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

Most Brits want to have their cake and eat it, exactly the same with Brexit.

@JorjaSays

I trust the people saying "she was only a child" are extending the same empathy to Jamie Bulger's killers.

No ones suggesting we should strip them of their citizenship though are we?

Posts like yours are missing the point.

I have just looked it up and UK doesn't have an extradition treaty with Syria, so how she will get back here is a mystery.

@Dannydevitoiloveyourart it’s got nothing to do with racism. She’s not allowed to return to this country as a British citizen because she joined an dangerous organisation who want to destroy all westerners.

She’s got Bangladeshi heritage and she’s not welcome there either. They don’t want her either so nothing to do with racism and everything to do with protecting the people who live in the country. And also reminding any other stupid girl who wants to go fight with isis not to!

No I'm sure none of us want any old criminal back but she was 15 when she was radicalised, a child under the laws of this country.
Where was safeguarding at her school? There are clear policies and guidelines to protect children from radicalisation, what were her parents doing?
Of course she appears mask like she is clearly traumatised, PTSD goes without saying. almost as soon as she got there she was abused/raped by a man several years older than her, three children dead. The girls she went there with are dead
This isn't just any old terrorist or Abu Hamza it is a special case.

She was a young girl grieving for her Mother and struggling generally with her home life. She was groomed by IS recruiters who basically told her she’d have an amazing life, loving family, she’d be cared for etc. She leapt at the chance to feel wanted and loved as many troubled, naive and vulnerable teenagers do.

I don’t think she’s ‘dangerous’ at all. She herself said she has just been a housewife since she moved there. Yeah, a housewife from the age of 15, what a life! She’s never killed, nor has she been involved in the recruitment process. She just cooked, cleaned and had babies who sadly all died.

I feel for her. I genuinely don’t think she’s a threat at all, perhaps I’m naive... I just think she realises she fucked up as a stupid teenager and wants to be back with her family.

I don’t feel able to make a judgement on her specific circumstances, how far she has been indoctrinated, de-sensitised, what her current loyalties nay be.

But whatever they are, the principle of stripping people of their citizenship / nationality seems to be a dangerous and anti democratic move.

We need to deal with our own. If she is a danger, better under surveillance here than Bangladesh.

We lock people up as punishment. Making them non-citizens is a whole other matter.

This case sets a dangerous precedent for all British citizens but particularly those who are ethnic minorities.

This in spades. There’s a really distasteful xenophobic undertone to this discussion.

We all know how the government treated the windrush generation. Not only this but they’ve already been cases of first generation citizens sent back to their place of birth, countries they left as babies, where they have no ties nor speak the language. It’s inhumane, whichever way you look at it.

[quote HOkieCOkie]@Dannydevitoiloveyourart it’s got nothing to do with racism. She’s not allowed to return to this country as a British citizen because she joined an dangerous organisation who want to destroy all westerners.

She’s got Bangladeshi heritage and she’s not welcome there either. They don’t want her either so nothing to do with racism and everything to do with protecting the people who live in the country. And also reminding any other stupid girl who wants to go fight with isis not to![/quote]
Heritage is only her race not her nationality. Hence the racism.

She has never lived in Bangladesh and never even visited the country. She has never had Bangladeshi citizenship and Bangladesh have confirmed she’s not entitled to citizenship either.

How ridiculous people can’t see this is about race. No one would be suggesting she goes “back to her country” if she was white would they?

Also show me all the white Brits involved in the IRA, who were only British nationals and had no other citizenship, who were stripped of their citizenship leaving them stateless. Perhaps then I’ll concede you have a point.

I would add that from a gender point of view - there are many men, who were not children when they went to join isis, who by virtue of being male were able to move through that territory and ultimately escape and return to the UK.

Where was safeguarding at her school? There are clear policies and guidelines to protect children from radicalisation, what were her parents doing?

She was radicalised online. There were three years of those girls and their school and parents saw nothing. Why? Because part of their radicalisation would have been how to avoid detection I guess. It’s a long time since I was one but I seem to remember 15 year olds can be pretty devious and cunning.

Of course she appears mask like she is clearly traumatised, PTSD goes without saying. almost as soon as she got there she was abused/raped by a man several years older than her, three children dead. The girls she went there with are dead

This is just twisting the facts. She talks about her husband, she rejects any suggestion she was raped. She is quite matter of fact about the atrocities she’s seen which she thinks are defensible. She was an active participant in Isis terrorism.

She is a British citizen who was groomed and radicalised as a child and completely fell through any safeguarding nets. Of course she should be allowed back in the country and given the support she needs. But that won't happen because she's a Muslim.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shamima_Begum

According to this if she enters Pakistan she will be executed as they have zero tolerance for terrorists and she was not just a housewife

It was the other girl whose mum died

Don’t know where the “years” came from - should be “there were three girls”.

The naivety on this thread is breathtaking. I hope none of you are ever called up for jury service, any half decent defence counsel would be able to persuade you of anything.

My understanding is that lots of others in a similar situation were bought back, she's just being used an example. I feel whatever they choose to do they need to be consistent and apply it to all

@Norwaydidnthappen Shamina's mother is alive. You are mixing her up with another girl.

Her case is difficult. Deradicalisation programmes don't work well, and she would definitely have to undergo one if or when she's back. She was part of the women's police, enforcing ISIS rules, and has somehow a role in the Caliphate.

She surely cannot go back to her family as she was radicalised as a teenager when living with them, and she would definitely be a security risk. She won't be able to go back to a normal life with some counselling here and there.

Just want to point out that her mum didn't die before she went to Syria, that was another girl with a similar name.

[quote FrostyChocolateMilkshake]@TingTastic groomed at 15 to be radicalised against our country...

Not sure how you can have sympathy for her. She's made her decision. She can deal with it.

Hope she rots in hell with all the other terrorists.[/quote]
You are aware that we have taken numerous of other terrorists back that a predominantly male adults with very little press?

I find it amusing that nobody has responded to questions about us keeping hold of criminals from other countries? Should we keep those? We were quite happy to extradite Hamza as he wasn't our problem but we won't take back our own problem in the form of Begum? Smacks of hypocrisy.

@AnitaB888

"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)."

and no doubt Cherie Blair or one of her ilk will step in to defend her and then she'll sue the UK for damages for the tune of £100,000s meanwhile our veterans are sleeping on the streets.

Whoever said 'the law is an ass' got it right.

Well, no. It simply means you cannot choose to arbitrarily decide to strip someone’s citizenship. It’s not about whether you feel sorry for this individual or whether she constitutes a danger or any of that - it’s far bigger.

It sets a precedent which can then be followed in later cases.
If we carry on with this and strip her of her citizenship because we don’t like a crime she has committed in another country, then this has to apply in all cases.
So if someone travels here from somewhere else, commits a crime, is tried and convicted and serves their time, their original country can decide to strip them of their citizenship, just as we have done. Which means that they cannot then be deported because they have nowhere to be deported to. So now, they are in the U.K. permanently. Turn it around, make Britain the receiving country, and imagine how you would feel if someone born elsewhere came here to commit an awful crime, but their country decided they could say “Actually, they aren’t ours any more so you can keep them forever.” Would you still be happy with that? If not, then you cannot do the same to Begum (or more accurately, to the country she is now in.)

There cannot be one law for Britain and another for the rest of the world. If you want to set a precedent for stripping people of their citizenship, you need to be aware of all the consequences, well after this case has closed, and be prepared to accept them.

I dont think that argument holds water baby. What we decide here in our courts sets a prescedent for us only. It has little influence on what other countries do or dont do in their's.

I dont think Britain should be able to arbitrarily strip people of British citizenship but that's a separate issue than unable to deport foreign criminals.

@Sarahandco

I would add that from a gender point of view - there are many men, who were not children when they went to join isis, who by virtue of being male were able to move through that territory and ultimately escape and return to the UK.

This is an excellent point. I think the government is trying to win political points by all of this and burning millions on a lost case, nothing else.

So if someone travels here from somewhere else, commits a crime, is tried and convicted and serves their time, their original country can decide to strip them of their citizenship, just as we have done. Which means that they cannot then be deported because they have nowhere to be deported to. So now, they are in the U.K. permanently.

This is the precedent we are setting.

What @babybythesea is saying is true we can’t pick and choose the laws when it suits UK.

I've never agreed with us keeping criminals from other countries im appalled that there was a case where a man killed his British girlfriend and successfully got citizenship in the UK as he had lived here for years YES he lived here in a British PRISON

@Porcupineintherough well they aren't separate issues, for essentially stopped Syria from deporting her back here? Oh but wait, on the UK are allowed to deport foreign criminals when not taking own back.

People need get over it, she is British. Like it or not, she'll be back eventually.