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

I think she made a huge mistake but needs a fair trial here in her home country. She was a vulnerable child when she made such poor and disastrous decisions.

I agree @AlwaysLatte

@HeelsHandbagPerfumeCoffee

Apologists. Such provocative hyperbole to divert from your weak points *@VinylDetective* Ms Begum has no apologists. There are posters with misgivings about due process It’s risible to dismiss posters whom you disagree with as apologists. It shows a lack of intellectual rigour, you are resorting to name calling in lack of any compelling points

The term apologists only applies to dog owners then?

It’s hardly a weak point to note that it would be difficult for the CPS to bring charges here when the only offence Begam has committed in this country is the theft of a passport. The UK government can’t charge and try her for terrorist acts carried out in Syria as no evidence or witnesses would be available.

I may have missed something, she clearly has some obnoxious opinions but exactly what crimes are she accused of?

@SpaceRaiders Completely agree with your statements. You can be sure that if she was white there'd be no question of her being a British Citizen and needing to face justice here, and be recognised as Britain's problem to deal with.

She is a threat, as are many people who are in the justice system and being dealt with as they are our responsibility.

“It has been mentioned @burnedout but none of her apologists want to address it. Too difficult I guess.”

It isn’t difficult @VinylDetective, and the reason her “apologists” haven’t addressed it is because it isn’t a key consideration here.

Personally, no, I don’t think the likelihood of securing a future U.K. conviction for crimes committed has any bearing on whether we can legally or morally make her stateless.

Obviously I don’t particularly want her free to walk the streets here- but I’d imagine Syria and Bangladesh feel exactly the same.

Not much more to say on the subject IMO.

@jasjas1973

How is she going to get to zoom/teams, plus get legal representation whilst in a detention camp in Syria?

The UK shouldn't dump her on the RoW, whatever she has done, she is our problem and should face UK justice, same as any other suspect.

she committed her crimes abroad therefore let them foot the bill to keep her in prison, why should the British taxpayer pay for her 3 meals a day and cosy bed..

she should be dealt with in Sharia Law style considering she is so eager to be part of that side of Islam

she should be dealt with in Sharia Law style considering she is so eager to be part of that side of Islam
No
She’s A UK citizen, she should be dealt with under UK jurisdiction and if given a sentence served in UK

Cosy bed? ⬅️Don't be so silly, such frothy indignation is daft. If detained it'll likely be in secure setting not 5star with 300thread count sheet and cosy bed

The crimes were committed in Syria. Let them try her and then we can have this discussion again after she is released from jail. They can film an episode of Banged Up Abroad and it can be an educational tool for others.

"The crimes were committed in Syria. Let them try her and then we can have this discussion again after she is released from jail. They can film an episode of Banged Up Abroad and it can be an educational tool for others."

@JorjaSays

'Well, a white person probably wouldn't want to kill you for being white and from a Christian background. I'm pretty sure Shamima wouldn't extend you the same empathy you give her. More than likely, she'd happily watch you burn to death and rejoice at the prospect'

No, but as a mixed race black, med and Asian person a White person may want me dead or denied basic rights or try to deny the fact that I'm British just for how I look? I'm not really sure what your point is in that respect.

End of the day, she's British and should be treat as we would treat any other British citizen and the reality is that if she looked differently this would be a completely different issue and there would be no calling into question who should take her in and make her face justice!

www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/terrorism-guidance-relation-prosecution-individuals-involved-terrorism-overseas
Knock yourself out Vinyl. Joining a Terrorism group is a criminal offence. So that would be where the CPS would start.

Can you explain what you mean by “apologist”? I think you mean “Posters who won’t give a knee jerk reaction of condemnation but are considering the wider context” but I might be wrong?

Well, a white person probably wouldn't want to kill you for being white and from a Christian background

Jesus. Like certainly is black and white for you, eh?

*Life

She went over to join isis who happily were not successful in establishing a caliphate. Had they been successful then she wouldn’t want to return, she’d be enjoying her life married to an isis fighter and trying to recruit others.

She made her choice and she was on the losing side but now she wants to come back. She made herself stateless by going to join isis in my opinion, she rejected the uk so why should she be allowed back?

I accept she was young when she went but I don’t think that means she was coerced into it or didn’t know her own mind. There was considerable planning that went into it so she managed to plan it out and decide to go, it wasn’t an impulsive decision.

I think the court decision was right, she would still be a terrorist threat and she shouldn’t be brought back at any expense of the government.

I accept she was young when she went but I don’t think that means she was coerced into it or didn’t know her own mind. There was considerable planning that went into it so she managed to plan it out and decide to go, it wasn’t an impulsive decision

There were originally 7 girls who were questioned by the police (without their parents). 3 of them left (including Shamima) and the remaining 4 were made wards of court to protect them from the consequences of radicalisation.

Had it worked out differently , Shamima might never have gone - and if she hadn’t, authorities here would have been so worried about the effects of radicalisation that they would have taken her into care.

She was a child who was groomed. There’s no getting away from it. There are bombers/violent men/extremists in the UK who haven’t had their nationality taken but this one girl who ran away to get married and hasn’t hurt anyone has had her nationality taken. I have a child slightly younger and at 15 she was angry, hormonal and believing anything she heard on TikTok. I am just lucky that nobody tried to radicalise her.

Heels she is not a UK citizen. She has no UK passport now and she has the right to obtain a Bangladeshi one as linked above which is where her father lives.

The latest judgment is not about whether her passport was rightly revoked or not nor whether she is white or whatever it is simply the court balancing the risks to public safety and presumably problems of our storming the camp to get her out or something against whatever "rights" she might have in the UK.

The court's "press summary" which the supreme court issues with all its judgments is often the best starting point as the court does a really good summary of what is a very long judgment so is easier to read and yet catches the key points.

www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2020-0156-press-summary.pdf

She made herself stateless by going to join isis in my opinion

Perhaps ‘in your opinion’ but not crucially, in international law.

she has the right to obtain a Bangladeshi one as linked above which is where her father lives.

She doesn’t. It was revoked. The UK are making her stateless.

The Security /service in the UK does feel there is a threat. This is from the 48 page judgment:

"The material provided by the Security Service included a detailed statement dated April 2017 on the threat to national security from UK-linked individuals who had travelled to ISIL-controlled territory to align with ISIL. It explained that, following ISIL’s declaration of a caliphate in June 2014, it had encouraged individuals to travel to Syria and Iraq to align with the group on a permanent basis. The Security Service’s assessment was that anyone who had travelled voluntarily to ISIL-controlled territory to align with ISIL since the declaration of the caliphate was aware of the ideology and aims of ISIL and the attacks and atrocities that it had carried out. As such, they were assessed to have made a deliberate decision to align themselves with the group and its ideology in support of its terrorism-related activity.

The primary role for most women who travelled to join the group was as wives of fighters and mothers of their children, raising the next generation of fighters and citizens of the caliphate. Anyone who travelled to ISIL-controlled territory, even to fill non-combatant roles, was actively supporting a terrorist organisation that was engaged in mass murder and grave human rights abuses, with an agenda to intimidate and attack governments and citizens globally.

18.The Security Service advised that the threat from individuals who returned to the United Kingdom from ISIL-controlled territory could manifest itself in a number of ways: (1) involvement in ISIL-directed attack planning, (2) involvement in ISIL-enabled attacks, (3) radicalising and recruiting UK-based associates, (4) providing support to ISIL operatives, and (5) posing a latent threat to the United Kingdom".

Fine but the decision to remove her citizenship was taken on national security grounds which was legal as she could apply for Bangladeshi citizenship.

as she could apply for Bangladeshi citizenship.

How would people in the U.K. feel if other countries starting pulling stunts like that on them?

She’s never set foot in Bangladesh. How can anyone justify making it their problem?

So why have they let certain people who fought in Syria back in? It’s that the rules aren’t being applied fairly.