Shamima Begum: IS teenager
-
Posts
-
I know that we have an inclusive, PC community here on the forum but what are your thoughts on letting Begum back into the country?
Would you be happy if she was allowed in and given a house next door to you?
I think she should be left to rot abroad along with her IS friends and not be allowed back in because the cost of monitoring her would be astronomical even if she decides to tow the line and not spread the IS word or commit crimes.
She is in the minority and tarnishes the british muslim population.
I’ts tricky because she was 15 when she left and perhaps was vulnerable to being influenced and radicalised.
But on the other hand, she said she ” was not phased” when she saw decapitated heads in a bin. And she does seem to justify atrocities carried out by Isis.I think if her husband had not been arrested she would not have considered returning to the UK at all.
It’s a good opportunity for the government to send a message to any other people considering going overseas to involve themselves with Isis that it could backfire and they might not be allowed back in to the country.
However, I just don’t know if it’s truly legal to remove her citizenship in this way. I think some lawyer will take on her case and it could be long and drawn out.
Janey
After she claimed the Manchester attack was “justified”, the barriers should have gone up.
I agree with you on citizenship and the cost (who pays?) and a message needs to go out but only 1 in 10 jihadis returning from Syria to the UK have been prosecuted.
I wonder why then if only 1 in 10 returning jihadis have been prosecuted that the government has decided to make an example of this girl?
Is it because of media involvement?
Just playing devil’s advocate here : If her only crime is to have married a jihadi then surely every bride of a terrorist should be stripped of citizenship and booted out of the country.
Janey
I would like to know more about how 3 young girls of 15 came to be radicalised without their families having any idea. Where did they get money & passports to fly to Syria alone as minors. There is more to this than meets the eye.
Hmm, it’s always funny how the loony, liberal left claim that she was a young, foolish and impressionable girl who was duped and didn’t really know what she was doing, yet yesterday a ‘child’ just one year older was convicted of unimaginable horrors inflicted on a poor innocent.
In this country, at the age of 14 you assume full criminal responsibility for your actions, whatever they may be.
She knew full well what she was getting into and relished the journey she was about to make. She had the mouse, gumption and determination to reach ISIS territory in Syria and ensured she stayed there.
Fast forward 4 years and now it’s turned sour she has, in a cold and calculating
manner decided to attempt to return to UK in a flagrant misuse of the trappings of citizenship that she rescinded the minute she left these isles of her own free will to join a terror-driven regime.
Let her seek to follow her religion and its Stone Age ideals in a Muslim country or let her rot in the refugee camp.
Either way, her face should never darken these shores again.There are many many people stuck in refugee camps in the Middle East through no fault of their own because they were caught up in the hellish civil war in Syriam started by Assad and exacerbated by IS and regional powers fighting their proxy wars. These displaced people are far more deserving of our help than Shamima Begum. We should be doing far more to help them; as for her – she can go to the back of the queue.
She was 15 when she left – she had been groomed online, somehow having found the means to afford travel to Turkey, using her sister’s passport. None of this seems to have been picked up by the UK authorities. In my opinion, the UK failed in its duty of care to her when she was still a minor. I can easily imagine that this all seemed like an adventure to an impressionable teenager. She was groomed online and then once in Syria she was married off – if this was while she was still 15 then in the UK her ‘husband’ having sex with her would be child abuse. Since arriving in Syria I think it’s likely that what she knew of the outside world was only what the IS members who lure people like her to Syria wanted her to know – if so, this would probably count as ‘coercive control’, which would make her the victim of a crime by UK standards.
That said, she does not now present as someone deserving of sympathy. I certainly won’t feel sorry for her if she’s not allowed to set foot in the UK again. She doesn’t even seem savvy or devious enough to pretend to be disturbed by what IS does (e.g. beheadings, terrorism), even if only in an effort to persuade the UK to take her back.
However, I think removing her citizenship is wrong. Unless there is something the public has not been told, Bangladesh had nothing to do with her upbringing or radicalisation. By revoking her UK citizenship the UK authorities hoped to make her Bangladesh’s problem. What happened in her case occurred originally on UK soil to a UK citizen and I think it’s very bad form for the UK to dump her on Bangladesh. Leaving her in the refugee camp makes her the Kurds’ problem and yet they’re our allies. I don’t want her in the UK either, but I still think it is the UK’s responsibility to deal with her rather than pass the buck.
I have just been reading about other ISIS brides wanting to go home to other countries following up an item on Facebook. USA, Canada & France to name a few. There is definitely more to this than we know about. As a QT audience member commented, are we compassionate or just plain stupid if we let her back here? As they still being brainwashed?
I’ve got a good hypothetical question – on this occasion the Home Secretary was ‘fortunate’ enough to identify that the girl in question has some kind of Bangladeshi heritage and was able to use that as an excuse to make them not-British.
What would happen in a situation where a person who was with ISIS in this situation was British through and through – regardless of ethnicity – e.g. they were 100% Welsh, English, Scottish or Northern Irish?
There would be no choice but to bring them home – obviously to face the British Judicial system – yet they would still be considered as unwelcome, unwanted and as high level a security risk as Begum. There have been people talking of not wanting to waste taxpayers money on putting her to trial and into prison if found guilty.
This wanting to rid the country of undesirables in my opinion actually shows a huge weakness to the UK – say someone was actually an ISIS Fighter, they’d killed people in combat – and they were British born and then captured and needed to face trial. Surely we’d want to throw the full weight of British law upon them to show that terrorism cannot be tolerated in any form. To just release people to probably escape justice by allowing them to receive sympathy by making them stateless – just empowers and shows people that there is no punishment in Britain for being a/or consorting with terrorists. You just won’t be able to come back home – but you will be able to go and live in a terrorist friendly country (believe me – ISIS haven’t been beaten – they’ve just gone underground) and then regroup with your other terrorist mates and just start plotting again.
It just seems pathetic to me that we’re more interested in a country in locking up loads of (comparatively) soft criminals in Category B and C prisons with short slap on the wrist sentences than we are in really cracking on those creating terror overseas or in the streets. It still amuses to this day how we’ve never been able to effectively deal with terrorists either if they are involved in sectarian violence – like during the Troubles – or have been involved in something overseas.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
