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

[Ish]

Yes that's right, if you want an example look at the murder of James Bulger by Jonathan Venebles and Robert Thompson

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_James_Bulger#:~:text=James Patrick Bulger (16 March,on Friday, 12 February 1993.

Thanks HC!

 

[FlawlessThaw]

I was all for this 2 years ago when this all kicked off, now I've changed my mind.

I find it quite concerning how fragile your citizenship status is in this country as a 2nd generation immigrant. I think her citizenship should've upheld but the govt should've been under no obligation to rescue her from syria. If she managed to find her way back, she should've then been arrested at the point of entry and tried for everything they could throw at her.

This is exactly how I see it as well. I don't give two shits about her really but what it is telling me as a second gen immigrant that I have less rights than someone who is considered indigenous.

We're also trying to pass the buck off to a third world country which isn't very palatable either and they've refused as well.

 

[VidaRed]

I was all for this 2 years ago when this all kicked off, now I've changed my mind.

I find it quite concerning how fragile your citizenship status is in this country as a 2nd generation immigrant. I think her citizenship should've upheld but the govt should've been under no obligation to rescue her from syria. If she managed to find her way back, she should've then been arrested at the point of entry and tried for everything they could throw at her.

Agreed.

 

[VidaRed]

Shamana said skin colour or ethnicity. I think we can all agree, despite everything else, that Shamima is being treated differently because of her ethnicity than a white British person would be, despite being born here and despite our enlightened laws pretending that we treat migrants and their kids in the same way.

Apologies about your thumb and I hadn't seen the edit.

I'm a 1st generation immigrant and therefore understand that there will be some people who may accept my presence but will probably feel that I'm somehow being done a favour by being given citizenship and if I somehow err, it is not my right but a privilege which can be taken away from me. Fine.

My kids were born here though and yes, while this is a particularly extreme situation, I don't like the precedent that they are somehow different from their white British equivalents, despite certain people falling over themselves to tell us how this country and its laws are colour (or immigrant if you'd prefer I said that) blind.

There are no rights, its just ink on paper.

What you have (and everyone else) are privileges and they can be taken away anytime by the powers that be.

 

[VP89]

Passing the buck.

Radicalised on our own turf. Own the problem and apply the law upon her return. I have no real sympathy for Begum the adult: she shows practically zero contrition for her role within a terrorist organisation, but the fact of the matter is that she was radicalised on UK soil at the age of 14 and should have been safeguarded from the events that occurred both before and thereafter.

Do I particularly want somebody who espouses her views on our streets? No. Do I think she poses a threat to national security? Absolutely. But she is a UK citizen and we’ve passed the buck. Our systems also failed to safeguard her from harm when she was a child. We should be better than this.

The supreme court actually noted all of what you said but said whilst true, that is secondary to national security. So that's why they came to the decision to keep her out. No decision will ever be made to the letter of the law if it threatens security of any state.

 

[VidaRed]

Saying automatic citizenship rights do not apply to somebody is a statement... its not the law ... the law is anybody born to a Bangladeshi parent outside the country is automatically a citizen... they loose that citizenship if they don't take steps to formalise it by their 21st birthday

Therefore when stripping her of British citizenship as a 19 year old that did not make her stateless... if she does not take steps to formalise her citizenship by her 21st birthday she is defacto making herself stateless.

Is that so ?

I would assume an application would have to be made first and then the govt will take a call on the facts and as per the law whether the said applicant fulfills all the criteria for citizenship and only after that would they grant citizenship.

Therefore, in the absence of any such application she is not a bangladeshi citizen and therefore is currently stateless now, unless she makes an application and that application is accepted by the bangladesh govt.

Im afraid the british argument is on a weak footing.

 

[iluvoursolskjær]

She's a cnut, but she's a British cnut. As has been repeated over and over in this thread since 2 years ago, Bangladesh have stated she is not a citizen and any application will be rejected. What British courts rule is irrelevant, she will effectively be stateless.

This thread is a shit hole as expected, never change people never change.

 

[sun_tzu]

Is that so ?

I would assume an application would have to be made first and then the govt will take a call on the facts and as per the law whether the said applicant fulfills all the criteria for citizenship and only after that would they grant citizenship.

Therefore, in the absence of any such application she is not a bangladeshi citizen and therefore is currently stateless now, unless she makes an application and that application is accepted by the bangladesh govt.

Im afraid the british argument is on a weak footing.

It's an autimatic right to citizenship based on who her parents are... not a right to apply for citizenship

Automatically entitled to it if they start the process before they turn 21

She has not therefore she is now stateless... however as upheld by the court the uk government was entitled to strip her of her citizenship when she was 19 as it did not leave her stateless... I mean that's literally what the highest court has said so yeah that's the legal fact and is binding and carries more weight than your assumptions

 

[slyadams]

I suppose joining a terrorist organisation intent on over throwing the society that you come from whilst participating in enslavement, torture, rape and murder as means of achieving those ends goes beyond an isolated assault.

In both cases the person deserves due process. If you don't believe that then we'll never agree on this.

Dostoyevsky said "A society should be judged not by how it treats its outstanding citizens but by how it treats its criminals.", you're suggesting we actually skip the whole process to determine criminality.

Saying automatic citizenship rights do not apply to somebody is a statement... its not the law ... the law is anybody born to a Bangladeshi parent outside the country is automatically a citizen... they loose that citizenship if they don't take steps to formalise it by their 21st birthday

Therefore when stripping her of British citizenship as a 19 year old that did not make her stateless... if she does not take steps to formalise her citizenship by her 21st birthday she is defacto making herself stateless.

Even if the above is true, if the UK government can arbitrarily strip her of her citizenship then why can't Bangladesh? Also, the following logic meets your second standard: I've poisoned you and given you ingredients to the cure, if you don't make the cure and take it, you're defacto killing yourself.

 

[Classical Mechanic]

In both cases the person deserves due process. If you don't believe that then we'll never agree on this.

Dostoyevsky said "A society should be judged not by how it treats its outstanding citizens but by how it treats its criminals.", you're suggesting we actually skip the whole process to determine criminality.

Raskolnikov got off too lightly.

 

[NotThatSoph]

Comebacks weaker than Shamima's human rights

And the Current Events forum quota of "at all times at least one open fascist" is filled.

 

[Gehrman]

Raskolnikov got off too lightly.

Actually I'd say that considering the amount of criminals who hold the highest offices and criminals who are in the highest positions in life, most countries are doing pretty well on that front.

 

[groovyalbert]

Apologies if this has been covered, but in a hypothetical situation where she does return to the UK, what exactly would she face? She left when she was a minor, and what laws has she broken?

I think the idea of making her stateless sets a dangerous precedent and shirks all responsibility states have, especially those with the necessary infrastructure and institutions to handle situations such as these. For a country that claims a seat at the highest international table, this doesn't exactly fit the image.

That said, if it's the case her returning to the UK means she's technically classified a "free" citizen in a couple of months/years due to there not being the grounds to charge, then I can see why the Home Office is hesitant to bring her back (although I suspect that's a very generous reading of the HO's actions).

Can anyone enlighten me on what would happen to Shamima from a legal standpoint if she returned to the UK?

 

[sun_tzu]

In both cases the person deserves due process. If you don't believe that then we'll never agree on this.

Dostoyevsky said "A society should be judged not by how it treats its outstanding citizens but by how it treats its criminals.", you're suggesting we actually skip the whole process to determine criminality.


Even if the above is true, if the UK government can arbitrarily strip her of her citizenship then why can't Bangladesh? Also, the following logic meets your second standard: I've poisoned you and given you ingredients to the cure, if you don't make the cure and take it, you're defacto killing yourself.

Because they would have made her stateless after we did it first (otherwise we would have made her stateless which would not have been allowed ... as it has not been allowed in cases where people are over 21)

And it's not my standard... its the highest court in the UK's standard... aka its the law.

So really the question is who is in a better place to judge the legality of the uk government's actions in taking uk citizenship away... is it the highest court in the UK after hearing arguments from legal experts... or a bloke on the Internet who googled a Dostoyevsky quote ...

It's a difficult one but im gonna go with the court and given Dostoyevsky says that "If there is no God, everything is permitted." Then I guess you can also see the logic that the uk government's actions are fine

 

[sun_tzu]

Can anyone enlighten me on what would happen to Shamima from a legal standpoint if she returned to the UK?

She would claim asylum as she is now stateless (her bangladeashi citizenship lapsed at 21 because she did not make moves to formalise it)

 

[sullydnl]

The supreme court actually noted all of what you said but said whilst true, that is secondary to national security. So that's why they came to the decision to keep her out. No decision will ever be made to the letter of the law if it threatens security of any state.

What a threat this kid must be for the UK to take such drastic and reputationally damaging action. Their security and legal systems left quaking by a not-so-bright British teenage girl. Just imagine how they might respond to more imposing threats.

 

[Widow]

Apologies if this has been covered, but in a hypothetical situation where she does return to the UK, what exactly would she face? She left when she was a minor, and what laws has she broken?

I think the idea of making her stateless sets a dangerous precedent and shirks all responsibility states have, especially those with the necessary infrastructure and institutions to handle situations such as these. For a country that claims a seat at the highest international table, this doesn't exactly fit the image.

That said, if it's the case her returning to the UK means she's technically classified a "free" citizen in a couple of months/years due to there not being the grounds to charge, then I can see why the Home Office is hesitant to bring her back (although I suspect that's a very generous reading of the HO's actions).

Can anyone enlighten me on what would happen to Shamima from a legal standpoint if she returned to the UK?

Here you go

In the Terrorism Act 2000. By virtue of s. 41(1) “a constable may arrest without a warrant a person whom he reasonably suspects to be a terrorist”.

Section 40 of the Act defines a terrorist as a person who either (a) has committed an offence under certain sections of the Act, or (b) “has been concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism”. To the extent that arrest is based on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence, there is no need for the power under s.41.

Under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, s. 24,23 a police officer may arrest on reasonable suspicion relating to any offence. It is where the suspicion relates to behaviour falling within (b), that s. 41(1) becomes important and extends the normal arrest powers. . Although acts of “'terrorism” will almost certainly involve the commission of an offence.

So based on the Terrorism Act 2000, she can be arrested.

Source

 

[Roane]

Here you go

Sorry to be a pain mate, I read that the first time you posted it and as I mentioned to you yesterday was looking into the whole thing, and to be honest it git a bit tedious as the current headline dominates all searches etc

I think you mentioned you had a legal background, apologies if not you, so what exactly would she be charged with?

The reason I ask is because I read, during the research, an interview with Cressida Dicks and she said that the police have a strategy to deal with those returning from Syria, desistance and disengagement programme I mentioned yesterday, and

“If she does, under whatever circumstances, arrive at our borders somebody in her type of circumstances could expect to be spoken to and if there is the appropriate necessity, to be potentially arrested and certainly investigated,”

“If that results in sufficient evidence for a prosecution then it will result in sufficient evidence for a prosecution.

She then goes into say

“Many people have come back and just gone on with peaceful lives.”

The old head of counterterrorism policing Mark Rowley said in 2015 there was no evidence the bethnal green girls had committed terror offences

 

[Don't Kill Bill]

I have no doubt she will eventually worm her way back to the UK.

Getting a conviction isn't straight forward on jurisdiction and evidential grounds. Its not certain she will be convicted for anything and I am pretty sure she wouldn't want to come back if she wasn't being advised that a very lengthy sentence on anything she could be convicted of, was unlikely.

I dislike her intensely after the interview where she said she didn't care about the people the Islamic state tortured, raped and murdered because they were not Muslims. She strikes me as thick and narcissistic.

Most probably she gets back does a few years on remand then gets released as she releases her book Shamima My Life in the Islamic State, where she completes her transformation from perpetrator to victim in record time. I can't wait to see her introduced as controversial author and expert in radicalization as she does the usual TV shows and ends up in celebrity big brother, bake off and dancing on ice.

She should be granted Iraqi citizenship because she was an Islamic state citizen and Iraq now controls the territory of the former Islamic State but that is not going to happen so I am preparing for the worst.

 

[Gehrman]

As much as I equally despise the Syrian goverment shouldn't she essentially be tried for her crimes and complicity in crimes in Syria by the Syrian Goverment?

 

[Inigo Montoya]

I have no doubt she will eventually worm her way back to the UK.

Getting a conviction isn't straight forward on jurisdiction and evidential grounds. Its not certain she will be convicted for anything and I am pretty sure she wouldn't want to come back if she wasn't being advised that a very lengthy sentence on anything she could be convicted of, was unlikely.

I dislike her intensely after the interview where she said she didn't care about the people the Islamic state tortured, raped and murdered because they were not Muslims. She strikes me as thick and narcissistic.

Most probably she gets back does a few years on remand then gets released as she releases her book Shamima My Life in the Islamic State, where she completes her transformation from perpetrator to victim in record time. I can't wait to see her introduced as controversial author and expert in radicalization as she does the usual TV shows and ends up in celebrity big brother, bake off and dancing on ice.

She should be granted Iraqi citizenship because she was an Islamic state citizen and Iraq now controls the territory of the former Islamic State but that is not going to happen so I am preparing for the worst.

Cue an appearance on Loose Women

 

[Inigo Montoya]

As much as I equally despise the Syrian goverment shouldn't she essentially be tried for her crimes and complicity in crimes in Syria by the Syrian Goverment?

I think they’ve still got huge problems with opposition to Assad. A show trial of a UK citizen would attract too much publicity. They want her gone essentially and every day her and others like her are a drain on their infrastructure

 

[Gehrman]

I think they’ve still got huge problems with opposition to Assad. A show trial of a UK citizen would attract too much publicity. They want her gone essentially and every day her and others like her are a drain on their infrastructure

Preferably I'd like the Yazidis to determine and carry out her trial.

 

[Penna]

This is a very good point about how prisoners are scroungers, living off honest, hardworking taxpayers. And the younger they are, the more resources they consume. This disgusting excuse for a human being was recently released after being fed and getting a toilet (with drainage!) at govt expense for 70 years! Disgrace. The govt might have been able to buy a replacement nosewheel for a fighter jet for that money.

I think, to avoid this waste of resources on human filth, it is time to bring back hanging, but only for juveniles. No appeals once the sentence is passed to avoid wasting courts' time. Cheap, quick, less resources, more justice. What's not to like.

Is this meant to be sarcastic, or do you actually believe all of this?

The man released after serving a lifetime in prison was 15 when he was convicted. Yes, it was a very bad crime, but he wasn't the main protagonist, it appears. He's not a disgusting excuse or filth, he's a man who by any sane person's yardstick has been punished several times over for what he did. His whole life has gone, now he just has the chance to have a few years as a free man.

And as for giving the death penalty to juveniles, that's just insane and wicked.

 

[sullydnl]

I have no doubt she will eventually worm her way back to the UK.

Getting a conviction isn't straight forward on jurisdiction and evidential grounds. Its not certain she will be convicted for anything and I am pretty sure she wouldn't want to come back if she wasn't being advised that a very lengthy sentence on anything she could be convicted of, was unlikely.

I dislike her intensely after the interview where she said she didn't care about the people the Islamic state tortured, raped and murdered because they were not Muslims. She strikes me as thick and narcissistic.

Most probably she gets back does a few years on remand then gets released as she releases her book Shamima My Life in the Islamic State, where she completes her transformation from perpetrator to victim in record time. I can't wait to see her introduced as controversial author and expert in radicalization as she does the usual TV shows and ends up in celebrity big brother, bake off and dancing on ice.

She should be granted Iraqi citizenship because she was an Islamic state citizen and Iraq now controls the territory of the former Islamic State but that is not going to happen so I am preparing for the worst.

She was groomed as a 15 year old before being transported to another country and married off (or as it would more typically be termed in such cases, trafficked and raped).

Worth bearing in mind that the first transformation here was from victim to perpetrator, not the other way around.

 

[Roane]

As much as I equally despise the Syrian goverment shouldn't she essentially be tried for her crimes and complicity in crimes in Syria by the Syrian Goverment?

This is something I found surprising. The camp she was initially found in, al hawk, wasn't a isis terrorist women's camp. The camp was etc up for women and children escaping places.

The camp she is now in was also similarly set up.

Recent pics of her show her in "western" garb. T-shirt, leggings etc. The older camp is said to have been more restricting on how women dressed and that was by other women "taking charge" there, but not affiliates of isis. There was even a story of a 14 year old suffocated to death for not wearing niqab.

Reason I raise this is that if it's an "escapee" type camp then there is any will for trial of it's residents?

Which links into the reports from Cressida Sicks etc and the old head of counter terrorism, that I posted earlier, can she be tried of a crime?

Further reading suggests that only 1 in 10 returnees have faced any kind of prosecution, and not all of those were sentenced. 1 girl who was sentenced and had participated in recruiting and participating got 6 years but was out in two and a half to three years.

Not wishing to get all conspiracy theorist here but the media attention on this bunch of girls and the eventual lackmof any prosecution would certainly cause havoc and maybe why the govt has gone down the citizenship route.

There are a few articles on how media portrayal have shown these girls a certain way including how pictures of them had been shown a certain way when they hadn't been together etc.

Its fascinating in a morbid way reading some of the articles

 

[Widow]

Sorry to be a pain mate, I read that the first time you posted it and as I mentioned to you yesterday was looking into the whole thing, and to be honest it git a bit tedious as the current headline dominates all searches etc

I think you mentioned you had a legal background, apologies if not you, so what exactly would she be charged with?

The reason I ask is because I read, during the research, an interview with Cressida Dicks and she said that the police have a strategy to deal with those returning from Syria, desistance and disengagement programme I mentioned yesterday, and

“If she does, under whatever circumstances, arrive at our borders somebody in her type of circumstances could expect to be spoken to and if there is the appropriate necessity, to be potentially arrested and certainly investigated,”

“If that results in sufficient evidence for a prosecution then it will result in sufficient evidence for a prosecution.

She then goes into say

“Many people have come back and just gone on with peaceful lives.”

The old head of counterterrorism policing Mark Rowley said in 2015 there was no evidence the bethnal green girls had committed terror offences

The Terrorism Act 2000 S43(1) gives the police the power to arrest a suspected terrorist. She is suspected.

The Terrorism Act 2006 S5...

Preparation of terrorist acts


(1)A person commits an offence if, with the intention of—

(a)committing acts of terrorism, or

(b)assisting another to commit such acts,

I imagine this is one law they will argue she breached though there are others.

I'll rattle my brain and see if I can draw a list of charges she could face. Bear in mind this is all conjecture, I don't claim to know the workings of her case.

 

[Ajr]

Why can she not just come back to the UK and be dealt with over here?

 

[Roane]

The Terrorism Act 2000 S43(1) gives the police the power to arrest a suspected terrorist. She is suspected.

The Terrorism Act 2006 S5...

Preparation of terrorist acts


(1)A person commits an offence if, with the intention of—

(a)committing acts of terrorism, or

(b)assisting another to commit such acts,

I imagine this is one law they will argue she breached though there are others.

I'll rattle my brain and see if I can draw a list of charges she could face. Bear in mind this is all conjecture, I don't claim to know the workings of her case.

Yeah I understand. I worked in a "community safety" type role for over 10 years and tbh am struggling with this one.

Especially if you take into account the "precedent" for returnees, Cressida Dicks quotes and Mark Rowley's quotes that I highlighted earlier.

And with all due respect (not aimed at you this bit but generally) I think the discussion around this issue on here and social media is mostly conjecture or emotions. Its when you try and nail down the facts that becomes a bit of a headache.

 

[RedRover]

Sorry to be a pain mate, I read that the first time you posted it and as I mentioned to you yesterday was looking into the whole thing, and to be honest it git a bit tedious as the current headline dominates all searches etc

I think you mentioned you had a legal background, apologies if not you, so what exactly would she be charged with?

The reason I ask is because I read, during the research, an interview with Cressida Dicks and she said that the police have a strategy to deal with those returning from Syria, desistance and disengagement programme I mentioned yesterday, and

“If she does, under whatever circumstances, arrive at our borders somebody in her type of circumstances could expect to be spoken to and if there is the appropriate necessity, to be potentially arrested and certainly investigated,”

“If that results in sufficient evidence for a prosecution then it will result in sufficient evidence for a prosecution.

She then goes into say

“Many people have come back and just gone on with peaceful lives.”

The old head of counterterrorism policing Mark Rowley said in 2015 there was no evidence the bethnal green girls had committed terror offences

I studied a Terrorism module as part of my law degree and it was fascinating. As part of it, we looked at the prisoners detained without Trial in Belmarsh and thereafter (after their continued detention was ruled illegal by the (now) Supreme Court) placed under control orders which was effectively house arrest.

Two points, I thought were particularly interesting. Firstly, there was not enough legitimate evidence under the current statue to charge the suspects with any serious crime. The suggestion in the reading (and the basis of the argument run by the Government) was that the security services, probably working outside of certain restrictions, knew those involved were a National Security threat. True or not, I don't know but it raises an interesting point as to when (if ever) it's right to limit basic human rights.

The second, in reference to the bolded part above, was that one particular suspect was Jordanian and could not be deported there due to fear he would be tortured. He sought asylum in France, who despite investigating him, were happy that he wasn't a threat. What followed was a bizarre situation where he was escorted to Paris amid extremely high security and simply released in the train station and (as France had no issue with him) allowed to just wander off into the crowd.

 

[Roane]

Outside of Shamima I have always thought there needs to be a comprehensive investigation into the reasons why so many young folk are being radicilised. Not just Islamic but also extreme right wing.

I was in a certain role during 9/11 and 7/7 and I think there are many issues that need addressing or certainly looked into. I've never believed it's all about disenfranchised youth, simply because the backgrounds of those involved in the different aspects don't match up

 

[Roane]

I studied a Terrorism module as part of my law degree and it was fascinating. As part of it, we looked at the prisoners detained without Trial in Belmarsh and thereafter (after their continued detention was ruled illegal by the (now) Supreme Court) placed under control orders which was effectively house arrest.

Two points, I thought were particularly interesting. Firstly, there was not enough legitimate evidence under the current statue to charge the suspects with any serious crime. The suggestion in the reading (and the basis of the argument run by the Government) was that the security services, probably working outside of certain restrictions, knew those involved were a National Security threat. True or not, I don't know but it raises an interesting point as to when (if ever) it's right to limit basic human rights.

The second, in reference to the bolded part above, was that one particular suspect was Jordanian and could not be deported there due to fear he would be tortured. He sought asylum in France, who despite investigating him, were happy that he wasn't a threat. What followed was a bizarre situation where he was escorted to Paris amid extremely high security and simply released in the train station and (as France had no issue with him) allowed to just wander off into the crowd.

Maybe slightly off topic but if you can find the piece "covenenant of security" (I forget the details in terms of author and date) written a few years back it adds insight into some of the govt responses towards certain individuals and also in my opinion gives insight to the demographic of the earliest terrorists.

In brief it gives insight into certain foreign Imams/scholars who were under threat in their own countries but seem as "friends" of Britain. They were allowed here and took up places in Universities etc with the proviso they wouldn't attack Britain under the "covenant of security" as in we live here so we won't attack.

I think the number of terrorists in likes of 7/7 who were uni students or graduates rather than the later "grew up with a tough background" may have been due to this.

Could be wrong but it was interesting reading and some of the names iirc have become familiar to everyone post 7/7 and the terror threat

 

[Widow]

Yeah I understand. I worked in a "community safety" type role for over 10 years and tbh am struggling with this one.

Especially if you take into account the "precedent" for returnees, Cressida Dicks quotes and Mark Rowley's quotes that I highlighted earlier.

The thing with precedents though is the Supreme Court is not bound by them.

 

[sun_tzu]

Why can she not just come back to the UK and be dealt with over here?

Because she is no longer a uk citizen and that was just upheld by the supreme Court... so what basis would we have?

 

[Spoony]

So...where does a stateless person go?

 

[Widow]

Because she is no longer a uk citizen and that was just upheld by the supreme Court... so what basis would we have?

The Supreme Court ruled her rights were not breached when she was refused permission to return to the UK in order to appeal her citizenship case.

This means she still has the right to appeal but that she doesn't need to be in the UK to do so, they haven't ruled on her citizenship status.

 

[Cait Sith]

When it comes to violating human rights for "national security" reasons, the UK isn't far behind the US.

 

[horsechoker]

So...where does a stateless person go?

Antartica

 

[Spoony]

Antartica

I was thinking floating around on a raft in the middle of the Pacific.

 

[dumbo]

So...where does a stateless person go?