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?

@ColorMagicBarbie

She may be British but she doesn't have a Western outlook or ideals.

Many westerners don't agree with each other on core "ideals". There are many arguments to be had, this isn't one of them.

Many westerners don't agree with each other on core "ideals". There are many arguments to be had, this isn't one of them.

Yes, but that’s a bit different to declaring jihad on the western way of life and actively seeking to destroy it in its entirety.

I don't think anyone particularly wants her in the country. I doubt Bangladesh or Syria does either. My only issue is the breathtaking arrogance of palming our problems off to other countries to deal with.

But how many allies of the UN are still trapped in Afghanistan etc? People who are also our problem due to the fact that they wouldn’t have been helping us in the first place had we not been there.

It just doesn’t make sense to waste so much time and resource on somebody like SB when there are plenty of more deserving people.

The UK simply cannot afford to be seen as a soft touch on terrorists. That costs lives. This country has dealt with her within international law. And that is that.

@TartanJumper
There is no one accepted international view on repatriation. Every country is taking an individual approach. The U.K. approach is similar to that of France, Jordan and Germany, so not unusual or especially arrogant. Here is list of the top ten countries with most ISIS members and what they are doing

Turkey: Estimated 7,476–9,476 individuals affiliated with ISIS. These are all being prosecuted and convicted in Syria and Iraq. Turkey then asks them to be transferred to Turkish prisons to serve out their sentence. “Prosecution processes of [ISIS]-affiliated women … imprisoned in Iraq have been going on for a while,” the Turkish embassy in Washington, D.C., wrote in a statement. “We have conveyed our request to relevant Iraqi authorities to transfer those convicted to Turkey to serve the rest of their sentences.”

Tunisia: Estimated 4,000–6,500 individuals affiliated with ISIS
Tunisia has not taken a public stance on repatriation. “More than 800 of [its] fighters have already returned — and quite a few of them undetected,” said Dr. Hans-Jakob Schindler, a senior director at the Geneva-based Counter Extremism Project.

Russia: Estimated 4,000–5,000 individuals affiliated with ISIS
Russia has openly called for the return of Russian children, and Russian media outlets have reported that at least 150 children had been repatriated as of February 2020. The numbers of adults who have been repatriated and have stood trial is not available.

Saudi Arabia: Estimated 3,244 individuals affiliated with ISIS
Saudi Arabia’s track record on ISIS-related repatriation is murky, said Adam Coogle, deputy director for the Middle East and North Africa at Human Rights Watch.

Jordan: Estimated 3,000–3,950 individuals affiliated with ISIS
Jordan’s official policy is to prevent “terrorists or their families” who traveled to Iraq or Syria from returning home, although ICSR estimates that about 300 Jordanians affiliated with ISIS have done so.

Uzbekistan: Estimated 1,500–2,500 individuals affiliated with ISIS
“[Central Asian countries] are pretty united with rejection of bringing men home,” said Anne Speckhard, director of the International Center for the Study of Violent Extremism. “They judge the men harshly.”
Unlike men, women are seen “as having little choice,” Speckhard said. More than 318 Uzbek citizens — all women and children — have been repatriated from Syria and Iraq over the course of three missions, according to Javlon Vakhabov, Uzbekistan’s ambassador to the U.S.

Tajikistan: Estimated 1,899–2,000 individuals affiliated with ISIS
In 2015, Tajikistan announced amnesty for ISIS fighters who returned home voluntarily, expressed remorse and renounced ties to foreign militant groups. By 2019, at least 100 citizens had accepted the offer — with mixed success. As of 2018, there were at least 30 known cases of recidivism, with Tajiks re-joining the Islamic State. Tajikistan has actively repatriated mostly women and children, largely as a way to gain more political leverage with the United States.

France: Estimated 1,910 individuals affiliated with ISIS
Although France has strict terrorism laws allowing defendants to stand trial in absentia, that practice is uncommon. The government also tends not to repatriate, according to Egmont’s Thomas Renard. The return of 10 orphans of French nationals from Syria on June 22, 2020, brought the country’s total ISIS-related repatriations to approximately 35 — all children.

Germany: Estimated 1,268 individuals affiliated with ISIS
Germany has conducted very few repatriations, according to Hannah Neumann, one of the country’s elected members of European Parliament who sits on the human rights and security committees. The Egmont Royal Institute put the total around seven as of October 2020. In December 2020, Germany repatriated three women and 12 children from Syria, bringing the total to 22. This doesn’t include an unknown number of Germans deported by Turkey.

Kazakhstan: Estimated 1,136–1,236 individuals affiliated with ISIS
Like most of Central Asia, Kazakhstan almost exclusively repatriates women and children and has received global commendation for its efforts to bring home and reintegrate Kazakh citizens — at least 700 in total, according to the Kazakh embassy in the U.S. In 2019 alone, Kazakhstan brought back an estimated 524 individuals from former ISIS territory. Of those, 33 were men, all of whom were prosecuted as ISIS fighters.Rehabilitation efforts have included giving the children of ISIS fighters Kazakh birth certificates and Kazakh names. But Helf, of the United States Institute of Peace, told FRONTLINE that children are struggling to readjust, and some women have refused to work with authorities. Meanwhile, other women have rejected the invitation to return. “Kazakhstan tried, but some people don’t want to come back,” Helf said. “But the door is open.”

From:www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/repatriating-isis-foreign-fighters-key-to-stemming-radicalization-experts-say-but-many-countries-dont-want-citizens-back/

It has not served the West to been seen as a massive shower of hypocrites either.

No one is saying that except for western academics, usually US ones. However, UK, France and Germany would be seen as hypocrites if they changed their minds and followed the Trump origin policy of repatriating fighters.

ISIS and the Taliban (like all terror groups) did not arise out of nowhere.. Quite right, they arose out of fundamentalist religious extremists. To blame western predominantly different religion countries for this is not on.

I would also ask “Is the US being seen to be tough or weak by retreating from Afghanistan and letting the Taliban have control of the country?”

Weak. But it’s not really the US job to be world police. They wanted to spread democracy and equal rights but no one country, even with allies, can impose that on an unwilling foreign population.

@MultiStorey

In addition to which it appears that the UK permits entry to EU (single or dual) national citizens if their other country has allowed them home. (See Lisa Smith)

Well, Lisa Smith is Irish and Ireland repatriated her. So they’ve not stripped her of her Irish citizenship. Therefore according to the GFA, the UK has no choice but to allow her to travel to Northern Ireland. The U.K. tried to stop her, but lost the legal battle. So they’re only allowing it under duress from the Irish.

@MultiStorey

In addition to which, the Irish government had fuck all to do with this. Her application was as a private citizen.

Sure they did. They repatriated her. They let her keep her Irish citizenship. The GFA treaty, between Ireland government and U.K. government therefore governs and gives her the right to travel to Northern Ireland.

If the Irish government had made different decisions....she would not have the right.

@MultiStorey

Sure they did. They repatriated her. They let her keep her Irish citizenship. The GFA treaty, between Ireland government and U.K. government therefore governs and gives her the right to travel to Northern Ireland.

If the Irish government had made different decisions....she would not have the right.

Let me help you here, only a delusional person or government would feel entitled to behave in the unilateral way the UK has on this matter, whilst simultaneously presuming to scold a separate sovereign nation for making their own choices.
Ireland owes the UK nothing. On any matter. Ever. You would do well to remember that.

You’re scolding the U.K. are you not? I only objected to you implying that what was fundamentally an Irish decision, was a U.K. decision to try and show hypocrisy.

@ColorMagicBarbie

Many westerners don't agree with each other on core "ideals". There are many arguments to be had, this isn't one of them.

Yes, but that’s a bit different to declaring jihad on the western way of life and actively seeking to destroy it in its entirety.

There is a difference between an ideal and a means. Jihad is a means. There is no consensus in the west about ideals which is also leading to similar "means" - take the far right for example, hyper masculine and hyper misogynistic. Are they against the western ideal too ? Even though they are almost always straight white christian males ? This leads to another interesting question, who then defines the western "ideals" ? There is no grand narrative, and even if there was, its in constant flux, so the ideals of yesterday are somewhat different to the ideals of today.

The Irish government did not make the decision to allow her into the UK.

My point is that the British government had no choice but to allow her entry due to the decisions of the Irish government. The Irish government allowed her entry to Ireland as an Irish citizen. The Irish government have not convicted her of any crimes, so she is a free person. Therefore under the GFA, the British government cannot stop her from travelling to Northern Ireland. Their hands were quite literally tied.

Your government did that, and it might lead people to believe that accepting a European countries decision on returning fighters (putting aside the bad grace) whilst telling Bangladesh basically to go fuck itself is hypocritical and racist.

Well, I’m French, so neither are my government technically. But I do not think it is hypocritical of the UK to respect Ireland’s decision regarding their citizen Lisa Smith but to have a different decision for its own citizens.

I also don’t see any racism? Two different governments making different decisions is normal when it comes to their citizen ISIS members. They only need to be consistent with their own citizens. U.K. doesn’t need to copy Ireland or the US because they’re both “white” countries.

And U.K. has not told Bangladesh to “go fuck itself”. The UK stripped Shamina Begum of her British citizenship as it did with all other dual national ISIS members. Bangladesh, while unhappy has respected the U.K. decision. They tried to strip her of her Bangladesh citizenship, but that runs afoul of international law, not U.K. law. The U.K. doesn’t care if Shamina Begum ends up stateless, they’ve not criticised any Bangladesh decisions regarding Shamina Begum.

Ok, the British Court had no choice due to the decisions of the Irish government. The courts job is to uphold the law. The GFA is the law.

Again her freedom to move around Ireland and thus able to travel to Northern Ireland was a decision of the Irish government to allow bail.

@PlanDeRaccordement

The Irish government did not make the decision to allow her into the UK.

My point is that the British government had no choice but to allow her entry due to the decisions of the Irish government. The Irish government allowed her entry to Ireland as an Irish citizen. The Irish government have not convicted her of any crimes, so she is a free person. Therefore under the GFA, the British government cannot stop her from travelling to Northern Ireland. Their hands were quite literally tied.

Your government did that, and it might lead people to believe that accepting a European countries decision on returning fighters (putting aside the bad grace) whilst telling Bangladesh basically to go fuck itself is hypocritical and racist.

Well, I’m French, so neither are my government technically. But I do not think it is hypocritical of the UK to respect Ireland’s decision regarding their citizen Lisa Smith but to have a different decision for its own citizens.

I also don’t see any racism? Two different governments making different decisions is normal when it comes to their citizen ISIS members. They only need to be consistent with their own citizens. U.K. doesn’t need to copy Ireland or the US because they’re both “white” countries.

And U.K. has not told Bangladesh to “go fuck itself”. The UK stripped Shamina Begum of her British citizenship as it did with all other dual national ISIS members. Bangladesh, while unhappy has respected the U.K. decision. They tried to strip her of her Bangladesh citizenship, but that runs afoul of international law, not U.K. law. The U.K. doesn’t care if Shamina Begum ends up stateless, they’ve not criticised any Bangladesh decisions regarding Shamina Begum.

But then what happens in 10, 20, 30 years from now ? If the U.N. states they need to be taken back by their respective countries, now what ? There is an element of short-termism at play here. Is it reasonable for Bangladesh to take a "citizen" who never lived their, probably doesn't speak Bengali, wasn't born there, wasn't radicalised there, has practically no connection to that land other than her ancestral origin, and yet one of the poorest countries in the world is going to have to foot her bill ?

It is unfair on Bangladesh to take the responsibility for someone who was bred in the UK. It is unfair for Bangladesh to take responsibility for a conflict that the USA and Britain spearheaded.

Has everyone forgotten already ? Iraq was invaded on a fabricated pretext, and this "terror" threat emerged because of OUR intervention. WE supported the Sunnis in the 80s who persecute the Shia, WE invaded on the weapons of mass destruction narrative, then WE put the Shia into power to persecute the Sunnis. WE killed their people and radicalised them, and that was the cesspit from where ISIS was born. Then we go around calling them terrorists without contexualising anything and it is obviously Islam's fault - WHAT?

The bitter truth is, this entire mess is our making; decades of disastrous policies and now push to come to shove, we are unwilling to take any responsibility for the mess we started ? Shameless.

The bitter truth is, this entire mess is our making

No, don’t agree. You have oh so conveniently stopped in the 1980s. But the history of Islamic extremism and expansionism goes back to its birth in the 7th century. ISIS is simply the latest in a long line of Islamic Caliphates.

But then what happens in 10, 20, 30 years from now ? If the U.N. states they need to be taken back by their respective countries, now what ?

In 10,20,30 years they’ll all have been tried in court and many will have served their prison sentences and be free citizens. In short, it won’t be a problem worth the UNs notice by then. The U.N. members all value their national sovereignty, so it is unlikely they’d vote on reducing their own sovereign rights.

It is unfair for Bangladesh to take responsibility for a conflict that the USA and Britain spearheaded.

I really do not understand how you can link the Iraqi war to ISIS. But hey ho, even if you want to do that. Is it not true that the Iraqi war started with Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait? And that as an ally of Kuwait, the US and Allies came to their defence at the behest of the United Nations? So, in sum, the Iraqi war would not have happened, if it weren’t for them invading Kuwait. Therefore, to my mind Iraq was the cause of any radicalisation stemming from the Iraqi war.

To say the US/U.K. were responsible for ISIS is like saying that the U.K./France were responsible for Nazis because fighting WWI against Germany then “radicalised” Germans into Nazis.

@PlanDeRaccordement

The bitter truth is, this entire mess is our making

No, don’t agree. You have oh so conveniently stopped in the 1980s. But the history of Islamic extremism and expansionism goes back to its birth in the 7th century. ISIS is simply the latest in a long line of Islamic Caliphates.

Hilarious. Surely, the 1980s is better than 2013. I can see not taking responsibility for your mess is a recurrent theme with your likes. Isn't it convenient that you are side stepping the entire issue and going back to some archaic narrative to justify this crap that the west created. Why are you so insecure?

Deal with the points darling, don't side step. I made robust points and they DIRECTLY correlate to this current mess we're navigating. WE created it, prove me wrong. Don't create some fairy tale narrative and victimise yourself, I won't tolerate it. Although fairy tales should be a common sight in this age, I'm still waiting for these wondrous WMD to materialise; I'll have a chat with Santa, he might know a thing or two.

Anyway, on the topic of expansionism, Imperialism was a global phenomenon for thousands of years. Either you were expanded into or you're expanding into. Life was more rugged back then, and practically every civilization since the dawn of man was engaged in this activity. So no, that is not a viable argument.
But considering the west is expanding into and forcing it's narrative done the brown and black man's throat, is it any wonder they are going to want to protect their own interests and what better way than a caliphate? Kind of ironic, no ?