety of the vast majority above that of someone who willingly joined ISIS? Or that I queried whether the existence of the "three children" had been proved?

Either way I'll gladly take that, if the alternative is the sort of woolly liberalism which would ensure she'd never see the inside of a British jail

It’s becuase you are happy to be a bully @VinylDetective. Live with that.

Lets be honest though, he's not going to say he's sympathetic toward her even if he was. He'd be hounded from his home.

Similar to the fact she's not going to start saying anything against Isis while she's in Syria. That would be akin t

Shamina is an idiot & you could say a victim of sunk cost fallacy.
In a bizarre way I can kind of see why she says she doesn't regret her actions because admitting she does makes her whole life a farce/fake/a mistake & she doesn't sound mature enough or maybe she's been brainwashed too much to admit she was wrong.
And yes I could have her living next door to me simply so I could ask her everytime I saw her why does she celebrate the idiot squad who tried to kill my sister (Ariana Grande Concert Manchester Arena)
I might be able to change her mind who knows.

*akin to asking to be killed.

It is inevitable that she will return. What the British government have done is illegal & a breach of her human rights that every British person is entitled to. We have made her stateless as she does not hold another citizenship. Yes she can apply to Bangladesh but as other PP have said, why should they have to clean up our mess.

In regards to sympathy, I struggle to have much sympathy for her. I feel my sympathy is better aimed towards all of the victims of terror attacks orchestrated by the group she joined.

While it is a difficult question and I’m not sure where I stand on allowing her back or whether she should be tried where she committed the crimes there is a serious amount of minimising her actions here. She joined an organisation with the specific goals of waging war on the U.K. and the rest of the west and destroying their values system. She didn’t just hate the U.K. she actively supported the attempt to destroy it.
She may have left as a teen but she at no point attempted to leave and actually took an active role in the continuation of the groups ideals. I’m not sure she was groomed, that suggests that she was not receptive and was brain washed, it’s equally likely that she held these beliefs before and found her group. Impossible to prove either way.
To then expect support and aid to return to the place she supported the destruction of seems completely illogical to me and I am really surprised at the level of support for it.

@Puzzledandpissedoff

That makes you a bully

What, the fact I put the safety of the vast majority above that of someone who willingly joined ISIS? Or that I queried whether the existence of the "three children" had been proved?

Either way I'll gladly take that, if the alternative is the sort of woolly liberalism which would ensure she'd never see the inside of a British jail

you are putting the safety of the country where she grew up to become a criminal over the safety of the rest of the world. Also, I agree with you wholeheartedly that our laws need to adopted to reflect the terrorism threat. It doesn’t give us the right to dump our terrorists on other countries. That is bullying (‘we think we are powerful so lets’s get away with it’ = bullying) and incredibly immoral. It’s also downright hypocritical to not accept that other countries should be allowed to do that to us.

@Thewithesarehere

It’s becuase you are happy to be a bully *@VinylDetective*. Live with that.

Will you please stop accusing people of being bullies? That’s twice you’ve done it to different posters in five minutes. If having no sympathy with a woman who supports and perpetuates terrorism makes me a bully, I’ll take that.

@Blackberrycream

The Home Office saw she was brown....... Yes I’m sure that was it. The Supreme Court don’t agree with most on this thread. I think I will take their understanding of legality over the armchair experts here.

The Supreme Court weren’t ruling on the question of her citizenship. Just on whether or not she could return to the UK to fight her case.

So the Supreme Court haven’t validated the Home Office decision - most legal opinions I have read predict the decision to strip her of her citizenship will be overturned. The government is just using delay tactics to stall her return to the Uk.

She was 15 when she left! I think she should be able to come home. She must be totally traumatised. I can’t imagine she is a danger to anyone. She would be home if she was white or cute/charming.

@VinylDetective
Don’t pretend that you do not understand what I am asking you. But let me ask again so you could stop pretending: do you think it is ethical to dump your garbage in your neighbour’s house cos that neighbour is an elderly person and can’t stop you from doing it?

The Supreme Court don’t agree with most on this thread. I think I will take their understanding of legality over the armchair experts here

Quite

Ironic, too, that so many who've insisted she should be dealt with by the British courts seem to have missed the "Court" bit which comes just after "Supreme"

@Puzzledandpissedoff

The Supreme Court don’t agree with most on this thread. I think I will take their understanding of legality over the armchair experts here

Quite

Ironic, too, that so many who've insisted she should be dealt with by the British courts seem to have missed the "Court" bit which comes just after "Supreme"

The Supreme Court hasn't made a decision about her yet. Just that she can't come here while the decision is made.

I am not going to apologise for calling terrorists garbage and have no sympathy whatsoever for terrorists. So my question is not about sympathy for her. My question is from the point of view of the rest of the world, especially developing countries like Bangladesh or war-ridden countries like Syria. It’s as simple as that.

@Puzzledandpissedoff

The Supreme Court don’t agree with most on this thread. I think I will take their understanding of legality over the armchair experts here

Quite

Ironic, too, that so many who've insisted she should be dealt with by the British courts seem to have missed the "Court" bit which comes just after "Supreme"

As others have pointed out, the ruling is not about the point your raised. Also, the main question is who is responsible for creating a terrorist in the first place.

@Puzzledandpissedoff

The Supreme Court don’t agree with most on this thread. I think I will take their understanding of legality over the armchair experts here

Quite

Ironic, too, that so many who've insisted she should be dealt with by the British courts seem to have missed the "Court" bit which comes just after "Supreme"

I’m a lawyer myself and you both have clearly misunderstood the Supreme Court ruling.

The Supreme Court were not ruling on the issue of citizenship. It’s was simply deciding whether or not Shamima could return to the Uk to fight her citizenship case. As I said upthread- it is very likely that the Home Office decision to strip her of her citizenship will be overturned as being in breach of both UK and international law (due to the fact she was left stateless).

I can accept that at 15 she may well have been groomed. However at 15 I knew right from wrong. Even at 3 my nephew to a certain extent knows right from wrong.
If she had said I really regret what I did. If I go back and do things differently believe me I would. I'd be okay with her coming back here. However she's not said that has she. Not once has she shown an ounce of remorse or regret. What did she say Severed heads in bins didn't phase her. She's 21 now she can't use being groomed as her defense.