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?

[anon12345678901]

@ElliottSmithsfingers

I really believe that the rush to see misogyny and racism even in cases such as this (basically where the person in question is objectively a truly revolting specimen) does a profound disservice to both the feminist and anti-racist causes.

Completely.

[mumwon]

I though Bangladesh had refuted her right to citizenship because she was born in the UK?
UK only decided she was Bangladeshi because it was a way of getting rid of a problem. I think if she committed a crime she should be in court here - isn't it a legal right that you have to be present in court when you are being judged?
She was 15 she got groomed on line without her parents knowing - how many parents know what their 15 year olds do on line or who they talk too? At & the first prison camp she was "chaperoned" by an older (more extremist who knows?) woman. In a later program a journalist talked to her & other young women who were brides & it was stated that there was extremists who had in fact killed one of the girls because they disobeyed their rules - how much control is going on -we don't know. What else she did or did not do - we don't know.

[ShrimpBarbarian]

Found it
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beatles_(terrorist_cell)

"The Beatles", dubbed as such by their hostages because of their English accents, was an Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) cell. Its members were nicknamed "John", "Paul", "George", and "Ringo" by the hostages, after the four members of the English rock group The Beatles. In November 2015, one of the militants was killed and one was arrested, and the final two were caught in early 2018, and transferred to U.S. military custody in 2019.[1][2]

They are accused of being responsible for beheadings in Iraq and Syria, as shown in the beheading videos of American journalists James Foley and Steven Sotloff, and British aid workers David Haines and Alan Henning, in 2014. The group also guarded more than 20 Western hostages of ISIS in Western Raqqa, Syria. They were allegedly harsher than other ISIS guards, torturing captives with electroshock weapons and subjecting them to mock executions (including a crucifixion) and waterboarding.

[PlanDeRaccordement]

It is understandable why there is so much confusion surrounding the question of Ms Begum’s Bangladeshi citizenship. This is so because the laws and regulations relating to citizenship in Bangladesh are scattered across five separate legal instruments: the Citizenship Act, 1951; Bangladesh Citizenship Rules, 1952; the Bangladesh Citizenship (Temporary Provisions) Order, 1972; Bangladesh Citizenship (Temporary Provisions) Rules, 1978; and the Naturalization Act, 1926, as well as multiple Statutory Regulatory Orders (SROs) issued by the Government. This lack of clarity has largely remained unamended due to a dearth of litigation on citizenship laws and regulations in Bangladesh.

Consequently, one is forced to turn to the decisions of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) of the UK to extract the meaning and interpretations given to the relevant Bangladeshi laws and regulations on citizenship. This lack of clarity in Bangladeshi citizenship laws and regulations has been recognised by the SIAC.

For present purposes, two SIAC decisions are important: the December 2017 and November 2018 decision in G3 v Secretary of State for the Home Department and E3 and N3 v The Secretary of State for the Home Department. Both of these cases concern the deprivation of citizenship of supposed British-Bangladeshi nationals on alleged terrorism and national security grounds. The applicable provisions of the citizenship laws and regulations of Bangladesh relevant to Ms Begum’s situation and their respective SIAC interpretations are as follows:

Section 5 of the Citizenship Act 1951 states that, a person born outside Bangladesh ‘shall be a citizen of Bangladesh by descent’ if either of his or her parents is a citizen of Bangladesh at the time of his or her birth. Additionally, if both the parents are only citizens of Bangladesh by descent then the birth of their child must be registered at the Bangladesh Consulate or Mission in that country in order for the child to claim Bangladeshi citizenship.

Furthermore, Rule 9 of the Bangladesh Citizenship Rules 1952 states that, any person claiming ‘citizenship by descent’ under the aforementioned Section 5 of the Citizenship Act 1951, has to apply to a designated local government office in order to obtain the relevant proof of citizenship.

The Commission in G3 held that the aforesaid provisions make it manifest that citizenship by descent in Bangladesh arises at birth. This interpretation is also supported by the use of the phrases ‘shall be a citizen of Bangladesh by descent’ and ‘person claiming citizenship by descent’ in Section 5 of the Citizenship Act 1951 and Rule 9 of the Bangladesh Citizenship Rules 1952 respectively. Therefore, a person is automatically a citizen of Bangladesh at birth if either of his or her parents is a Bangladeshi citizen by birth (i.e. was born in Bangladesh).

The application referred to in Rule 9 is merely an application to obtain proof or certificate of citizenship. It has no legal effect on the status of citizenship, which has been acquired at birth. This inference is also supported by the nature of the documents that need to be submitted along with an application under Rule 9.

According to the information currently available, Ms Begum was born in the UK, at least one of her parents is a Bangladeshi citizen by birth. Therefore, according to Section 5 of the Citizenship Act 1951 and Rule 9 of the Bangladesh Citizenship Rules 1952 , Ms Begum is ‘a citizen of Bangladesh by descent’. Her citizenship is not contingent upon whether she holds a Bangladeshi passport or any other proof of citizenship or whether she has submitted any application for the same, or whether she has ever visited Bangladesh. It is evident from the provisions above that holding a passport or a proof of citizenship or applying for the same or even visiting Bangladesh has no impact on the legal fact of citizenship.

[Starisnotanumber]

Lisa Smith a white Irish citizen age 40 and former soldier was brought back from Syria and faces trial early next year.
It is much more likely that as an adult who had lived in a none sheltered situation she had a better idea of what was going on and made an informed choice to join isis.
Why are they not being treated equally

[PlanDeRaccordement]

@Starisnotanumber

Lisa Smith a white Irish citizen age 40 and former soldier was brought back from Syria and faces trial early next year.
It is much more likely that as an adult who had lived in a none sheltered situation she had a better idea of what was going on and made an informed choice to join isis.
Why are they not being treated equally

Is she a dual citizen? You can’t compare treatment unless she is also a dual citizen.

[dreamingbohemian]

I don't agree with taking away her citizenship. It's just lazy. None of the European countries really know what to do with their foreign fighters, it's an easy way to reduce the numbers by revoking citizenship of dual nationals.

But it is a very tricky issue. How should the UK legally proceed with people whose atrocities were committed in another country? How can it determine whether people were coerced to commit atrocities? Is it counterproductive to put these people in UK jails, which are ripe for radicalisation? How do you manage these people when they are released? Deradicalisation programmes have a very mixed record.

[kirinm]

@PlanDeRaccordement

Both Begum and Bangladesh have said she never had dual citizenship, though.

Not the case. She has Bangladesh citizenship by birth from her mother. All that Begum has said is she’s never owned a Bangladesh passport or been there. The only way to get rid of a citizenship you acquire by birth is by formally renouncing it, which Begum had not done. And as Boris Johnson well knows as he was born with US citizenship and had to renounce it.

You have to be registered to have citizenship. If her parents never registered her, she'd have to apply. She may have a right to citizenship but that is different.

[kirinm]

@PlanDeRaccordement

I've just seen your post. I'm not going to review Bangladeshi legislation but will assume you're right. Other countries certainly require you to be registered.

[stripedbananas]

There could more to her story that we aren't being told.

[Kendodd]

Is there a link to the interview?

[Starisnotanumber]

Can a child renounce citizenship or would her parents have to make a claim or renounce on her behalf .

[Branleuse]

I have no idea why people feel sorry for her to the extent they do. Shes like any other isis member

[Lougle]

She's very puzzling though, when you listen to her. I watched a very short clip where she basically says "the British public should forgive me. I know they've been frightened of ISIS and lost loved ones, but I have too, so I can sympathise with them. I'm truly sorry if I've offended anyone...."

If she was part of the ISIS movement in any way, then she can't 'sympathise' with how people feel because she was part of the organisation that caused the death of their loved ones. Also, 'causing offence' is something that happens when you say or do something a bit foolish or misguided. How can this compare?

[kirinm]

I don't think she should have had her citizenship stripped and she should be brought back here to face trial. But, she is definitely odd. She does seem totally detached from the realities of what she has done. That could well be trauma as others have said but it is odd and probably doesn't help her case.

But if you've been repeatedly raped, seen your children die and then be subjected to or coerced into taking part in the things she has, then you are probably going to be pretty messed up.

She isn't Syria's problem and she isn't Bangladesh's problem either.

[supermoonrising]

Stripping someone of their citizenship, someone who was born a citizen of this country, is cheap and stupid. They dont cease to be Nationality X just because they did something stupid/abhorrent/illegal. The Tories excel at this kind of dog whistle performance politics.

[kirinm]

@Lougle

She's very puzzling though, when you listen to her. I watched a very short clip where she basically says "the British public should forgive me. I know they've been frightened of ISIS and lost loved ones, but I have too, so I can sympathise with them. I'm truly sorry if I've offended anyone...."

If she was part of the ISIS movement in any way, then she can't 'sympathise' with how people feel because she was part of the organisation that caused the death of their loved ones. Also, 'causing offence' is something that happens when you say or do something a bit foolish or misguided. How can this compare?

I haven't watched the interviews excluding the clip you are referring to. It is a very strange way of speaking about her past and ISIS generally.

[cricketmum84]

Every word that came out of her mouth was a lie. Her body language was a huge giveaway.

Even Sajid Javid said if we had seen the evidence he had we would have all made the same decision as he did to take away her British citizenship.

I mean for Christ sake the girl was seen seeing young men into suicide vests.

She also defended the Manchester Arena attack where so many people died and were injured including tiny Saffie who was the same age as my own daughter when she was murdered by ISIS.

She is a terrorist and a danger to our country. She made her decision when she left to join a terrorist group that she apparently didn't know were terrorists even though it was widely spoken about and on the news. Oh and thought it was normal walk past a bin full of SEVERED HEADS.

Zero sympathy from me I'm afraid.

[supermoonrising]

@Tal45
She was a British citizen, so she should be “rotting” in the UK. Britain is always criticising other countries for not dealing with their problems correctly - we should take responsibility for our problem. I couldn’t give two shits about her personally, but I hate gesture politics. And I don’t agree that the British government should have the ability to take away the citizenship of ANY natural born citizen to these islands. Nobody government minister should be able to do that.

As a person deemed British from the moment of their birth you don’t have the “right” to be British. You just ARE British.

[Chloemol]

She’s a big fat liar, as has been proved on many an occasion

She believed the Manchester bombing was acceptable

She knew exactly what she was doing, tried to recruit others

She has Bangladeshi citizenship she can use if she wishes, but life would be harder for her there, but tough

Male ISIS fighters who have been allowed to return don’t have duel citizenship, and have been dealt with,

Don’t be taken in by her, she is dangerous in my opinion

[PlanDeRaccordement]

@supermoonrising

Stripping someone of their citizenship, someone who was born a citizen of this country, is cheap and stupid. They dont cease to be Nationality X just because they did something stupid/abhorrent/illegal. The Tories excel at this kind of dog whistle performance politics.

The 1981 law that allows stripping of U.K. citizenship from dual nationals has been used by both Tory and Labour governments.

In the UK, Section 40(2) of the British Nationality Act, 1981 states that a person may be deprived of his or her citizenship if such ‘deprivation is conducive to the public good’. Furthermore, Section 40(4) of the same Act mandates that an order to deprive a person of his or her citizenship must not make that person stateless. Section 40(4) is basically the domestic reproduction of Article 8(1) of the 1954 Convention. Hence, the Home Office is authorised by law to revoke the citizenship of an individual provided it does not render that individual stateless.

[kirinm]

@PlanDeRaccordement

you should credit where you're copying and pasting from.

www.ejiltalk.org/shamima-begum-may-be-a-bangladeshi-citizen-after-all/

[Couchbettato]

My view has changed my shamima begum.

I don't think I ever wanted her citizenship revoked or for her to have to stay there but I was genuinely unsure whether her lack of remorse was because she genuinely wasn't remorseful or whether she had just been so horrifically groomed.

But the truth is she has been groomed. And I think that's what made the cases difficult because if she were to come back would she need compassion or justice? Or both? We're not great at being compassionately just.

Now I think she needs to come back. She's lost all her children. She's been through a lot of trauma. And she can only be deradicalised if she's not living in a hostile situation. And she needs to have a fair trial.

[Viviennemary]

I think she is dangerous too. Strange how folk shouting the loudest for a fair trail for themselves are often the very ones denying others the very basic human rights. The right to stay alive for one.

[bilbodog]

She was only 15 and was groomed. The authorities knew the 3 girls were being groomed but didnt tell their parents and ‘allowed’ them to leave the UK and get to syria.

There is no doubt in my mind that once there she would have found it almost impossible to leave and would have been killed if she had tried.

Also when being interviewed in the camp its obvious she would have been surrounded by ISIS as well as traumatised by everything she had experienced so of course she had to be very careful what she said.

She was a child, she was groomed, raped and traumatised - she should be brought back.