Shamima Begum

[Mamabear04]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cm2n8xv61x3o

I'll admit I actually don't know much about this apart from it being on the news when it happened and I did watch a documentary about it. Do you think she should be allowed to have British citizenship? I mean she was a child when it happened, surely she was groomed? And now stateless, doomed to live indefinitely in a camp with nowhere to go? I think running away to join Isis is of course absolutely awful but surely she should be treated as a child that was groomed? Or am I missing something?

Well, quite. The educated middle class can understand the wider issues and defend her as a child who was a victim of grooming. Right now we have white working class, who read the papers with an underlying Islamophobic narrative, rioting and smashing stuff up because they thought a criminal might have been Muslim. Imagine their reaction when this Muslim girl is allowed back into “our (her) country”. They don’t care that she’s a victim of child grooming because she isn’t the acceptable face of a victim, ie. A young white girl. That’s my point.

No any child can be groomed. Those groomers worked as part of a gang and knew what they were doing. All three parents wanted the airports monitoring. Read the official findings and you'll see the failings. Three underage girls, all reported missing with their passports were allowed to leave the country.

Do people really not understand what being groomed entails? The word indoctrination mean anything?
Violent dangerous groups are good at convincing people to do awful things, from the Nazis to the Mansons.

They don’t care that she’s a victim of child grooming because she isn’t the acceptable face of a victim, ie. A young white girl. That’s my point.

Yes but you can't make that point in this case, because she's a massive terrorist.

Now, if she committed a different/lesser crime, and was banned, and people were being disproportionately harsh and hypocritical, then yes.

Say, she once condoned terrorism at 15 but is now embarrassed and ashamed - then I'd agree. It would be wrong to strip her of citizenship.

Or even if she did still go to Syria but years later was disturbed by what she saw, expressed remorse, apologised. But she defended it up until her citizenship came into question. She is rightly hated.

If any of our children were killed by this woman or her husband, there wouldn't be any of this grooming nonsense. But it's all very distant and impersonal to us, so we can sit here and defend this person.

I think most people would agree that a lot of people have been groomed to do terrible things. It doesn’t make the things less terrible. Being “a massive terrorist” doesn’t change how she got there. She was a child, groomed and abused until she was complicit.

Don’t get me wrong I agree that everything about what she did and the people she joined and all their activities are absolutely awful- I’m not excusing terrorist activity of course. But not being sorry enough shouldn’t be a condition to allow you basic human rights within the law. She shouldn’t have been left stateless and abandoned by her country of birth. Even shitty humans have human rights. And so does someone who was manipulated into something terrible.

I think she will come back eventually but I would be concerned about potential risk so she should be monitored. No one of course will like it because of the cost but she was a child. I think time is running out for her and if she doesn't come back soon her life is probably ruined.

I think there needs to be some kind of better process.

No, she isn't going to "come back eventually".

She has exhausted all possible appeals, thankfully.

On those pictures she seems to be walking through that airport confidentially enough. It obviously goes with out saying though that no one knows what was on her mind.
If she had shown remorse and had no spouted out about heads in bins not fazing her she may have had a good chance of being allowed back. I don’t think she did herself any favors.

Nope. She’s appealing to the ECHR next. I think that is the last place she can appeal.

We don't know the nature of the evidence collected by the intelligence services, but we do know that they provided evidence to the then Home Secretary that has also been seen by the courts that indicates that she would be a threat to public safety if she returns to the UK.

That's a different issue - we don't check people leaving the UK. Other countries do check your passport when you are leaving.

Apparently not. Her lawyer has started another one. The cost of this.

Since the 80's we've checked passports and had the capability to put people on no fly lists. It would have been easy to have every under 16 year old flying without an adult checked.

Or am I missing something?

The main tthing you're perhaps missing, OP, is that the removal of her British citizenship has been found to be legal again and again

I get that people believe there's a moral argument to be had, but that doesn't change the law - and besides, for me at least the security of the vast majority comes way before Shamima's individual interests

From memory the government tried to make the case that she could have Bangladeshi citizenship to support their case for stripping her of her British citizenship but Bangladesh itself said no.
I have a slightly different take. She was (and in my opinion still is) a British citizen and we are dodging our responsibility to just leave her there. We need to return her and try her in a British court according to British law.
We don't have to like her or forgive her.

The British courts considered your opinion and rejected it. Under Bangladeshi citizenship law, she remained a Bangladeshi citizen from birth until the age of 21. Bangladesh have no denied that. They gave only refused to let her travel to Bangladesh (just as our courts have).

Personally, I don’t feel qualified to have an opinion on whether she should be permitted to live in the U.K. or have her citizenship reinstated. I defer to our courts to make the right decision and trust that, with access to all the information, including plenty that we don’t have, they have made the correct decision. I gather she is now taking her case to the ECHRs, which deals with rights, not national citizenship laws. She may have more luck there, but the ECHRs cannot override sovereign laws. It can only advise. I suspect she is wasting her time and would be better off seeking to return to Bangladesh.

The ECHRs cannot override sovereign laws. It can only advise

Yes, and under the circumstances I'd say that's just as well

To my mind it's not for the ECHR or anyone else to interfere with another nation's security arrangements, and as you rightly said the services will have a lot more information than we do on exactly what risk Shamima may present - iin fact didn't one of them say that if the general public knew what they do the cries of "poor groomed Shamima" may become rather less?

That was Sajid Javid, the Home Secretary who stripped Begum of her British nationality. The courts have also seen the evidence from our intelligence services. We don't know what this evidence is as the relevant judgements have not been made public, but the courts agreed that the evidence supported and continues to support the decision.

It wasn't that she could have Bangladeshi citizenship or, as another poster suggests, that she could apply for it. The Bangladeshi government provided evidence to the courts that contradicts some of the public pronouncements by Bangladeshi ministers and showed that she actually held Bangladeshi citizenship at the time the decision was taken by virtue of her mother being Bangladeshi. The evidence was that her citizenship would expire on her 21st birthday unless she took steps to keep it, which she did not. That is the position accepted by the courts. More recent submissions from the Bangladeshi government suggest she may still hold Bangladeshi citizenship, but the courts are working on the basis of the original submissions and assuming she is currently stateless.

Works for me, prh47bridge, and thanks for confirming who made the remark

FWIW I don't automatically trust governments to get it right all the time either, but that's where professional advisers such as the secuity services come in and I'll take their assessments above some of the nonsense spouted on SM

The Bangladeshi government provided evidence to the courts that contradicts some of the public pronouncements by Bangladeshi ministers and showed that she actually held Bangladeshi citizenship at the time the decision was taken by virtue of her mother being Bangladeshi. The evidence was that her citizenship would expire on her 21st birthday unless she took steps to keep it, which she did not. That is the position accepted by the courts

Edited to add thanks for clarifying this too - it would be nice to think it would stop the usual howls of "British made her stateless!" but I doubt it

She contributed to the destruction of the lives of the people of Syria. An untold, catastrophic tragedy for which she can never make restitution, and shows no remorse. She joined a group that attempted to enslave them, effectively, because she wanted to create her own statelet in place of theirs, and with abhorrent violence. Why should they have to put up with arrogant, violent westerners like her, ruining their lives, killing their families? What possible excuse could she have for that? What does her age or gender have to do with her living off loot? It is up to them to enact justice as far as she is concerned. If the group hadn’t destroyed Syria, she would not be sitting in ruins now. The Syrians themselves have no choice but to live in camps. She declared herself to be a ‘citizen’ of the Islamic State which is a de facto declaration of no longer being British, as there is no dual nationality between two nations at war. Being British is not a plastic card that you can use cynically to seek a place of safety, having fought against the foundations of that very security. The British passport grants the holder rights and privileges while travelling. The government can cancel your passport if it wishes. The Bangladeshi citizenship thing was a sleight of hand and we all know it.

Exactly, poor little girl who isn't sp innocent.... if people read everything they might change their minds

This

Islamic states brides helped facilitate the rape of Yasidi girls by the IS husbands. Sick.

She contributed to the destruction of the lives of the people of Syria. An untold, catastrophic tragedy for which she can never make restitution, and shows no remorse.

If she committed crimes in Syria why should she be tried in UK - as posters have suggested should happen?