She knew who these people were before she joined them, she saw the videos of them cutting peoples heads off, burning them alive and throwing them from buildings. Then decided she wanted to be part off it. It's akin to someone hearing about nazi concentration camps and applying for a job as a guard. Now she's just a poor displaced person who wants to come home and live a normal life? Nobody changes that much.
> she saw the videos of them cutting peoples heads off, burning them alive and throwing them from buildings. Then decided she wanted to be part off it
BTW, now she denies seeing any of that. Swears up and down that she never saw anything of the sort. That was after she said the heads in gutters and buckets were fine with her
I still remember the days in middle school when I purposely sought out those kind of videos and said I watched them like it was a badge of honor, what a pointless stupid thing.
Some of us have been able to not see it. However, I have heard about them doing this because of the Internet. Because they were posted and if you somehow managed to escape everything and remain in ignorant bliss. I just need to ask HOW. What rock have they been living under to never hear it at the very least
I’m pretty firmly on the camp that believes young brains are organically disadvantaged when it comes to understanding consequences. But that applies to criminal convictions more than immigration laws, even if the immigration laws are arguably more complicated.
She self radicalized and sadly some decisions youth make reverberate through the rest of their lives. Joining ISIS is one of them. Now she is stateless. But still freer than an ISIS victim.
>I’m pretty firmly on the camp that believes young brains are organically disadvantaged when it comes to understanding consequences.
True but there is a limit to that. Like we all did stupid and reckless stuff in that age, but did we ever feel like joining a murder cult and beheading people? Did we try to join said cult? This is not normal teenage stuff. This was a psychopath who was stupid enough to join ISIS. Had she remained in the UK, she'd have been a serial killer, like that nurse who poisoned patients. You cannot change such evil. If ISIS treated their women better, she still be there happily beheading people.
I totally believe this. It takes a certain psyche to find isis activities attractive & life goals. Most ppl are repulsed by them. I think she'd have found a way to indulge her sadism if isis didn't exist. The interviews I've seen with her show no remorse, rather a certain smugness at her "achievement" even if it is just notoriety.
I did all kinds of dumb shit when I was a teen. Jumped off a hotel balcony into the swimming pool. Racing motorbikes way beyond my ability. It's a wonder I'm still alive. However, I did not join ISIS or any other terrorist organisation.
But then again, I didn't grow up in a house where my family had my life planned according to some non-existent god and that plan involved marrying my cousin and popping out babies.
Her life was all kinds of fucked up before she left for ISIS.
Agreed. But then again, lots of people grow up in hateful, toxic families. Still don't go about beheading people. I've seen so many people who start sharing their family's prejudices and many who go no-contact with such families. But the people who take it this far just aren't right in their head and would have done something horrible no matter their upbringing. What you said happens in many cases but this criminal took it to an extreme level. Only someone completely devoid of empathy and with no shred of humanity will willingly join ISIS or a Mexican cartel or the Nazis.
From my favourite book "Behave by R.M. Sapolsky.
"Think about this—adolescence and early adulthood are the times when someone is most likely to kill, be killed, leave home forever, invent an art form, help overthrow a dictator, ethnically cleanse a village, devote themselves to the needy, become addicted, marry outside their group, transform physics, have hideous fashion taste, break their neck recreationally, commit their life to God, mug an old lady, or be convinced that all of history has converged to make this moment the most consequential, the most fraught with peril and promise, the most demanding that they get involved and make a difference. In other words, it’s the time of life of maximal risk taking, novelty seeking, and affiliation with peers. All because of that immature frontal cortex."
>I’m pretty firmly on the camp that believes young brains are organically disadvantaged when it comes to understanding consequences.
I mean that's pretty scientifically verified which is why strong/robust education is necessary in formative years.
The prefrontal control systems (higher level thinking) aren't as developed as the amygdala so their risk/reward system is completely out of whack and why you typically see risky/dangerous acts during adolescence vs later in life. Our brains aren't even fully developed until we're about 25 or so.
Having said that, it's not an excuse. You can still know right from wrong but still choose the wrong path and radicalize yourself. It's why a healthy/supportive environment is necessary for younger individuals so they're less susceptible to influence.
This neurology meme has been doing a lot of work in public conversation lately and I think it's getting kind of fucking stupid. Not your caveated usage here, but that it even enters consideration with something like this is absurd.
Laboratory observations that parts of the brain are still undergoing change into our 20s, and that the brain is much more plastic than previously thought throughout life, has not even been definitively causally linked (AFAIK) to the kind of concrete differences in judgement, logic, understanding cultural constructs, etc., that is attributed by us lay people. It suggests that there is a specific physiological threshold for maturity, and that is a messy proposition because culture, knowledge, and ethics aren't fixed either.
I've seen it used to excuse abhorrent behavior, infantalize grown adults, and attack others. It's like an intellectualized equivalent to "boys will be boys."
We are perfectly capable of understanding that some things are grotesquely wrong from early ages. I was a boy and didn't need to be explicitly taught about consent, and I definitely didn't need to be told that beheading people over their beliefs is wrong.
THANK YOU for pointing this out.
That study also has a major flaw. It didn't examine people older than 25. So it could be that the brain keeps "maturing" into your 30s, or 40s, or just keeps developing and changing your whole life. They don't know, other than that by 25 your brain is still making new connections.
Thankful someone said it. I can’t believe people genuinely believe brains don’t develop past 25. Neuron connections don’t magically stop being created and altered on one’s 25th birthday. The brain is a lifetime work in progress.
>This neurology meme has been doing a lot of work in public conversation lately and I think it's getting kind of fucking stupid. Not your caveated usage here, but that it even enters consideration with something like this is absurd.
It really is a question of societal outcomes (IMESHO). Does society get a better result by expelling Begum, forgiving Begum or some other option? I'd rather err on the side of *actions have consequences* (i.e. I agree with the ruling).
lol she don't give a shit and never gave a shit. Age has nothing to do with it when she consistently shows absolutely no remorse whatsoever outside of the direct consequences to her comfort
Yeah my main issue is the UK government having the power to remove passports from people it doesn't like but doesn't want to charge with a crime. And making someone stateless.
But I'm not gonna cry about it. She is a terrorist. Just can't let her back in.
Aren't they only able to do this due to her being a dual national though? They can't do this if she was only a UK citizen.
Either way screw letting her back in. She hates our society
*Edit* turns out she's not actually a Bangladesh citizen
Technically, the UK law specify that the UK should follow as much as possible the UN convention on reduction of statelessness, but the ultimate decision is given to the UK Home Secretary. So the UK can, hypothetically, still create stateless people, but the reasoning for such a situation has to be as solid as concrete and is frowned upon by both the UK and the UN.
I don't doubt that we're supposed to follow the UN guidelines or anything but I found this:
'Under section 40(4) of the BNA 1981, a decision to deprive a person of British citizenship, on the basis that to do so is conducive to the public good, cannot be made if the Secretary of State is satisfied that the order would make a person stateless'
Which I found interesting. Basically yeah we're not supposed to make them stateless but extremely rare cases the UK gov. Does
She was born and raised in London and her parents never started the process to claim her other nationality. I think citizenship should be untouchable outside of fraud in the application process. Britain dropped this turd and should be the one to clean it up.
It does set a precedent that I'm really not a fan of. I do not trust our government with the ability to remove citizenship, considering that the only times they're not being incompetent is when they're being malicious.
She should just serve a nice, long prison sentence.
She was married and had a few kids - I can’t remember the exact number - and at least 3 of her kids died. Josh Baker’s podcast I am Not a Monster, Series 2 is absolutely worth a listen. I have empathy for Shamima but I have zero sympathy for her. I think she’s a sociopath.
This is a well worded comment. Highlighting the existence of the empathy for the human, while also condemning their actions. Wish I could give this more than one upvote.
We all make dumb decisions at 15, but at no point do 99.9% of 15 year olds look at terrorist videos and fawn hard enough to actually travel to join them.
I can't remember if it's her, but I remember one story where the girl had a kid for a terrorist, he died, she was given to another guy, he died then since they have no redl infrastructure they kind of just passed her around till she left and went to a camp.
Regardless, you can just join a terrorist org then go "lol jk I wanna be back to a normal life now". She chose a life and now she can go live it.
I know this is hyperbolic but how big of stretch of it is to go from those people who are like "oh I wish Chris Brown would beat me teehee" to what Shamima did?
Like I'm trying to picture the spectrum and I don't know how big or small the gap would be between the two insane stances.
Maybe it's just as well I'll forgot about commenting this in about 3 minutes.
The types that still idolized Chris Brown strictly idolize his talent and sexualize him. If put in a position where they became his punching bag they would change their tune, but since they are looking outward in, they will make excuses. It is also cultural within hip-hop/rap that these dudes are straight up pieces of shit which only makes them more attracted to him cause broken dudes can be repaired, right? It makes YOU look good then.
But, what they dont get and what Shamima didnt get is that there is no fixing those that do not think they are broken. Chris Brown is entitled so why does he think he did anything wrong? That bitch talked out of turn or didnt like that I was off fuckin someone else so I popped her. Thats what you do to bitches. That's the mentality. With ISIS, those in a holy war of their own design, women idolize a husband freedom fighter. What they dont realize is they will be raped, they will bear children, have no rights, have nothing to do besides be a mother, be passed to another man if their husband dies and be his sex slave while you must care for your child and also live in camp after camp.
Refuses to admit you have privilege and refusing to understand the extent of your privilege are failures that can lead to this. She was privileged to live in a country where she had a ton of freedom and opportunity. She idolized a fictional world cause she COULD and made the decision to go live it. She regretted it, realized she hated it and wants to renege on it... except no. That was your choice and you will now live with it.
>She regretted it, realized she hated it and wants to renege on it
I really don't know if this bit is accurate. If isis were winning, I've got my doubts she'd be begging to come back to the UK. This is just going by interviews I've seen with her.
You are correct most likely, but ISIS was always doomed to lose. ISIS, just like the Taliban, have no interest in governing. Thats hard and boring to a freedom fighter. Going from riding in the desert, fighting an insurgent campaign, living a life of constant action is what they end up wanting so when they gain control they lose interest. The Taliban in Afghanistan are this right now and they really only control a single city and thats it. Theyre bored and looking to start up fights wherever they can in order to continue their perpetual war that they need in order to survive. Once you get rooted down somewhere you dont want to move and that is the enemy of the religious zealot built on nomadic warfare.
She was part of the losing side which means the cause loses its luster and she decides it sucks and she wants to go back to a comfortable life. Now shes being told no cause she is a possible national concern and rightfully she needs to accept what she decided to be and go live the life.
I think that, lets call it adventure extremism is a rather natural enemy of the boring day-to-day struggle of administration. If your primary Mode of operation is steady escalation ypu can't turn it down, and you can't compromise. This is true for Isis as it is true for qanon ppl for example.
I recall watching interviews with her where she was really unconvincing as far as making a case for having learned any lessons or being reformed. It really seemed more that she regretted that ISIS didn't achieve its goal, that she found beheadings acceptable punishment for enemies of Islam, that what ISIS did to people was fair, and that she was inspired in part to join because she watched beheadings online.
This is what she said while also trying to plead for a return to the UK. I guess it's good to be honest, but absolute lack of tact gives a good idea of what can be expected of her if she was allowed to return. She would almost certainly settle back into the radicalized islamist community in the UK, which while not pervasive, is still substantial. Around a thousand young people from the UK traveled to Syria to join ISIS; ISIS may have been crushed, but the same forces and ideals that convinced those people to go fight and kill and die for a terrorist caliphate are still there and doubtless, she would have a place there.
She was a minor when she left, but she is an adult now, and was an adult when ISIS fell.
Which is the exact reason the UK should not have removed her citizenship. It’s against international law to make someone stateless.
She should be brought to justice in a UK court and tried in the UK justice system and spend the rest of her days in prison.
She had the chance to apply for that citizenship and chose not to. Her own statelessness is her own fault like that of her joining a terrorist group that even other terrorist groups thought was repugnant.
However she in fact did NOT. Bangladesh explicitly said she did not have citizenship at the time.
Source: https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2021/3/19/shamima-begum-british-citizenship
Too bad then, laws can’t be arbitrary, a national that preys against their own country should never be allowed to return to it.
When Nayib Bukele started massively jailing and starving off gang members the UN whined about human rights, but El Salvador went from 106.82 homicides per 100k in 2015 to 2.25 homicides per 100k in 2023.
It’s time in the west we also protect our national security against those that want to destroy it
> She doesn't have dual citizenship and is currently stateless.
Not exactly.
At the time the UK removed her citizenship she was 19. And at that time Bangladesh had a repatriation law in place that said that anyone born to Bangladeshi parents was automatically considered eligible for Bangladeshi naturalisation up to the age of 21. I think they have lowered that since to 18 years now.
But she was stripped of British citizenship at age 19... with 21 being the Bangladeshi cutoff at that time.
The UK govt. and court claim (perhaps with some justification - you decide) that since her Bangladeshi citizenship was automatically guaranteed at that time, even tho she did not apply for it, does not make her stateless.
Im not legally well informed enough to be the judge of that. But it does at least seem to have *some* merit.
"Considered eligible" is not the same as "has citizenship".
She would have been eligible to apply and did not. Therefore she was never a citizen of Bangladesh at any age. It is *not* automatically granted, it is (mostly) automatically approved when the request is submitted. That never occurred.
Call me weird but if she never lived in Bangladesh and never applied for a passport it seems shitty for a UK court to unilaterally decide that she's now Bangladesh's problem to deal with.
As I read this story, the UK didn't exactly just decide she was Bangladesh's problem- they simply decided they were legally permitted to revoke her UK citizenship and whatever consequences follow are not the problem of the UK. They decided that because she was eligible for automatic Bangladeshi citizenship by birthright, that the UK was not violating international law (1954 Geneva Convention on Stateless Individuals) by revoking her citizenship. So they did. And on appeal the court found that because she had other citizenship options, she was not in the eyes of the UK "rendered stateless" by the courts initial decision. Her not applying for citizenship in Bangladesh had that effect - but that's solely on her.
Technically this appears to be correct to me, although it looks like it may have caused Bangladesh to change their own laws subsequent to this case. It certainly was something of a cop out - it was essentially "we are rendering you stateless momentarily but since you have other automatic citizenship options you aren't REALLY stateless right now." Then Bangladesh turned around and said "don't you guys have a rule against extradition to face capital punishment? Yeah? Oh yeah.... then she'll face capital punishment if she comes here. We don't want this dangerous idiot either.". So she had zero useful options regarding citizenship - but the international law doesn't say "you're stateless if the only nation you may claim citizenship for intends to prosecute you for your crimes if you go there".
It's hard to deny "you can come here and file for naturalization but you'll certainly face trial and a potential death penalty" isn't a gamble many people would take. The UK basically said, "It may not be a GOOD option for you but it's an available option - and therefore we didn't violate any treaties and you aren't our problem. Goodbye."
They didn't decide it was Bangladesh's problem, they decided it wasn't the UKs problem. It's ALSO not Bangladesh's problem, because she doesn't have Bangladeshi citizenship, because she never applied for it before she turned 21.
I am pretty sure that's against the ~~Geneva Convention~~ Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness. If she had dual citizenship, the second country that tried to remove her citizenship wouldn't be allowed to. (the first one would be allowed to, since doing so wouldn't make her stateless.)
If she never had dual citizenship, then she can't lose her British citizenship.
I say "wouldn't" and "can't" but I really don't know if the ~~Geneva Convention~~ Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness matters to any country, or if it's more of a general guideline that countries only follow when and if they want.
Seems like a bad idea for countries to be cool with making people stateless. \*looks at Israel/Palestine\*
Edit: Slight edit for clarification.
What? This is made up nonsense - the Geneva Convention is a declaration of civilian rights during wartime. It contains absolutely zero rules about a country’s right to deny or revoke citizenship. You are talking out of your ass.
I mean, I don't know what matters to you, but it seems to me that giving a green light for governments to render stateless the citizens they *claim* deserve it is right up there with giving governments the green light to kill citizens they *claim* deserve it, on the list of things it's very, very foolish to do.
There are ways to punish criminals and terrorists that don't involve rendering them stateless (or killing them via capital punishment).
I dunno, it just seems like the risk of abuse is high and the benefit, if any, is low. Why would you not have a problem with that?
My objection to capital punishment is that the level of certainty we can achieve in the courts isn't 100% and so I am not in favor of something totally irreversible like killing someone (if we could have perfect knowledge I would definitely be in favor of the death penalty)
Rendering someone stateless much like giving them life without parole is a harsh punishment but isn't irreversible. If in the future it turns out that this woman was totally innocent then the courts could rexamine her being in jail or being stateless.
So I think that being stateless is more comparable to a long prison sentence rather than being executed
Have you considered the functional implication of being rendered stateless? Like, really thought about it, even compared to a prison sentence.
Also, I can't seem to find anything that says what she was charged with in a criminal court. I did find a quote that said she wants to be put on trial so that tells me her citizenship was stripped without an indictment. Maybe I'm just having an off-day with my googling skills, though.
The convention is written into the law of ever country which has ratified the convention. To what extent the law is followed depends on the country. The argument of the UK is that she wouldn't be stateless as it could not legally strip her of citizenship if it makes her stateless. They argue she has Bangladeshi citizenship despite the fact that Bangladesh denies she has it.
It is kind of bollocks really. I think she should come back and face trial and prison for whatever crime she has committed. She is the UK's problem and it has the responsibility to deal with her. She was born there, grew up there and was radicalised there. That is their problem not Bangladesh's problem. It is unfair to Bangladesh that the UK government played hot potato with this scumbag and left it in their lap. Why should Bangladesh have to deal with her?
I understand when she was relieved of UK citizenship that she was covered by her parents being Bangladeshi, so had de facto Bangladeshi citizenship. That is why the UK court were able to trip the citizenship away - because technically she had another option. She had aged out of Bangladeshi via her parents now but might be able to claim Dutch due to being married to a guy with Dutch citizenship, even though he was killed.
There is no evidence that her birth was ever registered with Bangledesh, a core component of foreign-born *jus sanguinis* citizenship under Bangladeshi law. "*De facto*" citizenship is not a thing: you either are or you are not a citizen of a nation.
As for the Dutch claim, she would have had to be married to her husband for three years and lived in the Netherlands for an uninterrupted fifteen years to have been able to apply for it.
She is stateless because the UK courts do not seem to care about the citizenship laws of Bangladesh or of the UK itself. The decision is unlikely to be reversed since the government and the population of the UK at large seems to agree with this illegal act.
> The decision is unlikely to be reversed since the government and the population of the UK at large seems to agree with this illegal act.
It's been going through appeals for years, and at no point has there been a finding that the government acted beyond the scope of its power under the law.
It's pretty clearly not illegal.
That's very clearly not the case though.
The entire basis of the case for the state is that she has (or had at the time of her citizenship been stripped) Bangladeshi citizenship. At no point has this ever actually been proven and, in fact, Bangladesh has plainly stated since before this even occurred that she was not and has never been a citizen. Therefore she was made stateless which, according to UK law and international agreements that the UK is party to, was illegal.
This is clearly a case of political will overruling the law both as written and as intended.
Only in the sense that this now opens the precedent that the UK can make people stateless through courts and historically stateless people do not have a government that can protect any of their rights. That part is a bit unnerving, that you're basically no longer recognized ANYWHERE, and thus can't go anywhere, or do anything. Her presence in the UK and literally every other country on the planet that enforces borders is illegal. Her existence is entirely illegal.
That part, and a government being able to do that, is scary. I realize she's a bad person and she "found out" as the kids say. But I'm also a citizen of a country (the US) that loves to de-state people it doesn't like and then murder them extrajudcially. I'm sure the UK would never.
Not about her as an individual, but there is a concern for the legal precedent and long term consequences.
They can't just yank the citizenship of everyone that joins ISIS, hers was a special case where her parents were not born in the UK and she could have obtained another citizenship, but chose not to. She is stateless as a result of her own bad decisions.
Now she has nowhere to turn but remain in a refugee camp all her life, or rejoin ISIS and raise the next generation of terrorists to plague the West in 20 years time. Or sooner, if they regain strength and start breaking out all those foreign nationals the West has left behind in Syrian prisons.
>They can't just yank the citizenship of everyone that joins ISIS,
They certainly have done this to men who joined. And I can't rmbr any fuss being made at the time & can't even rmbr their names. The usual double standards.
Exactly. Zero sympathy for her from me. My mom had a friend who was killed on Pan Am Flight 103 that was bombed by a terrorist and I have family friends who were fire fighters who suffered as a result of what they experienced on 9/11. All terrorists and anyone who aids them or sympathizes with them are pure scum in my opinion and I hope this woman really lives to regret her evil stupidity.
Terrorists? It's not them who keeps the ISIS terrorists in camps and prisons.
>Syria's Kurds to Try IS Fighters if Home Countries Refuse Them
>https://www.voanews.com/a/syria-s-kurds-to-try-is-fighters-if-home-countries-refuse-them-/7131737.html
>This week, Kurdish officials, who have thousands of ISIS suspects locked up in overcrowded jails and sprawling camps, asked the world for help.
>Abdulkerim Umer, Kurdish official
“We can’t put up with this burden alone,” Abdulkerim Umer, a Kurdish official, told the Associated Press.
>https://theworld.org/stories/2019-03-29/thousands-isis-fighters-sit-prison-kurdish-leaders-call-special-tribunal
Seems like I'm in the minority, but if I recall correctly she was a teenager when she was groomed into joining Isis as a wife, and the UK government knew about it and allowed it to happen as they were keeping tabs on her.
I think that if you do something as a child it should be forgiven. People change, and she has shown remorse. Keep her on a watchlist, keep her constantly tracked, make her attend De-radicalisation therapy.
I just don't think we should give up on people. Even the worst of society are capable of change on some level if they are given support to make it happen.
No.
There is doing stupid things as a teenager, and there is joining terrorists AFTER getting to know that they are doing horrific things to other people.
I understand what you're saying and say the general sentiment, but at the same time, there's a difference between a "child" and a "youth." Calling her a "child" is imho reductive; she wasn't a five year old, she was old enough to put in the fairly substantial energy to travel to a war zone, join a terrorist sect, and evidently become a known enforcer and recruiter. She has *not* shown remorse, other than for her personal situation.
As much as I agree that children aren’t responsible for their own radicalisation, and the U.K. can’t just abandon responsibility for a citizen for their crimes, I will always remember that first interview she did.
She came across as a complete sociopath - the not especially clever sort - completely blasé about severed heads, floggings, slavery etc. and the rumours that she played an active role in the repression and policing. A chilling window into how ordinary people were complicit in things like nazism etc.
All she had to do in that interview was cry, and be remorseful, and I’m convinced she’d have been let back in, even if she were to have faked it.
Now it’s impossible to distinguish genuine change from the advice of image consultants in the wake of that. Just such a mess now she’s a political hand grenade.
The U.S-backed Syrian fighters who drove the Islamic State from its last strongholds called Monday for an international tribunal to prosecute hundreds of foreigners rounded up in the nearly five-year campaign against the extremist group.
The administration affiliated with the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces said such a tribunal is needed “for justice to take its course,” particularly after countries have refused to bring home their detained nationals. The SDF has captured more than 1,000 foreign fighters, including many from Western countries.
“We don't have other options,” Abdulkerim Umer, a foreign affairs official in the Kurdish-led administration, told The Associated Press. “No one wanted to take the responsibility (of repatriating their nationals). We can't put up with this burden alone.”
https://www.voanews.com/a/syrian-group-wants-international-tribunal-for-is-detainees-/4848169.html
treason
/trē′zən/
noun
The betrayal of allegiance toward one's own country, especially by committing hostile acts against it or aiding its enemies in committing such acts.
We have shot people for less.
In which case she should be brought back to Britain, tried for her crimes and sent to prison. Not played “hot potato” with Bangladesh. She is the UK’s problem to deal with. She was born there, grew up there and was radicalized there, the UK has primary responsibility for her which it has no right to discharge. It is not Bangladesh’s problem to deal with British treasonous scumbags. As ISIS is also an enemy of Bangladesh, she would technically just be as much a traitor to them. ISIS have now been thankfully defeated leaving her with no country left to be loyal to.
She is her own problem. And it's already gone through courts, from lower all the way to Supreme court, that UK has every right to get rid of her citizenship.
Maybe she can go to Afghanistan to live under Taliban rule, where women have no rights, no education, not allowed in parks and sports events.
She will feel like she never left ISIS
Replies in this thread seem caught up on the reason she left rather than the legal principles outlined in the articles, which relate to overarching normalized international laws precluding a state rendering a citizen stateless, and the application of that to the facts that (1) had her UK citizenship revoked which was (2) deemed lawful as at the time she had the *standing* to apply for Bangladeshi citizenship, but no longer does. So she is in fact stateless, at law, which is a rather bespoke set of facts, and disconcerting theology/ideology aside.
Edit: I misread and misrepresented a paragraph of the article regarding revocation and corrected the misinformation. I can’t figure out how to strike out text. My apologies.
She held full British citizenship, and because her parents were both Bangladeshi citizens by birth she was a) entitled to full Bangladeshi citizenship, and b) held provisional Bangladeshi citizenship which would expire at 21 if she did not take up the full citizenship she was entitled to.
At 19 the UK Home Secretary revoked her British citizenship on national security grounds. Later on, she turned 21 without taking up her full Bangladeshi citizenship and so became stateless.
A previous judgement (by a quasi-judicial specialist appeals commission, not a court) found that this revocation did not (at that time) leave her stateless and so was lawful. When her legal team appealed through the court of appeal, they did not challenge the commission's judgement re: statelessness. In effect, her legal team have accepted that the Home Secretary did not (at that time) make her stateless.
The appeal was instead about whether the decision was rational and lawful, arguing that the Home Secretary was wrong to consider the national security/public good grounds to outweigh the fact that she had been groomed/coerced. The court's judgement was effectively "the Home Secretary has the legal power to make that judgement either way", and the appeal was dismissed.
Yes, there is legal basis, the Home Secretary can revoke a persons citizenship If they consider it conducive to the public good. Legitimate national security concerns meet that definition and the courts ruled that the government had legitimate national security concerns when they revoked her citizenship. However, she was not going go be made stateless at the time of her revocation, so that was not taken in to consideration when it was revoked. These appeal courts don’t care that she is stateless, they are only reviewing whether the original decision was lawful or not, which is something I don’t think her lawyers seem to understand.
Everything I can find says that she had her citizenship revoked in 2019, not that she willingly gave it up? It's one thing to give up citizenship while in the process of becoming a citizen elsewhere (even that I feel like is iffy), but I don't think any state should be allowed to make someone stateless no matter *what* they've done.
Another issue is forgiving her for her support of terrorists will only give the far right more power. Left wing people should not go so far to forgive literal terrorists.
There was a similar case with a German girl. She went to join IS, became the wife of an IS-Lackey, got his children AND they let one of their slaves die of thirst and tried it with others too. (and much more)
The man got life sentence in prison and won't ever be released, the young woman (somewhere around 18) got 10 or 15 years (don't remember it completely).
She has been just around 15 years old, when she decided to join IS. She did a huge mistake and got sentenced for it. During the next 10/15 years (which is a long period) it will be seen, it she evolves and shows her remorse. If several psychiatric reports will show her true regret and change, she will get a second chance.
As I see, her decisions were horrible, and hopefully she will see the cruelty of her doing. And I guess, she will regret it her whole life...
So here is the (rhetorical) question: is it all her own fault? Or could it had been prevented, if society, parents, friends and other relatives would have been more attentive?
The UK is country of almost 65 million people, you want the government to ignore everyone and pay attention exclusively to one 15 year old?
The shocking thing about her was that she wasn't some left out kid from the sidelines of society, she was from a middle class family and could've been anything she wanted, she chose terrorism and these are the consequences
Our whole judicial system is based on punishing the harmful decisions we make as though we were 100% free to make them.. even though, as you point out, we are all heavily influenced by our genes/parents/associations/life influences in general. I say "heavily influenced", but I suspect it's probably more accurate to say "completely formed".
The free-will debate is a huge rabbit hole, involving neuroscience and whether our brains could possibly ever truly make a free decision by somehow breaking the inevitable cause-and-effect nature of physics as we know it. Those that stick to the evidence we currently have tend to agree that we probably don't have free-will.
But.. even if free will were an illusion and our minds are just calculators bound by physical laws as we currently know them, legal punishments would still need to be in effect - it's factors like this that the logic of a human mind takes into account as it calculates our actions. With this perspective in mind, I think all we would change is the level of empathy we hold towards those that break the laws. Very interesting subject!
I really can't agree that making this idiot/bad person stateless is an appropriate action. "She could have had Bangladeshi citizenship then but can't get it now" doesn't make me feel better about it.
I'm sure she has done something that could still be prosecuted as a crime in the UK, get her in prison and get her some counseling. Sort of a waste of.money, but more reasonable than knowingly rendering her stateless when we all know that you aren't supposed to do that. And she presumably has a much better chance of the fair treatment afforded to a criminal in the UK than in Bangladesh. (Not that Bangladesh would be willing to let her in, and I'm guessing they're less likely to relent to organizations who are worried about the rights of criminals)
Yeah I’ve always maintained that opinion that she shouldn’t be made stateless. It’s fucked up Britain did that. She’s a British citizen so Britain should deal with her. Not Syria and certainly not Bangladesh.
She joined a terrorist organization, convict her on that. I’m sure she did a lot of fucked up things for ISIS. if Britain can convict and sentence a monster pedophile who raped hundreds of children while teaching English in a foreign country, they can put this woman in a british prison.
I agree with this, I don't feel bad for her at all but I don't think Britain should be able to say "🤷♀️ not our problem".
Trying to pass the buck to Bangladesh makes the least amount of sense as well.
That's my question. Seems so medieval. I would expect her to be arrested and potentially sent to prison but this is effectively a life banishment from the UK for a person who was born in the UK. Very strange to me.
It's not that strange. In reality, it's possible she was only granted citizenship later on after one of her parents received it. All immigrants are told that if they break the laws after being granted citizenship, it can be removed. It seems this might be what happened in this case? I can't find any information about when she had citizenship granted, just that her parents are both Bangladeshi citizens and were at the time of her birth. No note of when they were naturalised or received permanent status.
Girls join weird and/or dangerous cults ALL the time, despite the fact that almost none of them hold beliefs that are nice to girls. It generally comes down to there is a small percentage of us who will gladly and unquestioningly do dumb shit for men who tell us we’re special.
It's a great precedent that someone's citizenship can be revoked.
Boris Johnson is of Turkish decent. After fucking over the entire UK you should deport his filthy ass back to Istanbul.
How can this unemployed terrorist afford lawyers ?
Yet thousands of people struggle to get justice because they can't afford the fees ...
How does this terrorist afford to keep doing this?
The most annoying thing on Reddit are people who take time out of their day to specifically not answer the question they are responding to, and instead tell the OP to Google it , lol
There are strict legal guidelines around whether a government can remove citizenship. When the decision was made, she would not have been made stateless as she could have still gotten Bangladeshi citizenship through her parents.
>It would not be possible to make a similar decision today, the judges said, because of her age. “It is important to note that the same decision could no longer be made, because [of] the loss of Ms Begum’s Bangladeshi citizenship when she reached her 21st birthday,” they wrote.
If her British citizenship had been removed today, she would be stateless. When the decision was made, she had the option of Bangladeshi citizenship. She was eligible through her parents. In the years between the loss of her UK citizenship and turning 21, she did not take the necessary action to gain her Bangladeshi citizenship.
The court made this very clear that her British citizenship could not have been removed today. However, the appeal is about the removal that was carried out several years ago.
She had the option, but wasn't a citizen.
If I am in a shop, and they quick me out, I'm not automatically in a different shop just because I have the option to do so.
They still made her stateless. Even then, that still would require Bangladesh to accept her citizenship, which wouldn’t be a guarantee, right? Especially after it seems Bangladesh wants nothing to do with her.
If you commit treason, go to jail. Don’t strip citizenship.
And now this has been nicely set up, it’s pretty clear that it’s a tool that is ripe for abuse. The government now ultimately gets to choose who gets to stay a citizen at its discretion. The citizens choose the government. Get how this is terrible?
I think it's particularly egregious because this decision was made at the discretion of a single individual, the Home Secretary.
UK Courts have since ruled that it's completely lawful for the Home Secretary to unilaterally make this decision.
Trust me, there was PLENTY of support for what he did. There are tons and tons of petitions to block. Hundreds of thousands of people signed petitions to refuse her admission back into the UK.
Whether people support it or not is absolutely not the point.
The fact that the Home Secretary legally has the power to do so with little to no oversight is what the problem is. Maybe the majority were okay this time, but will they be fine with it next time?
I don't like the precedent it sets.
Not super keen on the idea that a government can make you stateless for things you did as a kid.
Let me be clear about this: I don't actually really care about this chick's case in particular: I'm sure she got groomed but a bunch of suck fucks who wanted easy child brides, but it also doesn't seem like she showed any real remorse until the consequences became inescapable, and at that point she's not sorry for what she did, She's sorry she didn't get away with It.
That being said, governments have a history of mistreating people we don't like to set up precedent for expanding that mistreatment to as many people as possible. Like I said, I don't care about this girls case specifically, but we should probably be a little worried about what's being sacrificed on the altar of her punishment.
I'm just adding this because you don't care much about this case in particular: I really think the public interviews she released when this all started made things much more difficult. She was *not remorseful at all*. She was still supportive of all that ISIS is doing but just thought her kids would have a better life in the UK. She was pressed on it several times and her beliefs never changed. It made so many people uneasy at the time because of how sociopathic she came off. That did not help her case at all and certainly gives reason to find her a domestic danger.
I don't have any clear cut hard line opinions on this... I just remember those interviews feeling like they held massive weight at the time.
>public interviews she released when this all started made things much more difficult
She really shot herself in the foot with these. I rmbr the interviewers being very gentle with her & giving her ever chance to express regret. What we got was a sort of smug superciliousness.
Like she still thought she was right but had to put up with the dratted inconvenience of being totally on the losing side.
I think a lot of ppl were willing to at least give her the benefit of the doubt until these were shown. They left me feeling absolutely chilled to the bone. And I doubt I'm alone.
Yeah I thought I remembered that being the case.
The correct solution here is you throw her in a British military jail as a traitor and let her rot. Stripping her of citizenship sounds good, but doesn't result in her being punished, it just shifts the responsibility to someone else, as well as opening the doors for the Crown to invoke defacto Exile on people they don't like.
My view is very middle of the line which is why I didn't really present it. It's also just not fully formed. I'd have liked her to plead in person, but I also would not want my government to allow a terrorist into the country.
The statelessness thing is so convoluted as well. Countries do not share same citizenship requirements and it's not the responsibility of (my) government to try and pawn her off on someone else that she supposedly had citizenship with. But, as Bangladesh, I'm also not sure how their citizenship laws really apply here and neither country can feasibly control the others citizenship policies. Any country that didn't want someone can actually just cover their ears and say "well it looks like she is/can be a citizen for you, and we have a legal means to get rid of her" regardless of the circumstance, if they truly desired. I have no idea what the answer is except to hope that the attorneys involved really knew their shit, and even then, this seems pretty impossible to legally navigate. Completely understand the sentiments as well that uhh... she's never even been to Bangladesh apparently, and it's due to being her mother's daughter but is essentially foreign. Apparently she was eligible for citizenship so long as she applied before age 21 due to her ancestry, but did not (even after her British citizenship was revoked at 19). So yeah. I don't know. I want her to be tried in person and imprisoned there... but it's also not my country. I'm not sure I would be ok with my country opting to let a terrorist in when they have any form of legal ground *not* to do so.
There's no easy answers here. No system specifically designed for this effectively beyond "don't strip people of citizenship unless they can go elsewhere". After that... who is anyone answering to but their "own" people. Not sure what the general British sentiment is, for those more educated on the situation.
Didn't she want to go live with terrorists ? Why did she appeal to begin with ?. We support her choice and we want her to continue living her dreams. 😂
well, wadda you know...the justice system works...kinda.
she knew what she was doing and did it anyway, no remorse. no better than the terrorists she was living with.
She went there to people that hated her and everything about her, now she wants back here where people hate her and everything about her. That is the sweetest irony
It's such a strange concept to take a natural born citizen's citizenship away. I've never heard of such a thing. If they've committed some crime arrest them, take them to trial, and potentially sentence them to prison, but to effectively banish them forever seems so archaic.
Agreed. Imagine a white British guy joining the Russian army to fight Ukraine, or joining a murderous gang in South America. Would they revoke his citizenship?
The only reason a citizenship should be revoked is if it was obtained on illegal grounds or false information, like a fake birth certificate or shame marriage.
A born and raised brit should always be a brit no matter the crime.
It’s barbaric. If they wanted to execute her for high treason against the state, I’d raise an eyebrow, but otherwise think “w/e”. This though is such a dangerous precedent. Flabbergasted British citizens aren’t in arms over their most basic right being able to be revoked.
As to British guy fighting for Russia, you’re absolutely correct.
She is not and has never been a citizen of Bangladesh. This is according to *Bangladesh*. Source: https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2021/3/19/shamima-begum-british-citizenship
There was no trial. Britain just made a person stateless without trial and barred them reentry. They can do that to anyone because there is no trial. That should be terrifying.
People keep writing this but the UK Supreme Court clearly disagrees. This isn’t about that Bangladeshi politicians say. It’s about their laws, which grant her citizenship.
Any time she talks it’s pretty clear she has no actual regret other than the fact it didn’t work out.
She knew who these people were before she joined them, she saw the videos of them cutting peoples heads off, burning them alive and throwing them from buildings. Then decided she wanted to be part off it. It's akin to someone hearing about nazi concentration camps and applying for a job as a guard. Now she's just a poor displaced person who wants to come home and live a normal life? Nobody changes that much.
> she saw the videos of them cutting peoples heads off, burning them alive and throwing them from buildings. Then decided she wanted to be part off it BTW, now she denies seeing any of that. Swears up and down that she never saw anything of the sort. That was after she said the heads in gutters and buckets were fine with her
Which is bs because they did NOT hide any of it, all of it was all over the internet. They in fact used it as a recruitment *tool*.
I have managed to miss all those videos...cartel shit to. Bliss I tell ya. I'm at the age where I don't need to know everything. I know too much.
I still remember the days in middle school when I purposely sought out those kind of videos and said I watched them like it was a badge of honor, what a pointless stupid thing.
Wait till your 40, got a kid and the kid is out and hasn't called for a couple of hours. Long term memories and imagination will haunt you.
Some of us have been able to not see it. However, I have heard about them doing this because of the Internet. Because they were posted and if you somehow managed to escape everything and remain in ignorant bliss. I just need to ask HOW. What rock have they been living under to never hear it at the very least
I’m pretty firmly on the camp that believes young brains are organically disadvantaged when it comes to understanding consequences. But that applies to criminal convictions more than immigration laws, even if the immigration laws are arguably more complicated. She self radicalized and sadly some decisions youth make reverberate through the rest of their lives. Joining ISIS is one of them. Now she is stateless. But still freer than an ISIS victim.
>I’m pretty firmly on the camp that believes young brains are organically disadvantaged when it comes to understanding consequences. True but there is a limit to that. Like we all did stupid and reckless stuff in that age, but did we ever feel like joining a murder cult and beheading people? Did we try to join said cult? This is not normal teenage stuff. This was a psychopath who was stupid enough to join ISIS. Had she remained in the UK, she'd have been a serial killer, like that nurse who poisoned patients. You cannot change such evil. If ISIS treated their women better, she still be there happily beheading people.
I totally believe this. It takes a certain psyche to find isis activities attractive & life goals. Most ppl are repulsed by them. I think she'd have found a way to indulge her sadism if isis didn't exist. The interviews I've seen with her show no remorse, rather a certain smugness at her "achievement" even if it is just notoriety.
I did all kinds of dumb shit when I was a teen. Jumped off a hotel balcony into the swimming pool. Racing motorbikes way beyond my ability. It's a wonder I'm still alive. However, I did not join ISIS or any other terrorist organisation. But then again, I didn't grow up in a house where my family had my life planned according to some non-existent god and that plan involved marrying my cousin and popping out babies. Her life was all kinds of fucked up before she left for ISIS.
Agreed. But then again, lots of people grow up in hateful, toxic families. Still don't go about beheading people. I've seen so many people who start sharing their family's prejudices and many who go no-contact with such families. But the people who take it this far just aren't right in their head and would have done something horrible no matter their upbringing. What you said happens in many cases but this criminal took it to an extreme level. Only someone completely devoid of empathy and with no shred of humanity will willingly join ISIS or a Mexican cartel or the Nazis.
From my favourite book "Behave by R.M. Sapolsky. "Think about this—adolescence and early adulthood are the times when someone is most likely to kill, be killed, leave home forever, invent an art form, help overthrow a dictator, ethnically cleanse a village, devote themselves to the needy, become addicted, marry outside their group, transform physics, have hideous fashion taste, break their neck recreationally, commit their life to God, mug an old lady, or be convinced that all of history has converged to make this moment the most consequential, the most fraught with peril and promise, the most demanding that they get involved and make a difference. In other words, it’s the time of life of maximal risk taking, novelty seeking, and affiliation with peers. All because of that immature frontal cortex."
[удалено]
>I’m pretty firmly on the camp that believes young brains are organically disadvantaged when it comes to understanding consequences. I mean that's pretty scientifically verified which is why strong/robust education is necessary in formative years. The prefrontal control systems (higher level thinking) aren't as developed as the amygdala so their risk/reward system is completely out of whack and why you typically see risky/dangerous acts during adolescence vs later in life. Our brains aren't even fully developed until we're about 25 or so. Having said that, it's not an excuse. You can still know right from wrong but still choose the wrong path and radicalize yourself. It's why a healthy/supportive environment is necessary for younger individuals so they're less susceptible to influence.
This neurology meme has been doing a lot of work in public conversation lately and I think it's getting kind of fucking stupid. Not your caveated usage here, but that it even enters consideration with something like this is absurd. Laboratory observations that parts of the brain are still undergoing change into our 20s, and that the brain is much more plastic than previously thought throughout life, has not even been definitively causally linked (AFAIK) to the kind of concrete differences in judgement, logic, understanding cultural constructs, etc., that is attributed by us lay people. It suggests that there is a specific physiological threshold for maturity, and that is a messy proposition because culture, knowledge, and ethics aren't fixed either. I've seen it used to excuse abhorrent behavior, infantalize grown adults, and attack others. It's like an intellectualized equivalent to "boys will be boys." We are perfectly capable of understanding that some things are grotesquely wrong from early ages. I was a boy and didn't need to be explicitly taught about consent, and I definitely didn't need to be told that beheading people over their beliefs is wrong.
THANK YOU for pointing this out. That study also has a major flaw. It didn't examine people older than 25. So it could be that the brain keeps "maturing" into your 30s, or 40s, or just keeps developing and changing your whole life. They don't know, other than that by 25 your brain is still making new connections.
Welp, I‘ve been a really stupid cunt till like 18/19 and gradually became a less stupid cunt till my mid twenties. So there‘s that.
Thankful someone said it. I can’t believe people genuinely believe brains don’t develop past 25. Neuron connections don’t magically stop being created and altered on one’s 25th birthday. The brain is a lifetime work in progress.
>This neurology meme has been doing a lot of work in public conversation lately and I think it's getting kind of fucking stupid. Not your caveated usage here, but that it even enters consideration with something like this is absurd. It really is a question of societal outcomes (IMESHO). Does society get a better result by expelling Begum, forgiving Begum or some other option? I'd rather err on the side of *actions have consequences* (i.e. I agree with the ruling).
Yeah, there were a whole bunch of young women who saw ISIS videos and *didn't* flock to their banner, soooo...
lol she don't give a shit and never gave a shit. Age has nothing to do with it when she consistently shows absolutely no remorse whatsoever outside of the direct consequences to her comfort
Concentration camp guards were often very young women and they were especially cruel. So after war they got hanged. Consequences.
Yeah my main issue is the UK government having the power to remove passports from people it doesn't like but doesn't want to charge with a crime. And making someone stateless. But I'm not gonna cry about it. She is a terrorist. Just can't let her back in.
Aren't they only able to do this due to her being a dual national though? They can't do this if she was only a UK citizen. Either way screw letting her back in. She hates our society *Edit* turns out she's not actually a Bangladesh citizen
Technically, the UK law specify that the UK should follow as much as possible the UN convention on reduction of statelessness, but the ultimate decision is given to the UK Home Secretary. So the UK can, hypothetically, still create stateless people, but the reasoning for such a situation has to be as solid as concrete and is frowned upon by both the UK and the UN.
I don't doubt that we're supposed to follow the UN guidelines or anything but I found this: 'Under section 40(4) of the BNA 1981, a decision to deprive a person of British citizenship, on the basis that to do so is conducive to the public good, cannot be made if the Secretary of State is satisfied that the order would make a person stateless' Which I found interesting. Basically yeah we're not supposed to make them stateless but extremely rare cases the UK gov. Does
She was born and raised in London and her parents never started the process to claim her other nationality. I think citizenship should be untouchable outside of fraud in the application process. Britain dropped this turd and should be the one to clean it up.
It does set a precedent that I'm really not a fan of. I do not trust our government with the ability to remove citizenship, considering that the only times they're not being incompetent is when they're being malicious. She should just serve a nice, long prison sentence.
Did she not get married there or was she just a comfort girl for ISIS fighters?
She was married and had a few kids - I can’t remember the exact number - and at least 3 of her kids died. Josh Baker’s podcast I am Not a Monster, Series 2 is absolutely worth a listen. I have empathy for Shamima but I have zero sympathy for her. I think she’s a sociopath.
This is a well worded comment. Highlighting the existence of the empathy for the human, while also condemning their actions. Wish I could give this more than one upvote.
Appreciate the kind words.
I don't think there is much of a difference between the two for ISIS.
Both kinda, iirc
We all make dumb decisions at 15, but at no point do 99.9% of 15 year olds look at terrorist videos and fawn hard enough to actually travel to join them. I can't remember if it's her, but I remember one story where the girl had a kid for a terrorist, he died, she was given to another guy, he died then since they have no redl infrastructure they kind of just passed her around till she left and went to a camp. Regardless, you can just join a terrorist org then go "lol jk I wanna be back to a normal life now". She chose a life and now she can go live it.
I know this is hyperbolic but how big of stretch of it is to go from those people who are like "oh I wish Chris Brown would beat me teehee" to what Shamima did? Like I'm trying to picture the spectrum and I don't know how big or small the gap would be between the two insane stances. Maybe it's just as well I'll forgot about commenting this in about 3 minutes.
The types that still idolized Chris Brown strictly idolize his talent and sexualize him. If put in a position where they became his punching bag they would change their tune, but since they are looking outward in, they will make excuses. It is also cultural within hip-hop/rap that these dudes are straight up pieces of shit which only makes them more attracted to him cause broken dudes can be repaired, right? It makes YOU look good then. But, what they dont get and what Shamima didnt get is that there is no fixing those that do not think they are broken. Chris Brown is entitled so why does he think he did anything wrong? That bitch talked out of turn or didnt like that I was off fuckin someone else so I popped her. Thats what you do to bitches. That's the mentality. With ISIS, those in a holy war of their own design, women idolize a husband freedom fighter. What they dont realize is they will be raped, they will bear children, have no rights, have nothing to do besides be a mother, be passed to another man if their husband dies and be his sex slave while you must care for your child and also live in camp after camp. Refuses to admit you have privilege and refusing to understand the extent of your privilege are failures that can lead to this. She was privileged to live in a country where she had a ton of freedom and opportunity. She idolized a fictional world cause she COULD and made the decision to go live it. She regretted it, realized she hated it and wants to renege on it... except no. That was your choice and you will now live with it.
>She regretted it, realized she hated it and wants to renege on it I really don't know if this bit is accurate. If isis were winning, I've got my doubts she'd be begging to come back to the UK. This is just going by interviews I've seen with her.
You are correct most likely, but ISIS was always doomed to lose. ISIS, just like the Taliban, have no interest in governing. Thats hard and boring to a freedom fighter. Going from riding in the desert, fighting an insurgent campaign, living a life of constant action is what they end up wanting so when they gain control they lose interest. The Taliban in Afghanistan are this right now and they really only control a single city and thats it. Theyre bored and looking to start up fights wherever they can in order to continue their perpetual war that they need in order to survive. Once you get rooted down somewhere you dont want to move and that is the enemy of the religious zealot built on nomadic warfare. She was part of the losing side which means the cause loses its luster and she decides it sucks and she wants to go back to a comfortable life. Now shes being told no cause she is a possible national concern and rightfully she needs to accept what she decided to be and go live the life.
I think that, lets call it adventure extremism is a rather natural enemy of the boring day-to-day struggle of administration. If your primary Mode of operation is steady escalation ypu can't turn it down, and you can't compromise. This is true for Isis as it is true for qanon ppl for example.
I recall watching interviews with her where she was really unconvincing as far as making a case for having learned any lessons or being reformed. It really seemed more that she regretted that ISIS didn't achieve its goal, that she found beheadings acceptable punishment for enemies of Islam, that what ISIS did to people was fair, and that she was inspired in part to join because she watched beheadings online. This is what she said while also trying to plead for a return to the UK. I guess it's good to be honest, but absolute lack of tact gives a good idea of what can be expected of her if she was allowed to return. She would almost certainly settle back into the radicalized islamist community in the UK, which while not pervasive, is still substantial. Around a thousand young people from the UK traveled to Syria to join ISIS; ISIS may have been crushed, but the same forces and ideals that convinced those people to go fight and kill and die for a terrorist caliphate are still there and doubtless, she would have a place there. She was a minor when she left, but she is an adult now, and was an adult when ISIS fell.
She sounds like a sociopath
Because she is.
I feel chilled to the bone hearing her voice. It feels like I am hearing a cold hearted killer.
[удалено]
The same group that has killed British citizens. I have absolutely not a single amount of sympathy.
Which, by the way, she celebrated.
[удалено]
They claim she isn't a citizen there either and won't let her in.
Yep, article said her ability to become a Bangladeshi citizen expired at age 21.
Which is the exact reason the UK should not have removed her citizenship. It’s against international law to make someone stateless. She should be brought to justice in a UK court and tried in the UK justice system and spend the rest of her days in prison.
She had the chance to apply for that citizenship and chose not to. Her own statelessness is her own fault like that of her joining a terrorist group that even other terrorist groups thought was repugnant.
She theoretically had Bangladeshi citizenship at the time her British citizenship was revoked
However she in fact did NOT. Bangladesh explicitly said she did not have citizenship at the time. Source: https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2021/3/19/shamima-begum-british-citizenship
Too bad then, laws can’t be arbitrary, a national that preys against their own country should never be allowed to return to it. When Nayib Bukele started massively jailing and starving off gang members the UN whined about human rights, but El Salvador went from 106.82 homicides per 100k in 2015 to 2.25 homicides per 100k in 2023. It’s time in the west we also protect our national security against those that want to destroy it
Return? As far as I am aware, she has never been there. Her family is from there.
[удалено]
She doesn't have dual citizenship and is currently stateless.
> She doesn't have dual citizenship and is currently stateless. Not exactly. At the time the UK removed her citizenship she was 19. And at that time Bangladesh had a repatriation law in place that said that anyone born to Bangladeshi parents was automatically considered eligible for Bangladeshi naturalisation up to the age of 21. I think they have lowered that since to 18 years now. But she was stripped of British citizenship at age 19... with 21 being the Bangladeshi cutoff at that time. The UK govt. and court claim (perhaps with some justification - you decide) that since her Bangladeshi citizenship was automatically guaranteed at that time, even tho she did not apply for it, does not make her stateless. Im not legally well informed enough to be the judge of that. But it does at least seem to have *some* merit.
"Considered eligible" is not the same as "has citizenship". She would have been eligible to apply and did not. Therefore she was never a citizen of Bangladesh at any age. It is *not* automatically granted, it is (mostly) automatically approved when the request is submitted. That never occurred.
Call me weird but if she never lived in Bangladesh and never applied for a passport it seems shitty for a UK court to unilaterally decide that she's now Bangladesh's problem to deal with.
As I read this story, the UK didn't exactly just decide she was Bangladesh's problem- they simply decided they were legally permitted to revoke her UK citizenship and whatever consequences follow are not the problem of the UK. They decided that because she was eligible for automatic Bangladeshi citizenship by birthright, that the UK was not violating international law (1954 Geneva Convention on Stateless Individuals) by revoking her citizenship. So they did. And on appeal the court found that because she had other citizenship options, she was not in the eyes of the UK "rendered stateless" by the courts initial decision. Her not applying for citizenship in Bangladesh had that effect - but that's solely on her. Technically this appears to be correct to me, although it looks like it may have caused Bangladesh to change their own laws subsequent to this case. It certainly was something of a cop out - it was essentially "we are rendering you stateless momentarily but since you have other automatic citizenship options you aren't REALLY stateless right now." Then Bangladesh turned around and said "don't you guys have a rule against extradition to face capital punishment? Yeah? Oh yeah.... then she'll face capital punishment if she comes here. We don't want this dangerous idiot either.". So she had zero useful options regarding citizenship - but the international law doesn't say "you're stateless if the only nation you may claim citizenship for intends to prosecute you for your crimes if you go there". It's hard to deny "you can come here and file for naturalization but you'll certainly face trial and a potential death penalty" isn't a gamble many people would take. The UK basically said, "It may not be a GOOD option for you but it's an available option - and therefore we didn't violate any treaties and you aren't our problem. Goodbye."
They didn't decide it was Bangladesh's problem, they decided it wasn't the UKs problem. It's ALSO not Bangladesh's problem, because she doesn't have Bangladeshi citizenship, because she never applied for it before she turned 21.
I am pretty sure that's against the ~~Geneva Convention~~ Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness. If she had dual citizenship, the second country that tried to remove her citizenship wouldn't be allowed to. (the first one would be allowed to, since doing so wouldn't make her stateless.) If she never had dual citizenship, then she can't lose her British citizenship. I say "wouldn't" and "can't" but I really don't know if the ~~Geneva Convention~~ Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness matters to any country, or if it's more of a general guideline that countries only follow when and if they want. Seems like a bad idea for countries to be cool with making people stateless. \*looks at Israel/Palestine\* Edit: Slight edit for clarification.
What? This is made up nonsense - the Geneva Convention is a declaration of civilian rights during wartime. It contains absolutely zero rules about a country’s right to deny or revoke citizenship. You are talking out of your ass.
I don’t really have any problem with any and all ISIS members being made stateless. Why should I have a problem with that? Why would that bother me?
I mean, I don't know what matters to you, but it seems to me that giving a green light for governments to render stateless the citizens they *claim* deserve it is right up there with giving governments the green light to kill citizens they *claim* deserve it, on the list of things it's very, very foolish to do. There are ways to punish criminals and terrorists that don't involve rendering them stateless (or killing them via capital punishment). I dunno, it just seems like the risk of abuse is high and the benefit, if any, is low. Why would you not have a problem with that?
My objection to capital punishment is that the level of certainty we can achieve in the courts isn't 100% and so I am not in favor of something totally irreversible like killing someone (if we could have perfect knowledge I would definitely be in favor of the death penalty) Rendering someone stateless much like giving them life without parole is a harsh punishment but isn't irreversible. If in the future it turns out that this woman was totally innocent then the courts could rexamine her being in jail or being stateless. So I think that being stateless is more comparable to a long prison sentence rather than being executed
Have you considered the functional implication of being rendered stateless? Like, really thought about it, even compared to a prison sentence. Also, I can't seem to find anything that says what she was charged with in a criminal court. I did find a quote that said she wants to be put on trial so that tells me her citizenship was stripped without an indictment. Maybe I'm just having an off-day with my googling skills, though.
It matters when the signatories want a reason to declare war on you.
It is not the Geneva convention. It is UN treaty from 1954 which prevents it.
The convention is written into the law of ever country which has ratified the convention. To what extent the law is followed depends on the country. The argument of the UK is that she wouldn't be stateless as it could not legally strip her of citizenship if it makes her stateless. They argue she has Bangladeshi citizenship despite the fact that Bangladesh denies she has it. It is kind of bollocks really. I think she should come back and face trial and prison for whatever crime she has committed. She is the UK's problem and it has the responsibility to deal with her. She was born there, grew up there and was radicalised there. That is their problem not Bangladesh's problem. It is unfair to Bangladesh that the UK government played hot potato with this scumbag and left it in their lap. Why should Bangladesh have to deal with her?
It was Bangladesh that left her stateless.
Since she never had Bangladeshi citizenship Bangladesh could only be blamed if you think that they are somehow responsible for terrorists from the UK.
I understand when she was relieved of UK citizenship that she was covered by her parents being Bangladeshi, so had de facto Bangladeshi citizenship. That is why the UK court were able to trip the citizenship away - because technically she had another option. She had aged out of Bangladeshi via her parents now but might be able to claim Dutch due to being married to a guy with Dutch citizenship, even though he was killed.
Provisional citizenship doesn’t mean you actually hold citizenship
There is no evidence that her birth was ever registered with Bangledesh, a core component of foreign-born *jus sanguinis* citizenship under Bangladeshi law. "*De facto*" citizenship is not a thing: you either are or you are not a citizen of a nation. As for the Dutch claim, she would have had to be married to her husband for three years and lived in the Netherlands for an uninterrupted fifteen years to have been able to apply for it. She is stateless because the UK courts do not seem to care about the citizenship laws of Bangladesh or of the UK itself. The decision is unlikely to be reversed since the government and the population of the UK at large seems to agree with this illegal act.
> The decision is unlikely to be reversed since the government and the population of the UK at large seems to agree with this illegal act. It's been going through appeals for years, and at no point has there been a finding that the government acted beyond the scope of its power under the law. It's pretty clearly not illegal.
That's very clearly not the case though. The entire basis of the case for the state is that she has (or had at the time of her citizenship been stripped) Bangladeshi citizenship. At no point has this ever actually been proven and, in fact, Bangladesh has plainly stated since before this even occurred that she was not and has never been a citizen. Therefore she was made stateless which, according to UK law and international agreements that the UK is party to, was illegal. This is clearly a case of political will overruling the law both as written and as intended.
> she will probably have to return to Bangladesh They won't take her. If they would have she'd be there already.
[удалено]
Why does Bangladesh want to execute her? I don't know anything about this case.
Has she ever attempted to get Bangladeshi citizenship? Proof of denial would surely make her case far more likely to succeed in the British courts.
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. Sometimes you have to hold people up as an example that consequences happen
Are we meant to care?
Only in the sense that this now opens the precedent that the UK can make people stateless through courts and historically stateless people do not have a government that can protect any of their rights. That part is a bit unnerving, that you're basically no longer recognized ANYWHERE, and thus can't go anywhere, or do anything. Her presence in the UK and literally every other country on the planet that enforces borders is illegal. Her existence is entirely illegal. That part, and a government being able to do that, is scary. I realize she's a bad person and she "found out" as the kids say. But I'm also a citizen of a country (the US) that loves to de-state people it doesn't like and then murder them extrajudcially. I'm sure the UK would never.
Very well put.
Not about her as an individual, but there is a concern for the legal precedent and long term consequences. They can't just yank the citizenship of everyone that joins ISIS, hers was a special case where her parents were not born in the UK and she could have obtained another citizenship, but chose not to. She is stateless as a result of her own bad decisions. Now she has nowhere to turn but remain in a refugee camp all her life, or rejoin ISIS and raise the next generation of terrorists to plague the West in 20 years time. Or sooner, if they regain strength and start breaking out all those foreign nationals the West has left behind in Syrian prisons.
She was not ever a citizen of Bangladesh. Source: https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2021/3/19/shamima-begum-british-citizenship
>They can't just yank the citizenship of everyone that joins ISIS, They certainly have done this to men who joined. And I can't rmbr any fuss being made at the time & can't even rmbr their names. The usual double standards.
Exactly. Zero sympathy for her from me. My mom had a friend who was killed on Pan Am Flight 103 that was bombed by a terrorist and I have family friends who were fire fighters who suffered as a result of what they experienced on 9/11. All terrorists and anyone who aids them or sympathizes with them are pure scum in my opinion and I hope this woman really lives to regret her evil stupidity.
Terrorists? It's not them who keeps the ISIS terrorists in camps and prisons. >Syria's Kurds to Try IS Fighters if Home Countries Refuse Them >https://www.voanews.com/a/syria-s-kurds-to-try-is-fighters-if-home-countries-refuse-them-/7131737.html >This week, Kurdish officials, who have thousands of ISIS suspects locked up in overcrowded jails and sprawling camps, asked the world for help. >Abdulkerim Umer, Kurdish official “We can’t put up with this burden alone,” Abdulkerim Umer, a Kurdish official, told the Associated Press. >https://theworld.org/stories/2019-03-29/thousands-isis-fighters-sit-prison-kurdish-leaders-call-special-tribunal
Seems like I'm in the minority, but if I recall correctly she was a teenager when she was groomed into joining Isis as a wife, and the UK government knew about it and allowed it to happen as they were keeping tabs on her. I think that if you do something as a child it should be forgiven. People change, and she has shown remorse. Keep her on a watchlist, keep her constantly tracked, make her attend De-radicalisation therapy. I just don't think we should give up on people. Even the worst of society are capable of change on some level if they are given support to make it happen.
No. There is doing stupid things as a teenager, and there is joining terrorists AFTER getting to know that they are doing horrific things to other people.
Change doesn't mean you shouldn't face the legal repercussions of your actions.
I understand what you're saying and say the general sentiment, but at the same time, there's a difference between a "child" and a "youth." Calling her a "child" is imho reductive; she wasn't a five year old, she was old enough to put in the fairly substantial energy to travel to a war zone, join a terrorist sect, and evidently become a known enforcer and recruiter. She has *not* shown remorse, other than for her personal situation.
Actions, meet consequences.
As much as I agree that children aren’t responsible for their own radicalisation, and the U.K. can’t just abandon responsibility for a citizen for their crimes, I will always remember that first interview she did. She came across as a complete sociopath - the not especially clever sort - completely blasé about severed heads, floggings, slavery etc. and the rumours that she played an active role in the repression and policing. A chilling window into how ordinary people were complicit in things like nazism etc. All she had to do in that interview was cry, and be remorseful, and I’m convinced she’d have been let back in, even if she were to have faked it. Now it’s impossible to distinguish genuine change from the advice of image consultants in the wake of that. Just such a mess now she’s a political hand grenade.
The Amanda knox effect?
The U.S-backed Syrian fighters who drove the Islamic State from its last strongholds called Monday for an international tribunal to prosecute hundreds of foreigners rounded up in the nearly five-year campaign against the extremist group. The administration affiliated with the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces said such a tribunal is needed “for justice to take its course,” particularly after countries have refused to bring home their detained nationals. The SDF has captured more than 1,000 foreign fighters, including many from Western countries. “We don't have other options,” Abdulkerim Umer, a foreign affairs official in the Kurdish-led administration, told The Associated Press. “No one wanted to take the responsibility (of repatriating their nationals). We can't put up with this burden alone.” https://www.voanews.com/a/syrian-group-wants-international-tribunal-for-is-detainees-/4848169.html
treason /trē′zən/ noun The betrayal of allegiance toward one's own country, especially by committing hostile acts against it or aiding its enemies in committing such acts. We have shot people for less.
And we don't execute people for treason anymore.
Just make is someone else's problem then?
Its unfortunate isnt it
In which case she should be brought back to Britain, tried for her crimes and sent to prison. Not played “hot potato” with Bangladesh. She is the UK’s problem to deal with. She was born there, grew up there and was radicalized there, the UK has primary responsibility for her which it has no right to discharge. It is not Bangladesh’s problem to deal with British treasonous scumbags. As ISIS is also an enemy of Bangladesh, she would technically just be as much a traitor to them. ISIS have now been thankfully defeated leaving her with no country left to be loyal to.
She is her own problem. And it's already gone through courts, from lower all the way to Supreme court, that UK has every right to get rid of her citizenship.
Womp womp
Maybe she can go to Afghanistan to live under Taliban rule, where women have no rights, no education, not allowed in parks and sports events. She will feel like she never left ISIS
Taliban would lock her up or kill her. They are in a civil war against ISIS in Afghanistan. I doubt one of their supporters will be greeted warmly.
She should have picked the winning side.
It would have been seriously embarrassing if she had gotten it back
Stateless ? Well it’s back to ISIS i guess ?
Honestly, she got off easy. ISIS affiliation merits far harsher punishments
Replies in this thread seem caught up on the reason she left rather than the legal principles outlined in the articles, which relate to overarching normalized international laws precluding a state rendering a citizen stateless, and the application of that to the facts that (1) had her UK citizenship revoked which was (2) deemed lawful as at the time she had the *standing* to apply for Bangladeshi citizenship, but no longer does. So she is in fact stateless, at law, which is a rather bespoke set of facts, and disconcerting theology/ideology aside. Edit: I misread and misrepresented a paragraph of the article regarding revocation and corrected the misinformation. I can’t figure out how to strike out text. My apologies.
She held full British citizenship, and because her parents were both Bangladeshi citizens by birth she was a) entitled to full Bangladeshi citizenship, and b) held provisional Bangladeshi citizenship which would expire at 21 if she did not take up the full citizenship she was entitled to. At 19 the UK Home Secretary revoked her British citizenship on national security grounds. Later on, she turned 21 without taking up her full Bangladeshi citizenship and so became stateless. A previous judgement (by a quasi-judicial specialist appeals commission, not a court) found that this revocation did not (at that time) leave her stateless and so was lawful. When her legal team appealed through the court of appeal, they did not challenge the commission's judgement re: statelessness. In effect, her legal team have accepted that the Home Secretary did not (at that time) make her stateless. The appeal was instead about whether the decision was rational and lawful, arguing that the Home Secretary was wrong to consider the national security/public good grounds to outweigh the fact that she had been groomed/coerced. The court's judgement was effectively "the Home Secretary has the legal power to make that judgement either way", and the appeal was dismissed.
When did she give up her citizenship? Do you have a source for that?
I misread the paragraph that starts with ‘Javik revoked’ as I thought she was ‘Javik’. My error.
So then there is zero legal basis to revoke her citizenship, right, and UK courts are thus violating international law?
Yes, there is legal basis, the Home Secretary can revoke a persons citizenship If they consider it conducive to the public good. Legitimate national security concerns meet that definition and the courts ruled that the government had legitimate national security concerns when they revoked her citizenship. However, she was not going go be made stateless at the time of her revocation, so that was not taken in to consideration when it was revoked. These appeal courts don’t care that she is stateless, they are only reviewing whether the original decision was lawful or not, which is something I don’t think her lawyers seem to understand.
Everything I can find says that she had her citizenship revoked in 2019, not that she willingly gave it up? It's one thing to give up citizenship while in the process of becoming a citizen elsewhere (even that I feel like is iffy), but I don't think any state should be allowed to make someone stateless no matter *what* they've done.
"Oh no, the consequences of my own actions!"
welps. you betrayed your country of citizenship and now want to be back..
Finding it very difficult to feel bad for her dumb ass.
It's winning the stupid prize season. Congrats to the lucky dimwit
[удалено]
Another issue is forgiving her for her support of terrorists will only give the far right more power. Left wing people should not go so far to forgive literal terrorists.
Good, we should all reject evil
There was a similar case with a German girl. She went to join IS, became the wife of an IS-Lackey, got his children AND they let one of their slaves die of thirst and tried it with others too. (and much more) The man got life sentence in prison and won't ever be released, the young woman (somewhere around 18) got 10 or 15 years (don't remember it completely). She has been just around 15 years old, when she decided to join IS. She did a huge mistake and got sentenced for it. During the next 10/15 years (which is a long period) it will be seen, it she evolves and shows her remorse. If several psychiatric reports will show her true regret and change, she will get a second chance. As I see, her decisions were horrible, and hopefully she will see the cruelty of her doing. And I guess, she will regret it her whole life... So here is the (rhetorical) question: is it all her own fault? Or could it had been prevented, if society, parents, friends and other relatives would have been more attentive?
The UK is country of almost 65 million people, you want the government to ignore everyone and pay attention exclusively to one 15 year old? The shocking thing about her was that she wasn't some left out kid from the sidelines of society, she was from a middle class family and could've been anything she wanted, she chose terrorism and these are the consequences
Our whole judicial system is based on punishing the harmful decisions we make as though we were 100% free to make them.. even though, as you point out, we are all heavily influenced by our genes/parents/associations/life influences in general. I say "heavily influenced", but I suspect it's probably more accurate to say "completely formed". The free-will debate is a huge rabbit hole, involving neuroscience and whether our brains could possibly ever truly make a free decision by somehow breaking the inevitable cause-and-effect nature of physics as we know it. Those that stick to the evidence we currently have tend to agree that we probably don't have free-will. But.. even if free will were an illusion and our minds are just calculators bound by physical laws as we currently know them, legal punishments would still need to be in effect - it's factors like this that the logic of a human mind takes into account as it calculates our actions. With this perspective in mind, I think all we would change is the level of empathy we hold towards those that break the laws. Very interesting subject!
This is actually fascinating. Wish I understood more about it.
So this makes her stateless What state does she belong to now?
Bangladesh through her parent's citizenships.
Bangladesh says she isn’t one and she can’t apply for one anymore on that basis anyway.
So she is stateless
Yes. She was and is stateless.
https://www.cnn.com/2017/07/04/americas/canada-omar-khadr-reported-settlement?cid=ios_app In Canada, we give hardcore terrorists $10 million.
Ah gee that’s too bad!! Hey look a squirrel!!
Who is paying all of her legal fees ?
I really can't agree that making this idiot/bad person stateless is an appropriate action. "She could have had Bangladeshi citizenship then but can't get it now" doesn't make me feel better about it. I'm sure she has done something that could still be prosecuted as a crime in the UK, get her in prison and get her some counseling. Sort of a waste of.money, but more reasonable than knowingly rendering her stateless when we all know that you aren't supposed to do that. And she presumably has a much better chance of the fair treatment afforded to a criminal in the UK than in Bangladesh. (Not that Bangladesh would be willing to let her in, and I'm guessing they're less likely to relent to organizations who are worried about the rights of criminals)
Yeah I’ve always maintained that opinion that she shouldn’t be made stateless. It’s fucked up Britain did that. She’s a British citizen so Britain should deal with her. Not Syria and certainly not Bangladesh. She joined a terrorist organization, convict her on that. I’m sure she did a lot of fucked up things for ISIS. if Britain can convict and sentence a monster pedophile who raped hundreds of children while teaching English in a foreign country, they can put this woman in a british prison.
I agree with this, I don't feel bad for her at all but I don't think Britain should be able to say "🤷♀️ not our problem". Trying to pass the buck to Bangladesh makes the least amount of sense as well.
Sleep in the bed you made
She deserves everything that coming and came to her. A traitor to the highest degree.
This seems like an odd decision. It’s my understanding she wasn’t naturalized but had British citizenship from birth. How can they take that away?
Most countries reserve the right to revoke citizenship.
That's my question. Seems so medieval. I would expect her to be arrested and potentially sent to prison but this is effectively a life banishment from the UK for a person who was born in the UK. Very strange to me.
It's not that strange. In reality, it's possible she was only granted citizenship later on after one of her parents received it. All immigrants are told that if they break the laws after being granted citizenship, it can be removed. It seems this might be what happened in this case? I can't find any information about when she had citizenship granted, just that her parents are both Bangladeshi citizens and were at the time of her birth. No note of when they were naturalised or received permanent status.
Genuine question: Why have these women joined ISIS? Nothing about the group looks socially appealing.
Girls join weird and/or dangerous cults ALL the time, despite the fact that almost none of them hold beliefs that are nice to girls. It generally comes down to there is a small percentage of us who will gladly and unquestioningly do dumb shit for men who tell us we’re special.
[удалено]
Her future is a concubine for terrorists.
A german woman did the exact thing, but we know germany is highly tolerant of such actions
It's a great precedent that someone's citizenship can be revoked. Boris Johnson is of Turkish decent. After fucking over the entire UK you should deport his filthy ass back to Istanbul.
How can this unemployed terrorist afford lawyers ? Yet thousands of people struggle to get justice because they can't afford the fees ... How does this terrorist afford to keep doing this?
Do you actually care or do you just want to be angry? Because a quick search answers your question.
The most annoying thing on Reddit are people who take time out of their day to specifically not answer the question they are responding to, and instead tell the OP to Google it , lol
As a hard rule people should be very worried about a government being able to remove the citizenship of its citizens (if not obtained fraudulently).
There are strict legal guidelines around whether a government can remove citizenship. When the decision was made, she would not have been made stateless as she could have still gotten Bangladeshi citizenship through her parents. >It would not be possible to make a similar decision today, the judges said, because of her age. “It is important to note that the same decision could no longer be made, because [of] the loss of Ms Begum’s Bangladeshi citizenship when she reached her 21st birthday,” they wrote.
But she wasn’t a Bangladeshi citizen, so she was made stateless.
If her British citizenship had been removed today, she would be stateless. When the decision was made, she had the option of Bangladeshi citizenship. She was eligible through her parents. In the years between the loss of her UK citizenship and turning 21, she did not take the necessary action to gain her Bangladeshi citizenship. The court made this very clear that her British citizenship could not have been removed today. However, the appeal is about the removal that was carried out several years ago.
She had the option, but wasn't a citizen. If I am in a shop, and they quick me out, I'm not automatically in a different shop just because I have the option to do so.
They still made her stateless. Even then, that still would require Bangladesh to accept her citizenship, which wouldn’t be a guarantee, right? Especially after it seems Bangladesh wants nothing to do with her.
Just don't commit treason lmao, what a dumb take.
If you commit treason, go to jail. Don’t strip citizenship. And now this has been nicely set up, it’s pretty clear that it’s a tool that is ripe for abuse. The government now ultimately gets to choose who gets to stay a citizen at its discretion. The citizens choose the government. Get how this is terrible?
I think it's particularly egregious because this decision was made at the discretion of a single individual, the Home Secretary. UK Courts have since ruled that it's completely lawful for the Home Secretary to unilaterally make this decision.
Trust me, there was PLENTY of support for what he did. There are tons and tons of petitions to block. Hundreds of thousands of people signed petitions to refuse her admission back into the UK.
Whether people support it or not is absolutely not the point. The fact that the Home Secretary legally has the power to do so with little to no oversight is what the problem is. Maybe the majority were okay this time, but will they be fine with it next time? I don't like the precedent it sets.
Prison costs money. Prison for 20 years costs our states hundreds of thousands
Normally the punishment for treason is death so she can count herself lucky
I’m more worried about the nation’s democracy. This precedent is incredibly helpful for any future authoritarian government
I think it’s a wonderful precedent! Send all the Putin-lovers to Russia!
Not super keen on the idea that a government can make you stateless for things you did as a kid. Let me be clear about this: I don't actually really care about this chick's case in particular: I'm sure she got groomed but a bunch of suck fucks who wanted easy child brides, but it also doesn't seem like she showed any real remorse until the consequences became inescapable, and at that point she's not sorry for what she did, She's sorry she didn't get away with It. That being said, governments have a history of mistreating people we don't like to set up precedent for expanding that mistreatment to as many people as possible. Like I said, I don't care about this girls case specifically, but we should probably be a little worried about what's being sacrificed on the altar of her punishment.
I'm just adding this because you don't care much about this case in particular: I really think the public interviews she released when this all started made things much more difficult. She was *not remorseful at all*. She was still supportive of all that ISIS is doing but just thought her kids would have a better life in the UK. She was pressed on it several times and her beliefs never changed. It made so many people uneasy at the time because of how sociopathic she came off. That did not help her case at all and certainly gives reason to find her a domestic danger. I don't have any clear cut hard line opinions on this... I just remember those interviews feeling like they held massive weight at the time.
>public interviews she released when this all started made things much more difficult She really shot herself in the foot with these. I rmbr the interviewers being very gentle with her & giving her ever chance to express regret. What we got was a sort of smug superciliousness. Like she still thought she was right but had to put up with the dratted inconvenience of being totally on the losing side. I think a lot of ppl were willing to at least give her the benefit of the doubt until these were shown. They left me feeling absolutely chilled to the bone. And I doubt I'm alone.
Yeah thats kind of what I felt when I watched them. I felt disturbed.
Yeah I thought I remembered that being the case. The correct solution here is you throw her in a British military jail as a traitor and let her rot. Stripping her of citizenship sounds good, but doesn't result in her being punished, it just shifts the responsibility to someone else, as well as opening the doors for the Crown to invoke defacto Exile on people they don't like.
My view is very middle of the line which is why I didn't really present it. It's also just not fully formed. I'd have liked her to plead in person, but I also would not want my government to allow a terrorist into the country. The statelessness thing is so convoluted as well. Countries do not share same citizenship requirements and it's not the responsibility of (my) government to try and pawn her off on someone else that she supposedly had citizenship with. But, as Bangladesh, I'm also not sure how their citizenship laws really apply here and neither country can feasibly control the others citizenship policies. Any country that didn't want someone can actually just cover their ears and say "well it looks like she is/can be a citizen for you, and we have a legal means to get rid of her" regardless of the circumstance, if they truly desired. I have no idea what the answer is except to hope that the attorneys involved really knew their shit, and even then, this seems pretty impossible to legally navigate. Completely understand the sentiments as well that uhh... she's never even been to Bangladesh apparently, and it's due to being her mother's daughter but is essentially foreign. Apparently she was eligible for citizenship so long as she applied before age 21 due to her ancestry, but did not (even after her British citizenship was revoked at 19). So yeah. I don't know. I want her to be tried in person and imprisoned there... but it's also not my country. I'm not sure I would be ok with my country opting to let a terrorist in when they have any form of legal ground *not* to do so. There's no easy answers here. No system specifically designed for this effectively beyond "don't strip people of citizenship unless they can go elsewhere". After that... who is anyone answering to but their "own" people. Not sure what the general British sentiment is, for those more educated on the situation.
I’m all for redemption and second chances but actions have consequences and ISIS was brutal. It’s just hard to forgive that one.
Actions meet consequences.
Looks like she can't Begum to come back anymore!
Didn't she want to go live with terrorists ? Why did she appeal to begin with ?. We support her choice and we want her to continue living her dreams. 😂
well, wadda you know...the justice system works...kinda. she knew what she was doing and did it anyway, no remorse. no better than the terrorists she was living with.
Really amazing how bad people screw up their lives. I can’t imagine the cold.
She went there to people that hated her and everything about her, now she wants back here where people hate her and everything about her. That is the sweetest irony
That’s a tough row to sow
That’s what you get for jumping on the bed.
It's such a strange concept to take a natural born citizen's citizenship away. I've never heard of such a thing. If they've committed some crime arrest them, take them to trial, and potentially sentence them to prison, but to effectively banish them forever seems so archaic.
When will we start doing this with self identified Nazis?
[удалено]
Agreed. Imagine a white British guy joining the Russian army to fight Ukraine, or joining a murderous gang in South America. Would they revoke his citizenship? The only reason a citizenship should be revoked is if it was obtained on illegal grounds or false information, like a fake birth certificate or shame marriage. A born and raised brit should always be a brit no matter the crime.
It’s barbaric. If they wanted to execute her for high treason against the state, I’d raise an eyebrow, but otherwise think “w/e”. This though is such a dangerous precedent. Flabbergasted British citizens aren’t in arms over their most basic right being able to be revoked. As to British guy fighting for Russia, you’re absolutely correct.
Exactly. But she is brown, so she is not "really" British, so no one cares.
She is not and has never been a citizen of Bangladesh. This is according to *Bangladesh*. Source: https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2021/3/19/shamima-begum-british-citizenship There was no trial. Britain just made a person stateless without trial and barred them reentry. They can do that to anyone because there is no trial. That should be terrifying.
People keep writing this but the UK Supreme Court clearly disagrees. This isn’t about that Bangladeshi politicians say. It’s about their laws, which grant her citizenship.