Article on Shamima Begum

[ArabellaScott]

Interesting read in the Times.

Discussing culpability, rehabilitation and empathy, via a creative writing workshop run in the camp Shamima Begum is held in.The workshop was run by a Kurdish woman:

' The 29-year-old activist is a member of the Kurdish Women’s Movement, whose revolutionary ideology espouses the necessity of emancipating women as a way of recalibrating society. From this perspective, Evdike regarded the internees as being in need of her help, as victims of an extremist patriarchal society that had allowed women little personal choice, confining them to the roles of housewives and child breeders.

Yet Evdike was also revolted by her own experiences of the war with Isis.'

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/d7c55aca-c2e7-11eb-a26e-4c086490cfe1?shareToken=ae4b283c36582267ebd13481836e279e

For those saying she has forfeited her right to move in UK (a) where do you suggest she lives, and (b) why should that country have to pay to house her (and many others like her) and the expenses of keeping their own country safe?

She is British, she has to be our responsibility. We cannot wash our hands of her and make a poor country responsible.

Viking. I think we should yes. Listening to part of the inquests for the deaths at Fishmongers Hall, you are right, there clearly is a threat, but this is our problem. We can't subcontract it to another country.

Especially when we helped start this whole mess with the second Iraq war.

Do remember that is it only dual nationals who can have their British citizenship removed. Those who are British do stay and remain our problem.

Only once a dual national (or in this case someone who is eligible for a different nationality) has left the UK and joined a proscribed organisation is it likely that they would lose their citizenship.

That's about 120 of the 900 or so who did that. We're not exporting the problem wholesale.

i'd go back to the invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 as the starting point. If US had never funded Bin Laden and the Mujahideen would any of this still have happened?

I feel a lot of sympathy for her, she was only a child and will be traumatised by what has happened to her.

BUT she is being made an example of for very good reason and I think the politics of this are important. She is extremely high profile and being dumped by the UK is the right thing to do. It’s awful, but it will make other women think twice, or make other vulnerable families discuss it with their daughters who might be at risk of doing something similar.

@CheshireSplat

Viking. I think we should yes. Listening to part of the inquests for the deaths at Fishmongers Hall, you are right, there clearly is a threat, but this is our problem. We can't subcontract it to another country.

Especially when we helped start this whole mess with the second Iraq war.

This 'mess' existed long before that. Islamic fundamentalism drove the Taleban to murder women and bomb schools in Pakistan and Afghanistan way before that. It's just that prior to 9/11, the West didn't really bother to intervene.

Shamima Begum strikes me as a pretty intelligent sort of individual. I don't buy into the narrative that she was a poor innocent vulnerable female being exploited by predatory males. That's an underestimation of her in so many ways. She spent a long time choosing her path and worked hard to make it happen. That's dedication to a cause.

I don't know what the answer is. I do not want her to return to this country unless it's to a supermax prison where she can be monitored. It may sound harsh but frankly I think it's merciful that her children did not survive because growing up in a filthy refugee camp surrounded by the poison of radicalisation is no life is it? those children in those camps are the next generation of bombers and murderers. What we do with them is a real problem .

i'd go back to the invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 as the starting point. If US had never funded Bin Laden and the Mujahideen would any of this still have happened?

I would go back to the abolition of the Caliphate in 1924, and the formation of the Muslim Brotherhood in 1928...

One issue with most analyses of the problem is that they focus solely on the actions in the western world, and neglect what are fairly significant events and social trends outside of Europe.

Interesting replies. You're right, I was western focused because most people's reason for her not being returned is because of the danger she would pose the UK. And I don't recall Islamist terrorism in UK before the second gulf war. Excellent point about other places.

@Persona, where do you think she should go though?

@VikingVolva

Do remember that is it only dual nationals who can have their British citizenship removed. Those who are British do stay and remain our problem.

Only once a dual national (or in this case someone who is eligible for a different nationality) has left the UK and joined a proscribed organisation is it likely that they would lose their citizenship.

That's about 120 of the 900 or so who did that. We're not exporting the problem wholesale.

i'd go back to the invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 as the starting point. If US had never funded Bin Laden and the Mujahideen would any of this still have happened?

So, fo you think we should be bringing the 120 back?

The history of the problem is so complicated (isn't it always?) The West supported the Mujehedin against Russia and as soon as Russia pulled out, the Taleban was born. With American guns. The enemy of our enemy became another enemy.

It may sound harsh but frankly I think it's merciful that her children did not survive because growing up in a filthy refugee camp surrounded by the poison of radicalisation is no life is it? those children in those camps are the next generation of bombers and murderers. What we do with them is a real problem

Wow.

*Maybe it is worth thinking what she experienced in this country that so alienated her that she thought supporting Muslims was a priority.

Lets hope that in the same way as the US got rid of Trump we can get rid of this vacuous buffoon Boris who is in hock to the most appalling reactionary right wing little englanders*

So we should feel sorry for those whose experience leads them to support a death cult but not those who feel the dramatic changes to their way of live leads them to support a legitimate mainstream political party?

@shineaway

‘silly, impressionable girl’ whatever one feels about the citizenship argument this level of minimisation of her actions is unwarranted.

If a British male of joined Isis at her age after being groomed online through the same/similar process would you exonerate him of crimes so willingly?

Let’s be really clear here, I am not exonerating her of anything. A “silly, impressionable girl” is exactly what she was. She isn’t “evil”, or a “monster”, or any of the other media friendly terms. Where did I suggest she gets a free pass?

@VikingVolva

The government has not given exact figures on the number of those who both left UK to join proscribed terrorist organisations and also had their citizenship removed, but estimates are about 120.

Shoud we be bringing them all back? Remembering that any/all of them could have been brainwashed and therefore pose and enduring threat

Dozens and consensus of these people have been brought back and are now living in the UK.

*Dozens, not concensus!

@sashh

If you have no loyalty to a nation, and indeed are committed to its destruction, you can't really be a "citizen".

That would make those who want an independent Scotland and Wales not citizens (I'm leaving out NI because that is more complex).

It could be argued Boris has no loyalty tot he UK.

Nonsense. And you know it.

Thank you for this!
When she had a baby I believed the baby should at least be brought to the safety of its family.
As for her, I’ve never been able to come down very strongly on either side or really argue against the points of either of them.

And really that reactionary nonsense about her father and Bangladesh is straight out of the ring wing racist play book

Nonsense. Her father is in Bangladesh is a statement of fact. He is entitled to be there because he is a Bangladeshi citizen. She is entitled to have Bangladeshi citizenship. The UK can only remove her UK citizenship if she has dual nationality.

It's no more "racist" than if her father was say, Canadian living in Canada.

@AllTheUsernamesAreAlreadyTaken

Thank you for this! When she had a baby I believed the baby should at least be brought to the safety of its family. As for her, I’ve never been able to come down very strongly on either side or really argue against the points of either of them.

I think this is at the heart of it - politicians of all parties know there is no love for Shamima Begum. She went out to support destruction and we (democratic peoples) were on the other side.

Quite appropriately politicians have concluded that the right thing to do is make an example of her. That is very, very harsh for her and for her family. But it is absolutely the right thing to do.

For those who say she was young, look at how old the killers of Jamie Bulger were, and how they were treated by the press and the public at large.
For those who say she should come back to Britain, look at what happens to British people who commit crimes in South America or many parts of Asia, particularly drug smugglers, they are convicted and imprisoned there.
I think anyone who has joined these terrorist organisations - ISIL, Al Shabab, Boko Haram, will still be a danger when they come back to the UK, and our security services and government do not have a great record of keeping tabs on them as the various terrorist acts and scores of dead, innocent victims shows.

PersonaNonGarter

Also, she hasn’t expressed any remorse. If she’d have shown remorse and a genuine display of wanting help to change etc I could see myself sympathising more with her.
But the lack or remorse makes me feel like I can’t argue for her, yet it goes against my nature to leave her stranded like that as punishment that I can’t quite bring myself to say she deserves that.
So I’ll happily sit up here getting splinters in my arse and agree with all of you simultaneously!

That would make those who want an independent Scotland and Wales not citizens

This is such a reach.

Campaigning for independence within a democratic framework is a completely legitimate way of engaging in politics. If supporters of independence started beheading anyone who didn't support their ambitions I wouldn't lose any sleep over them having their citizenship revoked.

I'll have to read the article again but I'm resistant to any approach that appears to be driven by trying to arouse my sympathy. Aside from losing her babies, I feel anger and frustration towards her more than I do pity.

However I don't think my personal feelings should be the issue here. The issue for me - and the one I always come back to - is that she was a child. That's what makes her case different for me. And while I realise that bringing her back to face justice would cause immense problems, I still think they're our problems.

CheshireSplat Sun 06-Jun-21 06:45:07
" For those saying she has forfeited her right to move in UK (a) where do you suggest she lives, and (b) why should that country have to pay to house her (and many others like her) and the expenses of keeping their own country safe?"

(a) she is in a camp under the kurds so that is where she should live. She may or may not ever get out of there. The UK gov would not pay to get me out of a Brazilian prison if I were caught with drugs nor would the Bangladeshi gov so I am sure it will be the same for her. If she does get out she has a right to a Bangladeshi passport. Bangladesh are not keen to have her but she can litigate there and her father can fund the court proceedings. She is also married to Dutchman I think who is also in a camp so may be if that sharia law marriage is recognised in Holland that gives her an additional right to explore.

(b) why would it cost anything for her to lice in Bangladesh.She would surely under islam be her father's property in effect and he would feed and keep her. This is what she likes - women as property of men who are told what to do. That is her birth culture and her chosen radical culture.

"She is British, she has to be our responsibility. We cannot wash our hands of her and make a poor country responsible."
She is not British. She has no British citizenship now.

I'm finding this discussion interesting. Many women have discussed here the impact of ROGD, confused teenage girls trying to find a self of sense and community by identifying as trans, egged on by communities across the internet. How is this different?

The issue for me - and the one I always come back to - is that she was a child. That's what makes her case different for me. And while I realise that bringing her back to face justice would cause immense problems, I still think they're our problems.

Yes, totally agree. She was a child and this is important to remember.

I would also add that the arguments around her intelligence are wrong founded. Intelligence does not protect against grooming, just as it does not protect against child sexual abuse, domestic violence and all the other myriad of ways that women and girls are subjected to violence, abuse and control. Many highly intelligent women and girls are the victims of coercion, control and violence, and they are not less worthy of support because they are clever.