Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله

Shamima Begum can return to UK to fight for citizenship

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Veteran Member

Shamima Begum can return to UK to fight for citizenship, Court of Appeal rules

Shamima Begum should be allowed to return to the UK to fight the decision to remove her British citizenship, the Court of Appeal has ruled.

Ms Begum, now 20, was one of three schoolgirls who left London to join the Islamic State group in Syria in 2015.

Her citizenship was revoked by the Home Office on security grounds after she was found in a refugee camp in 2019.

The Court of Appeal said she had been denied a fair hearing because she could not make her case from the Syrian camp.

The Home Office said the decision was "very disappointing" and it would "apply for permission to appeal".

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-53427197

I am against her being allowed to return, but must admit that I watched the Oxford Union debate about the issue and from a legal point of view I can see how it is problematic to not let her return.

However from a realistic point of view, she is obviously a traitor to the UK, has shown no remorse for her behaviour and will just infect more extremists in the long run, directly or indirectly.

I hope that the decision is overturned and that she rots in the hole that she dug for herself.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

I think she should be allowed to return. It would set a terrible precedent to be able to simply strip someone of their nationality, and treat her like she doesn’t belong to the UK. Realistically, they are only doing that because she’s non-white and Muslim. If she’s committed crimes, then prosecute her when she comes back.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
Posted (edited)

The British government has just stripped Islamic State recruit Jack Letts of his United Kingdom citizenship.

https://theconversation.com/jihadi-jack-and-the-folly-of-revoking-citizenship-122155

They seem to have enacted this act in 2014 as a way of getting rid of terrorists without the fuss of bringing them back and having a trial, the reason that most of those who have been effected are non-white is that most of the terrorists happen to be non-white, but the case of this Jihadi Jack shows that if the conditions are right it can happen to them as well.

file-20190820-170914-11z7g9g.jpg

Edited by Ali_Hussain
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
3 hours ago, Maryaam said:

LOL. You cant think of any other reasons?

I didn’t express that very clearly. What I meant was that I find it hard to believe they would have tried to do the same thing to a white British convert. I think it’s more likely they would have just seen them as one of their own, tried them when they got back.

The fact that they tried to make Bangladesh take responsibility for her, even though she has never had Bangladeshi citizenship, says it all really.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Ali_Hussain said:

The British government has just stripped Islamic State recruit Jack Letts of his United Kingdom citizenship.

https://theconversation.com/jihadi-jack-and-the-folly-of-revoking-citizenship-122155

They seem to have enacted this act in 2014 as a way of getting rid of terrorists without the fuss of bringing them back and having a trial, the reason that most of those who have been effected are non-white is that most of the terrorists happen to be non-white, but the case of this Jihadi Jack shows that if the conditions are right it can happen to them as well.

file-20190820-170914-11z7g9g.jpg

I probably should have read this before replying. Still, I wonder whether this is more of an attempt at ‘consistency’, since they can’t so blatantly have one rule for her and one rule for him.

The whole attempt at trying to make her Bangladeshi would still need to be explained.

Edited by Haydar Husayn
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Seems like a good idea to deny their return. 

These people are of the most extreme radicals and nothing but trouble. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Haydar Husayn said:

I wonder whether this is more of an attempt at ‘consistency’, since they can’t so blatantly have one rule for her and one rule for him.

The whole attempt at trying to make her Bangladeshi would still need to be explained.

The British government has been trying to get rid of all the most extreme terrorists by unloading them on other countries - and haven't done too badly.  It is illegal to make a person stateless, but if they qualify to obtain citizenship in another country, they can be stripped of their UK citizenship.  

Jack Letts' father was Canadian, so he technically qualifies for Canadian citizenship, even though his mother is British.  Jack Letts has never been in Canada.  But... guess where he is going?  And I would classify him as potentially far less dangerous than Shamima Begum.  His parents, as well as he, himself, come across as extremely vacant.  However, when he was interviewed, he said he understood why he was being denied his citizenship.

Shamima's parents are from Bangladesh so she would qualify for citizenship in Bangladesh even though they don't want her.  

Shamima Begum has shown no remorse for joining, supporting and cooperating with IS. She has said on video, that she went to Syria as she was attracted to the beheading videos and violence and war atmosphere [huge red flag for a female kid of only 15 at the time], said she saw heads in a bin and it didn't bother her.  In fact, none of the violence she saw seemed to bother her. And she was very much in the middle of it. She was seen with a Kalashnikov and was in the morality police and apparently was quite harsh.  She sewed people into suicide vests.  According to BBC Middle East correspondent Quentin Sommerville, when she was asked about the enslavement, murder and rape of Yazidi women and female children by IS, she shrugged and said "Shia do the same in Iraq". And this woman saw their treatment first hand.  She was given several interviews in which she was very concerned about herself but had zero regret for the horror she supported, and offered no apology to the Iraqis and Syrians whose lives were completely destroyed by the IS.  She also recruited impressionable, young girls from all over the world via the internet (and hence, she became well known - her downfall).  I wonder how these recruited girls fared?  Pretty sure she is not wondering, though.  Shamima Begum would still be doing what she did there if the tide had not turned and life had become miserable - miserable for her I mean - no concern for anyone else.  

Others have been stripped of their citizenship as well - again, legally, as their family origin is from outside the UK.  Probably the most vicious, are a gang of 4 who were dubbed "The Beatles" because of their British accent.  They are responsible for the jailing, torturing and beheading of just under 30 (that they know of) foreign aid workers, journalists, etc.  One of them is the one who beheaded them on video and used it as propaganda - their videos are famous.. he was targeted by the US and killed.  The remaining 3 are now in custody.  Two of them were interviewed a few times and went from extremely arrogant and callous (zero remorse - in fact, just the opposite) to a little more reserved when they realized they no longer controlled the situation - but no apologies or remorse for those they tortured and killed. The Americans took them to the US, as Britain would not take them and there was fear they would escape from the Syrian compound where they were being held and restart their activities. Now Britain is refusing to supply any evidence they have to the US to have them convicted.  Their reasoning is that they do not believe in the death penalty and will not support prosecution of these men, if the death penalty is on the table.  Nice.

As for being White - most of these terrorists are not White - however, the one who has lost citizenship, is ironically the only one who has no direct connection to violence.  And for being Muslim - the incredible brutality exercised by the others far exceeds any connection to a Muslim upbringing.  They are just sociopaths who found a place where they could freely express their violence - most of these people had little to do with practising Islam before they went there other than a cultural, family connection.

Hundreds more have returned to the UK though.  They weren't as famous for their actions and so returned with no problem.  Getting into the UK is famously very easy.  Hopefully these people will have grown up and have seen enough violence and will move in a healthier direction.

 

 

 

Edited by Maryaam
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

I’m not defending Begum or any of these other terrorists or terrorist sympathisers. But it is extremely problematic to have two classes of citizenship depending on where your parents are from. The fact that someone ‘qualifies’ for citizenship in another country doesn’t mean they actually have citizenship. And it’s hard to imagine why Bangladesh or Canada would be very motivated to give citizenship to people who have never lived in their country, but have joined ISIS!

If these people are too dangerous to let in to the UK then why should Bangladesh or Canada deal with them?

As had been pointed out, the UK has let in plenty of terrorists back in, so these recent cases are all about political posturing. Sure, it’s tempting to say ‘let these terrorists rot in hell’, but the implications of doing this is that someone born and bred in the UK, but eligible for a foreign passport through their family heritage is in some sense less British than anyone else.

So I don’t really care about these ISIS supporters, but I do care about the principle of having one class of citizen who’s citizenship can be revoked, and one that can’t.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators

@Haydar Husayn they weren't being let in anyway regardless of dual nationality. The option to go to a second country was an alternative available to dual nationals (although as you mentioned the host country needs to agree to this). The position of the government was that these people should remain in Syria where they were captured. Of course, making someone stateless is also a difficult position to defend but bringing such a person back knowing what they've done is also highly controversial. Tough dilemma. 

Since they committed their crimes in iraq and syria I think it's fair to let these countries judge them and deliver whichever punishment they deem acceptable. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

@Mahdavist Yeah, I have no problem with Syria or Iraq punishing them in whichever way they see fit, just as a foreign criminal would be deal with by the UK courts before being deported.

I don’t understand why it’s such a tough dilemma for the UK to eventually let them back in though, considering they’ve already let in many terrorists, some of whom they might not even be aware of. If they feel these individuals are still a threat then they can jail them or keep them under close surveillance.

To be honest, I don’t even personally have a problem with a person being rendered stateless in this type of situation either, although it is against international law. My problem is simply the issue of having two classes of British citizens.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators
15 minutes ago, Haydar Husayn said:

I don’t understand why it’s such a tough dilemma for the UK to eventually let them back in though, considering they’ve already let in many terrorists, some of whom they might not even be aware of. If they feel these individuals are still a threat then they can jail them or keep them under close surveillance.

I don't think this was deliberate. Clearly if you aren't aware that someone is a terrorist you can't stop them coming in. The ones you discover on your own territory can also not be sent away if they don't have a foreign citizenship. The ones you have identified before they return to the UK are the ones you can deny entry and that is what they are doing. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...