|
|
Topic Originator: Luxembourg Par
Date: Fri 26 Feb 11:12
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-56209007
Maya Foa, director of the human rights group Reprieve said preventing Ms Begum from entering the UK remained "a cynical ploy to make her someone else`s responsibility".
Eh no.
The attempts to bring her back to the UK to "attend a hearing" are nothing more than a `cynical ploy` to circumvent the country`s National Security rules, then to prevent her subsequent removal after such a case loss by endless appeals on `human rights` grounds...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: red-star-par
Date: Fri 26 Feb 11:30
Imagine is it was a white girl who had been groomed and brainwashed by a terrorist group. The Government would be doing everything to get her back and the newspapers would be shouting from the front pages for her safe return
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: sadindiefreak
Date: Fri 26 Feb 11:56
Quote:
red-star-par, Fri 26 Feb 11:30
Imagine is it was a white girl who had been groomed and brainwashed by a terrorist group. The Government would be doing everything to get her back and the newspapers would be shouting from the front pages for her safe return
Begum shows no remorse for what she did.
She was 15 when she went of her own free will, absolutely no evidence has been presented that she was groomed. The criminal age of responsibility is 10 in England.
I would gladly allow her back to spend the rest of her life in jail.
In Syria she acted as an enforcer of sharia law. Women who were not dressed correctly were executed at her command.
She is not some innocent victim and I would say exactly the same whatever skin colour she had. If anything I would be more critical of a white girl doing the same thing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: sammer
Date: Fri 26 Feb 11:58
I don`t know why `human rights` was put in quotation marks by Luxembourg Par. I think that Shamima Begum was born and mostly raised in the UK so in that respect she is probably more British than Boris Johnson. To take away UK citizenship from a person born in the UK is clearly an attack on human rights.
Of course we will be told she gave up her human rights when she aligned herself to ISIS. Well you could have said the same about George Orwell fighting for POUM in Spain or a fair number of UK soldiers who have taken part in a illegal war of aggression.
Anyhow there is some good has come of this. Based on the UK legal judgment it will now be possible to remove UK citizenship from the likes of Savid Javid and Priti Patel and deport them. Johnson too actually since he holds US citizenship by birth.
sammer
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Luxembourg Par
Date: Fri 26 Feb 13:33
It was put between apostrophes, not quotation marks.
- to highlight the cynical ploy aimed at getting her back into the UK and keeping her in the UK by endless appeals, regardless of any decision made on her citizenship case.
If Jonson commits a treasonous act worthy of stripping his UK citizenship, then fine, I`ve no problem punting him back to USA.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: sammer
Date: Fri 26 Feb 13:58
So Begum was guilty of treason?
sammer
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Luxembourg Par
Date: Fri 26 Feb 14:01
I said she was guilty?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: londonparsfan
Date: Fri 26 Feb 14:43
Mixed feelings for me on this one. I actually don't think she should be allowed back into the country for the lack of remorse that SIF has referenced. She only started asking for forgiveness and showing remorse when she found out she wasn't getting back to the UK.
I do however think she should be entitled to a fair legal process to challenge the decisions that have been made as I think we would all want if we faced any legal issue (not just talking about this exact scenario here).
"Lord Reed added the Court of Appeal had "mistakenly believed that, when an individual's right to have a fair hearing... came into conflict with the requirements of national security, her right to a fair hearing must prevail."
He said the right to a fair hearing did "not trump all other considerations, such as the safety of the public"
That ruling with that wording actually does create a potentially dangerous precedent for other cases in the future where the Government can cite national security concerns and they are free to limit a person's access to a fair trial.
I think she should be allowed back on a temporary visa for a very limited time to attend court (most of the preliminary work can be done remotely) and then should be deported again if she is unsuccessful. I know there is a risk that there would be court filings to prevent the deportation but I think they should be able to overcome that.
I appreciate that's a lot of fannying about but I'd rather have that than handing power over to any Government but especially this one to restrict someone's access in the future to a fair trial based on potetnially opaque national security concerns.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Wotsit
Date: Fri 26 Feb 15:04
A 15 year-old is a child and isn`t capable of making rational decisions. We know that full well, which is why we don`t even think that a 15 year old is old enough to buy themselves a packet of fags let alone run off to a warzone to marry a nutjob twice her age.
If you are viewing a 15 year old child as a fully grown rational adult then you are not fit to be around kids.
Had she been a white child who ran off to South America to marry a drug lord there would be a different spin on things.
The enemy travels by private jet, not by dinghy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Parboiled
Date: Fri 26 Feb 15:11
Boris gave up US citizenship when the US taxman wanted a cut some of his dosh.
It seems if you are born there you are automatically registered as a US citizen even if you are simply born there even your parents are ( as in his case ) only located there because of work.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Luxembourg Par
Date: Fri 26 Feb 15:14
I am not arguing the merits of the case of a 15 year old absconder, who got married, had kids and spent 4 years as part of the caliphate and shows zero remorse...
The decision today was whether or not to allow her back into the UK to appeal the Citizenship stripping decision in person.
My comment was that IF she was allowed into the UK, she would NEVER be deported again, regardless of the result of the appeal.
There would be a never ending succession of last minute appeals and injunctions preventing her removal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: londonparsfan
Date: Fri 26 Feb 15:29
Quote:
Wotsit, Fri 26 Feb 15:04
A 15 year-old is a child and isn`t capable of making rational decisions. We know that full well, which is why we don`t even think that a 15 year old is old enough to buy themselves a packet of fags let alone run off to a warzone to marry a nutjob twice her age.
If you are viewing a 15 year old child as a fully grown rational adult then you are not fit to be around kids.
Had she been a white child who ran off to South America to marry a drug lord there would be a different spin on things.
I actually agree to some extent but it was her comments (assuming they were accurately reported) about having no regrets or remorse for the people that had died with everything she had seen and experienced that had me concerned. I know she was still young when she made those comments but she said them between the ages of 19 and 21 which is surely an old enough age to know the difference between right and wrong especially as it involved other people's deaths?
If at the time she decided she wanted to come back she'd said she was sorry and she'd been a daft teeny bopper and wished she hadn't done any of it then I would have been far more inclined to agree with you and she probably should have been allowed to return and face some form of sentence. If her comments as an adult were reported accurately though it's hard to have any sympathy for her.
I don't think it should be trial by media reports though which is why should have a proper legal process to defend herself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: londonparsfan
Date: Fri 26 Feb 15:30
Just to add the colour of her skin is irrelevant as far as I'm concerned. White people have joined terrorist organisations too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks
Date: Fri 26 Feb 15:42
This a tough one. I can`t help but think that as she was and surely still is a British citizen then she is ultimately our problem to deal with unless another jurisdiction tries a case against her.
That`s my stance at the moment but I`ll raise some points made by others to generate a bit of a debate.
I agree with everything you said Wotsit but your last paragraph that said, "Had she been a white child who ran off to South America to marry a drug lord there would be a different spin on things" doesn`t really carry any weight in my opinion. Of course it would have a different spin because that is a totally different situation. If what SIF says she participated is true then that is what is driving the spin put on her position. Of course the qualifying word being if.
LPF, the problem with granting her a temporary visa is if it is then eventually decided to deport her where exactly do you deport her to? What other nation would be willing or even obliged to take her then?
As for her lack of remorse being a reason to punish her I can`t agree with that if I`m trying to judge this without emotion. Lack of regret for your actions isn`t a criminal offence. If it were a good deal of the prisoners in this country would never be released.
And although my eyes were open
They just might as well be closed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Wotsit
Date: Fri 26 Feb 15:48
If at the time she decided she wanted to come back she`d said she was sorry and she`d been a daft teeny bopper and wished she hadn`t done any of it then I would have been far more inclined to agree with you and she probably should have been allowed to return and face some form of sentence. If her comments as an adult were reported accurately though it`s hard to have any sympathy for her.
But she is a 20 year old young woman who was brainwashed from before she was 15 (she didn`t just wake up one day with the desire and the ability to drag her two pals to one of the least accessible parts of the world) so even if the media reports are spot on, to me it`s an indicator that she could probably do with some psychological help and deprogramming.
The enemy travels by private jet, not by dinghy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: sammer
Date: Fri 26 Feb 16:29
I think this decision is part of Brexit presentation policy whereby the UK doesn’t have to listen to the pesky European Court and can protect its own borders….from a teenager.
It’s a very dangerous precedent and I doubt it can be maintained for very long before the weight of international opinion causes it to be inoperable. It’s obvious that no country has the right to assign citizenship of another country to one if its own citizens. Tommy Robinson could soon be headed back to Ireland and Jeremy Corbyn to Portugal since he qualifies through marriage.
Wait until another country pulls this stroke on some undesirable, claiming they have the right to UK citizenship.
sammer
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: OzPar
Date: Sat 27 Feb 00:53
Surely the fundamental point is that a person can not be left stateless?
If she was born in the UK and is not a citizen of another country, she remains a UK citizen and has a right to enter her country. End of story.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: sadindiefreak
Date: Sat 27 Feb 04:19
I think she is a citizen of another country though.
She automatically gets Bangladeshi citizenship through her parents.
Whether she wants it or not is another matter.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: londonparsfan
Date: Sat 27 Feb 07:14
"LPF, the problem with granting her a temporary visa is if it is then eventually decided to deport her where exactly do you deport her to? What other nation would be willing or even obliged to take her then?
As for her lack of remorse being a reason to punish her I can`t agree with that if I`m trying to judge this without emotion. Lack of regret for your actions isn`t a criminal offence. If it were a good deal of the prisoners in this country would never be released."
You make a very fair point about a country potentially not wanting to take her back. I think that's something I'd forgotten to consider!
In terms of the lack of remorse you're right to say its not a criminal offence but remorse or lack of it is often cited as a reason for the length of a sentence so it does play a part in the justice system. It's frequently either a mitigating or aggravating factor in decisions.
In her case it is also something that needs to be considered as to how she's going to behave in the future. If she doesn't have any remorse is she going to continue to be an ISIS supporter. How much of a risk is she and do we really want to assume that risk?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: londonparsfan
Date: Sat 27 Feb 07:36
Quote:
Wotsit, Fri 26 Feb 15:48
If at the time she decided she wanted to come back she`d said she was sorry and she`d been a daft teeny bopper and wished she hadn`t done any of it then I would have been far more inclined to agree with you and she probably should have been allowed to return and face some form of sentence. If her comments as an adult were reported accurately though it`s hard to have any sympathy for her.
But she is a 20 year old young woman who was brainwashed from before she was 15 (she didn`t just wake up one day with the desire and the ability to drag her two pals to one of the least accessible parts of the world) so even if the media reports are spot on, to me it`s an indicator that she could probably do with some psychological help and deprogramming.
I agree to some degree but at the same time there has to be a point where she becomes responsible for her own actions. I don't think you can write off all her actions as purely down to being brain washed unless she'd been clinically diagnosed as being mentally incapable of being able to make her own decisions.
I'd agree she probably does need psychological help but what if she can't be deprogrammed?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: londonparsfan
Date: Sat 27 Feb 08:01
Quote:
sammer, Fri 26 Feb 16:29
I think this decision is part of Brexit presentation policy whereby the UK doesn’t have to listen to the pesky European Court and can protect its own borders….from a teenager.
It’s a very dangerous precedent and I doubt it can be maintained for very long before the weight of international opinion causes it to be inoperable. It’s obvious that no country has the right to assign citizenship of another country to one if its own citizens. Tommy Robinson could soon be headed back to Ireland and Jeremy Corbyn to Portugal since he qualifies through marriage.
Wait until another country pulls this stroke on some undesirable, claiming they have the right to UK citizenship.
Don't get me wrong the fact that I appear to be on the same side as the Tories on this has me very much questioning:
She's not a teenager though and women are perfectly capable of killing people, especially motivated ones.
I don't think there has been that much pressure on the UK from any other country outside of Bangladesh. The decision to revoke her citizenship has been reviewed and deemed lawful so I'd assume there was proper consideration given as to whether or not she would be left stateless by the decision. Bangladesh are claiming she isn't a dual national so there may well be some future court cases in that respect and a review of the decision by an international court wouldn't be a bad thing IMO.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: aaaaaaaaaargh
Date: Sat 27 Feb 08:18
There are two very separate discussions here. The level of her criminal responsibility and her nationality (or citizenship).
The first is debatable but, as OzPar say, the second is not. She is British.
Imagine if a 15-year-old British kid moved to the Middle East and started hacking and defrauding some of the UK`s biggest companies run by friends of the Tories. Now imagine that same kid (now an adult) in a Syrian refugee camp having ceased their illegal activities but with the capability to repeat their actions at a moment`s notice if they escape. Johnson would have them back in Britain in a matter of hours.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: londonparsfan
Date: Sat 27 Feb 09:50
The second is debatable which is why the cases about her citizenship have gone to court.
I've just come across this UN document that deals with the revocation of someone's citizenship and I hadn't realised there actually circumstances where you can revoke someone's citizenship and leave them stateless:
https://www.refworld.org/docid/5ec5640c4.html
So not only is there an argument about whether or not she is a dual Bangladeshi national and can have her UK citizenship revoked there's also an argument that even if she isn't she could still be made stateless under one of the exemptions listed in the UN document taken from the rules regarding controlling someone's nationity. Not quite as clear cut as Oz stated.
The analogy you've made isn't really a like for like comparison. You've compared someone involved in financial crime to someone who has supported a terrorist caliphate involved in the killing of innocent people. It's two entirely different sets of risk factors to consider.
Post Edited (Sat 27 Feb 09:54)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Wotsit
Date: Sat 27 Feb 11:29
unless she`d been clinically diagnosed as being mentally incapable of being able to make her own decisions.
I think that`s us completed the full circle.
She was involved in jihadi politics from before the age of 15, at which stage she became fully immersed by moving to Syria to marry an ISIS fighter.
She is 20. A psychologist would say that she isn`t yet fully mentally capable of making her own decisions and that`s under ideal circumstance rather what she went through which was a literal grooming process whereby an organisation lured her, radicalised her and then raped her.
The enemy travels by private jet, not by dinghy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: londonparsfan
Date: Sat 27 Feb 11:41
I'm not convinced it's that clear cut in her favour but I do believe she has an entitlement to a fair trial which would obviously include an assessment by a professional that could make a proper determination.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: sadindiefreak
Date: Sat 27 Feb 11:50
Quote:
Wotsit, Sat 27 Feb 11:29
unless she`d been clinically diagnosed as being mentally incapable of being able to make her own decisions.
I think that`s us completed the full circle.
She was involved in jihadi politics from before the age of 15, at which stage she became fully immersed by moving to Syria to marry an ISIS fighter.
She is 20. A psychologist would say that she isn`t yet fully mentally capable of making her own decisions and that`s under ideal circumstance rather what she went through which was a literal grooming process whereby an organisation lured her, radicalised her and then raped her.
I keep hearing she was "groomed"
The only evidence of grooming is her lawyers claim that two mysterious as yet unidentified women recruited her.
The only facts we know about her recruitment is that she accessed jihadi websites from her computer in her own home. So nobody forced her to go to these websites.
So based on the facts of what is verifiable the idea she was groomed doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
If that were the case I could claim that I'm a serial winker because of the porn industry grooming me. Truth is I'm a pervert and sought out porn from around the age of 13.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: sammer
Date: Sat 27 Feb 12:52
We’ve produced thousands of Begums over the years and never batted an eyelid. The best example would be sending young men, often as young as seventeen, over to Northern Ireland with a rifle and a uniform. Groomed? Radicalised? I think they were, since their grasp of politics would have been no greater than Begum’s when she made her journey over to Syria.
On arriving in Northern Ireland they were understandably taught to view the IRA as their enemy and that attitude often slipped over into seeing Catholics in general as the enemy. Terrible events such as the killing of three Scottish soldiers when off duty, lured to their young deaths, could only consolidate that view. Scattered all across youtube is testimony by young soldiers from the 1970s describing their views of the people of Northern Ireland and it is generally negative, verging on hostile. On a number of occasions innocent civilians were shot by armed soldiers.
On their return to civvy street in the UK there was no talk of ‘deprogramming’ or ‘deradicalising.’ I worked in a factory in the mid 1970s with a fair few ex-squaddies and a couple of them remained hostile to Catholics in general, and Catholics with an Irish accent in particular. We had a number of those working in the factory and fortunately, although I heard some unpleasant remarks passed privately by former soldiers, I was never aware of any incidents or clashes as a result.
I can see that joining the British Army was a better idea than joining ISIS. The British Army was attempting to hold territory that was, by dint of an electoral majority, determined to remain under British rule. There are also rules of war which the British Army is expected to uphold and even if the first Bloody Sunday inquiry was a whitewash, which it clearly was, it’s not as if ISIS will be holding any inquiries or court martials anytime soon. However on an individual level, I can’t see much to distinguish between these young soldiers and Begum.
sammer
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Jbob
Date: Sat 27 Feb 13:56
Way off track now.
This is a very complex matter that is essentially about one young woman.
It involves politics, religion, morality and ethics.
I await the movie.
Seriously and on balance I think the court decision is wrong . We should be trying to show compassion and rehabilitation. Imo.
Bobs of the world unite
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Wotsit
Date: Sat 27 Feb 14:34
she accessed jihadi websites from her computer in her own home. So nobody forced her to go to these websites.
Children who are groomed often visit the websites where the grooming begins through curiosity (free will, if you prefer)
We need to be clear that a 15 year old child cannot make any free choice of the nature being discussed here.
The "free choice" "just a little slag" was what was being said about the young girls who were groomed and raped in Rotherham and many other cases - it is a pattern. In the Rotherham cases the girls were "paid" for their "services" and, on the surface, seemed happy enough with the arrangement. The police did nothing because the children in question got into trouble a lot, because they were poor and neglected.
We have a shameful history in this country of trying to find a way to blame the victims when things like this happen, otherwise we have to look at how we fail to protect certain groups of children.
Post Edited (Sat 27 Feb 14:44)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Rastapari
Date: Sat 27 Feb 18:09
When we're an invading force, which we often have been...what is a terrorist?
Carole Baskin fed Rasta to a tiger.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Jbob
Date: Sat 27 Feb 21:42
One man`s terrorist is another man`s freedom fighter.
But were all jock tampsons Bairns.
Bobs of the world unite
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: sammer
Date: Sun 28 Feb 01:04
The average British Army squaddie is groomed in his teens. Sometimes at schools I might add, who often allow access. Nobody much bothers.
And Johnny Atkins is never deradicalised or deprogrammed after active service. Violent crimes committed by ex soldiers are generally downplayed by the media for obvious reasons. Many of them seem to be domestic. Ever met a violent ex squaddie in a bar? I have, and I doubt I`m alone.
Begum`s crime was to sign up the the wrong `army.` ISIS, according to George Galloway, was actually supported by the USA for a brief point in the Syrian conflict. That`s the Syrian conflict the House of Commons refused to engage in but ended up supporting anyhow. Begum knows too much so she is dangerous for her knowledge.
sammer
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: GG Riva
Date: Sun 28 Feb 07:29
Quote:
sammer, Sun 28 Feb 01:04
The average British Army squaddie is groomed in his teens. Sometimes at schools I might add, who often allow access.
I made that mistake once, Sammer. My school received a letter from the Army, which was passed on to me, inviting us to send six S4 pupils to their Barry Buddon training camp at Arbroath for five days. I offered this to six disaffected boys in my House and their parents gave permission. I thought it would be good for them and for the school, not to mention myself.
I was horrified when they came back on the Friday afternoon and told me they'd enjoyed it so much they wanted to join the Army. I've no problem with anyone wanting to join the Army - I just don't want to be involved, directly or indirectly, in any part of the decision making process. Needless to say, I filed all subsequent invitations under B for bin.
Not your average Sunday League player.
Post Edited (Sun 28 Feb 07:29)
|
|
|
|
|
|
