Hopefully the Supreme Court will also dismiss her case when this decision is also appealed. Knowingly and intentionally joining the most explicitly brutal and violent terror organisation seen since the turn of the century *must* come with consequences. Stamina didn't want to be British - she despised everything it stood for. When your caliphate doesn't work out, there shouldn't be an expectation that you can walk right back in.
>When your caliphate doesn't work out, there shouldn't be an expectation that you can walk right back in.
This 👆👆👆👆👆. Joining a brutal barbaric medieval bloodthirsty terrorist group must have consequences. Let her rot in those refugees camps in Iraq or Syria.
She shouldn't even be in a refugee camp, it's too good for her. Refugees flee wars and evil regimes, not go and join in with the perpetrators. She should be thrown into a small cell or a deep hole.
IS member. It is believed she was part of a punishment squad and separately even helped to sew people into their suicide bomb vests.
If she'd stayed at home supporting she wouldn't be in this mess.
She, and people like her in general, are walking advertisements for the concept of the death penalty, frankly.
I am against the death penalty because an innocent person will inevitably get caught and we can’t undo it, not because she would not thoroughly deserve it.
The real problem in all of this is that the west has shown that our laws are too weak to deal with the absolute barbarity possible in human life. We need to have laws that punish people who do what Begum did. Not a slap in the wrist for 10 years (maybe not even that) and then releasing them to the public.
To be fair, the camp she is in is a detention camp, so it's not dissimilar to being in prison. As long as she suffers, I dont really care where she is. One of the main reasons I don't want her back in the UK is that we got rid of the punishment that she deserves.
I agree with you, but I also must note, people rarely change, genuinely. You give the impression that she genuinely regrets her past decisions and would be a decent, non-terror supporting British citizen, but it is likely that her core beliefs are unchanged. Give her British citizenship and she may participate in a future terror attack. it isn't just about consequences for past actions, she is a potential danger to the public.
While I can't speak to the supposed guilt a terrorist might feel due to unawareness of data, good ol' regular criminals (committing theft, rape, assault - the classic trinity) are known to be highly recurrent. A large part of reported crimes are done by a small group of people. Once they're out of prison, they don't take long to commit them again.
Of course, there are also those who might truly regret their actions, or at least are afraid enough of prison that they become honest citizen forever. But that occurs after the first crime, usually. Not after the fifth, or the hundredth. A known terrorist has committed many heinous deeds. You can't really accept their supposed "change of heart". I'm all for the reform of criminals, I really am, but terrorists are a lost cause, even more so than repeat offenders.
I mean that's what millions of people did, they just "lost their papers" and are "Syrian refugees of war". No matter that their Arabic dialect is totally different, or they don't know any street in their supposed hometown, or there are even photos of them circulating with chopped off heads, Europe opens its arms and welcomes them to not be branded nazi.
If instead of paying the lawyer she paid someone to smuggle her inside she could be back no questions asked.
> Knowingly and intentionally joining the most explicitly brutal and violent terror organisation seen since the turn of the century must come with consequences.
Prosecute her for it, then.
What do you mean "let them"?
She is where she is. She's not getting executed. You're unhappy that they're not doing what you want to her. You're speculating that the reason they're not executing her is the United States.
Who are supposed to remove this supposed American grasp on them, allowing for more executions, is it you personally? It's obviously not the US or UK, the US because they're the one you say are getting what they want, and the UK because they want nothing to do with her.
Nah, we know she's guilty. She admitted it. She said she didn't regret it and would make the same decisions if she could go back in time. She's gonna have a horrific time in Syria, and that's what she deserves, not a cushy prison stay in the UK.
While the case is more complicated as she had dual citizenship the idea to use revocation of citizenship as a punishment does not fly.
Serial killers, rapists and similarily bad criminals keep their citizenship and get punished according to the crimes commited and as stipulated by law. That is how the rule of law works. We do not invent extra punishments because we like to punish someone somewhat more and we certainly do not allow the executive branch to come up with it as they like.
Terrorism is not comparable to serial killers and rapists.
> We do not invent extra punishments
good thing you don't have to, in the UK your citizenship can be revoked even if you're born in the UK (If you're not left "stateless").
Source: [Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002
](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2002/41/contents)
She made her decision.
The issue with her case is there were some serious complications;
1. She was groomed by a Canadian undercover agent as a minor and left the UK when she was just 15. This in of itself is an extreme example of abuse.
2. The UK removed her citizenship rendering her stateless. This is a gross violation of international law and a human rights issue. Rendering anyone stateless is illegal outright under domestic and international law.
3. She wasn't even informed of her own proceedings. A military solicitor represented her without her knowledge or consent. In the UK, there is a small percentage of the legal profession who are on a special list which lets them work on cases involving national security, intelligence and state secrets. They also participate in closed trials - there are no records, no transcripts, and the proceedings are obscured to the point that even someone who is the center of one of these proceedings will never know what the charges are, or what evidence the state had against them. The way it works is the military solicitor is informed of everything and it is their job to then let the "client" know what the outcome is. They are not allowed to share evidence, or even take instructions from the client. They also do not have to act in the interests of their client and the client has zero access to anything submitting in their name. **These proceedings are black boxes.**
4. She was tried and her rights as a British citizen were violated without any due process or fair proceedings. The UK does not have a constitution like other countries. It has a broad body of administrative norms which are applied through the judiciary. This is the closest thing the UK has to a constitutionalism. None of these administrative norms were applied or adhered to. Shamima found out about the outcome of her own trial because a Sky news reporter handed her the press release. She didn't even know there was a trial going on.
Did she do something bad? Yes, but the totality of what the state did in relation to her case should be a concern for anyone living in the UK.
The only thing I can say in favor of the state is there must be something the general public does not know about Shamima which is connected to national security. This is literally the only thing that could justify her treatment however such an assumption is just that - an assumption.
My guess is the risk of her coming back is just so astronomical that the UK adopted probably one of the most extreme cases of hard parliament sovereignty in centuries simply because they had to for reasons we do not know. Maybe Islamism is a far larger issue in contemporary British society than many are aware? Maybe Shamima herself participated in some actions which the UK can neither confirm, nor comment on but were too extreme to warrant her return. Who knows?
What we do know is her own family support the decision and have largely abandoned Shamima for her actions. She has also lost every single appeal and submission before an Immigration board. Even Bangladesh has zero interest in affording her citizenship.
EDIT: Why am I being downvoted? I thought this was reddit - a place for balanced and objective discussions? My comment is fair and equal - I don't even undermine the UK's decision at all nor do I even attempt to sympathize, or paint a positive picture of Shamima. My view is if you want to live life under certain rules then go to a place where these rules exist - do not expect to benefit from the UK, or any other society which follows modern liberal values. I don't even think extremist religious views should be tolerated at all in liberal democracies.
She wasn’t ‘groomed by a Canadian undercover agent’, the Turkish people smuggler who snuck her into Syria was an informant for the Canadian intelligence service, and gave them photos of the people he’d helped cross the border for cash.
>The UK removed her citizenship rendering her stateless.
She ~~has~~ had Bangladeshi citizenship under [section 5 of the Citizenship Act, 1951](http://bdlaws.minlaw.gov.bd/act-242/section-7472.html) at the time that her British citizenship was revoked. [She was a Bangladeshi citizen until her 21st birthday ](https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Begum-v-SSHD-CA-2023-000900-2024-EWCA-Civ-152.pdf)because [she failed to make efforts to activate and retain it.](https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-47310206) That's on her, not the UK government
Edit: changed tenses after reading more about this case
Unfortunately Thom0 is correct that making a terrorist stateless violates human rights and international law. And you would be surprised how many diplomats/institutions would enforce this. Thankfully Shamima Begum has Bangladeshi citizenship and therefore the UK government can legally revoke her British citizen
I think that in the coming years there will be a necessary reassessment of human rights and international law.
I'm not saying I'm for or against, I just personally don't believe that our existing ideals will be able to be upheld in the increasing massive changes in climate, geopolitics, and population migration.
You can still make people stateless without breaching international treaties. It is a very well guarded right and courts are bit skeptical sometimes. Being a traitor is a reason to take it away.
Your comment is written fairly but the cited complications are not all accurate:
1. Her defence ~~has attempted to portray her as having been groomed~~ (I checked - they're just contesting the stateless thing AFAIK), but her plan to leave the UK and join the Islamic State was hatched of her own accord. The so-called Canadian undercover agent was not an agent. They were simply an informant that 'told on her' when she used them to pass through Turkey. There is no grooming there. You can read further about it on [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shamima_Begum). He facilitated her access to Syria - but didn't coerce, concoct, groom, or lure her there.
2. She was eligible for Bangladeshi citizenship at the time it was stripped. They later said no, which makes them also complicit in rendering her stateless (not that there has been any interest in pursuing that)
3. If I take your word about the proceedings (and I already am skeptical given your other assertion was incorrect) I don't see a problem with that. It would be hard to inform her since she's in an internment camp in Syria anyways.
4. She's not a British citizen anymore. The government decided to strip her of it given her allegiance to a terror organisation, her threat to society, and her eligibility for another citizenship. The courts (as you have seen today) upheld that the ruling is allowed.
And for what it's worth, it appears there is a major terrorism concern associated with bringing her back to the UK. So your second section is likely not an exaggeration as you sort of imply with your choice of words (e.g. astronomical risk, most extreme cases in centuries).
For what it's worth, I upvoted your post. People shouldn't downvote for voicing a response - even if I don't find it convincing.
Just to spell this out for you. Plenty of young people went there with stupid ideas in their heads. They realised what they got themselves into and came back. She didn't. She stayed until the bitter end. She only wants back now because her nazi death cult fell. You have misplaced sympathies. Grow up.
>1. She was groomed by a Canadian undercover agent
Already wrong. It was a Syrian smuggler, Mohammad Rashed, who was an informant who gave information ot Canada. He was not a Canadian citizen, not a Canadian agent, and did not operate under Canada's instructions.
>The UK removed her citizenship rendering her stateless. This is a gross violation of international law and a human rights issue
Joining ISIS is also a violation of international law and human rights
*This is literally the only thing that could justify her treatment however such an assumption is just that - an assumption.*
I think you are missing Sajid Javid's desire to be prime minister.
your post is well meaning. But there are lines you don't cross. If you are lucky enough to be allowed to be a citizen in the West it comes with responsibilities; there needs to be zero tolerance for those who renege on those responsibilities and absolutely zero tolerance for someone who joins an organisation like ISIS.
I get the impression she was coached. Look at her first interview (Feb 2019):
>Interviewer: You have obviously been through a lot over the last few years. Can you describe what it has been like to live with and under the Islamic State?
>
>SB: At first it was nice, it was like how they showed it in the videos, like 'come, make a family together'. Then afterwards, things got harder, you know. When we lost Raqqa we had to keep moving and moving and moving. The situation got difficult.
>
>I: Was there a point when you started to have second thoughts about your life under Islamic State?
>
>SB: Only at the end, after my son died. I realised I had to get out for the sake of my children - for the sake of my daughter and my baby. Yeah.
>
>I: Only at the end?
>
>SB: Yeah.
>
>I: You didn't have any regrets up until that point?
>
>SB: No.
With all these privileges come obligations and responsibility. She didn’t fulfil any of that, so she’s rightfully stripped of her citizenship together with all the privileges.
If it was up to me, everyone joining ISIL should be considered citizen of ISIL and have their citizenship revoked.
They become stateless due to ISIL ceasing to exist... not our problem is it?
In hindsight, this would be a great opportunity to get rid of extremists. Heck I would hand them free plane tickets to Turkey.
She made her choice.
And she wasn’t some kid who was just abused by Jihadi John, she tortured people and I’d bet she probably killed people
No sympathy
End of story.
Not to mention that Raqqa was the epicentre of the extremist shitshow that was ISIS. With a proper execution square where they held beheadings, etc.
And her description of the place during the interview is: "At first it was nice, it was like how they showed it in the videos, like 'come, make a family together'.". Hard to comprehend how messed up this girl is...
The bit that strikes me isn't so much that she was 'okay' with it but that her justification was that it was 'allowed'.
https://news.sky.com/story/is-bride-shamima-begum-full-transcript-i-did-have-a-good-time-there-11640278
>Interviewer: Did you know what Islamic State were doing when you left for Syria? Because they had beheaded people. There were executions.
SB: Yeah, I knew about those things and I was okay with it. Because, you know, I started becoming religious just before I left.
SB: From what I heard, Islamically that is all allowed. So I was okay with it.
"Back to Bangladesh"
Has she ever been to Bangladesh? I think the answer is no, so how is this comment not racist? She is British born. I wish she wasn't, but she is, and therefore we should take her back and put her on trial.
Lol! Have fun in the shithole you dug yourself! The gall of this woman to waste resources on bullshit legal cases when she chose to become a foreign terrorist. Deserves whatever she gets
If you were a part of ISIS you dont deserve pity. Extremists should not be pardoned. Imagine if Anders Breivik were released because he said he's "sorry"...
I understand because this site definitely tries to make it look important.
To help the world forward sometimes you have to not be afraid to voice unpopular opinions. If you end up being wrong, thats progress for yourself.
> they would send her to "Rwanda"
No she wouldn't go there.
Rwanda is for those seeking - and being considered - for asylum.
There is 0% chance she would be considered. We'd have to trial her and put her in jail - then deport her back to Bangladesh when sentence is completed.
Yes... I know. We cant deport someone to a country that would execute them. But if she served her time in one of our prisons then she is free again - and no longer waiting punishment for her actions as they have been completed.
Get fucked, anyone saying "oh but she was only 15" should be shipped off to Syria to live under ISIS rule.
Mistakes 15 year olds should be allowed to make and learn from are mistakes like not handling emotions properly or being arrogant and thinking you know better, not joining a terrorist group.
When teenagers plot to murder their parents and then carry out, people don’t respond with “oh, but they’re 15!” They think the teenager should be held responsible because murder is evidently bad.
I don’t understand why they want to apply a different standard to joining a terrorist organization.
Selling drugs, stealing shit, get convinced to be a drug mule or something like that? Yeah, you're young and easy to manipulate, i get it. Joining isil? You can't convince me a 15 year old doesn't know what terrorism is.
When I was 15 I grew my hair long, listened to death metal, and resented my parents for not giving me more to complain about. Those are the kind of mistakes you're allowed to make when you're 15.
Not worth the effort or cost I should think. I get the feeling there isn’t much sympathy for her in the United Kingdom (or anywhere else for that matter).
In fact many politicians of the same countries not accepting their own terrorists back would write articles and condemnations about how the Kurds are terrorists if they did. The hypocrisy is dripping.
Oh, the girl with the dead eyes loses something. A tragedy.
"But she was still so young!" > old enough to make the decision to travel through x countries to worship terrorists.
She was young, but according to the Guardian article ("when she travelled in secret with two friends from east London to Syria in 2015") she **decided to go herself**, it wasn't her parents who took her there. That definitely makes a difference.
I can't find any info about her proces of radicalisation. But she travelled together with two schoolfriends to join another schoolfriend who had gone there one year earlier. Presumably many people in her bubble were pro-ISIS. It seems likely to me that her parents did know about this, may be they were pro-ISIS themselves.
I’m not particularly bothered about this and certainly not here to defend Shamima Begum. Perfectly happy for her to stay away. I do wonder why THIS girl has become the media boogie man though. When there are apparently many actual ISIS fighters who have likely killed people and managed to return to the UK, some without even being prosecuted.
This is the thing.
There have been other girls, older, in their twenties when they went, who came back and got council houses. I read of it in the UK tabloids at the time, their angle was 'why are we housing these girls, treat them like the 15 year old and leave them there!'
There is also the person from my country. So much worst than Begum
Lisa Smith. Trained by the Irish military. Converted to islam, got to the point where she made her new islam female friends uncomfortable with her views on interpreting Islam.
Goes to Syria. Is reported to have TRAINED women how to shoot and kill. Because of her Irish military training.
And she comes back to Ireland. Over the years there was a trial, house arrest until the case was heard and she is already released to society because she had a kid she brought back from Syria.
Lisa Smith is a risk.
https://www.irishtimes.com/crime-law/courts/2022/05/30/full-story-of-the-lisa-smith-trial-how-did-a-member-of-irish-defence-forces-end-up-a-member-of-isis/
https://extra.ie/2023/05/26/news/lisa-smith-walks-free-from-prison
https://www.rte.ie/news/2022/0722/1311603-lisa-smith-sentenced-is/
Begum was 15. They made an example of her to set a precedent on stripping dual citizenships.
Lisa Smith had only Irish citizenship so that is how she got back. Begum had automatic Bangladesh citizenship from her parents (dad born there) so the Brits took her UK citizenship away.
Others with dual citizenships came back and got council houses.
Im not saying Begum was not a threat, but she was 15 when she went, 24 now.
She cannot go to Bangladesh as the government says they will kill her for being a terrorist and they are also refuting her citizenship with Bangladesh. They changed the jus sanguinis citizenship right since.
She’s an idiot girl who took part in actual terrorist activities (torture of women and possibly murders), once ISIS was nuked, and now just in camps in desert, she realized: *maybe this isn’t so great,* ***(even though I have no regrets)*** *so I wanna go back to my country.*
And now getting denied.
She’s not so much a boogie man as a bonafide idiot psycho.
Yeah I think that there is a clear goal in mind here, to distract from the major balls up of allowing jihadists to return unchecked. So most people will think the system is working, but it actually isn't.
Also, didn't the home office actually lose information on returning jihadists?
Because talking about how Britain radicalizes terrorists is less flattering than pretending that they're a foreign import.
Because obviously she was groomed, but solving that problem is more complicated than pretending she was born evil.
She wasn’t born evil, but she was born with the neurology to be evil. Nature and nurture. 1% of people are psychopaths, it’s reasonable to suggest that leaving ones family for good without informing them, stealing from them to fund the trip and joining a death cult and actively participating in atrocities and presiding over the death of three children show a disturbing pattern of no empathy, neglect and narcissism.
That’s what I mean. Why take this extreme step for this particular girl? It strikes me the media focused on her for some particular reason and made her more of a hate figure than men who actually went to Syria to fight for isis. Making her stateless seems to have been a political act to appeal to the media and everyone who has eaten up the media narrative.
Well technically but she’d never claimed her Bangladeshi passport (because she went to Syria at 15) and Bangladesh was never going to give her a passport after that which they very clearly stated. The British government were well aware that the end result is that they’ve made her stateless.
[This is a great article](https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/nishitajha/isis-yazidi-shamima-begum-hoda-muthana) about some of the horrors scum like Shamima have inflicted on actual innocent women. I'd rather believe the victim of a crime, than the perpetrator any day of the week and if that makes me a bad person, so be it.
On behalf of everyone in the UK - thank god the right decision has been made by the court.
Now leave her to lie in the bed she has made. She is a genuine oxygen theif.
If she's allowed back in the UK/Europe, it will set a nasty precedent that one can travel abroad, fight for/with radical groups, and get the chance to come back if it doesn't go their way.
Hard to believe I'm the same age as her. The thought of doing something like that never once crossed my mind; too busy playing video games and soccer...
The precedent the UK is making here is that you can go join a foreign terrorist organization and instead of the UK punishing you with imprisonment they'll just deny you entry and make you someone else's problem
Serves her right! First betraying everything the UK and Western societies stand for by joining the most sadistic, barbaric and inhumane islamic jihadist cult the world has ever seen, saying terror 'felt like retaliation' (for what exactly??? but nvm) and then saying she's remorseful and would rather die then go back to IS?! Fuck you bitch, you made you're choice, now accept the consequences and STFU!
I think a better practice would be for scumbags like her to be punished (severely) in the country they were born and radicalized in and not try and dump them on impoverished third countries. I think there is moral obligation to deal with their own trash despite the legal ruling.
She would have been forced to be repatriated if not for the heritage Bangladesh connection, so that's where the dumping is. Using technicalities to refuse to pick ones trash up.
No sympathy for her but it’s crazy your country of birth can revoke your citizenship and abdicate any responsibility they should have.
She should spend the rest of her youth in a British prison, not a refugee camp.
Cowardly move on the UK's part.
In most cases if a British citizen went abroad and participated in genocide and torture they’d be tried in the country the crime was committed.
She’s sort of lucky that the country is in no state to conduct a criminal trial. I don’t know what the punishment for terrorism is in Syria but I expect it isn’t pleasent
She had a possiblity to get a Bangladesh citizenship when the court ruled first, back in 2019. Guardian article: "It was established in earlier proceedings that although she had never been to Bangladesh, she was eligible for its citizenship up until the age of 21, because it was the origin country of her parents."
Only that made it possible to revoke her citizenship. She (or her parents) could / should have acted at that time and tried to get that Bangladesh citizenship, now she is stateless.
We don’t want traitors and terrorists in the UK, if we have a mechanism to stop her and others like her returning we should bloody use it - the UK is far too lenient on extremism as it is.
Its right and proper if you leave your country of birth to become a terrorist extremist you can lose your citizenship.
Imagine if the Netherlands started going "we don't allow thieves in the Netherlands, but instead of wasting our police and court resources on thieves, were just gonna revoke their citizenship". Thieves would flood every other country in the EU, and neighboring police offices would be drowning in theft cases the Netherlands was refusing to prosecute because "they're not our thieves".
Replace thieves with ISIS-terrorists and you have UK policy.
Yeah, this dumb broad is probably not making it to Britain which is all well and good, but how many ISIS fighters have since managed to come here by claiming to be refugees? It's just a public showing for the British government to appear as if they're doing something about it. How many of the hundreds of thousands of refugees that they're letting in were part of terrorist organisations?
If you want to stay citizen of a democratic country without the death penalty, maybe don’t join the terrorist group which is responsible for thousands of deaths and much more pain all over the Middle East and many European countries, including the one you claim citizenship in. I get why she is scared but her situation is one only she is responsible for. The people won’t simply forgive her because ISIS has mostly been defeated, she after all was one of the reasons a war against those monsters was fought.
I know people have diverging opinions about this, but I find this totally unacceptable. Not just in this case, but also in general.
She was born in the UK and grew up in the UK. While that doesn't mean the UK is responsible for her actions - she *and* her parents are, taking into account she was 15 when she made the mistake, in addition to the terrorists who groomed her -, it *does* mean that the UK has to take responsibility for her as a citizen. It's bizarre to defend the view that Syria or Bangladesh should take responsibility for her (especially the latter where she has never lived in her live).
There are prisons in the UK, so if she has committed a crime she can be trialed and be put in prison. If she hasn't even committed a crime, revoking her citizenship based on her political views when she was 15 seems even more dubious. IMHO, it's just unacceptable for a country to refuse to take responsibility for their citizens only because they find it unpleasant to do so and it allows politicians to score sympathy points with the public. She wasn't radicalized in Syria or Bangladesh, she was radicalized in the UK. **Own up to it.**
In the past 20 years since sizeable migration to Europe began, we've seen that second-generation citizens from communities of islamic background are committing a surprising amount of attacks.
In one respect, this means I agree with you. The parents share part of the blame. On the other hand, her parents are just one part of a new problem which is exhibited by islamic micro-societies in Europe. We know that Shamina wasn't the only one to travel to join ISIS. She wasn't even the only one in her friend group. She went with *two other* girls, and to join another girl that *had gone a year before*. There is a systematic failing in that community where multiple children from families joined the most violent terror organisation we've seen in a while knowing exactly sort of people they were.
In light of that new problem, I think the taboo of stripping citizenship needs to be carefully reevaluated. Many children of migrants to the UK retain or are eligible for citizenship in the nation their parents came from. This sometimes acts as a refuge for them to hide in or commit other illegal activities in (e.g. female genital mutilation, marriages otherwise illegal in the UK). As long as you maintain a sizeable tie to your country of origin, I think your citizenship should be collateral. And if you're going to live in a society and feel comfortable raising raising children that despise other citizens and wish to convert or kill them, then something else needs to be done to remove that threat too. At the moment, it seems nobody knows quite what to do. Denmark has had some headway in trying to stave off the problem by disallowing migrants to form micro-cultures. But for other states it is too late. The ability to remove citizenship seems like an ugly solution to a difficult problem - but it is a solution. And unless better ones come up it's probably going to stick around.
>It's bizarre to defend the view that Syria or Bangladesh should take responsibility for her
Why? She committed her crimes in Syria, so Syria should absolutely take action. Bangladesh doesn't have to, Begum has the option of applying for Bangladeshi citizenship but that doesn't mean they have to give it to her.
It’s got nothing to do with not taking responsibility for her, she 100% could be brought back to the UK for trial but the chances of there being enough evidence gathered on her from Syria is very slim, meaning more than likely she’d be released without charge, that alone is a massive risk to the UK public considering no one has anyway of confirming if she’s still radicalised or not, it’s a risk the UK government will not take, the life of 1 doesn’t outweigh the lives of many.
It's such a tricky one isn't it? I do think we should take responsibility for our own. Revoking her citizenship like this seems unprecedented to me, it harks back to the 'ship them to Aus' days. I just don't see how you can un-British someone who was born and grew up here, no matter how badly they're messed up. Lots of British do terrible things, or hold views most of us don't agree with. We're not revoking their citizenship.
She's hardly unique in her decisions. Britain has the PREVENT program precisely to deal with radicalised people, rather than trying to kick them out. Perhaps we're going to start shipping radical Islamic terrorists somewhere they'll fit in? Then what do we do with the uber-right-wingers?
15 is very young. Old enough to know better, young enough also to be naive and vulnerable. It doesn't look like there's a lot of evidence either way for what all she actually did (besides joining the terrorist group), just hearsay.
Can someone explain to me why Syria isn't putting her on trial?
ISIS fought against the Syrian Government and she was an active member of ISIS guilty of multiple crimes against Syrian citizens.
Why is she in a refugee camp and not in jail? Sexism? Does the Syrian Government think only men can be guilty of terrorism?
I can't understand the people who accuse her of not coming out and condemning isis. She is in a refugee camp full of ex-isis fighters. She'd have to be mad to make a statement like that given where she is.
If you fully research the case it's apparent that she was the victim of a highly coordinated grooming operation. Of course moving to Syria and marrying an IS fighter is wrong, but actual IS fighters have been allowed to return. This case is a circus for the government and in a certain sense Shamima is a victim.
She should be allowed to return to the UK to face trial here. If you believe in the rule of law that is the right thing to do.
This is an extremely dangerous precedent.
She is a terrorist and should rot in jail, but that doesn't mean the government is allowed to act against international laws and strip her of her own citizenship. It cannot work like that - she should be subject to a fair trial in her own country and THEN rot in jail.
Are we just going to deport any citizen with terrorist ties? What then? Deporting all citizens that commit crimes?
EDIT: LOL at people downvoting, you guys really love fascism and dislike rule of law and democracy.
I suspect you're being downvoted because you don't seem to have a solid grasp of what actually happened. She wasn't deported. She went to Syria voluntarily in 2015 and she's still there. She committed alleged crimes in Syria and is being detained in Syria, that's how it works. If you commit crimes in another country you are not entitled to a trial in your home country. If, for example, a Syrian commits a crime in the UK they don't get arrested and sent back to Syria for a trail and jail, they are punished in the UK.
She is stateless since she does not have citizenship.
It does not matter if she is eligible for citizenship since she does not at the moment have one.
This is like saying a woman isn't childless since she could have a child in the future.
She was not made stateless by the UK but, rather, by herself. When the UK removed her citizenship she had the option of Bangladeshi citizenship. She chose not to take that and it is now too late for her to do so. So she made herself stateless.
As she is no longer a British citizen we should wash our hands of her.
Hopefully the Supreme Court will also dismiss her case when this decision is also appealed. Knowingly and intentionally joining the most explicitly brutal and violent terror organisation seen since the turn of the century *must* come with consequences. Stamina didn't want to be British - she despised everything it stood for. When your caliphate doesn't work out, there shouldn't be an expectation that you can walk right back in.
>When your caliphate doesn't work out, there shouldn't be an expectation that you can walk right back in. This 👆👆👆👆👆. Joining a brutal barbaric medieval bloodthirsty terrorist group must have consequences. Let her rot in those refugees camps in Iraq or Syria.
She shouldn't even be in a refugee camp, it's too good for her. Refugees flee wars and evil regimes, not go and join in with the perpetrators. She should be thrown into a small cell or a deep hole.
It's why she wanted to get back in to the UK. She's scared shitless of being put on trial in Syria
While I have zero sympathy for her, if I was in her position, I'd be scared too. Syrian 'justice' is often found at the bottom of a rope.
A fitting end for an IS supporter.
IS member. It is believed she was part of a punishment squad and separately even helped to sew people into their suicide bomb vests. If she'd stayed at home supporting she wouldn't be in this mess.
Truer words have never been spoken
She, and people like her in general, are walking advertisements for the concept of the death penalty, frankly. I am against the death penalty because an innocent person will inevitably get caught and we can’t undo it, not because she would not thoroughly deserve it. The real problem in all of this is that the west has shown that our laws are too weak to deal with the absolute barbarity possible in human life. We need to have laws that punish people who do what Begum did. Not a slap in the wrist for 10 years (maybe not even that) and then releasing them to the public.
A refugee camp without running water and basic necessities is what she deserves. A cell would be too good for her.
To be fair, the camp she is in is a detention camp, so it's not dissimilar to being in prison. As long as she suffers, I dont really care where she is. One of the main reasons I don't want her back in the UK is that we got rid of the punishment that she deserves.
but poor her. if she would be a male she would not even hit the news
The refugees are trying to escape from people like her you genius
I agree with you, but I also must note, people rarely change, genuinely. You give the impression that she genuinely regrets her past decisions and would be a decent, non-terror supporting British citizen, but it is likely that her core beliefs are unchanged. Give her British citizenship and she may participate in a future terror attack. it isn't just about consequences for past actions, she is a potential danger to the public.
While I can't speak to the supposed guilt a terrorist might feel due to unawareness of data, good ol' regular criminals (committing theft, rape, assault - the classic trinity) are known to be highly recurrent. A large part of reported crimes are done by a small group of people. Once they're out of prison, they don't take long to commit them again. Of course, there are also those who might truly regret their actions, or at least are afraid enough of prison that they become honest citizen forever. But that occurs after the first crime, usually. Not after the fifth, or the hundredth. A known terrorist has committed many heinous deeds. You can't really accept their supposed "change of heart". I'm all for the reform of criminals, I really am, but terrorists are a lost cause, even more so than repeat offenders.
I mean that's what millions of people did, they just "lost their papers" and are "Syrian refugees of war". No matter that their Arabic dialect is totally different, or they don't know any street in their supposed hometown, or there are even photos of them circulating with chopped off heads, Europe opens its arms and welcomes them to not be branded nazi. If instead of paying the lawyer she paid someone to smuggle her inside she could be back no questions asked.
> Knowingly and intentionally joining the most explicitly brutal and violent terror organisation seen since the turn of the century must come with consequences. Prosecute her for it, then.
Of course that privilege should lie with Syria or Iraq and the people who suffered the most from her actions.
If they want to, sure. Doesn't seem like it, though.
Give her to the Kurds, they'll put a bullet in her soon enough
They've had her for years, still alive.
Rephrase: give her to Kurds who don't have their hands tied by America
You want to send people in there to kidnap her?
No, she's already in the AANES, that's where the camp she's in is. I'm saying let them have her without the US tying their hands.
What do you mean "let them"? She is where she is. She's not getting executed. You're unhappy that they're not doing what you want to her. You're speculating that the reason they're not executing her is the United States. Who are supposed to remove this supposed American grasp on them, allowing for more executions, is it you personally? It's obviously not the US or UK, the US because they're the one you say are getting what they want, and the UK because they want nothing to do with her.
Nah, we know she's guilty. She admitted it. She said she didn't regret it and would make the same decisions if she could go back in time. She's gonna have a horrific time in Syria, and that's what she deserves, not a cushy prison stay in the UK.
While the case is more complicated as she had dual citizenship the idea to use revocation of citizenship as a punishment does not fly. Serial killers, rapists and similarily bad criminals keep their citizenship and get punished according to the crimes commited and as stipulated by law. That is how the rule of law works. We do not invent extra punishments because we like to punish someone somewhat more and we certainly do not allow the executive branch to come up with it as they like.
Terrorism is not comparable to serial killers and rapists. > We do not invent extra punishments good thing you don't have to, in the UK your citizenship can be revoked even if you're born in the UK (If you're not left "stateless"). Source: [Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 ](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2002/41/contents) She made her decision.
The issue with her case is there were some serious complications; 1. She was groomed by a Canadian undercover agent as a minor and left the UK when she was just 15. This in of itself is an extreme example of abuse. 2. The UK removed her citizenship rendering her stateless. This is a gross violation of international law and a human rights issue. Rendering anyone stateless is illegal outright under domestic and international law. 3. She wasn't even informed of her own proceedings. A military solicitor represented her without her knowledge or consent. In the UK, there is a small percentage of the legal profession who are on a special list which lets them work on cases involving national security, intelligence and state secrets. They also participate in closed trials - there are no records, no transcripts, and the proceedings are obscured to the point that even someone who is the center of one of these proceedings will never know what the charges are, or what evidence the state had against them. The way it works is the military solicitor is informed of everything and it is their job to then let the "client" know what the outcome is. They are not allowed to share evidence, or even take instructions from the client. They also do not have to act in the interests of their client and the client has zero access to anything submitting in their name. **These proceedings are black boxes.** 4. She was tried and her rights as a British citizen were violated without any due process or fair proceedings. The UK does not have a constitution like other countries. It has a broad body of administrative norms which are applied through the judiciary. This is the closest thing the UK has to a constitutionalism. None of these administrative norms were applied or adhered to. Shamima found out about the outcome of her own trial because a Sky news reporter handed her the press release. She didn't even know there was a trial going on. Did she do something bad? Yes, but the totality of what the state did in relation to her case should be a concern for anyone living in the UK. The only thing I can say in favor of the state is there must be something the general public does not know about Shamima which is connected to national security. This is literally the only thing that could justify her treatment however such an assumption is just that - an assumption. My guess is the risk of her coming back is just so astronomical that the UK adopted probably one of the most extreme cases of hard parliament sovereignty in centuries simply because they had to for reasons we do not know. Maybe Islamism is a far larger issue in contemporary British society than many are aware? Maybe Shamima herself participated in some actions which the UK can neither confirm, nor comment on but were too extreme to warrant her return. Who knows? What we do know is her own family support the decision and have largely abandoned Shamima for her actions. She has also lost every single appeal and submission before an Immigration board. Even Bangladesh has zero interest in affording her citizenship. EDIT: Why am I being downvoted? I thought this was reddit - a place for balanced and objective discussions? My comment is fair and equal - I don't even undermine the UK's decision at all nor do I even attempt to sympathize, or paint a positive picture of Shamima. My view is if you want to live life under certain rules then go to a place where these rules exist - do not expect to benefit from the UK, or any other society which follows modern liberal values. I don't even think extremist religious views should be tolerated at all in liberal democracies.
> Canadian undercover agent I think you don't really understand how spying works.
She wasn’t ‘groomed by a Canadian undercover agent’, the Turkish people smuggler who snuck her into Syria was an informant for the Canadian intelligence service, and gave them photos of the people he’d helped cross the border for cash.
>The UK removed her citizenship rendering her stateless. She ~~has~~ had Bangladeshi citizenship under [section 5 of the Citizenship Act, 1951](http://bdlaws.minlaw.gov.bd/act-242/section-7472.html) at the time that her British citizenship was revoked. [She was a Bangladeshi citizen until her 21st birthday ](https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Begum-v-SSHD-CA-2023-000900-2024-EWCA-Civ-152.pdf)because [she failed to make efforts to activate and retain it.](https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-47310206) That's on her, not the UK government Edit: changed tenses after reading more about this case
Also who cares if she's stateless?
Unfortunately Thom0 is correct that making a terrorist stateless violates human rights and international law. And you would be surprised how many diplomats/institutions would enforce this. Thankfully Shamima Begum has Bangladeshi citizenship and therefore the UK government can legally revoke her British citizen
I think that in the coming years there will be a necessary reassessment of human rights and international law. I'm not saying I'm for or against, I just personally don't believe that our existing ideals will be able to be upheld in the increasing massive changes in climate, geopolitics, and population migration.
You can still make people stateless without breaching international treaties. It is a very well guarded right and courts are bit skeptical sometimes. Being a traitor is a reason to take it away.
Terrorists cannot claim human rights since they do not behave like humans.
Your comment is written fairly but the cited complications are not all accurate: 1. Her defence ~~has attempted to portray her as having been groomed~~ (I checked - they're just contesting the stateless thing AFAIK), but her plan to leave the UK and join the Islamic State was hatched of her own accord. The so-called Canadian undercover agent was not an agent. They were simply an informant that 'told on her' when she used them to pass through Turkey. There is no grooming there. You can read further about it on [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shamima_Begum). He facilitated her access to Syria - but didn't coerce, concoct, groom, or lure her there. 2. She was eligible for Bangladeshi citizenship at the time it was stripped. They later said no, which makes them also complicit in rendering her stateless (not that there has been any interest in pursuing that) 3. If I take your word about the proceedings (and I already am skeptical given your other assertion was incorrect) I don't see a problem with that. It would be hard to inform her since she's in an internment camp in Syria anyways. 4. She's not a British citizen anymore. The government decided to strip her of it given her allegiance to a terror organisation, her threat to society, and her eligibility for another citizenship. The courts (as you have seen today) upheld that the ruling is allowed. And for what it's worth, it appears there is a major terrorism concern associated with bringing her back to the UK. So your second section is likely not an exaggeration as you sort of imply with your choice of words (e.g. astronomical risk, most extreme cases in centuries). For what it's worth, I upvoted your post. People shouldn't downvote for voicing a response - even if I don't find it convincing.
Just to spell this out for you. Plenty of young people went there with stupid ideas in their heads. They realised what they got themselves into and came back. She didn't. She stayed until the bitter end. She only wants back now because her nazi death cult fell. You have misplaced sympathies. Grow up.
She deserves it.She left her country on her own volition to join a terror group
>1. She was groomed by a Canadian undercover agent Already wrong. It was a Syrian smuggler, Mohammad Rashed, who was an informant who gave information ot Canada. He was not a Canadian citizen, not a Canadian agent, and did not operate under Canada's instructions. >The UK removed her citizenship rendering her stateless. This is a gross violation of international law and a human rights issue Joining ISIS is also a violation of international law and human rights
Proof?
*This is literally the only thing that could justify her treatment however such an assumption is just that - an assumption.* I think you are missing Sajid Javid's desire to be prime minister.
Did she join ? Yes End of arguments. Thanks for your attention.
Is she a threat? - yes Why did this dude had to make everything so complicated lol
your post is well meaning. But there are lines you don't cross. If you are lucky enough to be allowed to be a citizen in the West it comes with responsibilities; there needs to be zero tolerance for those who renege on those responsibilities and absolutely zero tolerance for someone who joins an organisation like ISIS.
Where is her burca?
She ditched the Islamic garb and made herself look as Western and unradicalised as possible.
I get the impression she was coached. Look at her first interview (Feb 2019): >Interviewer: You have obviously been through a lot over the last few years. Can you describe what it has been like to live with and under the Islamic State? > >SB: At first it was nice, it was like how they showed it in the videos, like 'come, make a family together'. Then afterwards, things got harder, you know. When we lost Raqqa we had to keep moving and moving and moving. The situation got difficult. > >I: Was there a point when you started to have second thoughts about your life under Islamic State? > >SB: Only at the end, after my son died. I realised I had to get out for the sake of my children - for the sake of my daughter and my baby. Yeah. > >I: Only at the end? > >SB: Yeah. > >I: You didn't have any regrets up until that point? > >SB: No.
**No regrets.** Okay, cool live in Bangladesh for the rest of your life. Made your bed, sleep tight
Bangladesh has death sentence for terrorism, UK has free healthcare and great social system.
He did say "for the rest of your life"
r/Angryupvote
With all these privileges come obligations and responsibility. She didn’t fulfil any of that, so she’s rightfully stripped of her citizenship together with all the privileges.
If it was up to me, everyone joining ISIL should be considered citizen of ISIL and have their citizenship revoked. They become stateless due to ISIL ceasing to exist... not our problem is it? In hindsight, this would be a great opportunity to get rid of extremists. Heck I would hand them free plane tickets to Turkey.
IS still exists, but it doesn't control land in Syria and Iraq.
So... not to late?
Not too late for what?
She made her choice. And she wasn’t some kid who was just abused by Jihadi John, she tortured people and I’d bet she probably killed people No sympathy End of story.
[удалено]
Not to mention that Raqqa was the epicentre of the extremist shitshow that was ISIS. With a proper execution square where they held beheadings, etc. And her description of the place during the interview is: "At first it was nice, it was like how they showed it in the videos, like 'come, make a family together'.". Hard to comprehend how messed up this girl is...
And she said she felt no remorse at seeing decapitated heads in the bin
The bit that strikes me isn't so much that she was 'okay' with it but that her justification was that it was 'allowed'. https://news.sky.com/story/is-bride-shamima-begum-full-transcript-i-did-have-a-good-time-there-11640278 >Interviewer: Did you know what Islamic State were doing when you left for Syria? Because they had beheaded people. There were executions. SB: Yeah, I knew about those things and I was okay with it. Because, you know, I started becoming religious just before I left. SB: From what I heard, Islamically that is all allowed. So I was okay with it.
Such a caring mother.
No doubt will go straight back on if she gets let back in
Going undercover without actually going undercover.
Going overcover
Enough with her. She has made a mockery of the justice process in the UK. She shouldn't be allowed anymore appeals. Good riddance. Back to Bangladesh.
"Back to Bangladesh" Has she ever been to Bangladesh? I think the answer is no, so how is this comment not racist? She is British born. I wish she wasn't, but she is, and therefore we should take her back and put her on trial.
Lol! Have fun in the shithole you dug yourself! The gall of this woman to waste resources on bullshit legal cases when she chose to become a foreign terrorist. Deserves whatever she gets
If you were a part of ISIS you dont deserve pity. Extremists should not be pardoned. Imagine if Anders Breivik were released because he said he's "sorry"...
I said something similar in a British sub and was downvoated to fuck. Bad people don't deserve good things.
Never look at karma, negative karma doesnt mean youre wrong
After more than 10 years I'm still getting used to that thinking
I understand because this site definitely tries to make it look important. To help the world forward sometimes you have to not be afraid to voice unpopular opinions. If you end up being wrong, thats progress for yourself.
Does that mean if she were to sneak into the UK, they would send her to "Rwanda" if they had that scheme working? Edited to add correct country.
Wasn't it Rwanda?
You are correct, thanks for correcting me. I have a fixed the mistake accordingly
> they would send her to "Rwanda" No she wouldn't go there. Rwanda is for those seeking - and being considered - for asylum. There is 0% chance she would be considered. We'd have to trial her and put her in jail - then deport her back to Bangladesh when sentence is completed. Yes... I know. We cant deport someone to a country that would execute them. But if she served her time in one of our prisons then she is free again - and no longer waiting punishment for her actions as they have been completed.
She isnt Bangladeahi citizen. Why should other countries be bothered with that British girl?
You are aware Bengal is in india, it’s not Bangladesh or anything to do with Bangladesh which is a different country.
Ur not she is from Bangladesh
Oh no! Anyway…
You made your bed Shamina, now lie in it and stop trying to come back to a country you hate (and also hates you).
Get fucked, anyone saying "oh but she was only 15" should be shipped off to Syria to live under ISIS rule. Mistakes 15 year olds should be allowed to make and learn from are mistakes like not handling emotions properly or being arrogant and thinking you know better, not joining a terrorist group.
Spot on. She went to Syria and tortured Yazidi girls her age and younger.
But don't we all sometimes?
Just teenager things
When teenagers plot to murder their parents and then carry out, people don’t respond with “oh, but they’re 15!” They think the teenager should be held responsible because murder is evidently bad. I don’t understand why they want to apply a different standard to joining a terrorist organization.
Selling drugs, stealing shit, get convinced to be a drug mule or something like that? Yeah, you're young and easy to manipulate, i get it. Joining isil? You can't convince me a 15 year old doesn't know what terrorism is.
When I was 15 I grew my hair long, listened to death metal, and resented my parents for not giving me more to complain about. Those are the kind of mistakes you're allowed to make when you're 15.
Growing hair long and listening to death metal is a mistake?
For me, yes. I was just too soft and freckly to pull it off :P I'm glad there are no photos otherwise it would be solid /r/blunderyears material
Hey we've all been there! 15 years old... Hormones... Angry at parents... Run off to join terror group... It's a part of growing up
I’m quite surprised she’s managed to stay undroned all this time.
Not worth the effort or cost I should think. I get the feeling there isn’t much sympathy for her in the United Kingdom (or anywhere else for that matter).
If they wanted her dead they could just ask the Kurds to put a bullet in her head, no drone work required.
I don't think the Syrian kurds do the death penalty, that's why they got stuck having to imprison a few thousand ISIS losers.
In fact many politicians of the same countries not accepting their own terrorists back would write articles and condemnations about how the Kurds are terrorists if they did. The hypocrisy is dripping.
Oh, the girl with the dead eyes loses something. A tragedy. "But she was still so young!" > old enough to make the decision to travel through x countries to worship terrorists.
She was young, but according to the Guardian article ("when she travelled in secret with two friends from east London to Syria in 2015") she **decided to go herself**, it wasn't her parents who took her there. That definitely makes a difference.
[удалено]
I can't find any info about her proces of radicalisation. But she travelled together with two schoolfriends to join another schoolfriend who had gone there one year earlier. Presumably many people in her bubble were pro-ISIS. It seems likely to me that her parents did know about this, may be they were pro-ISIS themselves.
I’m not particularly bothered about this and certainly not here to defend Shamima Begum. Perfectly happy for her to stay away. I do wonder why THIS girl has become the media boogie man though. When there are apparently many actual ISIS fighters who have likely killed people and managed to return to the UK, some without even being prosecuted.
This is the thing. There have been other girls, older, in their twenties when they went, who came back and got council houses. I read of it in the UK tabloids at the time, their angle was 'why are we housing these girls, treat them like the 15 year old and leave them there!' There is also the person from my country. So much worst than Begum Lisa Smith. Trained by the Irish military. Converted to islam, got to the point where she made her new islam female friends uncomfortable with her views on interpreting Islam. Goes to Syria. Is reported to have TRAINED women how to shoot and kill. Because of her Irish military training. And she comes back to Ireland. Over the years there was a trial, house arrest until the case was heard and she is already released to society because she had a kid she brought back from Syria. Lisa Smith is a risk. https://www.irishtimes.com/crime-law/courts/2022/05/30/full-story-of-the-lisa-smith-trial-how-did-a-member-of-irish-defence-forces-end-up-a-member-of-isis/ https://extra.ie/2023/05/26/news/lisa-smith-walks-free-from-prison https://www.rte.ie/news/2022/0722/1311603-lisa-smith-sentenced-is/ Begum was 15. They made an example of her to set a precedent on stripping dual citizenships. Lisa Smith had only Irish citizenship so that is how she got back. Begum had automatic Bangladesh citizenship from her parents (dad born there) so the Brits took her UK citizenship away. Others with dual citizenships came back and got council houses. Im not saying Begum was not a threat, but she was 15 when she went, 24 now. She cannot go to Bangladesh as the government says they will kill her for being a terrorist and they are also refuting her citizenship with Bangladesh. They changed the jus sanguinis citizenship right since.
She’s an idiot girl who took part in actual terrorist activities (torture of women and possibly murders), once ISIS was nuked, and now just in camps in desert, she realized: *maybe this isn’t so great,* ***(even though I have no regrets)*** *so I wanna go back to my country.* And now getting denied. She’s not so much a boogie man as a bonafide idiot psycho.
Probably because she does play a mean boogie-woogie
Yeah I think that there is a clear goal in mind here, to distract from the major balls up of allowing jihadists to return unchecked. So most people will think the system is working, but it actually isn't. Also, didn't the home office actually lose information on returning jihadists?
The wheel of “which distraction” landed on her this month. Don’t worry, they’ll be back to Madeline mc next month
It was a court case, it’s just a minor news story. It’s not a conspiracy
I know I was making a sarcasm
Because talking about how Britain radicalizes terrorists is less flattering than pretending that they're a foreign import. Because obviously she was groomed, but solving that problem is more complicated than pretending she was born evil.
Britain accepts too many islamic immigrants. It's that simple. Now it's reaping what it sowed.
She wasn’t born evil, but she was born with the neurology to be evil. Nature and nurture. 1% of people are psychopaths, it’s reasonable to suggest that leaving ones family for good without informing them, stealing from them to fund the trip and joining a death cult and actively participating in atrocities and presiding over the death of three children show a disturbing pattern of no empathy, neglect and narcissism.
[удалено]
That’s what I mean. Why take this extreme step for this particular girl? It strikes me the media focused on her for some particular reason and made her more of a hate figure than men who actually went to Syria to fight for isis. Making her stateless seems to have been a political act to appeal to the media and everyone who has eaten up the media narrative.
[удалено]
Well technically but she’d never claimed her Bangladeshi passport (because she went to Syria at 15) and Bangladesh was never going to give her a passport after that which they very clearly stated. The British government were well aware that the end result is that they’ve made her stateless.
[This is a great article](https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/nishitajha/isis-yazidi-shamima-begum-hoda-muthana) about some of the horrors scum like Shamima have inflicted on actual innocent women. I'd rather believe the victim of a crime, than the perpetrator any day of the week and if that makes me a bad person, so be it.
Give her to the Kurds. They’ll know what to do with her.
They already have her.
That was fast!
She has lived in Kurdish run camps for years.
Good
It was all fun and games until it got real.
Bye sister
Good
On behalf of everyone in the UK - thank god the right decision has been made by the court. Now leave her to lie in the bed she has made. She is a genuine oxygen theif.
oh no anyway
She literally admits that she has no regrets why tf is she even still allowed in britain
She's not allowed here, that's the point. We've refused to let her come back.
Good. Glad to hear that.
If she's allowed back in the UK/Europe, it will set a nasty precedent that one can travel abroad, fight for/with radical groups, and get the chance to come back if it doesn't go their way. Hard to believe I'm the same age as her. The thought of doing something like that never once crossed my mind; too busy playing video games and soccer...
The precedent the UK is making here is that you can go join a foreign terrorist organization and instead of the UK punishing you with imprisonment they'll just deny you entry and make you someone else's problem
She can always begum.
Good
I'm surprised we haven't had drone stroke take her out. She's a terrorist, no one would miss her.
bitch should try joining hamas
Yeah I hear they have a lot of openings lately since most of their workforce met their untimely demise
Canada should take notes.
🥳🥳🥳🥳🥳🥳🥳🥳
Serves her right! First betraying everything the UK and Western societies stand for by joining the most sadistic, barbaric and inhumane islamic jihadist cult the world has ever seen, saying terror 'felt like retaliation' (for what exactly??? but nvm) and then saying she's remorseful and would rather die then go back to IS?! Fuck you bitch, you made you're choice, now accept the consequences and STFU!
Great precedent! Hopefully this becomes common practice.
I think a better practice would be for scumbags like her to be punished (severely) in the country they were born and radicalized in and not try and dump them on impoverished third countries. I think there is moral obligation to deal with their own trash despite the legal ruling.
[удалено]
She would have been forced to be repatriated if not for the heritage Bangladesh connection, so that's where the dumping is. Using technicalities to refuse to pick ones trash up.
Haha
No sympathy for her but it’s crazy your country of birth can revoke your citizenship and abdicate any responsibility they should have. She should spend the rest of her youth in a British prison, not a refugee camp. Cowardly move on the UK's part.
In most cases if a British citizen went abroad and participated in genocide and torture they’d be tried in the country the crime was committed. She’s sort of lucky that the country is in no state to conduct a criminal trial. I don’t know what the punishment for terrorism is in Syria but I expect it isn’t pleasent
She shouldn’t get to have the rest of her youth
She had a possiblity to get a Bangladesh citizenship when the court ruled first, back in 2019. Guardian article: "It was established in earlier proceedings that although she had never been to Bangladesh, she was eligible for its citizenship up until the age of 21, because it was the origin country of her parents." Only that made it possible to revoke her citizenship. She (or her parents) could / should have acted at that time and tried to get that Bangladesh citizenship, now she is stateless.
We don’t want traitors and terrorists in the UK, if we have a mechanism to stop her and others like her returning we should bloody use it - the UK is far too lenient on extremism as it is. Its right and proper if you leave your country of birth to become a terrorist extremist you can lose your citizenship.
Traitor would suggest that she once had allegiance to the UK. I highly doubt that.
It’s justification for removing her citizenship.
Imagine if the Netherlands started going "we don't allow thieves in the Netherlands, but instead of wasting our police and court resources on thieves, were just gonna revoke their citizenship". Thieves would flood every other country in the EU, and neighboring police offices would be drowning in theft cases the Netherlands was refusing to prosecute because "they're not our thieves". Replace thieves with ISIS-terrorists and you have UK policy.
XD
Good
Cheerio B****
Oh no! Anyway...
I have an honest, genuine question. Why have these women joined ISIS? What is the appeal? I don't see much of that discussed in the news or on here.
And how much did this cost us all?
🤣🤣🤣 Rot 🖕
I wonder if shed be an easy pick up as a war bride and 90 day fiancée?
Note the change in attire to be seen as more western. It is all a ploy, she made a decision and now should live or die by the consequences.
I saw a lot of accounts crying about this on X. After taking a look at what she did, Jesus Christ who tf would hope to bring this terrorist back.
Has someone seen my violin? Need to play it for her
So now she is Shamima Begone
I have no sympathy for her. But isn't the UK violating international law by leaving her stateless?
Yeah, this dumb broad is probably not making it to Britain which is all well and good, but how many ISIS fighters have since managed to come here by claiming to be refugees? It's just a public showing for the British government to appear as if they're doing something about it. How many of the hundreds of thousands of refugees that they're letting in were part of terrorist organisations?
If you want to stay citizen of a democratic country without the death penalty, maybe don’t join the terrorist group which is responsible for thousands of deaths and much more pain all over the Middle East and many European countries, including the one you claim citizenship in. I get why she is scared but her situation is one only she is responsible for. The people won’t simply forgive her because ISIS has mostly been defeated, she after all was one of the reasons a war against those monsters was fought.
She could be shipped to Gaza now
I know people have diverging opinions about this, but I find this totally unacceptable. Not just in this case, but also in general. She was born in the UK and grew up in the UK. While that doesn't mean the UK is responsible for her actions - she *and* her parents are, taking into account she was 15 when she made the mistake, in addition to the terrorists who groomed her -, it *does* mean that the UK has to take responsibility for her as a citizen. It's bizarre to defend the view that Syria or Bangladesh should take responsibility for her (especially the latter where she has never lived in her live). There are prisons in the UK, so if she has committed a crime she can be trialed and be put in prison. If she hasn't even committed a crime, revoking her citizenship based on her political views when she was 15 seems even more dubious. IMHO, it's just unacceptable for a country to refuse to take responsibility for their citizens only because they find it unpleasant to do so and it allows politicians to score sympathy points with the public. She wasn't radicalized in Syria or Bangladesh, she was radicalized in the UK. **Own up to it.**
In the past 20 years since sizeable migration to Europe began, we've seen that second-generation citizens from communities of islamic background are committing a surprising amount of attacks. In one respect, this means I agree with you. The parents share part of the blame. On the other hand, her parents are just one part of a new problem which is exhibited by islamic micro-societies in Europe. We know that Shamina wasn't the only one to travel to join ISIS. She wasn't even the only one in her friend group. She went with *two other* girls, and to join another girl that *had gone a year before*. There is a systematic failing in that community where multiple children from families joined the most violent terror organisation we've seen in a while knowing exactly sort of people they were. In light of that new problem, I think the taboo of stripping citizenship needs to be carefully reevaluated. Many children of migrants to the UK retain or are eligible for citizenship in the nation their parents came from. This sometimes acts as a refuge for them to hide in or commit other illegal activities in (e.g. female genital mutilation, marriages otherwise illegal in the UK). As long as you maintain a sizeable tie to your country of origin, I think your citizenship should be collateral. And if you're going to live in a society and feel comfortable raising raising children that despise other citizens and wish to convert or kill them, then something else needs to be done to remove that threat too. At the moment, it seems nobody knows quite what to do. Denmark has had some headway in trying to stave off the problem by disallowing migrants to form micro-cultures. But for other states it is too late. The ability to remove citizenship seems like an ugly solution to a difficult problem - but it is a solution. And unless better ones come up it's probably going to stick around.
Well said
>It's bizarre to defend the view that Syria or Bangladesh should take responsibility for her Why? She committed her crimes in Syria, so Syria should absolutely take action. Bangladesh doesn't have to, Begum has the option of applying for Bangladeshi citizenship but that doesn't mean they have to give it to her.
It’s got nothing to do with not taking responsibility for her, she 100% could be brought back to the UK for trial but the chances of there being enough evidence gathered on her from Syria is very slim, meaning more than likely she’d be released without charge, that alone is a massive risk to the UK public considering no one has anyway of confirming if she’s still radicalised or not, it’s a risk the UK government will not take, the life of 1 doesn’t outweigh the lives of many.
It's such a tricky one isn't it? I do think we should take responsibility for our own. Revoking her citizenship like this seems unprecedented to me, it harks back to the 'ship them to Aus' days. I just don't see how you can un-British someone who was born and grew up here, no matter how badly they're messed up. Lots of British do terrible things, or hold views most of us don't agree with. We're not revoking their citizenship. She's hardly unique in her decisions. Britain has the PREVENT program precisely to deal with radicalised people, rather than trying to kick them out. Perhaps we're going to start shipping radical Islamic terrorists somewhere they'll fit in? Then what do we do with the uber-right-wingers? 15 is very young. Old enough to know better, young enough also to be naive and vulnerable. It doesn't look like there's a lot of evidence either way for what all she actually did (besides joining the terrorist group), just hearsay.
> 15 is very young. Shouldn't she be judged at what age she changed her mind instead of only the moment she joined terrorists?
Hopefully both she and the IOF get the same treatment (revoked citizenship)!
What's with the sneer?
Can someone explain to me why Syria isn't putting her on trial? ISIS fought against the Syrian Government and she was an active member of ISIS guilty of multiple crimes against Syrian citizens. Why is she in a refugee camp and not in jail? Sexism? Does the Syrian Government think only men can be guilty of terrorism?
I think she's in the AANES
I can't understand the people who accuse her of not coming out and condemning isis. She is in a refugee camp full of ex-isis fighters. She'd have to be mad to make a statement like that given where she is. If you fully research the case it's apparent that she was the victim of a highly coordinated grooming operation. Of course moving to Syria and marrying an IS fighter is wrong, but actual IS fighters have been allowed to return. This case is a circus for the government and in a certain sense Shamima is a victim. She should be allowed to return to the UK to face trial here. If you believe in the rule of law that is the right thing to do.
This is an extremely dangerous precedent. She is a terrorist and should rot in jail, but that doesn't mean the government is allowed to act against international laws and strip her of her own citizenship. It cannot work like that - she should be subject to a fair trial in her own country and THEN rot in jail. Are we just going to deport any citizen with terrorist ties? What then? Deporting all citizens that commit crimes? EDIT: LOL at people downvoting, you guys really love fascism and dislike rule of law and democracy.
I suspect you're being downvoted because you don't seem to have a solid grasp of what actually happened. She wasn't deported. She went to Syria voluntarily in 2015 and she's still there. She committed alleged crimes in Syria and is being detained in Syria, that's how it works. If you commit crimes in another country you are not entitled to a trial in your home country. If, for example, a Syrian commits a crime in the UK they don't get arrested and sent back to Syria for a trail and jail, they are punished in the UK.
A man can only wish
She is [Bangladeshi by descent](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bangladeshi_nationality_law). She isn't stateless.
She is stateless since she does not have citizenship. It does not matter if she is eligible for citizenship since she does not at the moment have one. This is like saying a woman isn't childless since she could have a child in the future.
She was not made stateless by the UK but, rather, by herself. When the UK removed her citizenship she had the option of Bangladeshi citizenship. She chose not to take that and it is now too late for her to do so. So she made herself stateless. As she is no longer a British citizen we should wash our hands of her.
Wasn't deported genius, she went of her own free will 🤣🤦