Shamima Begum, IS teen wants to come back to the UK

That'sHernandez

Ominously close to getting banned
Joined
Oct 30, 2010
Messages
24,574
You will always offend some people. So it's better to be honest then tactful. Being a citizen here was here right....but if people don't value the culture and the people of this country? Then it's not our problem. This is a situation that could and should have been avoided and if anyone else thinks it smart and don't like our culture, they can leave also. If you were born elsewhere but have respect of the people and culture? 1) You don't do what she did and 2) You will be welcome but this country cannot allow this thing to happen and an example has been set.
Believe it or not, despite what Tommy Robinson tells you, it's actually part of our culture to be welcoming and respectful of people who don't like our culture or aren't part of our culture.
 

africanspur

Full Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2010
Messages
9,157
Supports
Tottenham Hotspur
You will always offend some people. So it's better to be honest then tactful. Being a citizen here was here right....but if people don't value the culture and the people of this country? Then it's not our problem. This is a situation that could and should have been avoided and if anyone else thinks it smart and don't like our culture, they can leave also. If you were born elsewhere but have respect of the people and culture? 1) You don't do what she did and 2) You will be welcome but this country cannot allow this thing to happen and an example has been set.
She wasn't born elsewhere though. She as born and raised in the UK. The UK is all she knew.

Do you think Tommy Robinson values the culture of this country by the way? This is a guy (born to Irish immigrants), who, amongst other things, has drunkenly assaulted a police officer, probably been involved in the radicalisation of people and who has now started going to peoples' houses and threatening them in the middle of the night. What about Oswald Mosley, leader of the BUF, who openly courted the Nazis and led a march to threaten Jews in the east end of London.

Do these people represent British culture? Should they have had their citizenships revoked? If not, why not?
 

That'sHernandez

Ominously close to getting banned
Joined
Oct 30, 2010
Messages
24,574
I agree that her citizenship shouldn't have been revoked as a delaying tactic and if she got back to the UK she should have been processed.

I don't agree that the UK government should have gone to get her, baby or not. If a baby qualifies these women for rescue then how valuable does a baby become as a commodity in these lawless camps, is that not a very dangerous precedent to set in and of itself?
Agree with this, however potentially alternative (non-official) means could have been made to retrieve her and her baby had Shamima's British citizenship been revoked. i.e. done privately by the family.
 

2mufc0

Everything is fair game in capitalism!
Joined
Jan 8, 2014
Messages
17,021
Supports
Dragon of Dojima
I agree that her citizenship shouldn't have been revoked as a delaying tactic and if she got back to the UK she should have been processed.

I don't agree that the UK government should have gone to get her, baby or not. If a baby qualifies these women for rescue then how valuable does a baby become as a commodity in these lawless camps, is that not a very dangerous precedent to set in and of itself?
Agree with the second paragraph, like I said I don't know the exact logistics but there have been ways people have left, maybe she could had got some financial assistance from her family.
 

2mufc0

Everything is fair game in capitalism!
Joined
Jan 8, 2014
Messages
17,021
Supports
Dragon of Dojima
Why culture like 'culture'? ...If you want to join a terrorist group? You can stay there. At the end of the day, do we want a nation of terrorist sympathizers? Where does it lead and where does it stop?
As I don't know what you mean by British culture, would be good if you can define it.
 

Classical Mechanic

Full Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2014
Messages
35,216
Location
xG Zombie Nation
Agree with this, however potentially alternative (non-official) means could have been made to retrieve her and her baby had Shamima's British citizenship been revoked. i.e. done privately by the family.
Agree with the second paragraph, like I said I don't know the exact logistics but there have been ways people have left, maybe she could had got some financial assistance from her family.
Apparently people smugglers are now charging £30000 to transport people, up from around £100 a year ago so it's probably harder than we'd expect to do it privately at the moment.
 

Striker10

"Ronaldo and trophies > Manchester United football
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
18,857
As I don't know what you mean by British culture, would be good if you can define it.
Our way of life. We're pretty welcoming. If you have sympathy for Isis to the point you leave that culture to join them, then to me that's unacceptable. We have to remember what Terrorism is and what they represent as people who have attacked and hurt and killed so many innocent people. We cannot have that and I don't think bringing her 'home' and putting her in jail is the answer. I think you have to be a little extreme in this instance to show how severe it is. You have to make people think. You have to give people pause...do they really want to give up the life they have for this fight? People make mistakes it's true but it takes a special stupid to make the mistake she and her friends did and anyone whom follows her must know they are not welcome here.
 

That'sHernandez

Ominously close to getting banned
Joined
Oct 30, 2010
Messages
24,574
Apparently people smugglers are now charging £30000 to transport people, up from around £100 a year ago so it's probably harder than we'd expect to do it privately at the moment.
She doesn't necessarily have to be smuggled... The family could have gone out to meet her and brought her back. They still have her passport.
 

oates

No one is a match for his two masters degrees
Scout
Joined
May 7, 2012
Messages
27,527
Supports
Arsenal
She doesn't necessarily have to be smuggled... The family could have gone out to meet her and brought her back. They still have her passport.
Quite right. There are Guardian, Daily Mail and The Sun reporters wandering in and out like it's Camden Market, I would have thought it wasn't beyond the family to sort out without the aid of Special Forces.
 

Kag

Full Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2013
Messages
18,875
Location
United Kingdom
The child has been murdered by the incompetence and religious fundamentalism of the mother. Like her two other children we still have little evidence to suggest they existed.

Javid, in spite of being a Tory twat, can sleep easy. He is not to blame for this. That is ‘playing politics’.
 

That'sHernandez

Ominously close to getting banned
Joined
Oct 30, 2010
Messages
24,574
The child has been murdered by the incompetence and religious fundamentalism of the mother. Like her two other children we still have little evidence to suggest they existed.

Javid, in spite of being a Tory twat, can sleep easy. He is not to blame for this. That is ‘playing politics’.
Photographic evidence not good enough for you? I don't see why she would just make up the loss of two babies, particularly when she was so obstinate in her early interviews. Absolutely nothing to gain from it.



More could have been done to prevent this if Javid wasn't playing populism politics.
 

MJJ

New Member
Joined
Sep 2, 2009
Messages
28,954
Location
sunderland(1)-Derby(1)
Uh, no. Because of that her losing citizenship won’t leave her stateless.

But let’s be honest, you knew that already.
She doesn't have dual citizenship. For somebody who has posted a lot in this thread, you should know this.

Its actually pretty disgusting that you are advocating setting a precedent where every second generation born immigrant will be less of a citizen than somebody whose ancestors settled in the country.
 

PepsiCola

New Member
Joined
Jan 29, 2016
Messages
1,724
Regardless of any other nationality she may have.

She's the UK's mess to clean up. She was radicalized here. The baby was also the UK's responsibility.
 

starman

Full Member
Joined
May 14, 2007
Messages
7,092
Location
Under a tree.
I hope you’re saying this in as a jest. It’s not for any government to decide who can or can’t reproduce. That’s basic human rights.
Oh course I am not serious about her having her reproductive system taken from her. But basic rights or not some countries do actually have policies around child limits

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-child_policy

Anyway regardless of that, even if there was such a law, shes had 3 attempts, and due to her negligence, all 3 children have died, so it's not like she not had the chance were such as law even applied. Some people are simply not fit to be parents, basic rights or not
 
Last edited:

Carolina Red

Moderator
Staff
Joined
Nov 7, 2015
Messages
36,442
Location
South Carolina
She doesn't have dual citizenship. For somebody who has posted a lot in this thread, you should know this.

Its actually pretty disgusting that you are advocating setting a precedent where every second generation born immigrant will be less of a citizen than somebody whose ancestors settled in the country.
This has been hashed out dozens of pages ago.

It’s a question of if Bangladesh can deny her citizenship before the age of 21 should she claim it, since their law says she has it.
 

nickm

Full Member
Joined
May 20, 2001
Messages
9,176
This has been hashed out dozens of pages ago.

It’s a question of if Bangladesh can deny her citizenship before the age of 21 should she claim it, since their law says she has it.
She was born here and a politician should not have the power to strip that right from her. That's what judges and courts are for.
 

MJJ

New Member
Joined
Sep 2, 2009
Messages
28,954
Location
sunderland(1)-Derby(1)
This has been hashed out dozens of pages ago.

It’s a question of if Bangladesh can deny her citizenship before the age of 21 should she claim it, since their law says she has it.
Honestly speaking it all sounds of "go back to your own country to me". Reading your posts here I know this isnt applicable to you but I won't be surprised if a lot of people saying she should be deported or citizenship revoked aren't racist and like I said it's set a precedent.

And even what you wrote above, should she claim it. So she doesn't have citizenship but you want to strip her and force her to go settle in a foreign country. And make no mistake that is what's Bangladesh is.
 

Penna

Kind Moderator (with a bit of a mean streak)
Staff
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
49,691
Location
Ubi caritas et amor, Deus ibi est.
This has been hashed out dozens of pages ago.

It’s a question of if Bangladesh can deny her citizenship before the age of 21 should she claim it, since their law says she has it.
It's a question of a bird in the hand, though. She didn't claim the Bangladeshi citizenship when she was younger, and although she's still under 21 Bangladesh have already said they have no intention of giving her a passport. So, the only citizenship she holds is the British one.

This is from the Guardian on Feb 20th:
Shamima Begum is not a Bangladeshi citizen and there is “no question” of her being allowed into Bangladesh, the country’s ministry of foreign affairs has insisted, setting up a clash with the UK after Sajid Javid’s move to strip the teenager of her UK citizenship.

“The government of Bangladesh is deeply concerned that [Begum] has been erroneously identified as a holder of dual citizenship,” Shahriar Alam, the state minister of foreign affairs, said in a statement issued to the Guardian, adding that his government had learned of Britain’s intention to cancel her citizenship rights from media reports.

“Bangladesh asserts that Ms Shamima Begum is not a Bangladeshi citizen. She is a British citizen by birth and never applied for dual nationality with Bangladesh … There is no question of her being allowed to enter into Bangladesh.”
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/feb/20/rights-of-shamima-begums-son-not-affected-says-javid

I assume that although under normal circumstances the citizenship would be automatically given to qualifying under-21s upon application, the Bangladeshi government always retain the right to veto that. It's not normal behaviour to run away and join a terrorist organisation when you're still a child.
 

2 man midfield

Last Man Standing finalist 2021/22
Joined
Sep 4, 2012
Messages
46,121
Location
?
The deaths of all her children are on her. She went to have babies in a war zone to feed them into the ISIS killing machine.

RIP little fella. He didn’t deserve any of this.
The fact that she went off to join a terrorist organisation really isn't relevant. We don't have different rules on how we handle criminals abroad that differ based on what kind of crime they committed, so invoking that here would be inventing a different standard. The fact that she broke the law is what is relevant. So she should be dealt with as anyone else who has, i.e working with foreign entities to bring them back to the UK to face prosecution. Go to any social media page discussing this issue and pick at random any 10 comments you like and then say this isn't about the colour of her skin. The country as a whole I'm ashamed to say has a horrible attitude towards anything that contains Islam, things are suddenly elevated to be way more serious if it has Islamic connections. Then consider this is the government that once said if you want a black person as a neighbour then vote for the other party. Racism is hardly foreign (mind the pun) to them.

We're not making the rules up as we go along, we already have rules in place. We're breaking the rules as it goes along because we don't want to deal with our own problem.
Agree with these.
 

Synco

Lucio's #1 Fan
Joined
Jul 19, 2014
Messages
6,459
The fact that she went off to join a terrorist organisation really isn't relevant. We don't have different rules on how we handle criminals abroad that differ based on what kind of crime they committed, so invoking that here would be inventing a different standard. The fact that she broke the law is what is relevant. So she should be dealt with as anyone else who has, i.e working with foreign entities to bring them back to the UK to face prosecution. Go to any social media page discussing this issue and pick at random any 10 comments you like and then say this isn't about the colour of her skin. The country as a whole I'm ashamed to say has a horrible attitude towards anything that contains Islam, things are suddenly elevated to be way more serious if it has Islamic connections. Then consider this is the government that once said if you want a black person as a neighbour then vote for the other party. Racism is hardly foreign (mind the pun) to them.

We're not making the rules up as we go along, we already have rules in place. We're breaking the rules as it goes along because we don't want to deal with our own problem.
Haven't followed the thread in its entirety, but that sounds like a good take on the issue to me.
 

Carolina Red

Moderator
Staff
Joined
Nov 7, 2015
Messages
36,442
Location
South Carolina
She was born here and a politician should not have the power to strip that right from her. That's what judges and courts are for.
While you have an argument there in regards to who should have that power, the reality is that the Nationality, Immigtation, and Asylum Acts of 2002 and 2006 do give that power to Javid’s position.
Honestly speaking it all sounds of "go back to your own country to me". Reading your posts here I know this isnt applicable to you but I won't be surprised if a lot of people saying she should be deported or citizenship revoked aren't racist and like I said it's set a precedent.
Thank you.
And even what you wrote above, should she claim it. So she doesn't have citizenship but you want to strip her and force her to go settle in a foreign country. And make no mistake that is what's Bangladesh is.
If you read Bangladesh’s law, she has the citizenship automatically. It lapses after 21 if it is never claimed.

I know that Bangladesh has now said she won’t be let in, but as I said many many pages ago in this thread, it seems they’re arguing against themselves here and it will end up being an issue decided in some kind of international court if an alternative solution isn’t found.
It's a question of a bird in the hand, though. She didn't claim the Bangladeshi citizenship when she was younger, and although she's still under 21 Bangladesh have already said they have no intention of giving her a passport. So, the only citizenship she holds is the British one.

This is from the Guardian on Feb 20th:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/feb/20/rights-of-shamima-begums-son-not-affected-says-javid

I assume that although under normal circumstances the citizenship would be automatically given to qualifying under-21s upon application, the Bangladeshi government always retain the right to veto that. It's not normal behaviour to run away and join a terrorist organisation when you're still a child.
The UK will no doubt argue that based on Bangladeshi law, she has implicitly always had Bangladeshi citizenship even if she didn’t explicitly claim it.
 

Kag

Full Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2013
Messages
18,875
Location
United Kingdom
Photographic evidence not good enough for you? I don't see why she would just make up the loss of two babies, particularly when she was so obstinate in her early interviews. Absolutely nothing to gain from it.



More could have been done to prevent this if Javid wasn't playing populism politics.
I didn’t see that photo, so I’ll retract my cynicism (a little). I don’t agree with Javid’s decision in isolation, as I agree with the premise that she’s our mess to ‘clean up’. However, I can’t say I care too much about her welfare either way, and I certainly don’t want to risk the lives of any British or allied personnel in bringing her back.

But Javid isn’t at fault. She is at fault. IS is at fault. Wahhabism is at fault. Not one man well outside of the picture.
 

Silva

Full Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
30,756
Location
Smoke crack like Isaac Asimov
Our way of life. We're pretty welcoming. If you have sympathy for Isis to the point you leave that culture to join them, then to me that's unacceptable. We have to remember what Terrorism is and what they represent as people who have attacked and hurt and killed so many innocent people. We cannot have that and I don't think bringing her 'home' and putting her in jail is the answer. I think you have to be a little extreme in this instance to show how severe it is. You have to make people think. You have to give people pause...do they really want to give up the life they have for this fight? People make mistakes it's true but it takes a special stupid to make the mistake she and her friends did and anyone whom follows her must know they are not welcome here.
The country which in recent years started a hostile environment that saw hundreds of non-white British people deported to countries they don't know and made life difficult for tens of thousands of others is welcoming? The country that voted to leave the EU so we can kick out the Polish is welcoming? What is "Our way of life" anyway and when did it start? Does everything before the fall of empire not count? Did gay people only start existing in the 90s in the UK, for example? Or was castrating them just an accident? Is someone less British if they don't suckle on the queens teat?
 
Last edited:

Carolina Red

Moderator
Staff
Joined
Nov 7, 2015
Messages
36,442
Location
South Carolina
Here’s something interesting in an Economist article from yesterday...
Revoking someone’s citizenship is hugely controversial. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights enshrines having a nationality as a right, forbidding countries to arbitrarily deprive someone of it. A UN convention from 1961 goes further, banning the withdrawal of citizenship based on race, religion or politics, and also banning it in cases where doing so would leave a person stateless. The convention does, though, give exemptions to states whose national laws, at the time of signing, gave them the right to make someone stateless. Britain has such an exemption, though is not known to have used it since 1973. Many others, including America, have not ratified the convention at all, and can ignore the rules.
https://www.economist.com/the-economist-explains/2019/03/08/when-can-governments-revoke-citizenship

So for the UK, it is UK law alone that applies to revoking a Briton’s citizenship and making them stateless, as the international law about it doesn’t apply. Could this case, and cases like it stemming from the diaspora of those who went to ISIS, lead to a change in that British law?
 

NinjaFletch

Full Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2009
Messages
19,818
I didn’t see that photo, so I’ll retract my cynicism (a little). I don’t agree with Javid’s decision in isolation, as I agree with the premise that she’s our mess to ‘clean up’. However, I can’t say I care too much about her welfare either way, and I certainly don’t want to risk the lives of any British or allied personnel in bringing her back.

But Javid isn’t at fault. She is at fault. IS is at fault. Wahhabism is at fault. Not one man well outside of the picture.
Why do you think it's a binary? Javid can be at fault (and obviously is) and so can she.
 

Kag

Full Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2013
Messages
18,875
Location
United Kingdom
Why do you think it's a binary? Javid can be at fault (and obviously is) and so can she.
I don’t. He isn’t to blame for the death of that baby. She is. Plus another hundred plus variables that lead to the woman being there in the first place. Almost all of them out the control of one man called Sajid Javid.
 

NinjaFletch

Full Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2009
Messages
19,818
I don’t. He isn’t to blame for the death of that baby. She is. Plus another hundred plus variables that lead to the woman being there in the first place. Almost all of them out the control of one man called Sajid Javid.
And yet it was completely within his power to make a string of decisions that could have saved that baby. He didn't and the baby died.
 

fellaini's barber

New Member
Joined
Nov 27, 2014
Messages
3,655
I've been pretty harsh about those people who've gone to Syria so can agree with the second paragraph. All I'm saying is Javid instead of playing politics should have said it's her responsibility to get out of there and once back she would be dealt with.

It also doesn't send out the.best message to those who are born in Britain but have ancestry elsewhere that they aren't really 100% British. End of the day she's a UK citizen who was radicalised in the UK so why the feck should she go to Bangladesh.
I think it sends a fantastic message to anyone thinking of running off to join some terrorist organisation though. Do it and you're fecked
 

Schmeichel's Cartwheel

Correctly predicted Italy to win Euro 2020
Joined
Dec 21, 2014
Messages
11,420
Location
Manchester
The left in our country is way too soft on islamic terrorism.

People all over my fb feed demanding she comes "home" feck off. I'm not right wing either, I lean left. It's very sad that the baby died.
 

Red Defence

Full Member
Joined
May 5, 2009
Messages
12,940
Location
“United stands for attacking, attractive football
just the ones born here who we have a responsibility to deal with
Come on, get real. How many do you think have gone out there! They have chosen to reject our culture and go and live permanently in a culture that is completely the opposite. They condemn our country and our culture and wage war on us. They didn’t want to be any part of us.

When you choose this path, whoever you are, you’re on your own. The UK has no obligation to retrieve them from the mess they got themselves into. We are not responsible for bringing anyone back to the UK. We are not a tourist company.
 

Silva

Full Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
30,756
Location
Smoke crack like Isaac Asimov
Come on, get real. How many do you think have gone out there! They have chosen to reject our culture and go and live permanently in a culture that is completely the opposite. They condemn our country and our culture and wage war on us. They didn’t want to be any part of us.

When you choose this path, whoever you are, you’re on your own. The UK has no obligation to retrieve them from the mess they got themselves into. They are not responsible for bringing anyone back to the UK. We are not a tourist company.
At least 400 have already returned to the UK, the major difference between them and the ones who didn't/can't return is they have more means (i.e money) to travel. Most of those who have returned were actual combatants rather than broodmares as this girl was.
 

Red Defence

Full Member
Joined
May 5, 2009
Messages
12,940
Location
“United stands for attacking, attractive football
At least 400 have already returned to the UK, the major difference between them and the ones who didn't/can't return is they have more means (i.e money) to travel. Most of those who have returned were actual combatants rather than broodmares as this girl was.
It would be foolish to assume that the IS women are just brood mares, as many Yazidi have testified that they were treated worse by the women than the men.