I would not be surprised if when all is said and done it will be ruled that she can't be made stateless as others have said she was born in the UK so she is British and we will have to let her back. That said, whilst those decisions are still ongoing in the meantime if the UK has the power to keep her out of the country until such a decision then it absolutely should be doing that by any means available, as we've seen with today's decision. It can't be understated that she joined fcuking ISIS. There is no way in hell that someone who joined ISIS when almost at adult age can not be seen as a threat to national security.
Shamima Begum, IS teen wants to come back to the UK
- Thread starter Tommy
- Start date
Personally I don't really think there any logic in thinking that there would be a different treatment for people with another skin colour or ethnicity. I'd like to see a precedent being set that if you join ISIS or Al-Queda you are an enemy of the state and lose pretty much as many rights as possible. That goes for my own country as well(Denmark).
Of course there is logic to that. Part of the UK government's logic for saying they could revoke the citizenship of Begum, someone born and raised in the UK, without I believe, having ever visited Bangladesh, is that she was eligible for Bangladeshi citizenship. This is not a line that could be used for Tim, who's family tree only stays in the UK for the past 7 generations and creates a separation between him and her, even though in the eyes of the law, they should be totally the same.
The fundamental point some seem to miss in their eagerness to call others ISIS sympathisers or whatever is that nobody, at least on here, is saying Begum is a good person. Nobody is saying that she should be allowed to walk free in the UK or that she isn't potentially dangerous. I personally can't help but feel utter revulsion every time I think of or look at her.
The fundamental issues though are about abdication of responsibility, making someone stateless and the optics of doing so while referencing someone's 'ancestral home' for want of a better word. It essentially means that the British government doesn't see its 2nd generation immigrant population in the same way as its 'homegrown' population, even if that is in the most extreme of scenarios.
Of course they would.
To their credit, the government has shown a reluctance to allow any of these people back. Any chance of revoking citizenship has been taken, whatever colour you are (Jack Letts, Shamima Begum). If you are 100% British and only British and there is no way of getting out of it, they have been happy to ship you off to life in prison in the US (Alex Kotey) if they can't get you with a drone first (Mohamed Emwazi).
I think she should be allowed back to the UK to instruct lawyers, which she can't do where she is. She could be taken into secure custody the moment she stepped off the plane, but she shouldn't be left as a stateless person. We have many British people spending their whole lives in British prisons because of the atrocities they've carried out. If convicted, she would be another one. There's no need to permanently revoke her citizenship, she needs to be tried in the proper way.
Bangladesh have already said they don't want her and she has no right to claim citizenship there - only the right to apply for it.
Bangladesh have already said they don't want her and she has no right to claim citizenship there - only the right to apply for it.
I dont understand what you mean. Being white is not unique to Britain. If Tim was eligible for Dutch citizenship, I have no doubt the same card would be played. She wasn't disowned because of her asian ancestry, but because she championed and assisted in terrorism. I doubt they see 2nd generation immigrant terrorists different to 7th generation British terrorists, they just used whatever means they could to block her return to Britain.
I'll never not find that funny
Get your hand off my...!I didn't say whiteness is unique to Britain. I am saying that if we had a white British man named Tim, who's family as far as we could tell had been in the UK for the past 400 years and has no mixed ancestry in his family, I do not believe the UK government would have tried to do the same thing. They may have droned him or been happy for him to go to Guantanamo but not to revoke his nationality and leave him stateless.
I'm sure whether they're 2nd generation or 7th generation does not change how they see them as terrorists, same as for us. It does change how they see them in the eyes of the law though seemingly. They are essentially 'less British' than a 7th generation Brit.
The same has happened to another white person, who had his British citizenship revoked but he was a dual Canadian citizen.
This is it right here.
Her citizenship hasn't been revoked yet I believe, but the current decisions made against her are incredibly troubling and could set a very dangerous precedent. I'm a first generation immigrant, and i'm watching keenly on how everything will unfold, but it's not all that surprising and I don't have a lot of faith given incidents such as Windrush.
Hi Penna, I'm a newbie so an unknown, only "know" you as I've read some of your posts etc.
If I understand correctly you now live in Italy, with another Caf member? oates?
Anyway I would be interested in how you see yourself currently. What I mean is would you be looking to be tried in an Italian court should you be a law breaker or in England (assuming you are/were British).
The reason I ask, and why I have a certain view with the Shamima case, is I was born in Kashmir and came over here at the age of 6. Now nearly 49 and although I have been back on occasions, the longest period was 3 months after graduating and caring for my grandad (in total in 43 years it doesn't amount to 6 months spent there) I am a stranger to that country and would say I am British.
If I was to break the law then I would not want citizenship even to be a an issue, it's British end of. Also I would feel that any mindset or criminal activity I was involved in would not be due to where I was born but where I grew up. Surely my 43 years here had more impact on views or lifestyle than a country I left as a child and don't really know.
Looking at the Shamima case that is what I find unsavoury, purely from a personal point of view. It makes me think that I'm a stranger in a country that I grew up and hopefully contributed to.
Tbh in my own personal life there have been incidents where I have felt "discriminated" against by the powers that be because of my background and it's frustrating when I don't really see how that background was prominent in my life through school, college, university, work, marriage etc.
I agree with this.
It's a pathetic response from the UK Govt, abdicating any responsibility and making her someone else's problem.
To be honest, we (UK), have set precedents for behaving in a pathetic manner with non-white British citizens for a while anyway (Windrush being one), Gurkhas and Indian soldiers and their citizenship rights post WW2.
Would things be different if she wasn't brown, and/or Muslim? I think so.
Well exactly. So really, it isn't to do with her not being white, but her parents being immigrants. They aren't one and the same. They wouldn't have been able to do the same thing because Tim couldn't claim citizenship elsewhere. It isn't a case of treating them as 'less British' but by using any means necessary to block her return. Are you saying that if Tim was white and could claim Dutch citizenship, it would be treated differently?
Must have been writing my post above as you posted this.
I too have certain concerns and have maybe had to rethink what and who I am in this country.
Just generally I recall reading, very early on in this case, that there wasn't much Shamima could be charged with (maybe the false passport thing) but there have been other women who went over and came back and didn't see prison time.
Anyone know if that is the case and maybe why this stance is being taken?
Why would it matter if her parents are immigrants though? Even if she has a claim to her parents home or her ancestral home, it shouldn't make a difference. By all metrics, she's British.
She is a British citizen, with a British passport. She should be tried in a British court and punished according to British law (I sound like an EDL supporter right now).
Removing her citizenship is just a way to avoid taking any responsibility.
The last interviews of her they aired didn't seem to indicate any real remorse on her part. That didn't help their case.
I still think attempting to revoke her citizenship is flat out wrong. I'm assuming the judges were just following the law here, but I have to wonder about the intention of laws not permitting someone to personally defend themselves against the removal of their citizenship.
No not exactly. The Canadian guy literally had a Canadian passport still. Begum doesn't and has never had a Bangladeshi passport. As far as I'm aware, she has literally never set foot in Bangladesh. Their Government have already said she has no right to their citizenship and wouldn't receive it. She might as well be Nigerian.
My point is that Tim would not be treated in the same way. Yet I am sure the British government would treat many other 2nd (note I'm not even saying 1st generation who have gained citizenship) generation immigrants the same, which fundamentally creates a disconnect between how they see that group and the UK's 'indigenous' population.
No I'm not saying that about Tim. I'm saying that if Tim is 'British British' and, for all we know, had been in the UK for hundreds of years, he would be treated differently. And that for me is troubling because in my eyes, they should be treated as exactly the same in front of the law. And clearly troubling for quite a few other 1st and 2nd generation immigrants on this page.
For immigrants the knock on effects of these and associated rulings can be massive.
One of the things that has come out and not often talked about is how people like my father (here since 1965) have been impacted. So for example rather than getting a visa everytime he went to visit family he could get the NADRA card. A 10 year one off payment thing that gets him there and back. Also entitles him to stuff over there in terms of inheritance etc.
For me and my siblings we can get that card through him, which would entitle us to travel freely and be eligible for inheritance etc over there.
The rulings with Shamima have meant many people not applying for those cards because quite simply they can be deported, as the card implies another citizenship, for crimes that are not terror related. I forget the details.
You've misunderstood what we were discussing. I'm not debating the merits of what the home office had done, and whether she should still be considered British or not, but African Spurs assertion that she would be treated differently if she was white.
Agreed. I think revoking citizenship is wrong but let's not pretend she's something she's not. She went to IS, stayed there, mothered children there and then even whilst in a refugee camp, carried on spouting views that didn't exactly exhibit much remorse.
She may be as dumb as the night is long but she's also a pretty despicable human being. Let's please not pretend otherwise.
If she was white British with no other recent immigration history. Not white in general.
So it has nothing to do with her being white and everything to do with having no other recent immigration history.
Apologies - my bad for not following the convo.
However, I do think the Home Office's response would be different if she was white and non-Muslim personally.
So it literally has no relevance here then, because the situations are different. hypothetically, if he didn't have a current Canadian passport but could claim citizenship, you think he would be treated differently to how Begum has been treated?
Unreal how many people have came in just to make a point based on an imaginary scenario they’ve invented in their heads.
No worries.
See I don't, only because the crime is considered so heinous, the Home Office would do whatever they could to stop her returning.
Well almost all of the UK's 'indigenous' population is white so the two kind of go hand in hand. You probably have a few Chinese families in Liverpool from the 1800s but otherwise its pretty homogenous.
Essentially:
Shamima: Born and raised in Britain, not eligible for dual citizenship but Bengali ethnically: Revoke
Tim: Born and raised in Britain, white British, not eligible for dual citizenship: Not revoke
Klaus: Born and raised in Britain but with dual Dutch citizenship: Revoke
My point is that Shamima and Tim should not be treated differently in terms of the law, they are both born and raised in Britain. Its very simple. You clearly disagree and for some reason, have fixated on the white angle of the discussion. If you're so hung up on that particular aspect, you can remove that. I still find it equally despicable.
Also, having just said what I said above, I've just gone back to the post I actually wrote and you quoted and I don't mention colour once in the message? I mention it in another post where I talk about how it wouldn't happen to a white British person, which you've agreed with. So what exactly is the issue?
So again, nothing really to do with being white, but being indigenous to Britain. So your issue isn't with race but to do with how they've exercised a law that can be applied to immigrants but not the indigenous British population, making any reference to race redundant, and yet you told the other poster skin colour was relevant...
Poster said:
You refuted that and said it was relevant.
In terms of treating immigrants differently: I can get on board with those concerns. I feel the Home Office has only tried to make that distinction in order to prevent her from returning, rather than preventing her from returning because of that distinction, but I get why anyone of recent immigrant descent would be concerned with that decision, based on Britains less than stellar track record.
Last edited:
We're not Italian citizens, oates and I are resident here (so we can stay as long as we want, even though we're British). I'd personally rather be an Italian citizen, but citizenship here is very difficult to obtain and takes years.
Having said that, if a non-Italian commits a crime in Italy they would be tried under their justice system and they'd go to prison here, as happens in most countries in the world. The same would apply to non-citizens who live here like us, or to someone who was simply here on a holiday.
If you hold citizenship of a country which you've gained as a child or even later, you should have the same rights as someone who is born in that country.
I think thats pretty much the main part of the argument here
The home office seem to disagree with your statement ... she can and is appealing that decision - however its been decided that it is not necessary she attends that trial in person (but that trial can still move forwards)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47310206
I think there's a lot of conjecture there to be honest. And I think a lot of the facts in the conversation are lost under the cloud of 'she joined ISIS'. She did, but she was also 15 years old, also groomed online by someone a lot older than her. You can tell from her interviews she's not quite there in the head (I don't mean she has a mental illness or anything) but it seems there's some conditioning or fog with her speech (I don't want to use the word brainwashing). If memory serves me correct, she gave birth and lost a child in infancy, as well as raising other kids in squalid conditions. I wouldn't be surprised if she has PTSD or some form of trauma.
She needs to be tried in a UK court of law firstly, but I also think she needs to have some rehabilitative therapy (in custody).
Edit: And circling back to my original point, I think a lot of the facts that are lost wouldn't be if she was white etc.
Jesus Ivaldo, if it bothers you that much, fine. Remove the reference of race. We're going round in circles here.
I personally think that Shamima, Babatunde, Piotr or Tim should be treated exactly the same in the eyes of the law if they were born here, regardless of whether there is a theoretical chance of another citizenship. If you disagree, that's fine, just say so and we can move on.
I don't understand how the Home Secretary and the Supreme Court can break the law, except that they can do it and get away with it.
Bangladesh have said she is not eligible for Bangladeshi Citizenship, therefore Shamina has been illegally made Stateless.
There's no need or place for if's or but's, suppositions or presumptions. She is British, she stands accused of a crime and it is her right to be tried by the court accusing her.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...rn-to-uk-to-fight-for-citizenship-court-rules
Bangladesh have said she is not eligible for Bangladeshi Citizenship, therefore Shamina has been illegally made Stateless.
There's no need or place for if's or but's, suppositions or presumptions. She is British, she stands accused of a crime and it is her right to be tried by the court accusing her.
No it's not a case that it 'bothers me that much,' it's that the way you phrased your original response made it appear that, in no uncertain terms, she was being mistreated based on her skin colour. Which is why I didn't attack you, but said rather innocently that I didn't understand.
Broadly speaking I feel we agree. I'm not sure if you read my edited post before replying (I mangled by thumb in a hand blender a few days ago so my posts are just a bit of a mess and I press reply before I mean to
) but I elaborate a bit more in there.The Supreme Court is not bound by traditional laws, so to speak. They give judgements on points of Law. Their judgment was that the Appeals Court made a incorrect judgment.
They broke no Law. They set precedent that lower Courts are legally bound to follow.
As a slight aside this is a really good documentary on an American woman who joined ISIS and took her kids to later return to the US.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000pr81
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000pr81
I see. So they've set a precedent that can be used now by the Home Secretary to make people Stateless. The Government can now get away with this because the ECHR is no longer a recourse?
Even those people who feel Shamina shouldn't be allowed back can see issues with this for the future?
We had a similar case to this in Ireland last year.If I'm not mistaken, our options would be.
1) Let them be judged/imprisoned in Iraq/Syria.
2) Bring them back to the UK & sentence them with some sort of crime against the state.
3) Bring them back & let them go free.
3 would cause a shitstorm like nothing else, 2 would probably be the diplomatic choice, and 1 would cause a different kinda shitstorm altogether.
2 is what we'll see, with a "long" sentence, with all offenders likely out within five years(I'd be more than happy with 2 if the sentence was actually meaningful).
The issue with option 2, is that you're locking a potential fundamentalist influencer in prison with some of your most disturbed, vulnerable and impressionable citizens.
Unless you commit to the cost and ethical dilemma of keeping these people in solitary confinement, then you're asking for more people to be radicalized while in prison.