Shamima Begum - misogyny at its finest?

[Schmoana]

Just saw the interview on GMB. It has struck me for a long time that there are hundreds of male ISIS fighters who are British citizens who have been allowed back and prosecuted where appropriate, even without grooming being a factor, and having been directly involved in killing. It’s hardly even reported. But this one woman has been vilified by the British people and British media, and made the figurehead of all that is wrong with ISIS. Her British citizenship has been stripped for populism.

Why is this one woman being held to different standards? What is the difference here between her and the hundreds of men who have been accepted back?

I simply disagree with the perspective of forcing other less well quipped nations to deal with a problem we sent to them.

That’s pretty racist. Syria can handle the legal proceedings, they have been doing so for the past 3 yrs since the fall of ISIS trying and sentencing thousands of ISIS members from 160 different countries. No one is “forcing” Syria to do this, this is normal process for what you do with a foreign born criminal in Syria that committed crimes in Syria. And the U.K. didn’t “send” Begum to them, she went there on her own and committed crimes there.

And you’re free to have your opinion, you just have to recognise that it’s not what most governments with all their experts have decided to do. Surely you can see to make an exception now for Begum would be unfair on all the other British ISIS members already prosecuted and sentenced?

Crack on and sneer at 'academics' if it makes you feel better. You've repeatedly made erroneous claims and presented untrue information in this thread whilst calling names.

No I did no such thing. You were the one who falsely said the US had repatriated all their ISIS members when they had not. And for all your name calling, you’ve done most of that in this thread.

I have not presented untrue information at all. Even the U.N. security council thing you tried to be clever by posting the US veto of the DRAFT resolution. The US was only country to veto the DRAFT did not mention repatriation at all. You tried to fool readers to think it was the same as the FINAL resolution I posted about which was vetoed by US, U.K. and France because it required “mandatory repatriation”. Don’t think I didn’t notice that.

Why should her rights as a British citizen be diminished due to an accident of birth over which she had no control?

Her rights as a British citizen were diminished not because of “accident of birth over which she had no control” but because she joined ISIS FFS.

@PlanDeRaccordement

I simply disagree with the perspective of forcing other less well quipped nations to deal with a problem we sent to them.

That’s pretty racist. Syria can handle the legal proceedings, they have been doing so for the past 3 yrs since the fall of ISIS trying and sentencing thousands of ISIS members from 160 different countries. No one is “forcing” Syria to do this, this is normal process for what you do with a foreign born criminal in Syria that committed crimes in Syria. And the U.K. didn’t “send” Begum to them, she went there on her own and committed crimes there.

And you’re free to have your opinion, you just have to recognise that it’s not what most governments with all their experts have decided to do. Surely you can see to make an exception now for Begum would be unfair on all the other British ISIS members already prosecuted and sentenced?

Yawn. You simply keep repeating yourself.

If your best argument to an well recognised and emerging international crisis is 'we should do what we've always done' despite the current situation being radically different to previous criminal proceedings, then I'm reasonably confident the experts you sneer at don't have much to worry about.

Nice to see you've brought back the unfounded slurs too.
Very Groundhog Day

I'd love to see you actually try and explain the 'racism' you perceive.

[quote PlanDeRaccordement]@AlexaShutUp
“Actually, you are the one who is reading this wrong. Neither parent needs to be British.”

No
If you were born in the UK on or after 1 January 1983, you’ll be a British citizen if one of your parents was a British citizen and ‘settled’ in the UK when you were born.

Read it again. It says if one of your parents was a British citizen AND settled in U.K. when you were born. Not “or”[/quote]
No, you read it again.

You’re automatically a British citizen if, when you were born, either:

your mother was a British citizen or settled in the UK

your father was a British citizen or settled in the UK and was married to your mother.

From www.gov.uk/apply-citizenship-born-uk/uk-until-10

The fact that you think it is British citizen and settled in the UK suggests that you don't really understand what settled status means. However, you can carry on spouting misinformation if you wish.

@PlanDeRaccordement

Why should her rights as a British citizen be diminished due to an accident of birth over which she had no control?

Her rights as a British citizen were diminished not because of “accident of birth over which she had no control” but because she joined ISIS FFS.

No, that's not true. If someone with two British born parents went off and joined ISIS, their citizenship rights would not be revoked.

I am not arguing that SB should face no consequences as a result of her actions. Merely that the consequences should be the same for all British citizens, regardless of who their parents are.

@PlanDeRaccordement

Crack on and sneer at 'academics' if it makes you feel better. You've repeatedly made erroneous claims and presented untrue information in this thread whilst calling names.

No I did no such thing. You were the one who falsely said the US had repatriated all their ISIS members when they had not. And for all your name calling, you’ve done most of that in this thread.

I have not presented untrue information at all. Even the U.N. security council thing you tried to be clever by posting the US veto of the DRAFT resolution. The US was only country to veto the DRAFT did not mention repatriation at all. You tried to fool readers to think it was the same as the FINAL resolution I posted about which was vetoed by US, U.K. and France because it required “mandatory repatriation”. Don’t think I didn’t notice that.

Do you have a link to this resolution that calls for mandatory repatriation - I cannot find it and am pretty busy to search. I assume you have it handy. I assume it's different to this one which is consistently reported as per my previous post? https://apnews.com/article/virus-outbreak-us-news-international-news-middle-east-islamic-state-group-24cdd46ea9ba18218d1f52c9a4f332c5

Even if the US vetoed it, what's your point?
Are you still trying to use it as justification for your childish name calling?

You seem very focussed on calling names and 'winning' arguments that you keep creating.

Is starting and winning meaningless arguments more important to you than actually discussing, learning or sharing information? Interesting priorities

@AlexaShutUp
I got my information from
www.inbrief.co.uk/immigration-law/uk-citizenship/

Which stated
“If you were born in the UK on or after 1 January 1983, you’ll be a British citizen if one of your parents was a British citizen and ‘settled’ in the UK when you were born.”

And it appears the page I was using was incorrect. It happens.

@PlanDeRaccordement
I did no such thing

The “experts” from academia’s ivory tower that agree with you, you mean.

Oh sure, definitely no sneering at expertise there!

[quote PlanDeRaccordement]@AlexaShutUp
I got my information from
www.inbrief.co.uk/immigration-law/uk-citizenship/

Which stated
“If you were born in the UK on or after 1 January 1983, you’ll be a British citizen if one of your parents was a British citizen and ‘settled’ in the UK when you were born.”

And it appears the page I was using was incorrect. It happens.[/quote]
You know if that had happened to anyone else you'd be shouting 'liar'

But of course you're simply 'mistaken' when you dogmatically insist you're correct and engage in needless arguments based on a cursory scan of a website

[quote PlanDeRaccordement]@AlexaShutUp
I got my information from
www.inbrief.co.uk/immigration-law/uk-citizenship/

Which stated
“If you were born in the UK on or after 1 January 1983, you’ll be a British citizen if one of your parents was a British citizen and ‘settled’ in the UK when you were born.”

And it appears the page I was using was incorrect. It happens.[/quote]
Yes, it happens, but it also illustrates why you can't use basic internet research to spout information about a subject that you clearly know nothing about.

I didn't need to check the gov.uk link to check that you were wrong because I already knew what the law was on this and I knew what settled status means. Clearly, you didn't but now you do.

Are you still trying to use it as justification for your childish name calling?

You mean your name calling, you called me a liar, said I sounded as if I were 12, said I came across as unpleasant.

@KidneyBeans
You know if that had happened to anyone else you'd be shouting 'liar'

What like you did to me?
“Guess you were lying.” Does that ring a bell.

If we take it as an established precedent that you can remove one citizenship, why should the UK get to do it? Surely Bangladesh had more moral right to reject her as nothing to do with them.

@PurgatoryOfPotholes

If we take it as an established precedent that you can remove one citizenship, why should the UK get to do it? Surely Bangladesh had more moral right to reject her as nothing to do with them.

How could they have more of a moral right? She rejected the UK and a fighter against what it stands for. She had no problems with Bangladesh and her religious views are not entirely alien to many there.

@PurgatoryOfPotholes

If we take it as an established precedent that you can remove one citizenship, why should the UK get to do it? Surely Bangladesh had more moral right to reject her as nothing to do with them.

Part of the precedent of stripping dual citizens of a citizenship is that whoever does it first wins. So if Bangladesh had stripped her before the U.K. tried to, then the Supreme Court would rule that she is now British only and any stripping of British citizenship would be unlawful. But the opposite is what happened. U.K. stripped her of British citizenship first, leaving her Bangladeshi only and so Bangladesh’s later attempts to deny her as a citizen have been ruled as unlawful.

@PlanDeRaccordement

Are you still trying to use it as justification for your childish name calling?

You mean your name calling, you called me a liar, said I sounded as if I were 12, said I came across as unpleasant.

You seriously think you have a moral high ground? How interesting !

Her views are not alien to many in Bangladesh?

Any links to what / who you mean?

@Theunamedcat

People keep talking about prosecution but prosecute her for what? We have proof she used someone's else's passport (or was that her friend?) Proof she joined a terrorist organisation but thats really it everything else is rumours

Joining a proscribed group is a crime in itself before they need any proof of anything else. Punishable by 14 years maximum, I believe.

How could they have more of a moral right? She rejected the UK and a fighter against what it stands for. She had no problems with Bangladesh and her religious views are not entirely alien to many there

Her religious views probably are alien to many there. Unless you think that they support a twisted version of Islam there? Most muslims would vehemently disagree that they have much in common when it comes to religion, apart from both claiming to follow Islam.

That’s pretty racist. Syria can handle the legal proceedings, they have been doing so for the past 3 yrs since the fall of ISIS trying and sentencing thousands of ISIS members from 160 different countries

So you think international law and Hunan rights experts are racist?
Gish! You do like throwing insults around don't you?

Out if interest what are your qualifications as such a self-proclaimed expert?

I'm really interested in the many people in Bangladesh who share her beliefs.

In this in assuming the poster meant Isis's beliefs.

Reading more about Bangladeshi laws about secularism, anti Hindu issues etc.

Really interesting. Keen to hear more of the analysis of why2 on the situation.

Syria can prosecute her?

Have you even seen the situation in Syria?

Why anyone would think it's ok to fob a born and bred Brit off onto Nations with much fewer resources and massive issues they are trying to grapple with is beyond me.

Why on earth not bring home prosecute. We have her background, we're the ones who have evidence, the crime she committed (aiding terrorism?) is against us.

What on earth does it achieve doing anything else?

I find this nonsensical.

How loud are the voices calling for the many many men in similar circs to be dealt with this way?

Why is she the one to be focused on by the media govt etc?

Why is she rather than all the men who have committed atrocities given to us as the face of evil, as it were?

(Racism misogyny).

@holibobs12

Age of consent/ sexual exploitation/ grooming etc. They are old enough and mature enough etc to know what they're doing.

In regards to age of consent and marital rape as you said, well that's dependent on laws in Syria. Consent varies across the world. It's 16 in the U.K. but even other European countries are lower than that. Who's to say she was a victim of rape? I don't recall her implying that, and didn't she want to reunite with her husband at some point?

Also, her being groomed doesn't absolve her of culpability, any more than any other young man groomed into hating the west/non Muslims/less conservative Muslims/anyone not like them and joining IS.

Not the point

The point is that many posters have said she knew what she was doing. That she made that decision and her age is irrelevant. She was mature enough for there to be no question over whether a 15yo could in any way not be taken as an adult.

Therefore all 15 yo girls are not children. Are mature enough to make serious decisions. So the age of consent (just for girls? Boys mature later?) surely must be questionable. Also having to remain in school, work on the sex industry. And laws around grooming etc are irrelevant as they are not vulnerable.

It can't be two ways. Either 15 yo girls know what they're doing or they don't. Simple.