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?

im not concerned about her. Im saying she's a uk citizen and we'd no right to try and foist her on any other country. She can feel the full strength of the law here - fine. But it's very unfair on another country if we try to palm her off on them.

She was a British citizen, born raised and radicalised here. Stripping her of that is a dick move by the UK towards whatever country we expect to pick up the pieces.

Most sensible post I’ve read on here in a long time.

“ Full strength of the law here”

Do me a favour. Especially under Labours watch.

Labour are lawless ( Look at Khans London for evidence if you don’t believe me) …

Jeez. 🙄

Usually if you commit a crime on foreign soil you are dealt with by that country’s law. There would be an abrupt end to tourism otherwise. I guess the logical thing to happen to her is for either Syria or an international court to try her for war crimes. What crimes has she committed in the UK? What would the UK have legal power to try her for?

That's a different point to her citizenry

Think they’d go to prison in UK if they were caught, wouldn’t they? Do we repatriate terrorists? Seem to remember the Lockerbie bomber was repatriated only because he was dying.

What crimes has she committed in the UK? What would the UK have legal power to try her for?

I wondered that. So many posters have said she should come back to UK and be tried here but as pp have said, people are normally tried in the country where they commit the crimes.

Which is a different point to citizenship. She can tried anywhere but as a uk citizen

TheKeatingFive.
Thank you for answering my question.
However if she was tried in UK for crimes committed abroad wouldn’t it be impossible to find witnesses etc?

This 👆🏻

There’s no evidence she committed any crimes abroad. Do you think Syria / Iraq are busy prosecuting every child bride married to an Isis soldier?

There’s no evidence she committed any crimes abroad. Do you think Syria is busy prosecuting ever child bride married to an Isis soldier?

If there’s no evidence of her committing crimes abroad then why are people suggesting she should be tried in UK? What would she be tried for?

The decision to deprive her of her citizenship was a political one, made by a politician in response to the baying mob incited by sensationalist media reporting.
The courts have decided they do not have the power to override that decision, that’s all

Im no expert but I understand that simply the act of defecting / migrating to isis territory would make her eligible for prosecution under UK terrorism laws - supporting a terrorist group etc. However it would like be discovered during trial that she actually committed no crimes overseas, so that would no doubt be a factor .

The decision to deprive her of her citizenship was a political one.

In which case maybe the Labour government will reverse it.

If there was public support for it they would . Until then, unlikely.

Syria Is still war torn and probably doesn’t have much by way of civil courts going on. Among about 6 million people who have been dispossessed since 2011 SB is not really on their radar. So perhaps she should stay there until the war is over and they are ready to deal with her in court. If she has British Citizenship by then - which she may, Keir Starmer is a v different type from the last lot - the UK would be obliged to give her appropriate legal assistance.

What crimes has she committed in the UK? What would the UK have legal power to try her for?

As far as we know - and the security services may well know more - just about the only thing she could be tried for is joining a proscribed organisation, and with all the bleating about "she was groomed!" I strongly suspect she'd walk, though doubtless with some inevitably ineffective "monitoring" promised

I also strongly suspect that the "poor Shamima" contingent would immediately howl that she was being unfairly targeted should anyone even try to monitor her, knowing perfectly well that there's little chance of her activities in Syria ever becoming fully known

And never mind the potential risk to the rest of us, which noticeably is never mentioned by those determined she should be allowed to return

Other Jihadi brides have been found complicit in the keeping, mistreatment and death of slaves; women and children slaves who were starved, raped and tortured. Then there were the morality squads, comprised of Jihadi brides who used physical brutality to punish women who broke dress codes, failed to have a male chaperone or worked in a proscribed job. Sometimes they selected women to be killed. Then there's the whole issue of sewing people into suicide vests. Often the people in these vests were primary school aged children, some of them selected for death by their own parents.

It's very naive to think that Begum would have been living like an ordinary housewife. We don't even know if she really had three children. It was a mistake to let anyone who joined ISIS/ISIL back, but that doesn't mean we should just shrug and let her in.

It's very naive to think that Begum would have been living like an ordinary housewife

Probably, yes, but I don't imagine it would be easy to prove what Shamima's done in a country that's effectively become a failed state - and in the UK we don't convict on what we only suspect someone of

Brave of you to mention the three alleged children though. AFAIK nobody's ever offered any proof of these either - far less that all three died - but some who insist we can't be certain of any wrongdoing seem to swing the other way on this and believe that Shamima's word is enough

She's a tricky one for me...
While I do believe in "play stupid games, get stupid prizes", she was just 15 years old. A child. And also a child who has gone through a hell of a lot of trauma. She's had 3 children, all dead. The 2 friends she travelled with are also believed to have been killed within quite a short time of arriving in Syria.

BUT, the deal-breaker for me is that she shows no remorse.

Lots of people on here seem to think she hasn’t shown remorse but her lawyers say otherwise. She said she is ashamed according to them.

Also, highly unlikely she’d show any remorse while still living within reach of Isis, given that there are reports of a girl trying to leave and being beaten to death.

Even so, remorse doesn’t affect your citizenship, there are plenty of people who have committed terribly crimes in this and other countries and don’t feel - or have to show - remorse in order to keep their citizenship.

From the Standard: “The fact of the matter is this - that Shamima, as with other British women and children, is arbitrarily detained in a prison camp in north east Syria," her lawyers said in a written statement on her behalf.
"It is not a refugee camp - those detained are unable to leave and the conditions have, with ever greater urgency, been categorised by every international body as well as by the UK courts in Shamima's case itself, as constituting torture and inhuman treatment."
Ms Begum has admitted knowingly joining a proscribed organisation. She said that she was "ashamed" to have done so and regretted it.”

It is not making excuses to say that she was a child groomed at the time. She’s very obviously being made an example of, as other posters have said hundreds of male fighters have been allowed back to the UK.

Oh her lawyers said she shows remorse? No need for any further investigation, that's me convinced!😂

No, that is absolutely not what the courts decided. They clearly do have the power to override the decision. The courts have looked at the evidence seen by the then Home Secretary (which we haven't seen) and agreed that it supports the decision taken. They have also found, based on evidence from the Bangladeshi government, that she held Bangladeshi citizenship at the time the decision was taken, and the decision was therefore lawful.