Is Shamima Begum a victim or a criminal?

[ShamimaBegu]

Just listened to the podcasts about Shamima Begum. How can Shamima Begum not be viewed as a victim of grooming and sex trafficking? How on earth would a 15 year old got to Syria without adults making it happen?
She was married off and became pregnant on multiple occasions. She surely is as much a victim as a criminal?

Criminal

I think she’s a sociopath (I may be getting it’s confused with a psychopath 🤷‍♀️)

I don’t believe for one minute she was groomed (she knew exactly what she was doing) and she’s a danger to the people in the uk! I hope they never let her back in.

But it’s ok if she’s a danger to another family somewhere else? Even if she wasn’t born in their country and didn’t grow up there?

Initially, I saw her as a victim. However, having seen a couple of her TV interviews I have completely changed my mind.

I think she’s dangerous.

You could say that about anyone we deport or refuse citizenship/asylum.

Let Syria deal with her. She's made her own bed, let her lie in it.

She's a uk issue. Not any other countries issue. Bring her back and deal with her.

we are just not going to agree on this.
Most people we deport were born in the country we deport them to, or we couldn’t deport them.
She was not born or brought up in Syria and I cannot see why a country who had little to do with her going there should have to take responsibility for her, other than we can’t be bothered. It’s not right. And we would be playing merry hell if other countries did it to us.
She may have made her bed, but that’s not Syrias issue.

She is a home grown problem, nobody is denying it. However, we have dispensed with the obligation of claiming her back and there would be no moral justification for reinstating the obligation so why would we bother?

No, you couldn’t. It’s actually the exact opposite of deporting a criminal - it’s as if a person came from another country to the UK, committed alleged crimes, and then that country said ‘we don’t want them. Keep them in the UK.’

It was my problem, for sure. But then I said it wasn’t and there’s no moral reason for me to change my mind so even though it was my problem it now isn’t. It’s your problem.

I don’t see how that works!

Although maybe we should do that with all criminals. Rapists, murderers, paedophiles, thieves etc. We don’t want them in the UK, they’re dangerous! We should just ship them all off to poorer countries and wash our hands of them. Criminals born and raised in the UK aren’t our problem.

Tbf part of the reason Syria is in such a state is because we kinda helped create, train and arm ISIS in the first place, £3.8b of support seems somewhat lacking.

This

I wonder how the right leaning press would respond if a foreign national illegally entered the UK, was linked with violent extremism, but then not able to be deported as the country they originated from had stripped them of citizenship. Unbelievable that anyone thinks it is ok for the UK to do this.

Personally I lean to victim but regarding the citizenship issue it's really irrelevant imo.

I think the scariest thing in all this is that in ten years time we could well be looking back after some huge acts of terrorism, saying “If we hadn’t left all those people there, festering in inhumane conditions, this wouldn’t have happened. But we let it happen, resentment grew and opportunities for groups like Isis to exploit that abounded- and then they went on to
do this…”
I see a bit like Germany post WW1. Dealt with so harshly that resentment bubbled underneath so when someone came along promising to make it better people were desperate to listen and believe. I think this has parallels. Where are we convincing people that extremism has nothing to offer? That democracy and peace is the way forward? We aren’t. We’re convincing them that they will be left to rot, and if someone offers a better alternative then why wouldn’t they take it? And are we really saying that Syria has the means to keep everyone locked in camps indefinitely?
I think this is a scary road to be going down.

That's interesting in that it could also set a reverse precedent and thwart the current government's plans to send back illegals. The home countries could simply revoke their rights on security grounds and the UK would be obliged to keep them all.

She showed Josh photos of the children during the podcast

These are my thoughts also. If a 15 yo girl has a sexual relationship with someone 18 or over it is always considered that she is unable to consent (in law as well as people's general feelings) but in this instance this 15 yo is considered able to consent to what happened and is criminalised for it.

I just don't think you can have it both ways.

She is not a home grown problem because terrorism in not compatible with UK values. The shit she soaked up came from elsewhere.
But I agree, we shouldn’t be arsed with her.

Don't be so ridiculous. Actually you are being racist .

I don't know either way really TBH but what I don't understand is that why a 15 yo messaging an adult footballer offering blow jobs etc is a victim and too young to consent as its considered grooming but this 15 yo is a criminal. How can there be a blanket rule of any 15 engaging in sex is groomed but when it's radicalisation they aren't.

Criminal. She’d have been quite happy being filmed beheading someone.

I think she is both. Definitely a victim but also a criminal. However 'zero evidence of having done much' is not what is suggested by the recent court reports. I've read through them all and there are indications throughout that there was lots of secure evidence/closed material scrutinised as part of the case that suggests she was involved in activities that now mean she poses substantial risk.

I listened to Josh Baker talk about this on the Bad People podcast recently

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/p0fbbsc0

He gives a really nuanced answer to the question in the op. The idea that Josh Baker is some naive journalist trying to spin some positive PR for her on behalf of the BBC is ridiculous. He was seriously injured in an IS bomb himself and has also spent years interviewing Yazidi victims of IS. He is a great investigative journalist, and I think his podcast is really thought-provoking and one of the most objective analyses of the situation that I've heard.

He also makes a really good point about how leaving people in these camps is a ticking time bomb. Loads of people (some guilty, some not) were dumped in camps following the Iraq war, and many of these went on to become IS members. Many countries are now taking their citizens back from the camps to deal with them at home, which is what the British government should be doing. It is also really unfair to leave the Kurds to deal with all the people in the camps, especially given that they were so instrumental in defeating IS in the first place.

I’ve just listened - thanks for the link.

What I think might also happen is that if the Kurds decide they’ve had enough of guarding the canos, and it sounds like they are reaching that point, then they could just say nope, not doing it. And all those people who are so dangerous we should leave them to rot there, are free to go.
Leaving her there ‘to rot’ only works because at the moment another country is paying to guard her. When they no longer want to do that because they are fed up of guarding people from other countries who’ve decided they don’t want them back, what then?

This whole debate is so complex and so far beyond a simple ‘leave her there and then the problem is solved’. It is t solved, not even slightly. It could be brewing far far bigger problems. It really worries me.

Actually she's been moved to a camp which is not safe, but much safer than the first one. Do some research before posting rubbish.