Shamima Begum

There's a bit of me which says we rightly condemn the grooming gangs that coerce and sexually exploit 15 year old girls; but a girl who has been coerced into going to a foreign country as part of her Islamic duty - we say tough?

I don't know the ins and outs of it; but it feels a bit double standards.

However, as an adult she made her position perfectly clear; she would have been very happy to stay if ISIS had established a lasting caliphate.

So on balance, she can stay where she is for me.
 
Lost Seasider said:
I have to say this case troubles me.

It is a fundamental human right established by international conventions not to be made stateless and yet that seems to be exactly what has happened in this case.
Click to expand...
Not read the judgment yet but surely she's made herself stateless - its not the gov't
 
Thelaneends1 said:
Yes it does.
Click to expand...
There's no point in me spending ages writing out why it doesn't. I'll make just one point, however. The Nazis created and armed a youth movement to fight for the defence of the Fatherland towards the end of the War: the Hitler Youth.
After the war had finished none of them were executed or tried for war crimes. You don't do that with children.
 
20togo said:
It might not be your point but it is the point.
Click to expand...
No it's not 20's. I only came onto this thread to disabuse Laneends that Begum's situation was not akin to the allies approach to the Nazis. As regards her own position, she appears to be in a hole that is partly of her own making. In that respect, I have little or no sympathy for her. However, as regards her initial motivations and ensuing action of joining the caliphate, that came from the mind of an immature girl. I'm not going to load that individual with the guilt of an adult. As I say, her position since she has become an adult is partly of her own making and it"s not an enviable one.
 
1950`spoolfan said:
We despise the Nazis and all who carried out crimes against humanity in their name.The same applies here.
Click to expand...
1966_and_all_that said:
No it doesn't.

My post followed by your response. Then.....
Click to expand...
1966_and_all_that said:
Stay calm 1950s. I haven't read your point actually. Neither have I made any comment about what should happen to the woman.

???????
Click to expand...

She defended the beheading of defenceless captives some of whom had just gone out there on compassionate missions from this country.
 
Last edited:
Sorry 1950s, I appear to have got lost as to whose posts I've read. My point regarding yours was about the scale and depth of the issue. I will not compare the motivations of a 15 year old girl with those of an advanced, sophisticated and cultured society that turned itself into an evil monstrosity. I can damn the caliphate for its beliefs and actions but that's a different matter altogether.
 
Lost Seasider said:
I have to say this case troubles me.

It is a fundamental human right established by international conventions not to be made stateless and yet that seems to be exactly what has happened in this case.
Click to expand...

She doesn't have to be stateless, she has a right to Bangladeshi citizenship thought her father.
 
Many who carried out Nazi atrocities and were tried for war crimes did so under orders knowing their own lives may be at risk if they disobeyed.This girl voluntarily chose to deceive those around her and make a long journey so that she could join this barbarous regime and then fully backed the beheadings and atrocities they were carrying out.
 
Last edited:
TwelveAngryMen said:
Not read the judgment yet but surely she's made herself stateless - its not the gov't
Click to expand...
You cannot make yourself stateless. Citizenship has to be removed by a higher authority (government and law courts). I would have thought, as a lawyer, you would have understood that. Furthermore, it is illegal to remove citizenship from a person if that would leave them stateless.

It has been reported that the UK Government has stripped British citizenship from over 150 people who went to Syria. According to the BBC, the UK authorities decided to target only people who had dual citizenship, or were born outside the UK, or who had parents born outside the UK so their children could possibly reclaim citizenship from another country. So as not to break UK law.

So, legally speaking, these outcast people have a possible ‘option’, however unrealistic it is. Theoretically. How you can process all the forms for getting a new Bangladeshi passport while stuck in a primitive refugee camp in the Middle East is a different question. Especially if Bangladesh says “nothing to do with us”. But Priti Patel could not give a flying f*** about those essential details.

However... the UK government has declined to identify exactly who these 150+ people are that they have made stateless or stripped of UK citizenship. It’s a secret list. Why? Perhaps the subjects do not even know themselves, if they are stuck in that refugee camp. It’s all rather Kafkaesque to me.

Yes, these people seem not to hold our moral values, but how and why were they indoctrinated while growing up in the UK? It seems our (multicultural) society bears a lot of responsibility for that. And we should start by cleaning up our own mess rather than just trying to wash our hands of it.
 
Last edited:
20togo said:
It might not be your point but it is the point.
[/QUO
Archibald Knox said:
You cannot make yourself stateless. Citizenship has to be removed by a higher authority. I would have thought, as a lawyer, you would have understood that. Furthermore, it is illegal to remove citizenship from a person if that would leave them stateless.

It has been reported that the UK Government has stripped British citizenship from over 150 people who went to Syria. According to the BBC, the UK authorities decided to target only people who had dual citizenship, or were born outside the UK, or who had parents born outside the UK, so their children could possibly reclaim citizenship from another country. So as not to break UK law.

So, legally speaking, these outcast people have a possible ‘option’, however unrealistic. Theoretically. How you can process all the forms for getting a new Bangladeshi passport while stuck in a primitive refugee camp in the Middle East is a different question. Especially if Bangladesh says “nothing to do with us”. But Priti Patel could not give a flying f*** about those fine details.

However... the UK government has declined to identify exactly who these 150+ people are that they have made stateless. It’s a secret list. Why? Perhaps the subjects do not even know themselves, if they are stuck in that refugee camp. It’s all rather Kafkaesque to me.

Yes, these people seem not to hold our values, but how and why were they indoctrinated while growing up in the UK? It seems our (multicultural) society bears a lot of responsibility for that. And we should start by cleaning up our own mess rather than just trying to wash our hands of it.
Click to expand...
Nonsense...these people want to wipe away our way of life and stamp their ideology on us they can never be allowed back here.
Click to expand...
 
TwelveAngryMen said:
Not read the judgment yet but surely she's made herself stateless - its not the gov't
Click to expand...

I'm not sure that the law (and international treaties) permits a person to do such a thing, and to the extent that it might I very much doubt that a person under the age of 18 could exercise such a right.
 
She made a really stupid decision when she was a kid. Sadly some times those consequences come back and bite you.
You reap what you sow... this whole sad incident hopefully sets an example to other young people tempted into making such decisions.
 
Archibald Knox said:
It has been reported that the UK Government has stripped British citizenship from over 150 people who went to Syria. According to the BBC, the UK authorities decided to target only people who had dual citizenship, or were born outside the UK, or who had parents born outside the UK, so their children could possibly reclaim citizenship from another country. So as not to break UK law.
Click to expand...

This is the part that I find legally questionable.

The test is not "could possibly claim alternative nationality" but instead "is not left stateless"; until a person actually possesses such alternative nationality the test is not met.
 
Tangerinenick said:
She made a really stupid decision when she was a kid. Sadly some times those consequences come back and bite you.
You reap what you sow... this whole sad incident hopefully sets an example to other young people tempted into making such decisions.
Click to expand...

We let the killers of Jamie Bulger out of prison, and have protected their identities for life, but apparently that was much less serious than this case.
 
seasiderjohn said:
they are terrorists so you would allow them back in to kill british citizens then. behead them as they would do to us
Click to expand...
Exactly where do I say that “they should be allowed back in” ? I don’t. And I would not stoop to their level of barbarity as it seems you would.
 
Archibald Knox said:
Exactly where do I say that “they should be allowed back in” ? I don’t. And I would not stoop to their level of barbarity as it seems you would.
Click to expand...
Beheadings would be an effective deterrent for terrorists and extremists who would gladly martyr themselves....and if someone else is doing the beheading. Obs.
 
I’m really torn with this.
As an ex squaddie, like every other sane person, I hate terrorists with a vengeance.
But I can’t stop thinking she was only 15 when she chose her path.
Groups like Isis have experts at identifying and manipulating potential recruits.
There are loads of instances of young people ** up, where most of us would say “he’s only 15, his life shouldn’t be wrecked because he made a mistake”, so it’s clear that severity of the offence is the main factor when we decide to ignore their naivety. Is that fair? I’m not too sure.
Please don’t slate me as if I’m defending her, I flit from being willing to pull the trigger myself or blaming her recruiters, but I think that if we’re willing to condemn her then we need to revisit our ideas about age of responsibility.
 
Johnno said:
I’m really torn with this.
As an ex squaddie, like every other sane person, I hate terrorists with a vengeance.
But I can’t stop thinking she was only 15 when she chose her path.
Groups like Isis have experts at identifying and manipulating potential recruits.
There are loads of instances of young people ** up, where most of us would say “he’s only 15, his life shouldn’t be wrecked because he made a mistake”, so it’s clear that severity of the offence is the main factor when we decide to ignore their naivety. Is that fair? I’m not too sure.
Please don’t slate me as if I’m defending her, I flit from being willing to pull the trigger myself or blaming her recruiters, but I think that if we’re willing to condemn her then we need to revisit our ideas about age of responsibility.
Click to expand...
I flit the same ways Johnno.
That said this decision is not supposedly about punishing her but because she would/could be a future national security risk.
That makes the argument to keep her out of the U.K. seem less cruel and more of a protective measure put in place for the rest of us , and OUR kids I suppose.
It’s a really bad situation all round to be honest. Nobody wins.
 
Lala said:
I flit the same ways Johnno.
That said this decision is not supposedly about punishing her but because she would/could be a future national security risk.
That makes the argument to keep her out of the U.K. seem less cruel and more of a protective measure put in place for the rest of us , and OUR kids I suppose.
It’s a really bad situation all round to be honest. Nobody wins.
Click to expand...
I can’t disagree, and I don’t have a valid solution to it. How the hell can you have a safe de-programming program?
It’s a mess, and that’s obviously understating the situation massively.
And I agree totally, our kids come first.
 
Lala said:
That said this decision is not supposedly about punishing her but because she would/could be a future national security risk.
Click to expand...

It's extremely doubtful that she would be a national security risk, certainly no more than many thousands of other UK and non-UK nationals who currently reside here.

Unfortunately this is simply a case of government by headline.
 
Lost Seasider said:
It's extremely doubtful that she would be a national security risk, certainly no more than many thousands of other UK and non-UK nationals who currently reside here.

Unfortunately this is simply a case of government by headline.
Click to expand...
Maybe , but unfortunately for her her actions have given the government a good enough reason to say she could be a national security risk.
 
Lala said:
Maybe , but unfortunately for her her actions have given the government a good enough reason to say she could be a national security risk.
Click to expand...

Is that really the limit of our ambition?

"Yes minister on close inspection it is indeed abhorrent both in humanitarian terms and in terms of international law, but the press will lap it up so we're golden"
 
Johnno said:
I’m really torn with this.
As an ex squaddie, like every other sane person, I hate terrorists with a vengeance.
But I can’t stop thinking she was only 15 when she chose her path.
Groups like Isis have experts at identifying and manipulating potential recruits.
There are loads of instances of young people ** up, where most of us would say “he’s only 15, his life shouldn’t be wrecked because he made a mistake”, so it’s clear that severity of the offence is the main factor when we decide to ignore their naivety. Is that fair? I’m not too sure.
Please don’t slate me as if I’m defending her, I flit from being willing to pull the trigger myself or blaming her recruiters, but I think that if we’re willing to condemn her then we need to revisit our ideas about age of responsibility.
Click to expand...
Johnno, a fair point, but she didn't just'fuck up'. She planned and implemented her journey to Turkey, then Syria basically to support a regime that potentially could kill her friends in the Uk indiscriminately, for what? idealism or the promise of underage shagging?

A 'mistake' doesn't really come into it. She was calculated, and when reality and the promise of Paradise didn't come up to scratch, the selfish little bitch wanted to come back to the Society she openly shunned.
 
Last edited:
Bend it like Suddick said:
Johnno, a fair point, but she didn't just'fuck up'. She planned and implemented her journey to Turkey, then Syria basically to support a regime that potentially could kill her friends in the Uk indiscriminately, for what? idealism or the promise of underage shagging?

A 'mistake' doesn't really come into it. She was calculated, and when reality and the promise of Paradise didn't come up to scratch, the selfish little bitch wanted to come back to the Society she openly shunned.
Click to expand...
Mate, I’ll always get your point of view, ‘cos it’s an horrific topic. But was she, at 15, being calculated, or was it her handlers?
To even suggest she joined up for a shag is a bit weak tbh, and that’s being polite. It was probably her recruiters aim though. A bit of a reward for their brave fighters?
My kids at 15 couldn’t get a bus from here to Preston without asking me for advice, so to think these devious little bitches organised a trip to Syria, through other ‘friendly’ countries without outside help from anyone else is stupid.
I will re-iterate that normally I’d be the first to put a bullet through a terrorists head.
 
Ooh It’s a Corner said:
there should be no debate on this , anyone giving her the benefit of the doubt if it was any of yours that that this filth supported their beheading you would be screaming blue murder . You get no where being pleasant to chite
Click to expand...
See they are still letting you post your offensive vitriol, despite have to remove your blatant racism from last night.
For what it is worth, while I have disgust for the hypocrisy that seems to think a Muslim girl of 15 being groomed is somehow different from a white girl of the same age being groomed, at least the awful situation has been allowed to run its course and an objective (hopefully) decision has been made by those qualified to make such a judgment. That is the way it should be if we are to retain the moral high ground over the terrorists.
 
catinstalbans said:
See they are still letting you post your offensive vitriol, despite have to remove your blatant racism from last night.
For what it is worth, while I have disgust for the hypocrisy that seems to think a Muslim girl of 15 being groomed is somehow different from a white girl of the same age being groomed, at least the awful situation has been allowed to run its course and an objective (hopefully) decision has been made by those qualified to make such a judgment. That is the way it should be if we are to retain the moral high ground over the terrorists.
Click to expand...
I’m glad you agree CAT
 
Honest question, has this ever happened before?
I can't recall it and there are isis fighter's that have been and returned. UK citizens that have committed crimes abroad and not had their nationality withdrawn (Gary Glitter imprisoned in Vietnam for abusing children)
I doubt any of us have much sympathy for her plight but I can't help feeling she is an easy target for the govt to look tough whilst other isis fighter's have been slipping back into the UK. Even Jacob Rees Morgan said she come back to the UK and be put on trial.
 
I think at the end of the day she's British good or bad and should be allowed back. They can still charge her with being a terrorist or even of sedition (is that a thing I the UK) or charged with being a traitor etc etc...there must be a million things they could charge her with and lock her up forever. At the moment im conscious we are the ones looking like twats. As a nation we have to be better than this. Worse case just have the SAS kill her in the night. It would resolve it
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top