Javed won't address the elephant in the room: Why should another country deal with the actions/security risks posed by a British born person?
Shamima Begum, IS teen wants to come back to the UK
- Thread starter Tommy
- Start date
Swim
I disagree with it but the argument is very clear
As one of her parents was born in bangladesh she is according to the UK government automatically entitled to be a citizen of bangladesh and therefore it is legal to strip her of UK citizenship (this is disputed by bangladesh)
Javed is concerned with the legallities of the case which revolve around the following
strip the moral question out of it because its a legal case and thats what is being argued - a politician isn't going to inject a moral argument into a legal case (and I agree there isnt much of a moral case to make but thats pretty much irrelavant in this appeal process)
its going to be a messy case i think... she turns 21 in August so in theory if she has not applied to be a citizen of bangladesh by then(and the court case wont be till after then) and the UK court upholds the decision to strip citizenship she becomes stateless whilst she is in the UK at the court case
Outcome 1 - Courts say the government were not entitled to strip her of UK citizenship and she will then presumably be charged under terror offences as a UK citizen (as javid says this may be very difficult to prove so she could go free?)
Outcome 2 - Courts say UK government were entitled to strip her of her status but as now over 21 she cant apply for a second citizenship - she defacto becomes stateless and the UK cant deport her and she presumably claims refugee status - now as a non UK citizen can they charge her with offences in syria? - (and even if they can charge her - as javid says this will be difficult)
Add in an extra layer of complexity if the case takes place before her birthday in august (almost certainly wont but then what do you do if she wont apply for bangladesh citizenship?) - add an extra layer of complexity if the case happens before January as potentially ut could be appealed to the european courts.
Presumably because if that they will wait till next year for the court case but that still brings up the dilema of potentially making her stateless and that in its self is not allowed... gut feel she wins the case and ends up in a uk prison but there are so any variables its just a guess
Last edited:
it's crazy and scary stuff. Its like "yeah I did this. I joined a group who encouraged and trained a guy who blew up little girls in Manchester and it was just retaliation innit? now bring me back!"
It is near enough impossible to prevent radicalisation in any country. No country has the resources to track every single citizen, where they go and what they consume. most people are radicalised in private. She came from a good family, not the typical loner/outcast you here about, who just wanted a purpose. I don't think its a solveable problem. Maybe its a lack of patriotism? I know there were far more fighters who joined joined from Western Europe than America for example
But its not just "bring me back" right? Its to bring her back to face full consequence of her actions as per the UK laws. It is not like, she is going to be thrown back into the society, as if nothing happened.
actually thats tricky to know for sure - Im not sure what offences they would have admissible evidence to charge her with - presumably some stuff but im not sure if any sentence would take into account the fact she was 15?
I can see why they want to make it Bangladesh problem - guess Ideal outcome for them is a remote appeal and decision upheld then its down to syria / bangladesh to sort it out - hardly moral leadership on the world stage but the most convenient solution politically
How do you think we should address this and also what would you do with Begum?
Seems like another upper echelon PR stunt to me. I always find the timing of this stuff just cannot be coincidental - especially when her appeal is ruled out and BJ/Priti P are branded patriotic heroes.
Personally Id let the process play out in court - I mean thats the legal process and that must be the right thing to do... if at the end the process turns out to be useless and carries no public support you have to revisit the process but surely we have to respect the rule of law in this instance
Throughout our history people, usually young people, have left these shores to fight for something they believe in, usually but not always, such actions were miles away and did not directly impinge on, or threaten this country. Many returned in coffins or body-bags and never got to reflect on the error of their ways. Isis was a different thing altogether it had a murderous edge to its beliefs and was perceived at least to have little sympathy with or for its enemies.
This young women was a school girl when she left and is still only 19 now, she has borne children and has lost children and her husband, the public perception is that she seems unmoved by all that has happened to her and as far as we know, nothing is known about any crimes she herself may have participated in.
Since she lost her passport and right to enter this country she has no rights whatsoever in the UK. Anything she may be offered or subsequently be given by the State will be at the discretion of HM government.
Young people do silly things, stupid and sometimes evil things. If it is judged that this girl no longer presents a threat to the people of this country then perhaps she should be allowed to come back and at least state her case. If she does not renounce her past, to show she wants to make a new start, then imprisonment is all that she can hope for, she would need to make a public act of atonement that would leave no one in doubt of her sincerity and wish to make amends for what she did, either by supporting Isis or taking part in its activities.
There is a danger that she maybe seen as a 'Isis martyr' rather than an 'Isis stooge' in some quarters, and the Government needs to take advice on this particular aspect before any permissions are given.
This young women was a school girl when she left and is still only 19 now, she has borne children and has lost children and her husband, the public perception is that she seems unmoved by all that has happened to her and as far as we know, nothing is known about any crimes she herself may have participated in.
Since she lost her passport and right to enter this country she has no rights whatsoever in the UK. Anything she may be offered or subsequently be given by the State will be at the discretion of HM government.
Young people do silly things, stupid and sometimes evil things. If it is judged that this girl no longer presents a threat to the people of this country then perhaps she should be allowed to come back and at least state her case. If she does not renounce her past, to show she wants to make a new start, then imprisonment is all that she can hope for, she would need to make a public act of atonement that would leave no one in doubt of her sincerity and wish to make amends for what she did, either by supporting Isis or taking part in its activities.
There is a danger that she maybe seen as a 'Isis martyr' rather than an 'Isis stooge' in some quarters, and the Government needs to take advice on this particular aspect before any permissions are given.
Last edited:
actually shes 20
shes 21 on the 25th August (a little over 5 weeks)
this is actually quite critical in the case as she has the right to bangladesh citizenship through one of her parents provided she takes active steps to secure that citizenship (start the application process) before she is 21- she has so far failed to do so
The entire case is blatant, cynical and carefully calibrated Tory dog whistling.
Thanks, I just picked up the age from other reports, without checking!
No chances for ‘time bound’ mistakes in this case?
Well she said she just wants to live in peace with her baby in the UK so is no doubt more than aware they will struggle to prosecute her. She even claimed to just be a housewife. In many ways shes mocking it. I am sure the family friend Lawyer advising her is telling her all this.
1) keep our ass' out of other countries and their affairs
2) Encourage people feel more proud of being from their country of birth, more Integrated and welcome (this excludes pledging allegiance to the flag)
3) with Begum I'd leave her there and do the trial remotely. but if she can make it back herself then then she can be trialed here
I don't there is much you can do to stop radicalization to be honest as its just one of those things. Some people are susceptible, most are not. The guy who killed those people in Reading. Why did he do it? who knows?
Bangladesh have already said they would reject her application for Citizenship.
yes though that may be difficult IF she applies - as she could appeal to the courts there as she supposedly has automatic rights provided she applies before she is 21
If she does not then those rights lapse
Bangladesh I am sure hope she does not apply at least until after 25th August so they have a sound basis in law for rejecting
As I say i can forsee a potential stuation where if she looses her case we have bangladesh saying her rights lapsed, Uk saying she is no longer a citizen, insufficient evidence to bring charges in a Uk court and it not being possible to deport her anywhere because she has no valid citizenship and no country willing to take her - at which point i can only assume refugee status and a protection order?.. hence im sure UK want to do it remotey so in such circumstances she is Syrias problem at that point
I think she would potentially face the death penalty in bangladesh as well (if she did have citizenship and was proven to have joined a terrorist organisation)- not sure what the Uk position is regarding deportation in those circumstances but its just another layer of a messy messy case
Last edited:
Is she actually known to have committed any offences personally at this point? Beyond being part of ISIS i mean.
If she was blonde and blue eyed and was groomed in the same way they would be bringing her home special delivery with all the bells and whistles in a chinook.
I know the home office asked ITV and BBC news to hand over all info they had on her in case they needed to build a case... but in reality actions in the middle of a warzone several years ago with likley no first hand witness in court - as Javid says in his statement
Limitations in UK law mean only a slim chance of meaningful prossecution for acts commited in a foreign war zone
and I think hes right - once she is in the UK I see no legal way to deport her anywhere
I dont often agree with the SAJ but on those points I think hes factually correct
Replaying also to your previous reply to me.
Thanks for outlining the exact circumstances and frameworks of Javed’s decision.
There is 0% likelihood that she will voluntarily apply for Bangladeshi citizenship. Why would she, and I’m sure her lawyers would never ever allow her to. Even if she did, Bangladesh would find ways to deny.
If British state refuse to fund her journey back, there will be charity donors who would, so that’s also a pathetic tactic from the state to fulfil it’s responsibility for its citizen.
Given the court has held Government to account so far, it’s pretty obvious how this will play out: Britain will have to accept responsibility for its citizen, which was the case all along.
What Javed has achieved is to unfairly pit the judiciary against the state again, simply to win some right wing opinion that it already owns. Made sense pre election to win some votes, but with an 80 seat majority, it’s now just a waste of time for everyone.
Being her home, find her guilty if you can (innocent until proved guilty?!), if not put her on a watch list and be done with it. This is a problem created by the Tories. They will also have to accept the fall out.
This whole episode is not exactly a great advert for our country's loyalty to its citizens, if we're to encourage patriotism. Agree we should keep our noses out of other countries' business though.
Rightly so though, given she is Britain's problem, however unpalatable that is.
I agree but I also feel treason is difficult to stomach for any nation.
Not so sure about charities - I mean the thing is you would be actively breaking the law by smuggling her into the UK (she has no legal route to the uk as her citizenship has been stripped and therefore passport revoked) - and committing numerous offences likley to get the charity and individuals in a huge amount of trouble - perhaps at arms length with no traceability but i dont see many charities / lawyers willing to risk the reprocussions of activley smuggling somebody who admits to having joined ISIS into the UK - Im guessing that would bring terrorist offences against them as well (pretty sure the home office would throw a lot of police resource into investigating how she got back into the country if somebody smuggled her in)
Im not sure how it will play out - I think the home office feel pretty confident that they had the right to strip citizenship when she was under 21 as she had the legal right to citizenship elsewhere - I can see her ending up as a stateless refugee in the UK that the government us unable to deport or meaningfully prosecute - Im sure the brexiteers will still try to blame the EHRC
Unless the UK government can secure a remote link for the trial in which case I can see her ending up a stateless refugee in Syria
Last edited:
She doesn't have any children still alive. She's had three children while she's been abroad and they've all died out there, poor kids.
Much as we might like to abandon her, the UK needs to bring her back, charge her and give her a fair trial. If she stays in a high-security prison for the next 30 years, so be it. I read today that apart from Bangladesh not wanting her, she could face the death penalty there - another reason why the UK needs to deal with her.
Much as we might like to abandon her, the UK needs to bring her back, charge her and give her a fair trial. If she stays in a high-security prison for the next 30 years, so be it. I read today that apart from Bangladesh not wanting her, she could face the death penalty there - another reason why the UK needs to deal with her.
thank you for your perspective and it is a good one. I have listed to people talk about the political side of religion before and how it makes things different.
I doubt she (Shamima) joined Isis to kill people. I genuinely think it was to find a husband. She pretty much said in the interview as one of the things she is thankful for was that she met her husband and started a family. she is probably a bit of a nutjob since she was aware of the atrocities and was non-phased of the sight of a head in a bin. She is clearly a sociopath.
I was speaking with one of my close friends who is of Kashmiri origin and Muslim and she doesn't buy the "we did it out of retaliation" excuse, simply because Isis were engaged in a bloody war with other Muslim groups/rebels in Syria and committed all kinds of crimes against them and continue bombing Muslim countries and Muslim people. These people are clearly delusional/warped
equally if there isnt any signifigant admissable evidence as it happened years ago in a warzone when she was 15 so she gets no custodial sentence and she gets refugee status in the UK then again so be it because thats the law... does not mean we should not revisit these laws but we cant go around retrospectively changing them because thats a very slippery slope
When you're an enemy of the nation you're an enemy of the culture. She has not repented which means she's honest but it also means she's a psychopath and perhaps a committed one. She must be met with justice.
I would imagine the charges under the Counter-Terrorism legislation would be easy to prove, insofar as she purposefully travelled abroad to join a terrorist organisation and gave support to it (was happy to marry one of the IS terrorists). She's admitted this herself and a quick search online shows a lot of other potential evidence against her which is more damning. Now, as she was under-age when she left, I don't know how that would pan out.
No-one knows exactly what led her to make the decision, was she groomed online or was she actively seeking a way to get out there? The other two girls who travelled with her haven't made it out - one is confirmed dead, one's been missing since early last year. There's no-one left alive who can confirm or contradict what's already known.
Of course laws can't be changed retrospectively, but there are secure units for young offenders and children do get charged and sentenced for serious crimes. In any case, she's now an adult, and has been under UK law for nearly 3 years. At some point she turned 18 and was still with IS out there. Her interview with the BBC was self-damning, really.
Im not sure what is admissable
If she says there were people connected to ISIS all the time - I had to lie - my life was in danger - I think its going to be a much harder case to prove than people think (what evidence exists of actions she did and how was that evidence obtained for example if witnesses cant be cross examined) - and thats one of the reasons the UK has tried to keep her out - they know its going to very a very difficult case to try if they have to prosecute
I've not heard from anyone who demands she be returned to UK, as she is our citizen, who has suggested otherwise. All unanimously agree she should face a fair trial. The issues is that the state does not possess any evidence that she committed any serious crime vis a vis UK laws at the time. That poses huge issues for the foundation of British law: can laws be retrospectively changed and are suspects innocent until proven guilty.
But that's the fault of the Tory Government official for creating laws at the time, whom should be sanctioned for this heinous lack of foresight. In some ways, Javed removing her citizenship was a gaslighting attempt to exonerate the failings of this UK official.
The Tories are using Begum as a lightening rod for many British right wing grievances, and she is being disproportionally punished for any provable crimes that she has committed.
Last edited:
Good post.
Alright Judge Dredd, calm it down.
30 years? More like 3 with good behaviour due to our ridiculous laws.
Well, I'd hope at her young age she could be de-radicalised and go on to live her life.
She is a criminal, but surely she is a British criminal and should be treated accordingly.
I wonder, if she was white British woman, would people be denying she was a UK citizen?
Can we denounce murderers and rapists too? Maybe they gave up their right to be British.
Meanwhile, all the media coverage on this particular case gives the Britain First sympathisers another reason to get angry at brown people.
I wonder, if she was white British woman, would people be denying she was a UK citizen?
Can we denounce murderers and rapists too? Maybe they gave up their right to be British.
Meanwhile, all the media coverage on this particular case gives the Britain First sympathisers another reason to get angry at brown people.
So should brown criminals never get coverage in case it riles that tiny minority of people in Britain First
