Shamima Begum bid to regain UK citizenship rejected

[Comrade 86]

From the BBC New Website:

Shamima Begum has lost her challenge over the decision to deprive her of British citizenship despite a "credible" case she was trafficked.

Mr Justice Jay told the semi-secret court dealing with her case that her appeal had been fully dismissed.

The ruling means the 23-year-old remains barred from returning to the UK and stuck in a camp in northern Syria.

Her legal team said the case was "nowhere near over" and the decision will be challenged.

Ms Begum was 15 years old when she travelled to join the self-styled Islamic State group in 2015.

She went on to have three children, all of whom have died, after marrying a fighter with the group.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-64731007

[i-Ram]

2 minutes ago, 86 Hair Islands said:

From the BBC New Website:

Shamima Begum has lost her challenge over the decision to deprive her of British citizenship despite a "credible" case she was trafficked.

Mr Justice Jay told the semi-secret court dealing with her case that her appeal had been fully dismissed.

The ruling means the 23-year-old remains barred from returning to the UK and stuck in a camp in northern Syria.

Her legal team said the case was "nowhere near over" and the decision will be challenged.

Ms Begum was 15 years old when she travelled to join the self-styled Islamic State group in 2015.

She went on to have three children, all of whom have died, after marrying a fighter with the group.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-64731007

[sage]

It's a tricky one.

She was 15 when she joined, trafficked to Syria, lost 3 kids. However, she would have been aware what ISIS was and could she have left earlier?

On balance, she is a British citizen and should come back if she wants. If she has broken the law, then arrest and charge her. 

[Crewton]

4 minutes ago, sage said:

It's a tricky one.

She was 15 when she joined, trafficked to Syria, lost 3 kids. However, she would have been aware what ISIS was and could she have left earlier?

On balance, she is a British citizen and should come back if she wants. If she has broken the law, then arrest and charge her. 

Groomed certainly, but not trafficked in the usual sense - her and the other girls traveled together without a "trafficker", at least until they got to Turkey. I think using that term in her case is unfair to those who are truly trafficked against their will under false pretenses. She knew she was joining IS and was going to marry a "warrior". Impressionable, naive perhaps, those are the things that perhaps mitigate her decision. I can see both sides of the argument, but I can't find much sympathy for her.

 

[sage]

4 minutes ago, Crewton said:

Groomed certainly, but not trafficked in the usual sense - her and the other girls traveled together without a "trafficker", at least until they got to Turkey. I think using that term in her case is unfair to those who are truly trafficked against their will under false pretenses. She knew she was joining IS and was going to marry a "warrior". Impressionable, naive perhaps, those are the things that perhaps mitigate her decision. I can see both sides of the argument, but I can't find much sympathy for her.

 

Semi-Trafficked. From Turkey to Syria. She isn't on my Christmas Card list, but she was a child.  

[Archied]

28 minutes ago, sage said:

Semi-Trafficked. From Turkey to Syria. She isn't on my Christmas Card list, but she was a child.  

I know this is not original but Greta was just a kid so perhaps that only works if we agree with either one’s views , words and actions?

that said I’m totally conflicted on what is the right course of action regards begum for lots of different factors and could not fully argue one way or another,

I believe her parents have returned to Bangladesh but she could face the death penalty if she went there so that’s a no no for her choices,

Then we have the point of is it really legal to make someone stateless, is she our legal responsibility?

very difficult issue

Edited February 22, 2023 by Archied

[Crewton]

31 minutes ago, sage said:

Semi-Trafficked. From Turkey to Syria. She isn't on my Christmas Card list, but she was a child.  

I think she ended up exactly where she wanted and expected to be. Legally, she was a child, though well above the age for criminal responsibility. She'd already seen on video what IS do to those they don't like. It's hard to believe that she didn't know exactly what she was doing, no matter how much her groomers 'sexed it up'.

She's lucky in one respect though : she's got a top legal team that she isn't having to fund, and they'll keep appealing until someone, some way down the line gives in and let's her come back. If that happens, I hope it turns out well for all concerned.

[Gee SCREAMER !!]

1 hour ago, sage said:

It's a tricky one.

She was 15 when she joined, trafficked to Syria, lost 3 kids. However, she would have been aware what ISIS was and could she have left earlier?

On balance, she is a British citizen and should come back if she wants. If she has broken the law, then arrest and charge her. 

Been revoked hasn't it. 

[sage]

26 minutes ago, Gee SCREAMER !! said:

Been revoked hasn't it. 

That's my point. She was and one politician shouldn't have the authority to decide otherwise.  

[DarkFruitsRam7]

Born in Britain, raised in Britain, citizen of Britain, until one bloke decided she wasn't anymore.

Regardless of what you think of her and her actions, she's our responsibility and shouldn't be fobbed off to Bangladesh. I can only imagine the uproar if they tried to do the same to us.

Edited February 22, 2023 by DarkFruitsRam7

[Crewton]

25 minutes ago, DarkFruitsRam7 said:

Born in Britain, raised in Britain, citizen of Britain, until one bloke decided she wasn't anymore.

Regardless of what you think of her and her actions, she's our responsibility and shouldn't be fobbed off to Bangladesh. I can only imagine the uproar if they tried to do the same to us.

She won't be going to Bangladesh because they've said she's not their citizen, even though her parents are. 

Jack Letts had his British citizenship revoked too. The difference in his case is that he was a dual Canadian national and they're about to repatriate him. 

[DarkFruitsRam7]

9 minutes ago, Crewton said:

She won't be going to Bangladesh because they've said she's not their citizen, even though her parents are. 

Jack Letts had his British citizenship revoked too. The difference in his case is that he was a dual Canadian national and they're about to repatriate him. 

I'm really not clued up on the case in depth, but that's part of the contention, is it not?

You're not allowed to make anyone stateless under international law. The British Government claimed she qualified for Bangladeshi citizenship, and therefore didn't break the law by removing her British citizenship.

It's like deciding you can't be arsed to look after your kid anymore so you dump it on your second cousin's doorstep. And then claiming they’ve got just as much of a duty to raise it as you have.

Edited February 22, 2023 by DarkFruitsRam7

[Bob The Badger]

Heard a guy/expert say on Nicky Campbells show today  that we're one of only 3 countries in the world that will strip citizenship away. Nicaragua do it and I *think* he said Bahrain was the third. Not great company to keep  

Rapists and murderers don't have it happen so bring her home and charge her. 

And apparently, you can go if your own volition and still be trafficked. 

[I am Ram]

My question is, does she only want to come back because isis was defeated ?  If they had won or were still going strong, she would probably want to stay, maybe ?  She was just a child, but travelled on her own freewill, having studied what life with isis was all about. Not letting her back, will deter others i think but i don't think leaving people stateless is the answer either. A tough call.

[DarkFruitsRam7]

5 minutes ago, I am Ram said:

My question is, does she only want to come back because isis was defeated ?  If they had won or were still going strong, she would probably want to stay, maybe ?  She was just a child, but travelled on her own freewill, having studied what life with isis was all about. Not letting her back, will deter others i think but i don't think leaving people stateless is the answer either. A tough call.

This is the thing. Regardless of what you think of here, not taking her back is basically saying “it’s someone else’s problem now”. 

How on earth is that fair on whichever country she ends up going to? Why should it be their responsibility and not ours?

[RoyMac5]

2 hours ago, Crewton said:

I think she ended up exactly where she wanted and expected to be. Legally, she was a child, though well above the age for criminal responsibility. She'd already seen on video what IS do to those they don't like. It's hard to believe that she didn't know exactly what she was doing, no matter how much her groomers 'sexed it up'.

She's lucky in one respect though : she's got a top legal team that she isn't having to fund, and they'll keep appealing until someone, some way down the line gives in and let's her come back. If that happens, I hope it turns out well for all concerned.

So is that one of those 'Jimmy Saville' moments?

She was a child. But apparently that doesn't matter?

[i-Ram]

12 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

So is that one of those 'Jimmy Saville' moments?

She was a child. But apparently that doesn't matter?

Dear Jimmy

Can you fix it for me to return to the UK, so I can enjoy your wonderful benefit system.

Love x

Shamima (Age 23)

[G STAR RAM]

19 minutes ago, i-Ram said:

Dear Jimmy

Can you fix it for me to return to the UK, so I can enjoy your wonderful benefit system.

Love x

Shamima (Age 23)

Sure they will let you back in if you begum

[Van der MoodHoover]

On the news it said that the home secretary has powers to revoke citizenship on national security grounds (ie it is threatened).

Is that really the case here? Seems a punitive punishment to me.

Actually in interview shamima begum seemed quite resigned to her fate and rational. But isn't ISIS a busted flush? Regardless of how dangerous it was once upon a time?

[Carl Sagan]

Morally, @DarkFruitsRam7is right in that she's our problem whether we like it or not, and it's grossly unfair to try to offload her onto Turkish Kurds or Bangladesh. We should deal with our own sh*t.

The problem with that is that we are hopeless at doing so. Partly the UK prison system has fallen so far into disrepair it's a hotbed for radicalization and terrorist recruitment. And partly because our judiciary has become a law unto itself, falling out of step with the will of the people and of Parliament. And partly because our legal system has become paralysed by a culture of lawyers forever being paid *vast* sums by the government (ie taxpayers) to contest government rulings in an attempt to prevent anything happening, often supported by a "progressive" media. To fix this requires time and a massive culture change and I don't think anyone has the energy - so the gears will grind ever more slowly, wrong judgments will continue to be given and things will likely continue to decline.

For the purposes of national security the rights of the innocent citizens of this country should take priority over her individual rights so she (and the hundreds of others - she's just the tip of the iceberg) should be locked up until such time as it can be clearly demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that she is not a threat to the UK. But if that were to happen, once inside she'd probably be out of sight, out of mind because prison's like that, and it isn't fair. And if she went in thinking she'd made a terrible mistake and wanted to make amends, by the time she came out she'd only be a radical islamist again.

But in practice it almost certainly wouldn't happen and when she comes back (I expect it is when not if) then it will turn out we're not allowed to deny her her liberty so she will be out walking the streets, posssibly remorseful or more likely trying to bring the state down and see more innocent people killed. Which could be any one of us. If terrorists are prepared to blow up a gig attended by schoolgirls (which she expressed her support for in an early interview before the lawyers got hold of her and told her to shut her mouth), and sever the heads of anyone they object to, they don't have any qualms about bombing football stadiums. Would her return make that even a little more likely? Probably.

It's kind of a lose-lose situation. How has it come to this? As a nation we have stood by and allowed this to happen and there is now no good route forward. I don't know what the answer is but hers was a young mind "radicalized" as it's easy to do with young minds. The problem is all religions are in the business of radicalizing young minds, but we don't always call it that. Some forms we allow, while others are beyond the pale. The lines shift over time. I would argue that all religions are crazy and simply systems of control, and all are dangerous, but some are more dangerous than others. Here's a debate featuring the marvellous (by this point shortly to die from his cancer) Christopher Hitchens debating the question, "Is Islam a Religion of Peace?"