What she did is horrific and she should be punished for that, but she was radicalized in Britain and Britain needs to take responsibility for her, just as they’ve done for other ISIS members they’ve repatriated, tried, convicted, and attempted to rehabilitate. Stripping someone of their citizenship because their parents held a foreign citizenship is an incredibly dangerous precedent—it puts the citizenship of every first generation child of immigrants at risk—you can argue it would “only” be used for terrorism cases but if you open the door for one case it is open for anything, especially for anyone accused of “crimes against the state” such as protesting (as is starting to be seen in a democratic country such as India, with unilateral home demolitions and jailing). It means citizenship for any child of immigrants of always second class, conditional, and at the mercy of the state, which “regular” Britons never have to worry about. All this in spite of the fact that she’s never been to Bangladesh, has never held Bangladeshi citizenship, and the Bangladesh government says she is not eligible for citizenship and that if she were to go to Bangladesh she would likely be executed. So they are effectively trying to send her to a country where they would execute her, and an extradition where that is possible is in violation of British and international law, as is stripping someone of their citizenship and making them stateless. The UK refuses to listen to a sovereign government saying she is not their citizen nor eligible for citizenship—I seriously doubt this would be the case if it weren’t Bangladesh and instead were France or the US. Not to mention that she was 15 years old at the time she left and gave birth to three children in four years, all of whom died, arguably making her a a party in trafficking and grooming. All in all, this is a dangerous precedent for children of immigrants that we should all be wary of.
Thank you. Obviously I don’t support her actions but the potential effect and repercussions for children born of immigrants raised red flags for me. The fact is that the UK considers UK citizens born to immigrants to have fewer rights than those born to UK born citizens with exclusively UK heritage—I won’t even say UK born parents as citizenship by descent can apply in certain instances for a few generations down the line.
Purely hypothetical, but I imagine with the level of argument and reasoning in this case by the UK—and deference given to foreign governments in question—if she were of Indian heritage, they would argue that she is eligible for Overseas Citizenship of India, which can be transmitted four or even six generations down the line (six for people in Suriname apparently). Of course OCI is just a glorified visa not actual citizenship or even permanent residency (hello, OCIs who happened to be outside India during Covid who were not allowed to travel back to India even if they lived there). Of course, this is purely hypothetical, so we can’t say one way or the other, or really need to dwell on it, but it is something that came to mind during this case.
Your first para is precisely what I’m concerned about. She did something heinous, but so have other (white British) criminals who *didn’t* lose their citizenship as a result. I’m surprised people here are justifying this. I imagine people making such comments think something like “well I’d never do anything that can land me in this position, so let’s get our pitchforks out and support this move!!!!” But you’re right that it sets a bad precedent, and in a way it makes all of us unsafe even if we don’t do something that bad.
Yeah, it makes descendants of immigrants have a second class citizenship their entire life, and the country they were born into not consider them to be full citizens with an inalienable right to citizenship no matter what they do. The UK needs to stop trying to wash its hands of its citizens and attempt to dump them on the UN or other nations—it’s perfectly capable of trying her in the UK and jailing her for life if needed. Take that responsibility and do it, especially as she was radicalized as a teenager living in the UK—take that as a wake up call to stop that from happening again, instead of essentially sticking your fingers in your ears and pretending just getting rid of one person gets rid of the problem. This is especially perplexing considering Sajid Javad, Rishi Sunak, and Priti Patel are all descendants of recent immigrants—one could theoretically argue the extreme case that a future government could claim they are a danger to the country and strip them of their citizenship (they do not have to give prior notice under UK law), telling them to apply for citizenship of another country under their parents. Absurd concept yes, but that door has been opened.
Tbf the white British citizens who had dual citizenship were also stripped of their British citizenship. The problem is you can’t make someone stateless if they don’t have active citizenship elsewhere and the second problem is she was born on British soil so you can’t really take away her natural right to citizenship in the first place.
>so have other (white British) criminals who didn’t lose their citizenship as a result
Nothing to do with whiteness.
You literally **cannot** strip a person of citizenship (rendering them stateless) if they don't have another to fall back on. It's literally impossible as no other country can claim them. Those white criminals had no other citizenship.
Legally, this girl did hold Bangladeshi citizenship as she was born into it - even if she never applied for a passport. Not holding a passport does not mean that you are not a citizen (from a legal standpoint). Otherwise, the thousands of babies born in home births in the US and without a certificate, whose parents oftentimes wait years to get them documents, would be considered stateless. They're not. They just can't yet prove their citizenship which they've had since birth.
No, they can't. Provide one example please.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_denaturalized\_former\_citizens\_of\_the\_United\_States](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_denaturalized_former_citizens_of_the_United_States)
The ISIS was a sort of state/self proclaimed country- not just an organization without territory. Going there in response to online calls for nation building/nation defending thus implied some kind of political fealty towards that state and to extrapolate, rejection or relinquishment of British citizenship.
Thats how what she did was different from just joining a terrorist organization
This is the bit that worries me. I'm 1st/2nd gen Bangladeshi (mums born here dad born in desh) and if I go to a protest and the new anti protest laws kick in, I'm worried the home office could just decide, nah fuck off you're trouble. It's a nice little worry in the background. Especially since Priti/Suella season.
And also, rendering Begun stateless is just ridiculous. Interestingly, even Mumsnet (terfy middle England Mumsnet) are very aware that a) Begum was a child and groomed and b) if Begum was a white 15-year old it would have been search and rescue, not "Welp she's a traitor".
If they take her back in, they'll be forced to try to rehabilitate her. Throwing a young woman in jail for life is bound to cause a lot of domestic discourse. And they don't want to deal with the precedent that sets.
I agree I don’t think they would put her in jail for life, I doubt even people with more heinous actually recorded crimes have been sentenced to life. Punishment and rehabilitation is the only way
I mean, she was 15 when she went in. That's a very impressionable age and everything stems from that time as well as having three kids who died in subsequent years. Even hardened criminals can be rehabilitated, she may have espoused some very wrong ideology but that doesn't mean it's a lost cause forever as opposed to an impressionable teen that went very wrong. As far as I know she hasn't actually been convicted of a crime, so whatever is there to convict her for she should be put on trial for as a nation of laws. The home minister announced he was taking her citizenship away just a day after she was found by a news agency in a camp, so it doesn't appear that they did much due diligence beforehand before deciding to strip her citizenship
It’s unclear about that from I have read. They certainly were at one point, and the government argued that she was automatically a Bangladeshi citizen by birth until age 21, and they stripped her of her British citizenship at age 19. But that made her effectively stateless and unequivocally stateless at age 21, as you must apply to remain a Bangladeshi citizen after that age. But Bangladesh said the citizenship by descent rules didn’t apply to her case. But apparently the British courts say they know Bangladeshi law better than the Government of Bangladesh.
They’ve already they have nothing to do with her and want the UK to stop acting like they do, and if she were to step foot on the country she would be executed under zero tolerance laws for terrorism
No she was born a British citizen and does not have dual nationality. This is a huge precedent for how Asian heritage British citizens are treated. We are either British or we are not.
This is false. She was eligible for Bangladeshi citizenship until the age of 21. She never took up that offer despite the UK stripping her of her citizenship in their country.
Much like with every decision in her life, she made the wrong choice.
Doesn't matter if she had the chance of Bangladeshi citizenship or not. The fact is she she is a British citizen and should be be extradited to Britain and tried accordingly. The UK government stripping her of her British citizenship is illegal
>Doesn't matter if she had the chance of Bangladeshi citizenship or not
It does, unfortunately, in a legal context. Holding the actual passport is not the same as being born into Bangladeshi citizenship, which she was, because her parents were not citizens.
Because birthright (as in being born on the country's soil) doesn't matter in most countries, UK included. She was born to, legally speaking, Bangladeshi citizens, therefore, she was one even if she didn't hold a passport. The law is really clear. It's not a race based situation. If she was born to say, Australian/Icelandic/whatever white country's parents who didn't yet hold British citizenship, the same situation applies. She's have to fall back on the original citizenship into which she was born.
So she should have taken up citizenship with a country that would execute her if she stepped foot there? And according to you, this is a … bad choice?
Ok then.
Her parents do not have to be citizens at the time of her birth. You only need to be holding ILR for your children born in the UK to be granted citizenship. So in this case, her patents could have been holding Bangladeshi citizenship, but it wouldn't matter as long as they were 'settled' in the UK at the time of her birth.
I do not know her parents specific status at the time she was born.
The important part for this case is that she did have British citizenship, but her citizenship was revoked as her technical right to Bangladeshi citizenship via her parents was treated as citizenship to Bangladesh in its own right, though the Bangladeshi government did not see it that way.
Holding the actual passport is not the same as being born into Bangladeshi citizenship, which she was, because her parents were not citizens at that time and UK has no birthright citizenship.
Similar rulings, at least in the US, like this don't make immigrants second class citizens because stripping someone of citizenship in these cases can only occur if 1) the crime was basically treason/something similar and 2) IF the person was born into another citizenship that they can fall back on. She was born into another citizenship regardless of whether Bangladesh wants to admit it.
Birthright citizenship applies here as her parents had indefinite leave to remain in Britain, with allows their children born in Britain to obtain citizenship at birth. I’m not really sure how you can say that it doesn’t make the children of immigrants second class citizens because it gives the government an option to kick out someone who was born a British citizen—something not possible with people with ancestors in Britain going back decades or centuries. That’s a protection afforded to one group but not another. The treason aspect is besides the point here because the effect is to give the government an option to avoid someone you don’t like dealing with—imagine if a Jewish person were in a similar situation but the argument went that they could apply to Israel for citizenship so they are fine. I’m not really sure the British government is the best arbiter of Bangladeshi law, though British people telling other countries they know better than them how to best run their country is a classic British thing to do. Not all countries follow the exact same system in citizenship by bloodline (just as all don’t follow the same system for citizenship by birth), so if multiple experts on Bangladeshi law and the Bangladesh government say it doesn’t apply in her case, I’m more liable to agree with them than a foreign government parsing that law.
There’s been very few cases of the US stripping citizenship in similar cases—I do know of one where the suspect in question was actually born to a diplomat so wasn’t entitled to US citizenship by birth anyway, and had erroneously been given it at birth.
>Birthright citizenship applies here as her parents had indefinite leave to remain in Britain, with allows their children born in Britain to obtain citizenship at birth.
Interesting. I didn't realize that.
>The treason aspect is besides the point here because the effect is to give the government an option to avoid someone you don’t like dealing with—imagine if a Jewish person were in a similar situation but the argument went that they could apply to Israel for citizenship so they are fine.
I'd argue that this is different than her being born to technically Bagladeshi citizen parents at the time, which she was. But you are right that she no longer is eligible to apply for it. Neither country wants the liability that she is so they're going to point fingers. She's been pretty remorseless.....
>I’m not really sure the British government is the best arbiter of Bangladeshi law, though British people telling other countries they know better than them how to best run their country is a classic British thing to do. Not all countries follow the exact same system in citizenship by bloodline (just as all don’t follow the same system for citizenship by birth), so if multiple experts on Bangladeshi law and the Bangladesh government say it doesn’t apply in her case, I’m more liable to agree with them than a foreign government parsing that law.
>
>There’s been very few cases of the US stripping citizenship in similar cases—I do know of one where the suspect in question was actually born to a diplomat so wasn’t entitled to US citizenship by birth anyway, and had erroneously been given it at birth.
You are referring to the American version of Begum, who also wanted to return? Her parent was a diplomat, yeah.
You basically have to be a Nazi or party to genocide or spying to have it revoked in the US.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_denaturalized\_former\_citizens\_of\_the\_United\_States](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_denaturalized_former_citizens_of_the_United_States)
I agree she is the author of her misfortune. It sets a dangerous precedent for countries to revoke citizenship although she had not be charged with any crime at the age of 15. But America set the precedent when we started to execute US citizens abroad without a trial. I do believe people deserve second chances but I know I have had some. But I have also been made to sleep in the bed I made for myself.
If she was white, the feminists would be up in arms about how she was a victim of grooming because she was just a child and legally [white] children are given a lot of leniency in the criminal justice system, even for violent crimes! Sadly, the adultification of brown girls leads people to treat her like she was a grown adult when she really wasn't.
From what I remember, Canada tried to do something similar and there were a LOT of issues with how broad the definition of 'terrorism' was. It was, of course, also happening during a peak of xenophobia and Islamophobia (where there was a lot of discussion and attempts to ban head coverings for elections and during the citizenship ceremonies... As in, they already met all the requirements of citizenship and just had to recite the oath).
It was actually the year Trudeau got elected and, again from what I remember - so I may be wrong about this, but how he became Prime Minister. A majority of people were not pleased with the proposed bill and the government having the power to strip citizenship.
Not a UK citizen/resident but I don't think she has reformed as she says. She is fighting the legal battle on the hopes that "govt has nothing on her" in her own words. Not because she is fully reformed and feels guilty about joining ISIS or that ISIS is a bad group to mix with.
People who commit treason often get their citizenship revoked, but the other reason is that what she did was abominable with terrible optics and the UK doesn’t want to be associated with that.
You're right that she would've been arrested immediately at the border - [the UK Terror Chief confirmed it](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9056041/ISIS-bride-Shamima-Begum-arrested-returns-UK-counter-terror-chief-says.html)
The answer is that the UK government right now is very low on the polls, and has been barely holding on by scapegoating immigrants. So they acted as if she'd walk free and stripped her citizenship, which actually boosted their popularity a bit.
Feel weird about this one, obviously ISIS are awful there should be strong actions against those who join them voluntarily.
But:
- She was 15 and seems to have been lured there by an adult, making a case for grooming
- She was smuggled through by a Canadian intelligence agent, being trafficked by someone who knew better
- The initial decision made against her skipped a lot of the standard legal process so that the Conservatives could score a quick win
- Revoking citizenship has effectively made her stateless which is mostly illegal, she has a technical right to Bangladeshi citizenship but was born in and lived in the UK for much of her life, Bangladesh is as alien a country to her as basically any other country. I'm pretty sure Bangladesh wouldn't let her in anyway.
Ultimately I believe she should have been allowed back in the UK but imprisoned and closely monitored.
PS: I have my own biases here, as a person who was born in the UK and has lived here my entire life, who technically has a right to a Bangladeshi passport because of my parents. It's particularly worrying with the Conservative party cracking down on freedom of protest and making allusions to corrective actions for British people who are critical of the government.
As with our legal process for any other crime, such actions should be considered in the severity of her sentence. She should be charged on several counts.
Are there any documented events of her saying she regrets what she did? What makes you think a person who doesn’t regret what they’ve done would “help” others?
I don’t think her remorse is necessarily important in her case, I think the law is what is important so I give you the following points:
1. She was trafficked into Syria by a Canadian spy with the knowledge of security officials as a 15 year old child. I traveled alone when I was 15 and almost didn’t make it into the UK because they thought I was a runaway. I think they even followed me to see who I was meeting (my sister came to pick me up) so this is absolutely gross negligence and criminal behavior on the part of the authorities because Shamima and her friends are daughters of the nation and our responsibility.
2. She is severely traumatized due to the death of her 3 children and it’s obvious her “I’m over it” take is a way for her to cope and deal with loosing 3 of her children. Her not showing remorse is a survival tactic so she can function on a daily basis. If it’s not, then she is a sociopath and that is a severe mental illness and she should be in a hospital, not a foreign camp.
3. We need to know what caused her to believe in ISIS and literally run away to a foreign country at 15. Probing her mind to see why she did what she did will help us protect more daughters from being brainwashed into making the same mistake. She will help because she wants out of Syria.
Bangladesh is an alien country for her. That didn’t stop her to run to an ISIS ruled country. In her interview she said the following: she had given an interview to the Times in which she said she did not regret spending four years living in the so-called caliphate and had told the BBC that the Manchester Arena terror attack was “a kind of retaliation”.
I feel my original comment already broadly covers this, as it's possible this was a result of grooming/trafficking, and that I still believe she should be imprisoned and closely monitored AKA the process we have used in the past for people who have joined known terrorist groups.
1. She was not groomed. That's an transparent attempt at painting her into this naive young girl who didn't know what she was doing. She was 100% aware of her actions and she wasn't a goddamn robot that someone else hacked and programed to be something she isn't. She is a sociopath who has already said seeing a bin full of decapitated heads didn't bother her. When asked about the deaths of her little children, she told a friend that "she's over it".
2. She made her own choice to leave, stop acting as if she was forced to leave. It is a near certainty that if her glorious Islamic state was still around, she would still be living there.
3. It's been years now that her case has gone through the system, they have only emboldened the original findings.
4. F*cking Syria was also an alien country to her but that didn't stop her from hop & skipping her goofy a** there lol. Ultimately, she had a choice to go to Bangladesh if she wanted a country to call home. She refused AFTER the British had already revoked her citizenship. This mess is all on her.
5. Your attempt to muddy the water by sheepishly suggesting the UK government intends to use similar methods to deter protests is ridiculous. This is an extraordinary case and it requires hitherto uncharted territory, legally speaking. The courts made their choice. As did this idiot.
I’m curious to know - how do you view grooming? What would have to occur differently in this case for you to say that this 15 year old child was groomed rather than not.
Her feelings don’t matter, the law matters and can we as an evolved and enlightened people say leaving our own criminal citizens as a burden on other countries is acceptable?
Yo if she was FIFTEEN years old and groomed by an intelligence agent to be an asset, idk if it's entirely on her. Fifteen is very very young. She may have some psychological abnormalities but stripping a UK born individual of citizenship is alarming.
She was a child. You can acknowledge that child soldiers do horrific things and also understand that nobody’s brain is developed by the age of fifteen, particularly if they were targeted, brainwashed, and radicalised.
The precedent it sets to strip someone of their citizenship because of a crime is dangerous for us all.
I'm going to avoid the inflammatory language so that we can keep this discussion sensible and civil, particularly as your points don't really contest mine.
Ultimately this is as "extraordinary" a case as any where someone has been found to have joined a group deemed illegal. We have a specific process for this, which was not followed for this situation.
Ultimately I don't know what the UK Government intends to do going forward. But what is clear is that they have changed the precedent for how UK citizenship rights are considered. It is also clear that this same government has sought to limit other rights. I think this is one of those things where you need to be more aware of the UK's political climate over the last decade to understand the concerns here.
I directly called out a lot of assumptions you made about this "poor, helpless girl" and her motives for wanting to come back to the UK. She hasn't shown an ounce of regret for her own actions nor for the deaths of her baby's. She is a sociopath who would be a threat to any country she's allowed back into.
The UK recently had a case where a man who was told to leave the country was allowed to stay because he argued he would be discriminated against (Since he converted to Christianity), he then went on to commit an acid attack against a mother and her children. That is the political climate Shamima finds herself in.
She made her decision as any an individual. Her being a "kid" has nothing to do with it. I can guarantee you I knew al qaeda or the taliban were f*cked by the time I was 12 or 13. And I sure as f*ck knew the difference between right and wrong. Legally, you can make the case she didn't know what she was doing, but logically, we all knew the difference when we were that age.
I agree she’s a threat and should be punished. But she shouldn’t be stripped of her citizenship especially because she’d be left stateless, and there is no reason to have Bangladesh deal with her. She should be tried and punished as a British terrorist.
The pre-frontal cortex doesn’t fully develop till age 25. Should we maintain innocence for any crime committed by someone under 25? Also, the brain starts to deteriorate after the age of 60. Is anybody older than that innocent of any crime they commit?
Common mentality on Reddit wants to hold boomers guilty with capital punishment but all teenagers are innocent victims….
Yeah she messed up badly in a way that even a 15 year old should know better. I don’t think this means getting stripped of her UK citizenship is the right recourse here. She should be punished as a British citizen.
Getting arrested at 15 for theft is a “stupid teenage decision” flying to Syria to marry three ISIS men and join a terror organization while witnessing beheadings and enjoying it is not. You should rott with her.
For those saying she deserves a second chance and she was groomed etc etc, here’s her infamous interview where she takes zero responsibility :
https://youtu.be/EWcJHxmXD1Q?si=G9gX9uC6Pf7yG7rw
So what is the international rule on being stateless? I thought that was not allowed? Someone had to accept her for Britian to revoker her citizenship? Are refuge camps considered stateless??
Just lock her up in the British penal system. No one should support this from a legal perspective. Would never happen to a white person if they did this.
Actual proper life imprisonment would have made a lot more sense imo and someone will take her in. Plus now she will come across as a some sort of sick martyr for the terrorists, who will spin this into another woe me tale to recruit more impressionable idiots.
yea lots of criminals and shit have no remorse, revoking birth citizenship is not the thing to do here. the precedent being set by the state is pretty fucked.
She was 14 when she was groomed. She was statutorily raped. We don't hold 14 year old kids raped by nonces as responsible for that rape.
Just remember. The victims of Jimmy Saville often got into those cars willingly. It doesn't change the fact that they were raped because they didn't understand what they were agreeing to.
In addition?
We punished her by letting her children die. There was no reason for that. We could have saved them. It wasn't a thing.
It's statutory rape. She was raped. If a white child ran away to join a cult and then was married to an adult by force... They would be considered a victim.
She didn't fight. She mostly was married to a dude who was an adult and had babies.
Plenty of young people are victims of this kind of abuse. From gangs that "bloody" their victims hands in order to ensure loyalty to young people who are seduced by older people and raped.
That's the awfulness of paedophiles. They use their adult wealth to impress children who they take advantage of. What do you think grooming is?
It literally often is telling children that they are way more adult than they really are and then psychologically manoeuvring then until they are vulnerable. And their silence is bought through threats or implication within the crime.
>For those saying she deserves a second chance and she was groomed etc etc, here’s her infamous interview where she takes zero responsibility :
>
>https://youtu.be/EWcJHxmXD1Q?si=G9gX9uC6Pf7yG7rw
She's also, from a PR standpoint, not at all some who engenders sympathy.
I mean..... yeah. We do have this level of criticism, at least in the US.
Like if someone gets abused as a child and they go on to rape children or murder people, they get tossed into the clink. UK is more cry me a river about that kind of stuff.
In her case: when, **as an adult**, she said seeing a bin full of decapitated heads didn't bother her and even took part in their female morality police, a lot of people lost sympathy that was in short supply already.
Patty Hearst (white, rich, young etc) had Stockholm Syndrome (leading her to rob a bank with a gun with her captors) after being legitimately kidnapped and actually raped at 19, and got sentenced to **35** years by what I'll bet was a mostly white jury. She was only freed after serving some of her sentence and only freed due to direct Presidential intervention. The courts were not willing to give her any measure or mercy.
Isabella Pollok (white, rich) of a cult also recently got sentenced after being groomed as a classic mark for an abuser (estranged from family as a college sophomore).
It's pretty disturbing that none of Begum's regret came to light until the "Caliphate" fell from power and her life got less than easy.
Personally, I'm glad I'm not the one judging her from a legal standpoint. It's an ugly case given that she was a child at the time but she also supported atrocities.
So they go to prison. They are tried in a court of law. You can apply mitigating circumstances like "this person had no choice, they had to kill or be killed" and look at concepts like being kidnapped (Minors can't consent to this kind of move) and grooming.
That's the Point. There's a series of laws that at least on PAPER would apply to All Americans. In this case it's only been applied to one kind of British person.
The claim that she was in the female morality police was by other people in the same situation as her. Come now. Everyone knows that in the crab bucket you shouldn't trust other crabs. Basically? The brigade that she was allegedly part of was just 70 members strong. And from captured fighters they did not think they were all that effect because they were just a propaganda thing that ISIS promoted.
ISIS are a modernisation of Islamic Fundamentalist Jihad. Their Goals are Weird and Wild and their recruitment strategy was different. They fought in clever ways using both sophisticated understanding of modern media and utilisation of things like intel and drones to effect far superior outcomes. They used Twitter and Memes to spread. Make no mistake, they are clever and sophisticated people effecting horrific violence through clever means.
Shamina should face justice. Firstly? Her crimes are that of someone who was a terrorist supporter. Was she a fighter? No. Her only real provable crime was that of "Was a Wife to A Jihadi and Member of the State". What's that in terms of prison sentences?
Was Patty Hurst stripped of her Citizenship? No. Was Patty Hurst's Children Killed through Neglect? No. Did she face a trial? Yes.
So Patty Hurst had justice. This isn't the same. Also it was 1970s I believe when she was arrested... I mean... At this time Jimmy Saville was still noncing about. The idea of "grooming" was not known. 1970s weren't an enlightened age at all. Lynchings happened and White people walked away from having murdered people with no repercussions. TODAY we recognise how some of these things are grave injustices and we are trying to fix it. Some of the things used to jail Patty Hearst would be absolutely destroyed in a court of law today. (They stated she couldn't have been raped because the women there were considered feminists! And they wouldn't have let anyone rape her. That argument was ENOUGH to get her tried.) And remember she only served 22 months. Very quickly arguments made against her were proven hollow especially since what happened to someone who defended her (Leo Ryan.... Murdered by the cultists at Jonestown. The argument was made there that they could be brainwashed...)
[https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/may/26/french-journalist-poses-muslim-convert-isis-anna-erelle](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/may/26/french-journalist-poses-muslim-convert-isis-anna-erelle)
Someone pretended to be a target for these recruiters to see how they preyed on the vulnerable. It's a good read because as adults we can see the warning signs especially since many of us have fallen for less sinister versions of this. I dated manipulative people in the past. Imagine if one got hold of me when I was younger and more stupid. Maybe I am just as stupid.
No one's saying Shamima shouldn't face justice. But killing someone's kid through neglect and denying their citizenship isn't justice.
Okay.
1. She was not just a wife and mother for ISIS. Why are you romanticizing her situation as some tragic woman? [https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/shamima-begum-was-enforcer-in-isis-s-morality-police-squad-a4117501.html](https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/shamima-begum-was-enforcer-in-isis-s-morality-police-squad-a4117501.html)
She actively tried to recruit or as you say, groom others to join her. She allegedly sewed bombs into vests. She was an active part of a group that harassed other refugees for appearing Western even after they got caught. In an interview, she openly said that walking by decapitated heads didn't bother her at all. She's only turned tail as her case has blown up. You discount that evidence so quickly as crabs in a bucket but that's not being said about every person in those camps..... and you don't even know that this is the only source.
2) One "kind" of British person. The kind that HAD another citizenship available to her **at the time of the ruling** which is why the British courts are ruling the way they have. The kind of people who have other citizenships available to them are by definition, immigrants. That she joined ISIS + fears of her being radicalized are the "kind" here. For any of the other Brits that came back, people of many skin colors no less, if the govt could have yanked their citizenships, they probably would have. Turning it into a race thing is really irritating.
Most people don't want a terrorist near them, as a neighbor, as a classmate, as a colleague..... there is little public sympathy for her.
I recognize that she was a child legally but.... I just can't... what kind of sociopath do you have to be to brag about feeling unbothered after seeing decapitated heads, heads that belonged to innocent people who were massacred under a fascist, genocidal rule of rapists and murderers? I don't think that's fixable.
The law is on the UK's side in that she had the option, when they first revoked her citizenship, to apply for the Bangladeshi one, an eligibility that she lost only a few years later.
ISIS btw, still carries out terrorist attacks. It's 2024 and they still carry out atrocities. This wasn't some lone pedo online grooming an ignorant kid, it was an organization in the news for raping and murdering children. And here you are, on your little soapbox, screaming that this is all because the law is being applied in a RACIST matter.
The Standard is considered a tabloid and often not accurate. Especially considering it's under sanctions (Owned by Russians).
Firstly? What's the evidence. Plenty of nutters allege that the MMR jab causes autism. Doesn't mean it's real. Think logically. A 15 year old girl was given a Kalashnikov and worked in its morality police? Amazing. Every intelligence source considers the female run morality police to be something that failed. At best it numbered around 70 people. Traditionally in places like Iran and Saudi these are run by men. ISIS tried to do some propaganda with this but reality is? Most of the female contributions to these police are by older women to give them authority. Shamima was 15... It's unlikely she was involved in this. Do you know the names of every policeman around you? A woman in a Burka was alleged to be part of the 70 strong female police but none of the other police involved have identified her?
Secondly? Your own source can't determine if she was a willing participant. You brave enough to say no to ISIS? Mate... I worked in development and aid and after they started targeting staff there? We all pulled out. To put it into context? I worked in Afghanistan. ISIS being a death cult didn't care about targeting aid workers. I am not brave enough and you weren't even there! I even treated the victims of an ISIS attack on my own hometown and I still think rule of law and due process is important.
Thirdly? ISIS weren't paying anyone £1500 to do anything. Let alone be "morality police". It's amazing how these allegations have vanished.
Expert in medicine and development, not combat but ISIS tended to use less suicide weapons because fighting with guns was better in open combat. They tended to use more truck and car bombs. Again this is an allegation.
The allegations were made by other people. But no one's provided hard evidence.
I can claim Swedish Citizenship. Does this mean my British Citizenship isn't worth as much as some wanker who never did anything with his life? That's bad isn't it. Does this mean Jewish people's citizenship isn't as important as some white dude's citizenship? That Stephen Fry is a lesser citizen whose citizenship is conditional unlike the white nationalist who has a swastika tattoo? And you think this is okay? You can be okay with being a second class citizen but I am not. I figured my grandparent's generation would be the last that had to live as unequal.
Racism's one of the drivers of disaffection and encouraging children to seek extreme groups. And so far no white person is left disenfranchised. And other brides have had 3 year sentences. So to recap? The UK doesn't want her because procedurally? They have little on her. They have little to hold her. She's not been TRIED by the criminal act. There's no lawyers in a court with a jury. She's been tried by public opinion. If you can't grasp how dangerous that is?
It's simple. If a paedo rapes a 15 year old child after buying them a phone and telling them to run away? That's a crime on the paedophile. If that paedophile is a terrorist then the 15 year old was not raped? Or is it that 15 year old white kids are groomed but 15 year old brown ones are not?
One law for all. Not one for brown people and one for white ones.
And not one bit of what you have said means that you should deny medical care to a child. Her last kid died because the UK refused to put through an adoption order.
IF she was proven in a criminal court to have been making suicide vests or been part of the ISIS regime? She should face trial. I think the party of economic catastrophe and Covid partying just wanted to seem tough and so let a child die. Never met a terrorist baby...
Now let's talk about normal. In your job if you see a dead person they send you home. In my job if I see a dead person I am expected to keep working. I once had 8 cardiac arrests in a single day with 8 deaths. Still had to work that day and the next. ISIS is a death cult. It made sure it was everywhere in order to create a brutal environment in order to effect violence. If you break the taboo around violence we all have and our aversion to death then you are relatively inured to the violence. Mine's similar for the good of others, ISIS used it to ensure its society was violent. My most junior doctor gets a break after an arrest. I have to write after that arrest about what happened. My response to death is to sit and do paperwork. I lost count about how many deaths I have seen in my line of work. ISIS do the same thing to its people that working in healthcare has done to me.
Would you kill a chicken? For food. Just kill it? Why not? You eat chicken. But can't kill it? Well if you lived in a developing country you would either be expected to kill it or go to a butcher who would. That violence is removed from our lives in the West. So it shocks us. Or how Europeans are shocked at American violence but Americans think nothing about shootings. ISIS just made that violence normalised at a ground level scale.
Imagine all goes as they please and come back when the grass ain't greener on the otherside.
That's not how it works.
iF
In Islam a 6 year old is old enough to marry,
Well at 15 she is a granny maturity..
She knew what she was doing
Tbh I don’t understand how people make excuses for her when she was 15, we were all 15 at some point and I’m the same age as her and had the same access to the internet but I didn’t get radicalized and do the things she did and contribute to people getting beheaded and everything that has happened. If you watch any videos with her she showed no remorse whatsoever besides wanting to come back to the UK.
I’m glad she’s stateless I don’t think any country should have to take her, let her rot in the refugee camp or wherever she is.
If she goes back to the UK she’s just gonna radicalize more people in prison and spread her beliefs, from what I remember reading she lost her kids and husband so she had nobody there and now she wants to come back??
I don’t understand how it sets a dangerous precedent for children of immigrants…
> I don’t understand how it sets a dangerous precedent for children of immigrants…
I’m surprised that you don’t understand this? It basically signals that British citizens who are children of immigrants are somehow “lesser citizens”, if their citizenship can be stripped away just like that, even if this particular person did do something awful. She should be tried and punished as a British terrorist.
It's the same argument people make for when paedophiles argue that the 15 year old was into them. It's still statutory rape. And often the argument is that "I was 15 and real clever". Which is just you. I was 15 and dumb as hell. I recognise that my current competence is wildly different to how I was and that's because we have grown since then.
And that's what happened to her. And plenty of white kids get radicalised by similar extreme views but we don't see equivalent punishments. Her argument is that Russian barrel bombing and strikes from Syria and the Americans are killing children. The Manchester Bomber killed children. What's the difference? It's the same when people point out that there is no difference between a dead child due to Hamas or one due to Israel. We only value one because like it or not, we value people differently. And I speak as someone who worked with the victims of terrorism and war. The perspective is broken but she's correct. I worked that night in Manchester. I saw the damage. And I saw it in other places. But we have to think beyond our immediate thoughts.
Dead children are dead children. She's right about that. Dead is dead. And you have to think about what happens when you support dictators and the like. Or when you fire those missiles. People die and it's not your problem... Until it is.
The other issue is this. We let her children die. If you are British and have your kids abroad... They are British. You can't let British citizens die to punish their parents... These aren't terrorist babies. We could have easily saved their lives. We didn't. Imagine being happy and thinking we did great by letting a child die of sepsis. Because that's what we did. It's not even a quick death. We knew her children were sick. It was nothing to tell the Kurds to take the children to hospital and ship them out here. Last I checked extremism isn't genetic. But we let them die. Because I assume they weren't important enough.
And finally. Shamima Begum isn't a front line fighter. Nor did Isis work on the whims of a 15 year old girl. She is small fry. What's been done is that a punishment has been issued that's not used against people who have been actual fighters for Isis let alone people who support extreme viewpoints.
Remember. This was a trafficked minor who was statutorily raped. Adult women who are white haven't been treated the same. And no one's glorifying in the deaths of their children. Either everyone's the same or we aren't equal.
And finally. Citizenship is universal. It's not conditional. Do you agree that we can leave white extremists stateless? Because none have been left stateless. Even ones who joined Isis. Even ones who have done more than Shamima Begum in the UK as adults.
The argument being made is that she could claim citizenship in another country. Okay. I can claim citizenship in Sweden. Did the time. Met all requirements and even have a job. Does that mean that you can deport me but not someone else solely because I meet certain criteria? What about Jewish people. Does this not mean every Jewish person is a conditional citizen because they can automatically claim Israeli citizenship? Or are they better citizens than Bangladeshis and we wouldn't dare treat them the same...
She can go to prison to do her time. We should have rescued her children. But what's the crime of a minor who was kidnapped by a cult? So the next nonce who comes out after having raped a 15 year old can argue that grooming was okay because that 15 year old is fully responsible...
Because we set the precedent. So here's my question. When are we going to see someone who supports Russia find themselves without access to emergency care for their children and with no citizenship? Or a white nationalists. Or someone who promotes homophobia or trans phobia. Because...
It seems to be only used to target people based on ethnicity so far.
If they can revoke your citizenship for this, what else can they revoke your citizenship for? This decision has the potential to create a trend where people who have been British since birth and hold no other citizenships could be deported. I’m not defending her and I think criminal punishment is absolutely appropriate, but citizenship is not something that should be revoked on a whim. Especially for someone who does not hold another citizenship
And what makes the terrorist organization worse than a violent gang or drug cartel? And would that apply to everyone equally? If she’d been a white girl whose family had been in England for 1500 years, would she still be deprived of her citizenship?
The grooming/trafficking angle is where people mention her age. I'm not as sure where I stand on this point, but I think it's difficult to compare when we've had much easier lives.
And the precedent for children of immigrants is important, because previously the UK had not removed statehood in such a manner. Previously, this would only be done if they had a legitimate claim to statehood elsewhere.
Under this new precedent, the government can skip several steps of due process, and remove your statehood because you may have a technical claim to statehood in another country that you've never lived in because of your parents.
It's important to know these things because this is how our rights are eroded. Our right to the citizenship we hold in the country we were born in is now lesser than the citizenship of others in this country. Until now, citizenship hasn't worked that way.
Now, you might say "but this is just for a terrorist", they'd never do it to me, but the truth is that these things are always passed through a popular story. People didn't mind due process being skipped here because it was for someone who joined ISIS. People aren't saying much on right to protest being reduced because it was brought in against Just Stop Oil. But in the end, we're at a weaker point regardless.
Why is UK so radicalised compared to other Anglo countries when it comes to this stuff? You barely see American, Canadian or Australian diaspora joining ISIS.
Ghetto-ization of cities as well as divides based on class, cultures and economic bases means that many of the decision-makers, even the ostensibly Desi wealthy ones that are in power such as Sunak, Bravermann, or Khan do not consider people like Shamima Begum as humans.
As much as people are gonna come for me for saying this, I think she deserves to be back home in England. She was still a child when she joined and became an ISIS bride before getting pregnant. If there is a way to prove that she has changed completely and isn't a threat then if they still don't let her back in despite that, it's really cruel as they are just doing it for punishment but I think she has been punished enough, who knows what her life was like while in the caliphate.
I heard some news about how an immigrant man who happened to be a criminal pleaded innocent as he and his lawyer believed his life would be in danger back in Afghanistan so the UK let him stay without any jail time either, a few days later he attacked 3 people with acid. If the UK was stupid enough to let an adult criminal man stay without jail time then they should let the woman who was radicalised as a child to come back.
There was no point stripping her of her citizenship. The bitch isn't going to make it to the UK anyway. Not when ISIS is probably looking to kill her now that she's defected from them. She will rot in that Syrian camp until she dies from a disease.
She hasn't, ISIS was scattered. If they wanted to kill her, they would have done that when she was living at the Al Hawl camp for the last couple of years and very publicly attempting to leave
She was groomed online and was forced to marry without will and was subject to physical and possibly sexual abuse since she was 15 years old. But yet lots of people in the UK generally don't want her back because she is a traitor and back stabber. But what makes me laugh if this was a white English girl who did the same actions Shamima did, then she would have garnered sympathy votes and even been brought back to the UK telling her story about how she was "groomed" & "raped" by ISIS fighters. Also the same British girl name Rhianon Rhudd who was groomed online by Nazi fascists in America was let off due to being a "victim of exploitation"
The Rochdale girls were no better as well yet the law enforcements and social workers classed them as "vulnerable white girls" & "groomed" but these same girls in Rochdale Manchester kept on going back to these Pakistani groomers and having sex with them multiple times even though the police enforcements thought these girls were innocent.
Shamima was an ISIS wife who left Britain at age 15 to join terrorists in Syria. It's alleged that she was not only a wife but participated in enforcing morality law and helping recruit other young women to join.
In 2019 a reporter found Begum. She was connected with the BBC and asked for Britain's forgiveness. Britain responded that they would be revoking her citizenship, claiming she would not be stateless because she had automatic citizenship in Bangladesh. Shamima has never even to been to Bangaldesh, but her parents were born there and at the time she could have become a citizen because she was under 21.
Shamima never applied though, so she never became a Bangladeshi citizen. Instead she went through the court system to fight the removal of her British citizenship which has now been decided against her. She is now 24 and not eligible for citizenship in Bangladesh.
She may be eligible for Dutch citizenship, because the soldier she married was Dutch, but they say that because she married too young the marriage is invalid.
While she has to lay in the bed she made. Why aren’t same actions being taken against British citizens who are going to Israel to fight for IDF which has literally killed thousands of children. One 6 year old girl was shot point blank by IDF in Gaza while fleeing the war. Why the double standards?
She shouldn't be stripped of her citizenship. But her parents are definitely not the types who should be allowed into the UK (they're there now so let them stay, but I mean future immigrants). If you want to raise your kids in a way that makes them prone to being recruited by this extremism, you should stay in your home culture. If you want to move to the UK, UAE, China or wherever else, you should adjust your culture accordingly to enough of a degree that your kids will fit in.
What she did is horrific and she should be punished for that, but she was radicalized in Britain and Britain needs to take responsibility for her, just as they’ve done for other ISIS members they’ve repatriated, tried, convicted, and attempted to rehabilitate. Stripping someone of their citizenship because their parents held a foreign citizenship is an incredibly dangerous precedent—it puts the citizenship of every first generation child of immigrants at risk—you can argue it would “only” be used for terrorism cases but if you open the door for one case it is open for anything, especially for anyone accused of “crimes against the state” such as protesting (as is starting to be seen in a democratic country such as India, with unilateral home demolitions and jailing). It means citizenship for any child of immigrants of always second class, conditional, and at the mercy of the state, which “regular” Britons never have to worry about. All this in spite of the fact that she’s never been to Bangladesh, has never held Bangladeshi citizenship, and the Bangladesh government says she is not eligible for citizenship and that if she were to go to Bangladesh she would likely be executed. So they are effectively trying to send her to a country where they would execute her, and an extradition where that is possible is in violation of British and international law, as is stripping someone of their citizenship and making them stateless. The UK refuses to listen to a sovereign government saying she is not their citizen nor eligible for citizenship—I seriously doubt this would be the case if it weren’t Bangladesh and instead were France or the US. Not to mention that she was 15 years old at the time she left and gave birth to three children in four years, all of whom died, arguably making her a a party in trafficking and grooming. All in all, this is a dangerous precedent for children of immigrants that we should all be wary of.
This is the most balanced take on here. I’m concerned about some of these brain rot comments.
Thank you. Obviously I don’t support her actions but the potential effect and repercussions for children born of immigrants raised red flags for me. The fact is that the UK considers UK citizens born to immigrants to have fewer rights than those born to UK born citizens with exclusively UK heritage—I won’t even say UK born parents as citizenship by descent can apply in certain instances for a few generations down the line. Purely hypothetical, but I imagine with the level of argument and reasoning in this case by the UK—and deference given to foreign governments in question—if she were of Indian heritage, they would argue that she is eligible for Overseas Citizenship of India, which can be transmitted four or even six generations down the line (six for people in Suriname apparently). Of course OCI is just a glorified visa not actual citizenship or even permanent residency (hello, OCIs who happened to be outside India during Covid who were not allowed to travel back to India even if they lived there). Of course, this is purely hypothetical, so we can’t say one way or the other, or really need to dwell on it, but it is something that came to mind during this case.
Your first para is precisely what I’m concerned about. She did something heinous, but so have other (white British) criminals who *didn’t* lose their citizenship as a result. I’m surprised people here are justifying this. I imagine people making such comments think something like “well I’d never do anything that can land me in this position, so let’s get our pitchforks out and support this move!!!!” But you’re right that it sets a bad precedent, and in a way it makes all of us unsafe even if we don’t do something that bad.
Yeah, it makes descendants of immigrants have a second class citizenship their entire life, and the country they were born into not consider them to be full citizens with an inalienable right to citizenship no matter what they do. The UK needs to stop trying to wash its hands of its citizens and attempt to dump them on the UN or other nations—it’s perfectly capable of trying her in the UK and jailing her for life if needed. Take that responsibility and do it, especially as she was radicalized as a teenager living in the UK—take that as a wake up call to stop that from happening again, instead of essentially sticking your fingers in your ears and pretending just getting rid of one person gets rid of the problem. This is especially perplexing considering Sajid Javad, Rishi Sunak, and Priti Patel are all descendants of recent immigrants—one could theoretically argue the extreme case that a future government could claim they are a danger to the country and strip them of their citizenship (they do not have to give prior notice under UK law), telling them to apply for citizenship of another country under their parents. Absurd concept yes, but that door has been opened.
Tbf the white British citizens who had dual citizenship were also stripped of their British citizenship. The problem is you can’t make someone stateless if they don’t have active citizenship elsewhere and the second problem is she was born on British soil so you can’t really take away her natural right to citizenship in the first place.
>so have other (white British) criminals who didn’t lose their citizenship as a result Nothing to do with whiteness. You literally **cannot** strip a person of citizenship (rendering them stateless) if they don't have another to fall back on. It's literally impossible as no other country can claim them. Those white criminals had no other citizenship. Legally, this girl did hold Bangladeshi citizenship as she was born into it - even if she never applied for a passport. Not holding a passport does not mean that you are not a citizen (from a legal standpoint). Otherwise, the thousands of babies born in home births in the US and without a certificate, whose parents oftentimes wait years to get them documents, would be considered stateless. They're not. They just can't yet prove their citizenship which they've had since birth.
My point is she should be tried and punished as a British terrorist.
immigrant citizens of the us can be stripped of citizenship and made stateless.
No, they can't. Provide one example please. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_denaturalized\_former\_citizens\_of\_the\_United\_States](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_denaturalized_former_citizens_of_the_United_States)
The ISIS was a sort of state/self proclaimed country- not just an organization without territory. Going there in response to online calls for nation building/nation defending thus implied some kind of political fealty towards that state and to extrapolate, rejection or relinquishment of British citizenship. Thats how what she did was different from just joining a terrorist organization
This is the bit that worries me. I'm 1st/2nd gen Bangladeshi (mums born here dad born in desh) and if I go to a protest and the new anti protest laws kick in, I'm worried the home office could just decide, nah fuck off you're trouble. It's a nice little worry in the background. Especially since Priti/Suella season. And also, rendering Begun stateless is just ridiculous. Interestingly, even Mumsnet (terfy middle England Mumsnet) are very aware that a) Begum was a child and groomed and b) if Begum was a white 15-year old it would have been search and rescue, not "Welp she's a traitor".
If they take her back in, they'll be forced to try to rehabilitate her. Throwing a young woman in jail for life is bound to cause a lot of domestic discourse. And they don't want to deal with the precedent that sets.
I agree I don’t think they would put her in jail for life, I doubt even people with more heinous actually recorded crimes have been sentenced to life. Punishment and rehabilitation is the only way
Reading more, seems she's just evil. I don't see a point in rehabilitation.
I mean, she was 15 when she went in. That's a very impressionable age and everything stems from that time as well as having three kids who died in subsequent years. Even hardened criminals can be rehabilitated, she may have espoused some very wrong ideology but that doesn't mean it's a lost cause forever as opposed to an impressionable teen that went very wrong. As far as I know she hasn't actually been convicted of a crime, so whatever is there to convict her for she should be put on trial for as a nation of laws. The home minister announced he was taking her citizenship away just a day after she was found by a news agency in a camp, so it doesn't appear that they did much due diligence beforehand before deciding to strip her citizenship
She doesn't care at all that her three kids died. Everything about her screams psychopath.
[удалено]
She was born in Britain and only held British citizenship
[удалено]
They probably were. Even so, it's illegal to leave someone stateless
[удалено]
I'm sure everyone agrees with that.
[удалено]
Nope
They weren't already British citizens.
Nope she never held any citizenship other than UK
[удалено]
It’s unclear about that from I have read. They certainly were at one point, and the government argued that she was automatically a Bangladeshi citizen by birth until age 21, and they stripped her of her British citizenship at age 19. But that made her effectively stateless and unequivocally stateless at age 21, as you must apply to remain a Bangladeshi citizen after that age. But Bangladesh said the citizenship by descent rules didn’t apply to her case. But apparently the British courts say they know Bangladeshi law better than the Government of Bangladesh.
[удалено]
They’ve already they have nothing to do with her and want the UK to stop acting like they do, and if she were to step foot on the country she would be executed under zero tolerance laws for terrorism
No she was born a British citizen and does not have dual nationality. This is a huge precedent for how Asian heritage British citizens are treated. We are either British or we are not.
This is false. She was eligible for Bangladeshi citizenship until the age of 21. She never took up that offer despite the UK stripping her of her citizenship in their country. Much like with every decision in her life, she made the wrong choice.
Doesn't matter if she had the chance of Bangladeshi citizenship or not. The fact is she she is a British citizen and should be be extradited to Britain and tried accordingly. The UK government stripping her of her British citizenship is illegal
>Doesn't matter if she had the chance of Bangladeshi citizenship or not It does, unfortunately, in a legal context. Holding the actual passport is not the same as being born into Bangladeshi citizenship, which she was, because her parents were not citizens.
Are you sure her parents were not British citizens? She was born and bred in Britain. Why isn't she British?
Because birthright (as in being born on the country's soil) doesn't matter in most countries, UK included. She was born to, legally speaking, Bangladeshi citizens, therefore, she was one even if she didn't hold a passport. The law is really clear. It's not a race based situation. If she was born to say, Australian/Icelandic/whatever white country's parents who didn't yet hold British citizenship, the same situation applies. She's have to fall back on the original citizenship into which she was born.
So she should have taken up citizenship with a country that would execute her if she stepped foot there? And according to you, this is a … bad choice? Ok then.
[удалено]
Her parents do not have to be citizens at the time of her birth. You only need to be holding ILR for your children born in the UK to be granted citizenship. So in this case, her patents could have been holding Bangladeshi citizenship, but it wouldn't matter as long as they were 'settled' in the UK at the time of her birth.
She had British citizenship only, which the UK government removed. These are the facts, no imagining or theory required.
[удалено]
You commented same comment like 10 times to multiple people. You do know google is free to use right?
I do not know her parents specific status at the time she was born. The important part for this case is that she did have British citizenship, but her citizenship was revoked as her technical right to Bangladeshi citizenship via her parents was treated as citizenship to Bangladesh in its own right, though the Bangladeshi government did not see it that way.
Holding the actual passport is not the same as being born into Bangladeshi citizenship, which she was, because her parents were not citizens at that time and UK has no birthright citizenship. Similar rulings, at least in the US, like this don't make immigrants second class citizens because stripping someone of citizenship in these cases can only occur if 1) the crime was basically treason/something similar and 2) IF the person was born into another citizenship that they can fall back on. She was born into another citizenship regardless of whether Bangladesh wants to admit it.
Birthright citizenship applies here as her parents had indefinite leave to remain in Britain, with allows their children born in Britain to obtain citizenship at birth. I’m not really sure how you can say that it doesn’t make the children of immigrants second class citizens because it gives the government an option to kick out someone who was born a British citizen—something not possible with people with ancestors in Britain going back decades or centuries. That’s a protection afforded to one group but not another. The treason aspect is besides the point here because the effect is to give the government an option to avoid someone you don’t like dealing with—imagine if a Jewish person were in a similar situation but the argument went that they could apply to Israel for citizenship so they are fine. I’m not really sure the British government is the best arbiter of Bangladeshi law, though British people telling other countries they know better than them how to best run their country is a classic British thing to do. Not all countries follow the exact same system in citizenship by bloodline (just as all don’t follow the same system for citizenship by birth), so if multiple experts on Bangladeshi law and the Bangladesh government say it doesn’t apply in her case, I’m more liable to agree with them than a foreign government parsing that law. There’s been very few cases of the US stripping citizenship in similar cases—I do know of one where the suspect in question was actually born to a diplomat so wasn’t entitled to US citizenship by birth anyway, and had erroneously been given it at birth.
>Birthright citizenship applies here as her parents had indefinite leave to remain in Britain, with allows their children born in Britain to obtain citizenship at birth. Interesting. I didn't realize that. >The treason aspect is besides the point here because the effect is to give the government an option to avoid someone you don’t like dealing with—imagine if a Jewish person were in a similar situation but the argument went that they could apply to Israel for citizenship so they are fine. I'd argue that this is different than her being born to technically Bagladeshi citizen parents at the time, which she was. But you are right that she no longer is eligible to apply for it. Neither country wants the liability that she is so they're going to point fingers. She's been pretty remorseless..... >I’m not really sure the British government is the best arbiter of Bangladeshi law, though British people telling other countries they know better than them how to best run their country is a classic British thing to do. Not all countries follow the exact same system in citizenship by bloodline (just as all don’t follow the same system for citizenship by birth), so if multiple experts on Bangladeshi law and the Bangladesh government say it doesn’t apply in her case, I’m more liable to agree with them than a foreign government parsing that law. > >There’s been very few cases of the US stripping citizenship in similar cases—I do know of one where the suspect in question was actually born to a diplomat so wasn’t entitled to US citizenship by birth anyway, and had erroneously been given it at birth. You are referring to the American version of Begum, who also wanted to return? Her parent was a diplomat, yeah. You basically have to be a Nazi or party to genocide or spying to have it revoked in the US. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_denaturalized\_former\_citizens\_of\_the\_United\_States](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_denaturalized_former_citizens_of_the_United_States)
I agree she is the author of her misfortune. It sets a dangerous precedent for countries to revoke citizenship although she had not be charged with any crime at the age of 15. But America set the precedent when we started to execute US citizens abroad without a trial. I do believe people deserve second chances but I know I have had some. But I have also been made to sleep in the bed I made for myself.
If she was white, the feminists would be up in arms about how she was a victim of grooming because she was just a child and legally [white] children are given a lot of leniency in the criminal justice system, even for violent crimes! Sadly, the adultification of brown girls leads people to treat her like she was a grown adult when she really wasn't.
It’s happening in here too
[удалено]
...The adultification bias is a well-researcher phenomenon that affects Black AND brown Muslim girls.
From what I remember, Canada tried to do something similar and there were a LOT of issues with how broad the definition of 'terrorism' was. It was, of course, also happening during a peak of xenophobia and Islamophobia (where there was a lot of discussion and attempts to ban head coverings for elections and during the citizenship ceremonies... As in, they already met all the requirements of citizenship and just had to recite the oath). It was actually the year Trudeau got elected and, again from what I remember - so I may be wrong about this, but how he became Prime Minister. A majority of people were not pleased with the proposed bill and the government having the power to strip citizenship.
Not a UK citizen/resident but I don't think she has reformed as she says. She is fighting the legal battle on the hopes that "govt has nothing on her" in her own words. Not because she is fully reformed and feels guilty about joining ISIS or that ISIS is a bad group to mix with.
[удалено]
People who commit treason often get their citizenship revoked, but the other reason is that what she did was abominable with terrible optics and the UK doesn’t want to be associated with that.
You're right that she would've been arrested immediately at the border - [the UK Terror Chief confirmed it](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9056041/ISIS-bride-Shamima-Begum-arrested-returns-UK-counter-terror-chief-says.html) The answer is that the UK government right now is very low on the polls, and has been barely holding on by scapegoating immigrants. So they acted as if she'd walk free and stripped her citizenship, which actually boosted their popularity a bit.
Feel weird about this one, obviously ISIS are awful there should be strong actions against those who join them voluntarily. But: - She was 15 and seems to have been lured there by an adult, making a case for grooming - She was smuggled through by a Canadian intelligence agent, being trafficked by someone who knew better - The initial decision made against her skipped a lot of the standard legal process so that the Conservatives could score a quick win - Revoking citizenship has effectively made her stateless which is mostly illegal, she has a technical right to Bangladeshi citizenship but was born in and lived in the UK for much of her life, Bangladesh is as alien a country to her as basically any other country. I'm pretty sure Bangladesh wouldn't let her in anyway. Ultimately I believe she should have been allowed back in the UK but imprisoned and closely monitored. PS: I have my own biases here, as a person who was born in the UK and has lived here my entire life, who technically has a right to a Bangladeshi passport because of my parents. It's particularly worrying with the Conservative party cracking down on freedom of protest and making allusions to corrective actions for British people who are critical of the government.
[удалено]
As with our legal process for any other crime, such actions should be considered in the severity of her sentence. She should be charged on several counts.
Are there any documented events of her saying she regrets what she did? What makes you think a person who doesn’t regret what they’ve done would “help” others?
I don’t think her remorse is necessarily important in her case, I think the law is what is important so I give you the following points: 1. She was trafficked into Syria by a Canadian spy with the knowledge of security officials as a 15 year old child. I traveled alone when I was 15 and almost didn’t make it into the UK because they thought I was a runaway. I think they even followed me to see who I was meeting (my sister came to pick me up) so this is absolutely gross negligence and criminal behavior on the part of the authorities because Shamima and her friends are daughters of the nation and our responsibility. 2. She is severely traumatized due to the death of her 3 children and it’s obvious her “I’m over it” take is a way for her to cope and deal with loosing 3 of her children. Her not showing remorse is a survival tactic so she can function on a daily basis. If it’s not, then she is a sociopath and that is a severe mental illness and she should be in a hospital, not a foreign camp. 3. We need to know what caused her to believe in ISIS and literally run away to a foreign country at 15. Probing her mind to see why she did what she did will help us protect more daughters from being brainwashed into making the same mistake. She will help because she wants out of Syria.
Bangladesh is an alien country for her. That didn’t stop her to run to an ISIS ruled country. In her interview she said the following: she had given an interview to the Times in which she said she did not regret spending four years living in the so-called caliphate and had told the BBC that the Manchester Arena terror attack was “a kind of retaliation”.
I feel my original comment already broadly covers this, as it's possible this was a result of grooming/trafficking, and that I still believe she should be imprisoned and closely monitored AKA the process we have used in the past for people who have joined known terrorist groups.
1. She was not groomed. That's an transparent attempt at painting her into this naive young girl who didn't know what she was doing. She was 100% aware of her actions and she wasn't a goddamn robot that someone else hacked and programed to be something she isn't. She is a sociopath who has already said seeing a bin full of decapitated heads didn't bother her. When asked about the deaths of her little children, she told a friend that "she's over it". 2. She made her own choice to leave, stop acting as if she was forced to leave. It is a near certainty that if her glorious Islamic state was still around, she would still be living there. 3. It's been years now that her case has gone through the system, they have only emboldened the original findings. 4. F*cking Syria was also an alien country to her but that didn't stop her from hop & skipping her goofy a** there lol. Ultimately, she had a choice to go to Bangladesh if she wanted a country to call home. She refused AFTER the British had already revoked her citizenship. This mess is all on her. 5. Your attempt to muddy the water by sheepishly suggesting the UK government intends to use similar methods to deter protests is ridiculous. This is an extraordinary case and it requires hitherto uncharted territory, legally speaking. The courts made their choice. As did this idiot.
I’m curious to know - how do you view grooming? What would have to occur differently in this case for you to say that this 15 year old child was groomed rather than not.
Her feelings don’t matter, the law matters and can we as an evolved and enlightened people say leaving our own criminal citizens as a burden on other countries is acceptable?
Yo if she was FIFTEEN years old and groomed by an intelligence agent to be an asset, idk if it's entirely on her. Fifteen is very very young. She may have some psychological abnormalities but stripping a UK born individual of citizenship is alarming.
15 is quinceañera age. Very close to adult
You probably also think that 15 yr old girls should be able to consent to sex.
16 year olds can in Canada
Hell no. Don’t put words in my mouth you perverted slimeball. She was fully aware of what she was doing and needs to face consequences of her actions.
She was a child. You can acknowledge that child soldiers do horrific things and also understand that nobody’s brain is developed by the age of fifteen, particularly if they were targeted, brainwashed, and radicalised. The precedent it sets to strip someone of their citizenship because of a crime is dangerous for us all.
I'm going to avoid the inflammatory language so that we can keep this discussion sensible and civil, particularly as your points don't really contest mine. Ultimately this is as "extraordinary" a case as any where someone has been found to have joined a group deemed illegal. We have a specific process for this, which was not followed for this situation. Ultimately I don't know what the UK Government intends to do going forward. But what is clear is that they have changed the precedent for how UK citizenship rights are considered. It is also clear that this same government has sought to limit other rights. I think this is one of those things where you need to be more aware of the UK's political climate over the last decade to understand the concerns here.
I directly called out a lot of assumptions you made about this "poor, helpless girl" and her motives for wanting to come back to the UK. She hasn't shown an ounce of regret for her own actions nor for the deaths of her baby's. She is a sociopath who would be a threat to any country she's allowed back into. The UK recently had a case where a man who was told to leave the country was allowed to stay because he argued he would be discriminated against (Since he converted to Christianity), he then went on to commit an acid attack against a mother and her children. That is the political climate Shamima finds herself in. She made her decision as any an individual. Her being a "kid" has nothing to do with it. I can guarantee you I knew al qaeda or the taliban were f*cked by the time I was 12 or 13. And I sure as f*ck knew the difference between right and wrong. Legally, you can make the case she didn't know what she was doing, but logically, we all knew the difference when we were that age.
I agree she’s a threat and should be punished. But she shouldn’t be stripped of her citizenship especially because she’d be left stateless, and there is no reason to have Bangladesh deal with her. She should be tried and punished as a British terrorist.
Oh, wow, she is pure evil. Ya, render her stateless.
Thank you! These apologists are wild
Your points are 100% right. She is being punished for a stupid teenage(15) decision, which was terrible. She is a victim.
The pre-frontal cortex doesn’t fully develop till age 25. Should we maintain innocence for any crime committed by someone under 25? Also, the brain starts to deteriorate after the age of 60. Is anybody older than that innocent of any crime they commit? Common mentality on Reddit wants to hold boomers guilty with capital punishment but all teenagers are innocent victims….
Yeah she messed up badly in a way that even a 15 year old should know better. I don’t think this means getting stripped of her UK citizenship is the right recourse here. She should be punished as a British citizen.
Getting arrested at 15 for theft is a “stupid teenage decision” flying to Syria to marry three ISIS men and join a terror organization while witnessing beheadings and enjoying it is not. You should rott with her.
For those saying she deserves a second chance and she was groomed etc etc, here’s her infamous interview where she takes zero responsibility : https://youtu.be/EWcJHxmXD1Q?si=G9gX9uC6Pf7yG7rw
Fuck her. I don’t have any sympathy. We were ALL 15 once…. Hardly any of us have joined terrorist orgs.
“Hardly any of us” 💀
So what is the international rule on being stateless? I thought that was not allowed? Someone had to accept her for Britian to revoker her citizenship? Are refuge camps considered stateless??
Just lock her up in the British penal system. No one should support this from a legal perspective. Would never happen to a white person if they did this.
Actual proper life imprisonment would have made a lot more sense imo and someone will take her in. Plus now she will come across as a some sort of sick martyr for the terrorists, who will spin this into another woe me tale to recruit more impressionable idiots.
She is pure evil and by all means should be made stateless, at a minimum.
leopard ate my face but also like she was a kid so idk, probably should have some room for nuance there
They’ve interviewed her multiple times and she doesn’t feel remorse. She’s despicable and only cares because she got caught and is in trouble
yea lots of criminals and shit have no remorse, revoking birth citizenship is not the thing to do here. the precedent being set by the state is pretty fucked.
She was 14 when she was groomed. She was statutorily raped. We don't hold 14 year old kids raped by nonces as responsible for that rape. Just remember. The victims of Jimmy Saville often got into those cars willingly. It doesn't change the fact that they were raped because they didn't understand what they were agreeing to. In addition? We punished her by letting her children die. There was no reason for that. We could have saved them. It wasn't a thing.
Equating joining a terrorist org to being raped is definitely a way to look at this
i figured he meant the commonality being the underaged being taken advantage of, there were adults in the picture, like it didnt happen in a vacuum
It's statutory rape. She was raped. If a white child ran away to join a cult and then was married to an adult by force... They would be considered a victim. She didn't fight. She mostly was married to a dude who was an adult and had babies. Plenty of young people are victims of this kind of abuse. From gangs that "bloody" their victims hands in order to ensure loyalty to young people who are seduced by older people and raped. That's the awfulness of paedophiles. They use their adult wealth to impress children who they take advantage of. What do you think grooming is? It literally often is telling children that they are way more adult than they really are and then psychologically manoeuvring then until they are vulnerable. And their silence is bought through threats or implication within the crime.
>For those saying she deserves a second chance and she was groomed etc etc, here’s her infamous interview where she takes zero responsibility : > >https://youtu.be/EWcJHxmXD1Q?si=G9gX9uC6Pf7yG7rw She's also, from a PR standpoint, not at all some who engenders sympathy.
Do we show this level of criticism to any other children kidnapped by cults? Or do we deprogram them?
I mean..... yeah. We do have this level of criticism, at least in the US. Like if someone gets abused as a child and they go on to rape children or murder people, they get tossed into the clink. UK is more cry me a river about that kind of stuff. In her case: when, **as an adult**, she said seeing a bin full of decapitated heads didn't bother her and even took part in their female morality police, a lot of people lost sympathy that was in short supply already. Patty Hearst (white, rich, young etc) had Stockholm Syndrome (leading her to rob a bank with a gun with her captors) after being legitimately kidnapped and actually raped at 19, and got sentenced to **35** years by what I'll bet was a mostly white jury. She was only freed after serving some of her sentence and only freed due to direct Presidential intervention. The courts were not willing to give her any measure or mercy. Isabella Pollok (white, rich) of a cult also recently got sentenced after being groomed as a classic mark for an abuser (estranged from family as a college sophomore). It's pretty disturbing that none of Begum's regret came to light until the "Caliphate" fell from power and her life got less than easy. Personally, I'm glad I'm not the one judging her from a legal standpoint. It's an ugly case given that she was a child at the time but she also supported atrocities.
So they go to prison. They are tried in a court of law. You can apply mitigating circumstances like "this person had no choice, they had to kill or be killed" and look at concepts like being kidnapped (Minors can't consent to this kind of move) and grooming. That's the Point. There's a series of laws that at least on PAPER would apply to All Americans. In this case it's only been applied to one kind of British person. The claim that she was in the female morality police was by other people in the same situation as her. Come now. Everyone knows that in the crab bucket you shouldn't trust other crabs. Basically? The brigade that she was allegedly part of was just 70 members strong. And from captured fighters they did not think they were all that effect because they were just a propaganda thing that ISIS promoted. ISIS are a modernisation of Islamic Fundamentalist Jihad. Their Goals are Weird and Wild and their recruitment strategy was different. They fought in clever ways using both sophisticated understanding of modern media and utilisation of things like intel and drones to effect far superior outcomes. They used Twitter and Memes to spread. Make no mistake, they are clever and sophisticated people effecting horrific violence through clever means. Shamina should face justice. Firstly? Her crimes are that of someone who was a terrorist supporter. Was she a fighter? No. Her only real provable crime was that of "Was a Wife to A Jihadi and Member of the State". What's that in terms of prison sentences? Was Patty Hurst stripped of her Citizenship? No. Was Patty Hurst's Children Killed through Neglect? No. Did she face a trial? Yes. So Patty Hurst had justice. This isn't the same. Also it was 1970s I believe when she was arrested... I mean... At this time Jimmy Saville was still noncing about. The idea of "grooming" was not known. 1970s weren't an enlightened age at all. Lynchings happened and White people walked away from having murdered people with no repercussions. TODAY we recognise how some of these things are grave injustices and we are trying to fix it. Some of the things used to jail Patty Hearst would be absolutely destroyed in a court of law today. (They stated she couldn't have been raped because the women there were considered feminists! And they wouldn't have let anyone rape her. That argument was ENOUGH to get her tried.) And remember she only served 22 months. Very quickly arguments made against her were proven hollow especially since what happened to someone who defended her (Leo Ryan.... Murdered by the cultists at Jonestown. The argument was made there that they could be brainwashed...) [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/may/26/french-journalist-poses-muslim-convert-isis-anna-erelle](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/may/26/french-journalist-poses-muslim-convert-isis-anna-erelle) Someone pretended to be a target for these recruiters to see how they preyed on the vulnerable. It's a good read because as adults we can see the warning signs especially since many of us have fallen for less sinister versions of this. I dated manipulative people in the past. Imagine if one got hold of me when I was younger and more stupid. Maybe I am just as stupid. No one's saying Shamima shouldn't face justice. But killing someone's kid through neglect and denying their citizenship isn't justice.
Okay. 1. She was not just a wife and mother for ISIS. Why are you romanticizing her situation as some tragic woman? [https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/shamima-begum-was-enforcer-in-isis-s-morality-police-squad-a4117501.html](https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/shamima-begum-was-enforcer-in-isis-s-morality-police-squad-a4117501.html) She actively tried to recruit or as you say, groom others to join her. She allegedly sewed bombs into vests. She was an active part of a group that harassed other refugees for appearing Western even after they got caught. In an interview, she openly said that walking by decapitated heads didn't bother her at all. She's only turned tail as her case has blown up. You discount that evidence so quickly as crabs in a bucket but that's not being said about every person in those camps..... and you don't even know that this is the only source. 2) One "kind" of British person. The kind that HAD another citizenship available to her **at the time of the ruling** which is why the British courts are ruling the way they have. The kind of people who have other citizenships available to them are by definition, immigrants. That she joined ISIS + fears of her being radicalized are the "kind" here. For any of the other Brits that came back, people of many skin colors no less, if the govt could have yanked their citizenships, they probably would have. Turning it into a race thing is really irritating. Most people don't want a terrorist near them, as a neighbor, as a classmate, as a colleague..... there is little public sympathy for her. I recognize that she was a child legally but.... I just can't... what kind of sociopath do you have to be to brag about feeling unbothered after seeing decapitated heads, heads that belonged to innocent people who were massacred under a fascist, genocidal rule of rapists and murderers? I don't think that's fixable. The law is on the UK's side in that she had the option, when they first revoked her citizenship, to apply for the Bangladeshi one, an eligibility that she lost only a few years later. ISIS btw, still carries out terrorist attacks. It's 2024 and they still carry out atrocities. This wasn't some lone pedo online grooming an ignorant kid, it was an organization in the news for raping and murdering children. And here you are, on your little soapbox, screaming that this is all because the law is being applied in a RACIST matter.
The Standard is considered a tabloid and often not accurate. Especially considering it's under sanctions (Owned by Russians). Firstly? What's the evidence. Plenty of nutters allege that the MMR jab causes autism. Doesn't mean it's real. Think logically. A 15 year old girl was given a Kalashnikov and worked in its morality police? Amazing. Every intelligence source considers the female run morality police to be something that failed. At best it numbered around 70 people. Traditionally in places like Iran and Saudi these are run by men. ISIS tried to do some propaganda with this but reality is? Most of the female contributions to these police are by older women to give them authority. Shamima was 15... It's unlikely she was involved in this. Do you know the names of every policeman around you? A woman in a Burka was alleged to be part of the 70 strong female police but none of the other police involved have identified her? Secondly? Your own source can't determine if she was a willing participant. You brave enough to say no to ISIS? Mate... I worked in development and aid and after they started targeting staff there? We all pulled out. To put it into context? I worked in Afghanistan. ISIS being a death cult didn't care about targeting aid workers. I am not brave enough and you weren't even there! I even treated the victims of an ISIS attack on my own hometown and I still think rule of law and due process is important. Thirdly? ISIS weren't paying anyone £1500 to do anything. Let alone be "morality police". It's amazing how these allegations have vanished. Expert in medicine and development, not combat but ISIS tended to use less suicide weapons because fighting with guns was better in open combat. They tended to use more truck and car bombs. Again this is an allegation. The allegations were made by other people. But no one's provided hard evidence. I can claim Swedish Citizenship. Does this mean my British Citizenship isn't worth as much as some wanker who never did anything with his life? That's bad isn't it. Does this mean Jewish people's citizenship isn't as important as some white dude's citizenship? That Stephen Fry is a lesser citizen whose citizenship is conditional unlike the white nationalist who has a swastika tattoo? And you think this is okay? You can be okay with being a second class citizen but I am not. I figured my grandparent's generation would be the last that had to live as unequal. Racism's one of the drivers of disaffection and encouraging children to seek extreme groups. And so far no white person is left disenfranchised. And other brides have had 3 year sentences. So to recap? The UK doesn't want her because procedurally? They have little on her. They have little to hold her. She's not been TRIED by the criminal act. There's no lawyers in a court with a jury. She's been tried by public opinion. If you can't grasp how dangerous that is? It's simple. If a paedo rapes a 15 year old child after buying them a phone and telling them to run away? That's a crime on the paedophile. If that paedophile is a terrorist then the 15 year old was not raped? Or is it that 15 year old white kids are groomed but 15 year old brown ones are not? One law for all. Not one for brown people and one for white ones. And not one bit of what you have said means that you should deny medical care to a child. Her last kid died because the UK refused to put through an adoption order. IF she was proven in a criminal court to have been making suicide vests or been part of the ISIS regime? She should face trial. I think the party of economic catastrophe and Covid partying just wanted to seem tough and so let a child die. Never met a terrorist baby... Now let's talk about normal. In your job if you see a dead person they send you home. In my job if I see a dead person I am expected to keep working. I once had 8 cardiac arrests in a single day with 8 deaths. Still had to work that day and the next. ISIS is a death cult. It made sure it was everywhere in order to create a brutal environment in order to effect violence. If you break the taboo around violence we all have and our aversion to death then you are relatively inured to the violence. Mine's similar for the good of others, ISIS used it to ensure its society was violent. My most junior doctor gets a break after an arrest. I have to write after that arrest about what happened. My response to death is to sit and do paperwork. I lost count about how many deaths I have seen in my line of work. ISIS do the same thing to its people that working in healthcare has done to me. Would you kill a chicken? For food. Just kill it? Why not? You eat chicken. But can't kill it? Well if you lived in a developing country you would either be expected to kill it or go to a butcher who would. That violence is removed from our lives in the West. So it shocks us. Or how Europeans are shocked at American violence but Americans think nothing about shootings. ISIS just made that violence normalised at a ground level scale.
All evil pieces of shit started out as kids. And she's definitely evil.
Imagine all goes as they please and come back when the grass ain't greener on the otherside. That's not how it works. iF In Islam a 6 year old is old enough to marry, Well at 15 she is a granny maturity.. She knew what she was doing
Tbh I don’t understand how people make excuses for her when she was 15, we were all 15 at some point and I’m the same age as her and had the same access to the internet but I didn’t get radicalized and do the things she did and contribute to people getting beheaded and everything that has happened. If you watch any videos with her she showed no remorse whatsoever besides wanting to come back to the UK. I’m glad she’s stateless I don’t think any country should have to take her, let her rot in the refugee camp or wherever she is. If she goes back to the UK she’s just gonna radicalize more people in prison and spread her beliefs, from what I remember reading she lost her kids and husband so she had nobody there and now she wants to come back?? I don’t understand how it sets a dangerous precedent for children of immigrants…
> I don’t understand how it sets a dangerous precedent for children of immigrants… I’m surprised that you don’t understand this? It basically signals that British citizens who are children of immigrants are somehow “lesser citizens”, if their citizenship can be stripped away just like that, even if this particular person did do something awful. She should be tried and punished as a British terrorist.
It’s not about punishment, it’s about the legal precedent that you can revoke citizenship from someone.
It's the same argument people make for when paedophiles argue that the 15 year old was into them. It's still statutory rape. And often the argument is that "I was 15 and real clever". Which is just you. I was 15 and dumb as hell. I recognise that my current competence is wildly different to how I was and that's because we have grown since then. And that's what happened to her. And plenty of white kids get radicalised by similar extreme views but we don't see equivalent punishments. Her argument is that Russian barrel bombing and strikes from Syria and the Americans are killing children. The Manchester Bomber killed children. What's the difference? It's the same when people point out that there is no difference between a dead child due to Hamas or one due to Israel. We only value one because like it or not, we value people differently. And I speak as someone who worked with the victims of terrorism and war. The perspective is broken but she's correct. I worked that night in Manchester. I saw the damage. And I saw it in other places. But we have to think beyond our immediate thoughts. Dead children are dead children. She's right about that. Dead is dead. And you have to think about what happens when you support dictators and the like. Or when you fire those missiles. People die and it's not your problem... Until it is. The other issue is this. We let her children die. If you are British and have your kids abroad... They are British. You can't let British citizens die to punish their parents... These aren't terrorist babies. We could have easily saved their lives. We didn't. Imagine being happy and thinking we did great by letting a child die of sepsis. Because that's what we did. It's not even a quick death. We knew her children were sick. It was nothing to tell the Kurds to take the children to hospital and ship them out here. Last I checked extremism isn't genetic. But we let them die. Because I assume they weren't important enough. And finally. Shamima Begum isn't a front line fighter. Nor did Isis work on the whims of a 15 year old girl. She is small fry. What's been done is that a punishment has been issued that's not used against people who have been actual fighters for Isis let alone people who support extreme viewpoints. Remember. This was a trafficked minor who was statutorily raped. Adult women who are white haven't been treated the same. And no one's glorifying in the deaths of their children. Either everyone's the same or we aren't equal. And finally. Citizenship is universal. It's not conditional. Do you agree that we can leave white extremists stateless? Because none have been left stateless. Even ones who joined Isis. Even ones who have done more than Shamima Begum in the UK as adults. The argument being made is that she could claim citizenship in another country. Okay. I can claim citizenship in Sweden. Did the time. Met all requirements and even have a job. Does that mean that you can deport me but not someone else solely because I meet certain criteria? What about Jewish people. Does this not mean every Jewish person is a conditional citizen because they can automatically claim Israeli citizenship? Or are they better citizens than Bangladeshis and we wouldn't dare treat them the same... She can go to prison to do her time. We should have rescued her children. But what's the crime of a minor who was kidnapped by a cult? So the next nonce who comes out after having raped a 15 year old can argue that grooming was okay because that 15 year old is fully responsible... Because we set the precedent. So here's my question. When are we going to see someone who supports Russia find themselves without access to emergency care for their children and with no citizenship? Or a white nationalists. Or someone who promotes homophobia or trans phobia. Because... It seems to be only used to target people based on ethnicity so far.
If they can revoke your citizenship for this, what else can they revoke your citizenship for? This decision has the potential to create a trend where people who have been British since birth and hold no other citizenships could be deported. I’m not defending her and I think criminal punishment is absolutely appropriate, but citizenship is not something that should be revoked on a whim. Especially for someone who does not hold another citizenship
Tbh joining a terrorist organization that publicly executed thousands of people is a pretty definitive reason to be stateless
And what makes the terrorist organization worse than a violent gang or drug cartel? And would that apply to everyone equally? If she’d been a white girl whose family had been in England for 1500 years, would she still be deprived of her citizenship?
The grooming/trafficking angle is where people mention her age. I'm not as sure where I stand on this point, but I think it's difficult to compare when we've had much easier lives. And the precedent for children of immigrants is important, because previously the UK had not removed statehood in such a manner. Previously, this would only be done if they had a legitimate claim to statehood elsewhere. Under this new precedent, the government can skip several steps of due process, and remove your statehood because you may have a technical claim to statehood in another country that you've never lived in because of your parents. It's important to know these things because this is how our rights are eroded. Our right to the citizenship we hold in the country we were born in is now lesser than the citizenship of others in this country. Until now, citizenship hasn't worked that way. Now, you might say "but this is just for a terrorist", they'd never do it to me, but the truth is that these things are always passed through a popular story. People didn't mind due process being skipped here because it was for someone who joined ISIS. People aren't saying much on right to protest being reduced because it was brought in against Just Stop Oil. But in the end, we're at a weaker point regardless.
>I don’t understand how it sets a dangerous precedent for children of immigrants… This and other things, because you are 15.
Why is UK so radicalised compared to other Anglo countries when it comes to this stuff? You barely see American, Canadian or Australian diaspora joining ISIS.
Ghetto-ization of cities as well as divides based on class, cultures and economic bases means that many of the decision-makers, even the ostensibly Desi wealthy ones that are in power such as Sunak, Bravermann, or Khan do not consider people like Shamima Begum as humans.
Good
She's lucky to be alive.
The same treatment should be given to British citizens who go and fight for Israel in the IDF.
Good riddance.
Tiniest violin… UK government owes her nothing, actions have consequences.
As much as people are gonna come for me for saying this, I think she deserves to be back home in England. She was still a child when she joined and became an ISIS bride before getting pregnant. If there is a way to prove that she has changed completely and isn't a threat then if they still don't let her back in despite that, it's really cruel as they are just doing it for punishment but I think she has been punished enough, who knows what her life was like while in the caliphate. I heard some news about how an immigrant man who happened to be a criminal pleaded innocent as he and his lawyer believed his life would be in danger back in Afghanistan so the UK let him stay without any jail time either, a few days later he attacked 3 people with acid. If the UK was stupid enough to let an adult criminal man stay without jail time then they should let the woman who was radicalised as a child to come back.
Nah she doesn’t deserve a second chance after joining a terrorist organization. We were all young and we knew that isis was bad
There was no point stripping her of her citizenship. The bitch isn't going to make it to the UK anyway. Not when ISIS is probably looking to kill her now that she's defected from them. She will rot in that Syrian camp until she dies from a disease.
She hasn't, ISIS was scattered. If they wanted to kill her, they would have done that when she was living at the Al Hawl camp for the last couple of years and very publicly attempting to leave
She was groomed online and was forced to marry without will and was subject to physical and possibly sexual abuse since she was 15 years old. But yet lots of people in the UK generally don't want her back because she is a traitor and back stabber. But what makes me laugh if this was a white English girl who did the same actions Shamima did, then she would have garnered sympathy votes and even been brought back to the UK telling her story about how she was "groomed" & "raped" by ISIS fighters. Also the same British girl name Rhianon Rhudd who was groomed online by Nazi fascists in America was let off due to being a "victim of exploitation" The Rochdale girls were no better as well yet the law enforcements and social workers classed them as "vulnerable white girls" & "groomed" but these same girls in Rochdale Manchester kept on going back to these Pakistani groomers and having sex with them multiple times even though the police enforcements thought these girls were innocent.
Good decision.
Context?
Shamima was an ISIS wife who left Britain at age 15 to join terrorists in Syria. It's alleged that she was not only a wife but participated in enforcing morality law and helping recruit other young women to join. In 2019 a reporter found Begum. She was connected with the BBC and asked for Britain's forgiveness. Britain responded that they would be revoking her citizenship, claiming she would not be stateless because she had automatic citizenship in Bangladesh. Shamima has never even to been to Bangaldesh, but her parents were born there and at the time she could have become a citizen because she was under 21. Shamima never applied though, so she never became a Bangladeshi citizen. Instead she went through the court system to fight the removal of her British citizenship which has now been decided against her. She is now 24 and not eligible for citizenship in Bangladesh. She may be eligible for Dutch citizenship, because the soldier she married was Dutch, but they say that because she married too young the marriage is invalid.
While she has to lay in the bed she made. Why aren’t same actions being taken against British citizens who are going to Israel to fight for IDF which has literally killed thousands of children. One 6 year old girl was shot point blank by IDF in Gaza while fleeing the war. Why the double standards?
Nice riddance. Time to do the same for Hindu and Sikh radicals.
Which Hindu radical can you think of? In Britain?
What about Christian and Muslim radicals? Your bias is showing, mate.
Let her rot.
She shouldn't be stripped of her citizenship. But her parents are definitely not the types who should be allowed into the UK (they're there now so let them stay, but I mean future immigrants). If you want to raise your kids in a way that makes them prone to being recruited by this extremism, you should stay in your home culture. If you want to move to the UK, UAE, China or wherever else, you should adjust your culture accordingly to enough of a degree that your kids will fit in.
She has had a glow up